NBC Disputes Apple's Pricing Claims

[teflon]

"It is clear that Apple’s retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices," Shields asserted," at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying."

Umm... DUH. Of course iTunes it's use to drive sales of iPods and iPhones, Apple even said it's to complement those devices. At the expense of the content creators? Yeah right. They're making it sound like Apple wants to sell it at $.50 each and make them lose money. A season pass already costs more than a DVD, but costs less to produce- no physical disks, extras, cover arts, cases, transportation of the DVDs etc. They're already gaining more money, but I guess it's never enough.

People for some reason dont see the big picture and defend apple.

But in reality itunes need nbc...nbc will still continue to have a channel
with content still coming out regardless of a deal with itunes.
Apple is just the middleman and hold really no strength over networks.
How many middlemans are out there right now?
yeah itunes is the biggest but seriously all it takes is for stuff like this to happen and if networks go to other "middleman" boom there goes our beloved itunes store.

Juts like itunes blossomed into what it is today-other services can do teh same by simply being backed by major networks...

Does uncle steve really think he is hurting nbc?
whos really inflicting the pain here?

and regarding pricing i hope people dont really think it will remain as is forever...
Get serious 2 dollars now but we in the golden era just wait and the 2 dollars will be increased with some type of gimmick behind it for the general public to accept it.

All the major studios backed services like Yahoo Music, Play For Sure stores and Zune marketplace, they had a lot of choices in music too, but they did not boom so to speak. There is no other middleman that can compete with iTunes right now. I can't think of a single store that comes even close to getting iTunes in terms of market share.
And of course no one expects TV shows to be still $2 in 10 years. It's called inflation. But if it does rise, then all the episodes would rise, there wouldn't be individual episodes that have different prices, or rental services, packaged together shows, etc.

oh my apology, thats a very valid point, only way to speculate the anwser to your question is
1. understand the market influence of "video" iPOD, how much market share?
2. make sure if NBC will sell their shows in a format that can not be played on an video iPOD.

I remember on one keynote SJ said that iPod has 67% while the Zune had 2% of the market when he was addressing concerns about the Zune. Also, it is for sure that NBC's shows won't be compatible with iPods, unless they have commercials on them. There's no way that NBC will release a DRM-free, ad-free show that costs $1.99. Then they're getting a worse deal than they're at iTunes, and they would be seen as even more of a hypocrite as they're obviously not improving the piracy problem by opening up their products.

second point. let me remind you, NBC has enough resource letting people know they can buy videos from "HULU.com", don't worry that part.

And Microsoft had enough resources to let people know they can buy music from Zune Marketplace, didn't make much of a difference did it?

wow. let me think, of course I can argue with your point, but are you saying for same movie, lets say "LotR-1.avi" people would rather pay$15 at ITMS, rather than pay $10 at a different store?

There are alot of difference between iPOd and other music player, but there is LITTLE difference between a movie you buy from two stores when they are actually SAME movie.

Actually, a lot of people would pay more just for the convenience. If cheaper is the way, then why do people buy music or videos from iTunes at all? You can easily download them for free, DRM free. But because it's convenient, safe and legal, people buy it. Many people would not bother to go to another site, sign up, set up an account, just to get a few shows. Maybe some would, but most would just turn into illegal downloading. And who says there wouldn't be a difference between the tv shows? It's very likely the NBC will bundle the shows with adds, or package shows together. If they're doing it the same way they're doing it on Apple there's little reason for them to pull out other than power play.

 

[mashny]

First of all please don't ever compare anything Apple does to Walmart. That is just wrong on so many levels. Target maybe, but Walmart,

Second, at the ITMS a huge majority (upwards of 80%) goes to the content maker, with only a small percentage going to Apple. They make money from the ITMS but not much over what it costs them to run the store. They created the store simply as a way to sell more iPods.

Frank

Yeah, I know, Wal-Mart is the devil. I never shop there (living in New York City, I don't even think there is one here).

Apple's low margin on ITMS is an advantage for the company in that it gives it more leverage when negotiating with content providers: Even if a company pulls out of iTunes, Apple doesn't lose much. Moreover, this is where the Catch-22 I mentioned in my prior post comes into play.

Whatever happens, whoever is "right," it is the consumers who will decide whether Apple or NBC (and other content companies) will prevail. So far, the consumers like Apple. One thing I love about ITMS is that I don't feel like I'm being taken advantage of by some big corporate machine. That's worth a lot to me, and probably to other consumers. Plus, since I love my iPod, I have no interest in buying content that is not compatible with it.

 

[nkawtg72]

NBC has been smoking too much of their own product!!!

I'm sure I'm only repeating what many others may have already said, but I haven't read everyone's reply.

I personally have never bought into this paying for TV shows, whether it's off iTunes or anywhere else for the matter. Movies are another thing, they're editted for on-air broadcast, so buying them is really the only decent way of getting a good version of one.

I can't help but think that this is actually the source of the debate between Apple and NBC. NBC doesn't think they're making enough money selling a show I can record for free off-the-air.

Personally I think NBC is shoveling some pretty smelly %$#@%, when they complain about "concrete piracy protection." Who do they think they're fooling here. They're not loosing money because of people like me who record a show off-the-air and are not willing to pay for it. Piracy steals money when someone other than NBC distributes it over the internet illegally. Do you think someone who would do that, would pay for the show in the first place?! I doubt it. They'll record it just like I do, convert it to half a dozen different formats and start dumping it online in places. The "piracy" debate is a smokescreen for not being able to sell the unsellable.

What we have here is NBC trying to make Apple look like the bad guy, for something they(NBC) just needs to learn there is no money in. NBC is wanting to "bundle" shows. In my mind that means HIGHER prices. It doesn't matter how many shows you put in the package, NBC is still going to put more $$$ in their pocket. Do you really think that it costs them one more penny to add a show or multiple shows to a package??!!!! NOOOO. It's just that it gives them an excuse to raise the prices, which I think APPLE is obviously opposed to.

Apple has routinely, in my opinion, represented consumers honestly against the music and broadcast industry. This isn't the first time a "client" has tried to get Apple to raise prices, and Apple has fought them. Apple stands to gain nothing by raising prices. The % breakdowns have shown Apple only takes a very very small cut of the $$$ with the sale of content from ITMS, which goes to cover operating costs. Apple's $$$ interests here are providing a source of content for the millions upon millions of iPod/iPhone and iTunes users out there that have to buy those iPods/iPhones and hopefully Macs from Apple.

I think Apple sees that if NBC raises prices of their content on ITMS and at the same time provides it through other outlets, then it could potentially drive away customers at ITMS.

When Apple says they are fighting NBC because NBC wants to raise prices, I believe Apple. NBC can call it packaging all they want, but at the end of the day they are expecting customers to pay more for the sale of an item than they were previously.

As for me. I've never shared anything I've recorded and then transferred to my Mac and then iPod. So as far as I'm concerned NBC can go take their crap somewhere else and try and sell it. If I want something from TV on my iPod, I'll encode it myself for free, why pay NBC to do it, and pay Apple to download it to me.

 

[chelsel]

I'm so glad to see a major company standing up to Apple. This should be good for consumers everywhere.

Cliff.

 

[ErikGrim]

lol, customers always go for lower price, not "branded store name". don't confuse simply market rules with brand loyalty.

lol, take marketing 101. Price is just one of many factors guiding consumer's purchase decisions and far from the most important one.

 

[The Toon Master]

Right..., and i own a Zune and eat Human Brains...

Silly NBC, your BS is not tolerated in these parts

 

[0007776]

lol, customers always go for lower price, not "branded store name". don't confuse simply market rules with brand loyalty.

If that was true, then Apple would have already discontinued the iPod as everyone would be buying the cheaper MP3 players out there. they also would probably be out of business, as most home users at least would not buy their computers and get the cheap dell/insert other PC maker here's PCs. plus their is a lower pric out there than iTunes, free from the torrent sites and people still buy from iTunes.

 

[mashny]

I'm so glad to see a major company standing up to Apple. This should be good for consumers everywhere.

Cliff.

Yep, we all know how fair the record companies have always been to the consumer (and the artist).

I'm sure NBC will put the consumer first in its hulu.com venture. I'm sure that when they "package" their material, it will be so that the consumer gets the best price for their content.

Do you own a Zune by any chance?

 

[clevin]

You've mentioned this a couple of times now. Tell us, Mr. Vista Basic, which "misleading informations" (sic) are offending you, exactly?

glad to, Mr. SJ's lawyer:

apple claims windows has 144,000 virus, which is false,

apple give users impression that OSX is not threatened by trojan, worms, virus, spywares and malwares, which is not true

apple claims safari to be best browser for windows, secure from day 1, which is not true, apple claims safari to be 2x faster than IE7, 1.6x faster than firefox, 3x faster than opera, which is not true

apple gives user the impression that they can jump to google map just from browser instantly on their iphone, which is not true

apple gives users the impression that NBC want to sell tv shows for $4.99/episode, which is not true

And Microsoft had enough resources to let people know they can buy music from Zune Marketplace, didn't make much of a difference did it?

indeed, I guess when I said "resource", I was focused on "public broadcasting channels like NBC", after all, TV is the most influential media nowadays. NBC just need to show hulu.com's ads twice/hour.

Actually, a lot of people would pay more just for the convenience. If cheaper is the way, then why do people buy music or videos from iTunes at all?

its a interesting idea, but are you suggesting NBC's hulu.con will be super in-convenience? I guess I have the patience to wait and see rather than making predictions.

lol, take marketing 101. Price is just one of many factors guiding consumer's purchase decisions and far from the most important one.

....yeah, I understand your argument, price isn't the most important factor... but are you suggesting there are indeed many other factors in this case that make much difference?

 

[Joedy]

From Roughlydrafted.com, the most eloquently concise rationale for the NBC spat:

No wonder Universal and other labels are freaking out. Like Prince, Jobs is making money distributing and popularizing music at increasingly lower prices, and earning enough money to continue doing it.

At the same time, the labels are increasingly dependent upon Apple, the only company selling any significant amount of their music online, and increasingly, a large proportion of all of the music they represent.

Universal can only demand the right to offer some of its albums exclusively to other retailers first, in the hopes of scalping consumers with high CD prices before ultimately making it available for Apple to sell at volume incentivizing prices in iTunes.

A very well written article, indeed.

-joedy

 

[synth3tik]

glad to, Mr. SJ's lawyer:

apple claims windows has 144,000 virus, which is false,

apple give users impression that OSX is not threatened by trojan, worms, virus, spywares and malwares, which is not true

apple claims safari to be best browser for windows, secure from day 1, which is not true, apple claims safari to be 2x faster than IE7, 1.6x faster than firefox, 3x faster than opera, which is not true

apple gives user the impression that they can jump to google map just from browser instantly on their iphone, which is not true

apple gives users the impression that NBC want to sell tv shows for $4.99/episode, which is not true

could you give some references on these. Obviously NBC is disputing the iTunes thing, but besides for NBC saying it's not true what else leads you to this. Is NBC a company that is unable to mislead consumers? Do you have something that says there are not 144,000 viruses under windows, do you have benchmarks to show Safari not being twice the speed of IE? Do you have a chart or something showing that other browsers are safer for windows users? Can you show something were Apple said you could go from safari to the "google map" application instantly? from my understanding just like at home you select an address which is a hyper-link and it brings you to the google maps site. I have done this plenty. Do you have anything besides NBC saying Apple is lying to counter Apples claim.

I mean I could say that Apple mislead me when they said iMovie '08 was new and improved, but really I have nothing but opinion to add to that claim.

I am starting to think that you work Public Relations for NBC

 

[Potus]

"The Apple-NBC story in a nutshell is that NBC Universal executives did a bad impersonation of Marlon Brando and made Jobs an offer that he couldn't accept."
http://tinyurl.com/2u6pey

 

[frankly]

"The Apple-NBC story in a nutshell is that NBC Universal executives did a bad impersonation of Marlon Brando and made Jobs an offer that he couldn't accept."
http://tinyurl.com/2u6pey

Sorry but that was a lame article. I especially love how the guy keeps going back and forth between calling iTunes an Internet distribution channel (correct) and a seller of Web-based video (incorrect). I'm also not sure how allowing users to watch Desperate Housewives is a collateral benefit of the Apple-NBC relationship since ABC programming was available long before NBC programming. It's just hard to know whether or not there are any valid points in his article when he gets so many things wrong.

Frank

 

[wnurse]

hmmm packaging? Like we want you to buy crappy shows with this one? That sounds to me like a record company forcing you to buy an album with one hit song and filler.

If you don't want to buy their crappy shows, why are you upset they may want to charge you more than 1.99?. I mean, if you feel this way, then if itunes offered it for free, you wouldn't get it right?.

You are hilarious!!!.. why do fans of apple get upset when other companies does not see the world the way apple does?. What is the emotional connection?. I'm really puzzled. You think Steve Jobs feelings is as hurt as yours?.. please, this is a business decision.. next!!.

 

[wnurse]

I don't get it. NBC wants to make their shows / packages more attractive for itunes customers yet they are launching there own online store... Makes more sense to me to leave it as is on itunes and if they launch there own store they can price how theyd like. Let the consumer decide if NBC's got the better Idea. Doubt it.

Imagine if apple let people sell the ipod for whatever price they want (btw, they don't.. they tell retailers how to price the ipod).. you know why?.. cause wal-mart would bankrupt them in a minute. Wal-mart could give away the entire revenue of apple and not feel it. They could offer ipods for 0 and not care. You say, well, apple makes money anyway.. yes, but not as much. They don't sell the ipods to wal-mart for retail.. they sell at wholesale.. which means, they could never get retail for an ipod on their website.. they would not only have to sell wal-mart the ipod at wholesale but sell it on apple.com to the consumer at a price close to wholesale too!!!.. they'd make a profit, just not as much...

I like when people suddenly bring the market into question when it's itunes vs some other service but don't see the contradiction in apple controlling ipod prices.. NBC would want to control the pricing of their video for the same reason apple wants to control the pricing of their ipods. You don't seem to mind apple control but you object to nbc control of their assets?. Why?.
It's their asset, not Apple. Apple does not own NBC shows. Why should they get to dictate how it is sold?.

 

[wnurse]

Actually they claimed it was safer, which by comparison was true. Of course, it was new too. Again, you are free to dispute their speed claims, but only if you provide real-world benchmarks others can back up. Otherwise, you are making stuff up to feed your point, which is pretty weak already.
=)

Actually, johnJR, not to nitpick but apple did claim safari was BETTER, not safer. Safer is your interpretation but apple actually did say that safari is the best browser on windows, which, even the most ardent apple fans knows to be patently false. Safari is not even the best browser on macOSX. Most serious web users do not use safari.. it is not the best at anything. As to safer?. On windows?. How?. As to safer on macosx... internet explorer is safer on mac osX than on windows.. I'm sure when steve jobs was boasting about safari, it was not about safe.. He claimed it was faster, better, etc. I love apple computers (i only use windows if i have to) but i wouldn't be caught dead using safari or internet explorer (so it's not like i prefer internet explorer). I'd rather use firefox or opera or something else.. apple created safari and then left it to die. It has not had an important update in the mac world for a very long time.

 

[Analog Kid]

I posted this in the last thread about NBC, but I'll link it here too. It's the best explanation of the economics I could find and it predates the current hubub:
Why a download costs $1.99 and why the networks want more

Better anti-piracy controls aren't about the video apple sells, it's about locking down the ipod and iphone so it doesn't play anything but DRM protected content.

Bingo. Microsoft whispered in their ear that they got away with charging computer manufacturers for shipping machines without an OS installed because it was "obvious" they were intended to use pirated versions of Windows. "Obviously" the only reason people would buy an iPod it to listen to pirated music.

Steve's not used to getting "Jobbed".

My guess is that if he says "no NBC shows" he means it. NBC will need some kind of injunction to get Apple to keep the content online. Apple will have a legal basis to remove them (in their opinion) and just say "screw you". If this thing get this far, a judge will make the decision. I imagine this will settle somehow before it gets to much more out of hand.

When have you seen a lawsuit resolved in less than 4 months? It'll cost Apple to play this kind of brinksmanship, but I think they feel it's worth it to both strong-arm NBC and avoid dumping their users in mid-season.

I'm afraid you're right - Apple's edge as a distributor (with their ipod lock-in and user interface) has always been precarious. At the end of the day content providers can easily use other distribution channels. People will go other places to get the shows they want to see...

The iPod can probably survive without iTMS. It was popular before iTMS, and will remain so after the fact. There's a question about what will happen in the distant future when CDs and such aren't the standard distribution technique, but I have to believe the iPod's future is more dependent on music than TV.

So NBC wants them to prevent pirated NBC content from being playable on iPods? How do they propose that they do that? If I bought a DVD set of an NBC TV show and rip it to be able to play it on my iPod, how can the iPod distinguish that (a legal, not pirated show) from an NBC TV show that I downloaded (an illegal, pirated show)? As I see it, there is little or no way for the iPod to do this. Therefore, the only two options for the iPod are to have it allow everything, or nothing. (In this context, nothing being no non-DRM videos.) Any, oh how the 'nothing' option would p-off consumers. I seriously doubt that Apple would even consider going down that path...

It's possible they could watermark the content at broadcast and ask Apple to block anything they find with the watermark that isn't licensed. Ripping from DVD is not entirely legal, by the way.

lol, customers always go for lower price, not "branded store name". don't confuse simply market rules with brand loyalty.

By that argument, BitTorrent is the obvious customer choice here. From that point of view, the content providers better do everything they can to boost Apple's brand loyalty.

basically, its whom you want to trust, obviously you selected apple, I don't, since I don't think NBC is that stupid to sell their show for $4.99 when all other networks sell shows at $1.99. GE didn't grow big by being stupid.

want to test who is right? wait for NBCU's hulu.com, see how muh they charge per episode.

How does that prove anything? The question is what deal NBC wanted with Apple-- what they do elsewhere proves nothing. It's well known that content providers are already paranoid about Apple's growing influence-- it's quite likely they'd try to break that up with discriminatory pricing.

also, without middle man, A.K.A. Apple, NBCU can lower their price also. Isn't price a shining attraction of walmart other than "all-in-one"?

You keep repeating this mantra that Apple is raising the price of the content appreciably. They're not. I'm not going to dig it up again, but I've posted the breakdown in a previous thread. Apple's cut is something like 50 cents for a 200-400MB file, compared to the 30 cents for a 20MB file they get for music. From this comes the payment to the credit card company (which scales with price), the cost of bandwidth (which scales with file size), the cost of redundant reliable storage (which scales with file size), the cost of personnel (which is fixed relative to these parameters) and probably a dozen other things I'm not accounting for.

Apple isn't the traditional middleman-- they aren't looking to make a profit on the content itself. They're trying not to lose money on the content while they use it sell iPods (and despite anything NBC or the RIAA says, the content providers don't deserve a cut of iPod revenues anymore than they deserve a cut of disc player, radio or television revenues). It's the definition of synergy.

Apple isn't making an appreciable difference to the cost of the download.

 

[frankly]

If you don't want to buy their crappy shows, why are you upset they may want to charge you more than 1.99?. I mean, if you feel this way, then if itunes offered it for free, you wouldn't get it right?.

You are hilarious!!!.. why do fans of apple get upset when other companies does not see the world the way apple does?. What is the emotional connection?. I'm really puzzled. You think Steve Jobs feelings is as hurt as yours?.. please, this is a business decision.. next!!.

Wow, you totally missed the point on that one. The person was saying that NBC would want to package crappy shows with a show that we do want to buy. Now, we only want the good show but instead of paying $1.99 for the one good show that we want they would want us to pay $4.99 for some "great" package deal that they have set up that has the one great show with three crappy shows. We would still only watch the one show but we would have to pay 2.5x as much for it. Get it now???

I love how people that aren't even smart enough to comprehend a simple scenario such as this think they are smart enough to tell me that I am stupid because I like Apple products. Get a life and don't worry about what other people like. I don't see how it affects you.

Frank

 

[frankly]

Imagine if apple let people sell the ipod for whatever price they want (btw, they don't.. they tell retailers how to price the ipod).. you know why?.. cause wal-mart would bankrupt them in a minute. Wal-mart could give away the entire revenue of apple and not feel it. They could offer ipods for 0 and not care. You say, well, apple makes money anyway.. yes, but not as much. They don't sell the ipods to wal-mart for retail.. they sell at wholesale.. which means, they could never get retail for an ipod on their website.. they would not only have to sell wal-mart the ipod at wholesale but sell it on apple.com to the consumer at a price close to wholesale too!!!.. they'd make a profit, just not as much...

I like when people suddenly bring the market into question when it's itunes vs some other service but don't see the contradiction in apple controlling ipod prices.. NBC would want to control the pricing of their video for the same reason apple wants to control the pricing of their ipods. You don't seem to mind apple control but you object to nbc control of their assets?. Why?.
It's their asset, not Apple. Apple does not own NBC shows. Why should they get to dictate how it is sold?.

Bzzzztttt, wrong answer. Walmart would simply become the #1 distributor of iPods and Apple would continue to sell them to Walmart for the current wholesale price while Walmart took a loss on the products. Exactly how long do you think it would make business sense for Walmart to do that???

Frank

 

[frankly]

Actually, johnJR, not to nitpick but apple did claim safari was BETTER, not safer. Safer is your interpretation but apple actually did say that safari is the best browser on windows, which, even the most ardent apple fans knows to be patently false. Safari is not even the best browser on macOSX. Most serious web users do not use safari.. it is not the best at anything. As to safer?. On windows?. How?. As to safer on macosx... internet explorer is safer on mac osX than on windows.. I'm sure when steve jobs was boasting about safari, it was not about safe.. He claimed it was faster, better, etc. I love apple computers (i only use windows if i have to) but i wouldn't be caught dead using safari or internet explorer (so it's not like i prefer internet explorer). I'd rather use firefox or opera or something else.. apple created safari and then left it to die. It has not had an important update in the mac world for a very long time.

Wow, you are completely uninformed. Since the 3.0 update to Safari, which is the only version that works on Windows and the version I'm currently using on my Mac, Safari has become better than Firefox. Firefox used to be my primary browser on both platforms as well but I switched to Safari with the 3.0 update. It is a very good browser and keep in mind that this version is still in beta so it will only get better. With the release of Safari on Windows and on the iPhone Apple has gotten very serious about Safari development. You just haven't been paying attention.

Frank

 

[mashny]

If you don't want to buy their crappy shows, why are you upset they may want to charge you more than 1.99?. I mean, if you feel this way, then if itunes offered it for free, you wouldn't get it right?.

You are hilarious!!!.. why do fans of apple get upset when other companies does not see the world the way apple does?. What is the emotional connection?. I'm really puzzled. You think Steve Jobs feelings is as hurt as yours?.. please, this is a business decision.. next!!.

I don't think the issue is the $1.99 price per se, but that NBC is not concerned about pricing their shows in a manner that is consumer friendly, thus encouraging piracy, which is the very thing they claim they are trying to prevent. Steve Jobs understands the importance of how human psychology relates to pricing digital media – how else to explain the extraordinary success of iTunes in a world where anyone can get anything for free by illegally downloading it? As you mention, it is a business decision, and Apple/iTunes has prospered greatly because of Steve Jobs's incredible business acumen. The world has changed since the record labels controlled everything, and there are several reasons why NBC might have to realize that it would be a good "business decision" to play by Apple's rules:

NBC/Universal is reeling from a world in which, after rapidly-dwindling CD sales, they no longer have a vertical monopoly over the music production/packaging/distribution business. At least as far as music goes, any company that does not make their downloads iPod compatible risks alienating about 75% of their potential market. If they make their music iPod compatible, they help maintain Apple's dominance. And, judging from Apple's success in the music business over the past compared to that of the record labels, it seems that Apple is much more in tune with the desires and psychology of the music consumer. Not only that, but their business model and foresight have put them in a very advantageous position – since they make very little profit on iTunes, and since they have about 75% of the digital player market, they are not financially hurt if a label pulls out of its agreement with Apple. Whether this will also be true for the video iPods coming out on Wednesday remains to be seen. If the video iPod is as well received as the music iPod, Apple will have an edge in negotiating video content as well.

NBC/Universal has not come to terms with this new world or business model. As long as consumers continue to love their iPods, the record labels will have to make some concessions to Apple. Whereas in the past the record labels had the luxury of saying, "If you don't like our terms, screw you," illegal downloads now preclude that trump card – a fact Apple understands very well.

NBC/Universal/GE is walking a line between either agreeing to iTunes' consumer-friendly prices (and the iPod's ubiquity) or losing ALL revenue to illegal downloads. Because of illegal downloading, the consumer now has some control over the record labels; the model has shifted. Like it or not, Apple may represent the only viable option for NBC.

The question to ask is why Apple has been so incredibly successful with the iPod and iTunes since it is this that gives them their negotiating power. The reason is simply that they make great products and give the music consumer what he wants at a fair price, without overly-intrusive DRM (or no DRM in the case of EMI). When the iPod first came out, and iTunes was in its infancy, no one forced people to buy iPods. People saw it as, finally, a great way to store their CD music on an easy-to-use player. And iTunes, far from being a retail powerhouse, was simply an extremely powerful and convenient way to store, catalogue, and play one's music collection. Apple saw why the music labels and retailers were failing and understood what needed to be done. It is now reaping the rewards of its vision.

I may be wrong about Apple's strengths, but the phenomenal growth of iTunes (about 3 billion downloads) and the iPod (over 100 million sold), and the release of the video iPod indicate that Apple will maintain its control. In the end, the consumer/illegal downloader will determine the future of the iTunes vs. NBC battle.

 

[clevin]

could you give some references on these. Obviously NBC is disputing the iTunes thing, but besides for NBC saying it's not true what else leads you to this. Is NBC a company that is unable to mislead consumers? Do you have something that says there are not 144,000 viruses under windows, do you have benchmarks to show Safari not being twice the speed of IE? Do you have a chart or something showing that other browsers are safer for windows users? Can you show something were Apple said you could go from safari to the "google map" application instantly? from my understanding just like at home you select an address which is a hyper-link and it brings you to the google maps site. I have done this plenty. Do you have anything besides NBC saying Apple is lying to counter Apples claim.

I mean I could say that Apple mislead me when they said iMovie '08 was new and improved, but really I have nothing but opinion to add to that claim.

I am starting to think that you work Public Relations for NBC

ah yes, I do appreciate the fact you are politely asking for evidence.

all the claims about viruses, safari's security, speed, these issues all have more than one posts here at MR, in which we discussed how apple said, what source apple cited, and what source really said vs. what apple told use source said.

I have to admit about iphone's google map is a hearsay event, I read it from some google search weeks ago. I couldn't not find proof for that now.

There is nothing to disrespect apple's extraordinary design, simply saying apple's PR is half truth at best.

To accuse NBC want to sell their show at $4.99/episode based on apple's claim, isn't reliable at all, not to mention I have to assume NBC being business idiot to reach the number apple claimed.

If I have to choose between "apple lied" and "NBC/GE is business idiot", I have to choose former.

You keep repeating this mantra that Apple is raising the price of the content appreciably.

no, I do not accuse apple of raising price, actually $1.99 is a very cheap price IMHO.

I was simply saying NBC will not charge $4.99 to kill its own business when all other networks shows are selling for $1.99. Saying NBC can lower the price because of their ownership of the network is different from accusing apple charging more. Im very practical on this, its all business.

 

[Thomas2006]

Will Hulu require a paid subscription, or will it offer free on-demand episodes much like ABC offers on their website?

The following is from the "FEES AND PAYMENT" section of their terms of service

Hulu reserves the right at any time to charge fees for access to portions of the Site or the Site as a whole. However, in no event will you be charged for access to the Site unless we obtain your prior agreement to pay such charges. Thus, if at any time the Site requires a fee for portions of the Site that are now free, the Site will give you advance notice of such fees and the opportunity to cancel the account before such charges are imposed.

I expect the site will start out free then as sections get popular they will charge people to access them.

 

[Stella]

Just like .Mac ( was iTools!) :-D

I expect the site will start out free then as sections get popular they will charge people to access them.

 

[EricNau]

Well, "free" but with forced advertisements (don't they require interaction with the ads?) versus $2 to just watch the damned show seems like an obvious choice to me as well. I tried the ABC online route once, and was thoroughly unimpressed.

The difference being that the episodes that you can watch for free carry commercials and can't be downloaded. The site itself (in the case of Hereos and others I have visited) are ridden with commercials and ads where the iTunes store is not.

Hardly.

ABC's online shows have 4, 30-second commercials for the average hour long episode. That's it. 2 minutes of ads for an hour of TV - that's far less advertising than you'll ever find on your TV.

In fact, you can actually stream ABC shows in HD for free! ...Does the iTunes Store even offer HD?