Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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
I think you're missing his point here, Frank. The question is who sets the sales price. Apple doesn't appear to sell their iPods to retailers at wholesale and let them set their price, they seem to also insist on a sales price. Prices are too consistent across retailers to suggest otherwise.
 
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? ;)

1) This still doesn't alleviate the problem of having to be at your computer and online in order to watch them.
2) Is the HD streaming new or are you making that up because the last time I viewed a show on ABC's website (a few months ago) there was no option for HD.
 
I think you're missing his point here, Frank. The question is who sets the sales price. Apple doesn't appear to sell their iPods to retailers at wholesale and let them set their price, they seem to also insist on a sales price. Prices are too consistent across retailers to suggest otherwise.

I got your point. You missed my point. You tried to state that by Walmart giving iPods away that it would force Apple to lower the price on their website. I contend that they could just as easily keep it the same and just let everyone go to Walmart to get it for free until Walmart came to their senses. It wouldn't put a burden on their customers since everyone has a Walmart within a reasonable distance from their house. Again, how long do you think Walmart would keep up that crap?

Frank
 
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.
You didn't quote the part of my comments that address your distinction here, Clevin. My whole comment on this was that NBC can't really lower their price by controlling the network. I didn't say you were accusing Apple of overcharging, I said NBC will incur the same expenses as Apple does-- so your comments that NBC can lower their prices by cutting out the middle man are only true to the extent that they can deduct Apple's profits from the equation and that won't really make a material difference because Apple's profits on this are next to nothing.

If you want to take a practical business look at this you should have pointed out that NBC will have to charge more to make the same profit per download as they get through Apple because they don't have the efficiency of an already existing infrastructure as Apple does, they won't have the composite volumes that Apple does, and they're going to have to spend a small fortune on advertising to raise awareness of their service whereas everyone with an iPod can find the iTMS.

NBCs move is about control, not a calculation on additional profit per download.
 
1) This still doesn't alleviate the problem of having to be at your computer and online in order to watch them.
2) Is the HD streaming new or are you making that up because the last time I viewed a show on ABC's website (a few months ago) there was no option for HD.
1) You're right. That's true. Although, I'm going to dare to say that if you have time to watch TV, your probably at home and probably online. (Yes, yes, I know there are always exceptions.)

2) The HD streaming is new (and quite nice, if your computer and bandwidth can support it). But you don't have to take my word - go to abc.com and see for yourself. :)
 
I got your point. You missed my point. You tried to state that by Walmart giving iPods away that it would force Apple to lower the price on their website. I contend that they could just as easily keep it the same and just let everyone go to Walmart to get it for free until Walmart came to their senses. It wouldn't put a burden on their customers since everyone has a Walmart within a reasonable distance from their house. Again, how long do you think Walmart would keep up that crap?

Frank
It wasn't my point originally, it was wnurse's, but that aside, I believe his point is that Walmart could undersell Apple by reducing the margin they take on a sale except they can't because Apple won't allow them to.

Walmart drives down prices by setting their suppliers wholesale price and reducing their costs (through often unethical means). Apple won't play this game and therefore Walmart doesn't sell iPods. I don't want to speak for wnurse on this, but I think he was finding an apt parallel between that and the NBC/Apple disagreement (save the unethical bit...).

I don't think the scenarios are completely parallel given the differences between physical product and what essentially boils down to data, and how the market for content is convulsing while the market for physical product is simply evolving. There's also the point that it's kinda hard to download an iPod for free while it's pretty straightforward to download a TV show from the Net.
 
1) You're right. That's true. Although, I'm going to dare to say that if you have time to watch TV, your probably at home and probably online. (Yes, yes, I know there are always exceptions.)

2) The HD streaming is new (and quite nice, if your computer and bandwidth can support it). But you don't have to take my word - go to abc.com and see for yourself. :)

You can dare to say that you would be home if you were going to watch TV but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about watching online vs. watching something downloaded from iTunes which you can TAKE WITH YOU on your iPod or laptop and watch on the train, on your lunch break, etc.

I checked out the HD streaming and I'm not sure if it was because I was doing something else online or not but the program stuttered while playing. I will try again later. BTW, I have an extremely fast Internet connection, 8Mbps+ so that isn't the issue. And if I am having issues on my fast connection then it begs the question as to why someone would want to do this as opposed to downloading and watching without problems at their convenience.

Frank
 
NBCs move is about control, not a calculation on additional profit per download.
I agree its all about control, but essentially, or, eventually, the purpose of business is $$$. control is only a method.

NBC is the owner of the content, there is nothing stop them from delivering the videos at lower price just to grab the market, (despite what some people might suggest, I don't think user will say no to one ads or two in exchange for 20c discount)

Im not NBC strategist, but once they are the owner, there are alot of pricing method they can use to attract customers.
 
It wasn't my point originally, it was wnurse's, but that aside, I believe his point is that Walmart could undersell Apple by reducing the margin they take on a sale except they can't because Apple won't allow them to.

Walmart drives down prices by setting their suppliers wholesale price and reducing their costs (through often unethical means). Apple won't play this game and therefore Walmart doesn't sell iPods. I don't want to speak for wnurse on this, but I think he was finding an apt parallel between that and the NBC/Apple disagreement (save the unethical bit...).

I don't think the scenarios are completely parallel given the differences between physical product and what essentially boils down to data, and how the market for content is convulsing while the market for physical product is simply evolving. There's also the point that it's kinda hard to download an iPod for free while it's pretty straightforward to download a TV show from the Net.

Again, you're missing the point. I said that even IF Walmart could lower the price to whatever they wanted it wouldn't force Apple to lower their wholesale price.

Second, Walmart DOES sell iPods.
 
You can dare to say that you would be home if you were going to watch TV but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about watching online vs. watching something downloaded from iTunes which you can TAKE WITH YOU on your iPod or laptop and watch on the train, on your lunch break, etc.

I checked out the HD streaming and I'm not sure if it was because I was doing something else online or not but the program stuttered while playing. I will try again later. BTW, I have an extremely fast Internet connection, 8Mbps+ so that isn't the issue. And if I am having issues on my fast connection then it begs the question as to why someone would want to do this as opposed to downloading and watching without problems at their convenience.

Frank
I just checked and its working fine for me (on my CD MacBook w/ 2 GB RAM) at about 2 Mbps.
 
I got your point. You missed my point. You tried to state that by Walmart giving iPods away that it would force Apple to lower the price on their website. I contend that they could just as easily keep it the same and just let everyone go to Walmart to get it for free until Walmart came to their senses. It wouldn't put a burden on their customers since everyone has a Walmart within a reasonable distance from their house. Again, how long do you think Walmart would keep up that crap?

Frank
Not to take this thread way OT, but Wal-Mart is infamous for selling certain products at a loss to increase customer traffic and undercut competing stores as well as for dictating prices to suppliers even if that means pushing the supplier near, if not into, bankruptcy.


Lethal
 
I just checked and its working fine for me (on my CD MacBook w/ 2 GB RAM) at about 2 Mbps.

I checked again and it worked better this time but still not at the same quality that a downloaded version would. Also, unless I have my computer connected to my television the HD stream isn't that great. 1280x720 on a computer screen still doesn't take up the whole screen. My screen is 1680x1050 so unless they were streaming 1080 then I'm not going to get a great benefit.

Frank
 
Not to take this thread way OT, but Wal-Mart is infamous for selling certain products at a loss to increase customer traffic and undercut competing stores as well as for dictating prices to suppliers even if that means pushing the supplier near, if not into, bankruptcy.


Lethal

And again, I don't think they would be able to wield this kind of power over Apple. Apple is a HUGE company with plenty of money, income, profits, etc. Also, Apple currently sells iPods in soooooo many places. So, if they told their other retailers to just sit tight while Walmart played itself out they would be able to continue selling to the others after Walmart was finished. Or better yet, they could just tell Walmart to go scratch and sell the iPod everywhere else. Remember, it was a long time before Walmart started selling the iPod which means that Apple is clearly in the power position here. You know that after years of Apple telling them, sorry we're not going to sell it to you for less, that they finally gave in and began selling them anyway. That is why you see iPods at Walmart for maybe $5 less than other retailers.

If more companies stood up to Walmart then maybe we wouldn't have a permanent underclass of people being created in the form of underpaid Walmart employees.

Frank
 
I checked again and it worked better this time but still not at the same quality that a downloaded version would. Also, unless I have my computer connected to my television the HD stream isn't that great. 1280x720 on a computer screen still doesn't take up the whole screen. My screen is 1680x1050 so unless they were streaming 1080 then I'm not going to get a great benefit.

Frank
On that note, wouldn't it be great if we could stream HD content from abc.com through Apple TV? ...But alas, we have to buy the low-res version from iTunes instead. :(
 
To quote Ben Kenobi from Star Wars "What I told you was the truth, from a certain point of view". Thats basically what we are getting here. Both companies telling the truth from their point of view.

NBC wants to bundle their programs to increase price flexibility. They want to use the successful NBC shows to prop up the less successful ones or promote new ones. Lets use "BSG" as an example. So the season premier week is coming up and NBC is launching two shows the same week as the "BSG" premier. So they sell you a bundle deal for 4.99 which includes the season premier of "BSG" and series premier of "lame comedy1" and "lame drama 1". NBC is saying well you save money by going that route. You get to buy 3 shows for $1.69 each saving 30 cents per show for a 90 cent saving if you bought all three. Thats just an example and you can bet shows that garner very high ratings will be flexibly priced higher because well it sells more. And you can be sure they won't be offering bundles where you can select the three shows you want.

Apple is saying but thats going to rip the customer off and is charging over double for an episode. Apple is saying that because if you do not want or like the other 2 episodes in your bundle then you basically did pay more than double the cost for it. They know full well that you won't be getting an offer for BSG/Heroes/The Office all in one. Apple is all about the end user experience. They want you to be able to find in a consistant, easy way what you want, pay what you expect to pay and be on your way. Take a look at the Leopard beta, all the finder windows and most of the Apple applications have a unified look to them now. They do not want 5 versions of the same item in different flavors to confuse the customer. IE. buying bundled files for this price , which are locked and cant be opened on anything but that specific computer, or buying bundled files for a premium that can be copied to another computer but not your ipod.

As for the copy protection claim thats NBC trying to use Apple to curb piracy for them. They want Apple to lock the iPod so that it doesn't play non DRM protected videos. That Apple will not allow because it ruins it for legitimate uses. You make a video on iMovie you want to share with a friend or show on their tv using the iPod. Not going to happen as it is not DRM made. And no it can't be without Apple giving the fairplay technology to everyones computer and sure as we need oxygen to breath someone would find and exploit that. You want to take your legitimate purchased DVD and use a program to convert it to play on your iPod. Nope, afterall you should pay NBC to do that for you... Apple wants you to be able to take your items and with as much ease as possible use them, thats Apple's marketing niche. Simplicity.

So those that want to say well you are just an Apple fanboy and want to defend Apple, stop and think for a few minutes. How does Apple benefit by the prices increasing (and I am sorry but bundling does not lower the price if I am just being forced to pay for items I didn't want to buy in the first place) and locking the iPod. It does not benefit in any way. It looses customers who do not want to pay the extra for items they don't, do not like having to try and find the 'right' version of the file they want. It looses sales of iPods because people won't buy them if they can not use the content they already have on em. If it was Apple wanting more money why would they risk loosing money by NBC leaving ? And if this was some crazy ploy by Apple why are they not loosing all their other networks? Why have the other networks not spoken up and tried to embarrass Apple. After all if Apple recieved bad press by all the networks it would most likely force Apple to give in.

No sorry any way this is spun its NBC trying to find creative ways to up their profit margin and Apple saying "Not with our customers". And no I am not naive enough to believe Apple is doing that out of the goodness of their hearts. It is smart business. In this age of companies going out of their way to come up with creative ways to rip people off any company that goes on the moral high ground of looking out for customers are going to be popular.
 
And again, I don't think they would be able to wield this kind of power over Apple. Apple is a HUGE company with plenty of money, income, profits, etc. Also, Apple currently sells iPods in soooooo many places. So, if they told their other retailers to just sit tight while Walmart played itself out they would be able to continue selling to the others after Walmart was finished. Or better yet, they could just tell Walmart to go scratch and sell the iPod everywhere else. Remember, it was a long time before Walmart started selling the iPod which means that Apple is clearly in the power position here. You know that after years of Apple telling them, sorry we're not going to sell it to you for less, that they finally gave in and began selling them anyway. That is why you see iPods at Walmart for maybe $5 less than other retailers.

If more companies stood up to Walmart then maybe we wouldn't have a permanent underclass of people being created in the form of underpaid Walmart employees.

Frank
Apple is in a relatively unique position of being the primary seller of it's own products to the public so I don't think Wal-Mart could pull a power play on Apple either, but I was just saying that Wal-Mart uses tactics like that to succeed. And Wal-Mart is so big, and sells so much that, for all practical purposes, they could pretty much undercut any other B&M retailer indefinitely. Here is a good, but long, read about Wal-Marts SOP and the ripple effects it has.


Lethal
 
The MikeTake

Two major corporations bickering in public. At least here on macrumors we keep it in the family. :p

"We didn't want to screw you over like that - we wanted to screw you over this other way..."

Damn. I almost feel out of my chair over that one, fellas. Thanks for the laugh. You are so right, it's scary.


Steve's not used to getting "Jobbed".

And that's because he's very, very careful about what he does, where he does it, and the context surrounding his doing it. Nevertheless, it's a ballsy strategy and I support Steve in it because, amongst other reasons, I have no love for any members of the Entertainment Injustistry.


Not to sound like a jerk, but I really want someone to explain to me how you can "steal" NBC shows when anyone in the US can get the shows for free with an antenna?

!¡ V ¡!;4121185 said:
Same can be said for music over the radio. ;)

I feel strongly about this. Another poster, nkawtg72, in my post here effectively elaborates on it. But yes, I have a hard time paying for something that is otherwise available "for free", especially something that has already been completely paid for by advertisers. Talk about double-dipping.


Production costs are taking a healthy jump up because of things like moving from SD to HD and increased production value while ad revenue has been steadily declining as the proliferation of a wider variety of media has eroded TV ratings.

Lethal, let's try not to forget it isn't and has never been a case of the general public screaming for HD. The broadcast industry made this bed a long time ago, and now they're having to sleep in it. The unfortunate part is that they're making others (local broadcasters) spend their money to upgrade their already-paid-for, fully-working equipment for no real or legitimate reason. It's amazing to me how effective the broadcast industry/entertainment industry (yeah, redundant I know) has been in brainwashing the general public into going along with this and spending hundreds of millions on at least one, if not two, three or even four generations of tv equipment because of this whole HD rigamarole.

I don't now, and I don't ever plan to "upgrade" from the 1994 RCA ProScan 27" I presently own and (truth be told) never really use anyway.


Amen brother.

Once I buy the White Album on iTunes Plus I'll never have to buy it again ever... The record companies must really freak out about that.

--- <snip> ---

They put so much money behind enormous atomic flashes in the pan. They want you to hate it in a week so they can sell it to you all over again as quickly as possible.

--- <snip> ---

iTunes scares big media giants because it gives the consumer too much control. Consumers made iTunes + iPod popular by choice. Not even the biggest Mac fanboy would have predicted that in 2001. There was no controling it. It just happened becuase someone got it right for once.

Yes, yes, and a big fracking YOU BETTA BUH-LIEVE IT!!!


NBC should change their initials to CYA. :rolleyes:

No doubt, they also wanted more flexibility in the pricing, but I think Apple's main gripe is that this "flexibility" wasn't intended to benefit the customers, but rather bump the prices up on popular programming. We've heard this before, when the music industry wanted to do the same. I don't think Apple's pricing structure is perfect, but I sure like the keep-it-simple approach.

FWIW, I think the increase in price on shows was NOT intended to rake in more cash for NBC, but rather to drive more viewers back to broadcast TV where NBC's real cash cow is--advertising. Just like the music industry, TV broadcasters are going to see some real upheaval in their business model. It looks to me like NBC is having a knee-jerk response. Instead of getting creative about how to profit from iTunes sales, they want to pull the rug out from under it and drive people back to regular TV where they make an obscene amount of cash from ridiculously inflated advertising prices--something they cannot duplicate on iTunes because of a smaller viewer demographic. (Anyone know if this Hulu.com will include ad breaks? I'm betting it does.)

As for their other point, it's almost a non sequitur. NBC says they are concerned about piracy, and yet they take away the single most popular option out there for people who want to pay for legit downloads. What kind of sense does that make? What other options are out there for those people now?

You know, Inkswamp, the only real issue I have with your post is that you've left me nothing to say. Yes, you're absolutely right. Couldn't agree more.


I totally disagree. People will NOT go to other places to get the shows they want to see.

You forget why the iPod was a success in the first place. It didn't have the most features, it wasn't the most compatible, it wasn't even available to people using the dominant OS (MS Windows) at the beginning. The iPod was a smash hit because It Just Worked. The vast majority of people will NOT be willing to go to 6 different studio's websites to get the various content they want to download, which come in 6 different formats, which are locked with non-Fairplay DRM and thus totally unplayable on their iPod.

And as far as your question about hulu's DRM, the DRM on media from non-iTunes sources literally can not work with the iPod without Apple licensing the iPod's Fairplay DRM to another company, and that's not gonna happen without a long gigantic legal battle.

Now here is someone who was actually awake in class and paying attention. I've made comments here and elsewhere before to the effect of what you've just said. Anyone who goes around saying that the iPod is popular only because of clever marketing by Apple (a.k.a. Apple is somehow doing something wrong to the general public, or acting like some kind of "evil" company because they want to achieve success at something) pretty much just got their argument -- nay, their entire worldview of this situation -- nullified by what you just said. The iPod is popular for ONE SIMPLE REASON: right enormous crap-loads of people ALL OVER THE WORLD like it a lot. This is a perfect textbook example of why any product in the world ever SHOULD be successful.


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.

Clevin, I have a question: If you didn't select Apple, then what are you doing posting here on a Mac-related message board?

Now, as far as GE being stupid or not, well, one can judge; however I would offer that GE was smart enough to get rid of Bob Nardelli. And that earns 'em at least one or two points in my book.


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.
[emphasis added]

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.

nkawtg72, I couldn't agree more, except with one particular point: "Piracy steals money when someone other than NBC distributes it over the internet illegally."

No, that isn't like stealing money from NBC, or any other broadcaster. And it isn't stealing money because NBC has already made money by the advertiser sponsoring the show with their ads! Moreover, every eyeball is an additional eyeball, so if you "steal" a copy and watch it, then you're one more person who sees the ad than would have seen it originally.

Now, if someone D/L'd the thing and then redistributed it for a fee, then for me that would be a somewhat morally/ethically gray area, but at the end of the day I'd have to say, just to be fair, the entity in question should have to pay at least some of that money back to NBC. However, they should be able to keep enough of it to defray expenses and turn a reasonable profit. Mind you, we're probably talking no more than maybe 20¢ - 30¢ as being a reasonable "finders fee", but still why shouldn't they be allowed to profit through such enterprising efforts?


Ultimately, folks, it's a sad commentary on the world we live in when our society can give such legitimacy to fighting and arguing these kinds of battles (instead of just laughing the instigators right out of the room) and shows that "the powers that be" have done a fine job of brainwashing us all. Oh well. I continue to wish Steve and his crew the best of luck and success.
 
NBC = Nothing But Crazy

No sorry any way this is spun its NBC trying to find creative ways to up their profit margin and Apple saying "Not with our customers". And no I am not naive enough to believe Apple is doing that out of the goodness of their hearts. It is smart business. In this age of companies going out of their way to come up with creative ways to rip people off any company that goes on the moral high ground of looking out for customers are going to be popular.
Exactly right. Here's my take on all this...

Until iTunes, you could NOT buy a single track of music unless the company had published the song in the format called, aptly... a "single". The single died for a number of reasons, mostly, it wasn't financially viable from the manufacturing end.

Prior to iTunes, you couldn't purchase a single episode of a TV Show, or a single music video. These are NEW products that have only previously been available in aggregate. Apple still has provisions for variable pricing on "seasons" or "albums". It's still there. Most music albums are $9.99, but some aren't. What Apple doesn't practice variable pricing on, are the smallest increments of their sales. These are things that represent "impulse buys" for most people.

iTunes enjoys many thousands of impulse buys every hour of every day. They regularly have sales on music albums and audiobooks, further creating "attractive" values for consumers. The idea of futzing with the pricing on their "impulse buy" products, is fairly silly if you think about it. It's like McDonald's having a dollar menu with $1.30 items speckled throughout it. Also, its important to note, that uniformity of pricing works for and against. It means that while you can get most all library title movies for $9.99, some movies that are clearly not popular, ALSO cost $9.99, where they might otherwise go at 2 for $9.99. I think the trade-off is perfectly fine though. Sometimes, simply NOT BUYING something, doesn't really send a specific message. That's where popular retailers come in to encourage better value from their sales experience and customer feedback.

If iTunes has strict pricing requirements in specific sections of its product catalog, its their prerogative. Some items to a business' structure really aren't negotiable, others are. This just means that we won't see certain products on iTunes. I think that's perfectly fine.

The comments people make that this is "wrong" strike me as really strange though. It's like getting mad at Walmart because they won't carry Bose sound systems. Or criticizing McDonald's for not carrying shrimp or caviar. If a certain movie is determined by a studio to cost $20, and it can't stomach EVER selling it for $9.99, *even if* they aren't paying physical costs, that's fine. Don't sign with iTunes. More than a few people laugh at Amazon for listing new movies at $21.99 digital downloads, when the DVDs cost exactly the same, and allow much more playback flexibility, content and value. --But the studios are very scared of undermining their soundscan numbers and need to be strongly encouraged to embrace the new realties in the digital marketplace.

Like ABC said, they need to focus on creating MORE ways to distribute content, not LESS. They need to make getting their content really easy, or like in Jurrassic Park, "Life finds a way." The moment they rely on "restriction" and not "incentive", they're going against the very forces of nature. Lightning /electricity finds the shortest route to the ground. You either give it an easier path, or you get a shock.

That's my opinion. I don't blame them, but no one said transitioning to the future would be easy. If they keep fighting it however, they're going to be fighting every step of the way.

~ CB
 
Unbelievable!!!!!

I can't believe the number of people on here talking about business and marketing that obviously have no clue. I'm not going to say that Frankly has everything right, because I've not read all his posts, but he sure seems to have his glasses cleaner than the rest of you.

If any of you think that Apple can in fact tell a company what they can sell a product for, try again. The FTC would be on them like a pack of wolves. And to suggest that there is some law out there that says Apple has to sell to or provide it's products to just anyone (business) that wants to sell them, try again there also. Apple can choose to distribute it's products through whatever channel it finds most prudent. Last time I checked I can't buy a Ford at a Porsche dealer, am I out bitchin' about that?! The fact that WalMart or anyone for that matter is selling Apple products, is ONLY because Apple wants them to. It's called Brand awareness. Apple sees that by letting these outlets sell Apple products, many times for less, it gets the Apple brand in the eyes of those that don't visit Apple.com or the local Apple store on a regular basis.

Frankly is right. The whole WalMart babble by Wnurse is just stupid. WalMart pays a wholesale price for Apple products based on a contract they voluntarily enter in to with Apple. No one is holding a gun to their head saying to "Stock Apple products on your shelves." WalMart chooses to do it, because they are in the business of creating traffic in their store. Apple has been the WORLD's most recognized brand for years. WalMart sees it in their best interest to stock Apple, because they know people will be in their store looking for them. The only reason the price they sell Apple for is only slightly lower than what you can get it for at Apple is....why not!!!! If you're largest competitor is selling it for $x.xx, then why sell it for substantially less and hurt your wallet? Undersell your competition just enough to hopefully encourage someone to buy it from you instead.

How many of you have walked into a MicroCenter or elsewhere a week after a new Apple product has been released and shipped? Ever noticed that the now outdated stuff is still stocked and priced higher than the newest version Apple has released?! It's because the store has $$$ invested in it. It's not Apple telling them they can't lower the price. They paid for it, and now they can't lower it without loosing money. Is that Apple's fault too?

To get on topic with this NBC thing for a minute. Maybe most of you are too young, or maybe I'm too old (36), but have you forgotten that broadcasters are not in the business of entertaining. They are in the business of advertising. TV has always and will always be there for the purpose of advertising. Do you think your $.75 keeps that newspaper you buy in business. NO!!!! The advertising in it does. They just stick news in there to get you to look at it, then hope you see an advertisement you like that'll get you to spend money somewhere else, which in turn generates more advertising.

So back to NBC. Do you honestly think anything in NBCs motives has anything whatsoever to do with improving the consumers experience!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA. Get educated if you do. I'll give them this much, they own the content. They can do with it what they want. Just like Apple can distribute through whoever they want, so can NBC. Apple has shown that it is possible to sell OFF-THE-AIR programming that most people have already paid a cable provider to see on a tv, but they're doing it commercial free. If you recall that broadcasters are in the business of advertising and not entertaining, then you'll understand why NBC wants to control the content more than what they've allowed Apple to do so far. I'm guessing that what they want to do is raise the price at Apple (for whatever their mis-guided reasons are), then provide the same content somewhere else at a more competitive price BUT with ads. They make more off the ads than they do the content itself.

It's funny how people want to give Apple grief for not going for this, but last time I checked I don't recall my bill with Comcast constantly being raised and lowered at the whim of a badgering broadcaster, so why should Apple put up with it. If NBC wants to take their stuff somewhere else, then go for it. I bet Comcast would tell NBC to stick it too if they were demanding Comcast jack up my prices. I'll argue with myself on that one, even I don't trust Comcast anywhere near as much as I trust Apple to have my best interests in mind, but I'm just trying to give a supporting example.

I personally don't understand buying TV shows when I can record what I want for FREE off-the-air?! If I like it that much then I get it on the computer and then onto my iPod. TOTALLY legal too!!!!! I'm not selling it, it's personal use and gotten legally either over the airwaves or off the cable/dish or from that DVD I paid for.

I don't care who you are really, if you don't like Apple or if you don't like NBC, I think you're all nuts for paying for TV shows in the first place and you get what you deserve. ( I do agree that doesn't fit ALL people. Some buy the TV shows for convenience so they don't have to watch/record/encode it themselves. But there again lies the beauty of the ITMS model ).

Movies are a whole other story, those are production companies who don't make their money from advertising (product placement aside) but instead they make their money from entertaining. If I had to see 5 commercial breaks during my 2 1/2 hour visit at a theater I'd never go back. Buying a movie offline or in a store is like buying a candy bar, the movie IS the intended source of revenue. If I had to watch 45seconds of commercials before I could leave the 7-11 counter with my Snickers, I'd have to kick someone's a$$. The first time a production company tells Apple they have to put ads/commercial breaks in the movies you download, how many of you will tell Apple to grow up when they fight that too?!

It comes down to this, NBC wants more $$$. They see a chance to change the rules to pad their wallets more than they've already been able to do so with/through Apple. If Apple doesn't want to play their game, they don't have to. WalMart doesn't sell p0rn mags, are you suggesting the p0rn industry should have some say in what WalMart sells. NBC can tell Apple how they want things, but Apple can also tell NBC to stick it.

At the end of the day it'll either hurt one or both of them, and neither cares about the other, just their own wallet. The fact that I like, or don't like, Apple or NBC doesn't have anything to do with it. These are two businesses out trying to make money that comes from my wallet. My interest lies with my wallet.

To be honest though I do think the whole music, broadcast, and film industry owes Apple a big thank you anyway. Apple may not have thought of it, or created it, but they certainly invested in and showed that the old way of selling intellectual property was going the way of the dinosaur and now everyone wants on the bandwagon. Which is good too. It's called capitalism, and everybody wants a piece of it.

Cheers
 
apologies...

okay more of you wrote while i was typing out my above post and i see that more of you do have clean glasses like Frankly.

i agree with the argument someone had with something i said and didn't put into words too good. when it comes to "free" content that is technically was paid for by advertisers when it was broadcast, i agree that piracy would have to involve the exchange of $$$$.

if i go to the library and i take information (intellectual property) from a book and use it in my school report is that "piracy"? Not if I site it appropriately. I have a hard time (I don't know the details in the laws) thinking that a broadcaster should have any room to complain that their intellectual property that was paid for by advertisers for the purpose of broadcasting is now being re-distributing by someone else who is NOT profiting from it. If anything, it's free advertising for the broadcaster. Now if i were selling NBC property to others, hence profiting from their labors, without NBCs permission, then that would be another story. But I already know, there's probably holes in the opinion, but i thought i'd share it anyway.

adios
 
I feel strongly about this. Another poster, nkawtg72, in my post here effectively elaborates on it. But yes, I have a hard time paying for something that is otherwise available "for free", especially something that has already been completely paid for by advertisers. Talk about double-dipping.
"Completely paid for by advertisers" is not quite accurate as a few shows make a ton of profit, some shows do better than breaking even, a lot of shows tank while never earning a dime and things like News consistent are loss leaders. Content providers are always looking for ways to hedge their bets as they never know if they have a stud or a dud until it hits the airwaves.

Lethal, let's try not to forget it isn't and has never been a case of the general public screaming for HD. The broadcast industry made this bed a long time ago, and now they're having to sleep in it. The unfortunate part is that they're making others (local broadcasters) spend their money to upgrade their already-paid-for, fully-working equipment for no real or legitimate reason. It's amazing to me how effective the broadcast industry/entertainment industry (yeah, redundant I know) has been in brainwashing the general public into going along with this and spending hundreds of millions on at least one, if not two, three or even four generations of tv equipment because of this whole HD rigamarole.
Yer missing the mark just a bit here. The long story short looks a bit like this. First off, The Federal government has mandated all broadcasters to switch from analogue to digital over-the-air broadcasting and that's the primary reason stations are having to retool. Even if there was no such thing as HD a ton of money would still get spent switching from analogue to digital b'casting gear. Secondly, consumer electronic manufacturers are the ones primarily behind the initial push for HD. Heck, you could buy HDTVs when the only HD content available was a handful of D-VHS movies. Even now SD content vastly out numbers HD content on TV (and will for years). Now that HD is finally starting to "catch on" w/the public (mostly thru consumer electronics companies end-of-lifing their SD TVs) you see content providers now switching to HD since there is a market for it and the equipment on the product side is becoming more mature and more affordable (relatively speaking of course).

I don't now, and I don't ever plan to "upgrade" from the 1994 RCA ProScan 27" I presently own and (truth be told) never really use anyway.
I don't plan on buying new TVs until my SD ones break so please don't mistake for an early adopter or gadget freak.


Lethal
 
Pbs

"Completely paid for by advertisers" is not quite accurate as a few shows make a ton of profit, some shows do better than breaking even, a lot of shows tank while never earning a dime and things like News consistent are loss leaders. Content providers are always looking for ways to hedge their bets as they never know if they have a stud or a dud until it hits the airwaves.

Lethal

Have you ever heard of Public Broadcasting. There is a reason it is called that. The broadcasting is PAID FOR by the viewer. Granted there are businesses that get advertising in by helping fund the actual production of certain programs, but the reason there are no commercials is advertising $$$ are not paying for the broadcasting.

I agree that there are some shows that rake in the bucks for the alphabet soup channels and others, and there are some that don't. That is the dilemma the broadcasters face on a daily basis "which shows are attracting the advertisers?!!!" Last time I checked, no friend of mine has ever sent TBS a check for $x.xx because they wanted to show TBS how much they enjoy Andy Griffith.

The Ratings show the industry which shows are popular and the advertisers fight over the chance to advertise there for major bucks. NBC complaining about pricing on ITMS is a smoke screen. All that crap could be free if it had ads. The fact that you are paying anything is testament to the fact that NBC wants to make as much money as possible on as many of their shows as possible. In their defense, not doing so would be stupid too. But don't hate Apple because they don't want it going on in their house.
 
another example..

SPIKE TV just recently (may still be doing it) was hosting on late night a series of shows that were being produced where they were asking the viewers to give feedback on what they liked or didn't like, or ways to improve what was there.

SPIKE openly said, if you don't like it, we'll remove it, and whatever comes out on top will stay on air. What do you suppose the reason for this was? Advertising!!!!! What better source than the viewers themselves to know where to put a bunch of ads.

My Comcast bill covers the cost of Comcast to supply me with the broadcaster signals. Advertisers pay for the broadcasts.

When I buy something on ITMS, part goes to Apple to cover distribution costs, and the rest goes to the Intellectual Property owner, instead of $$$ from an advertiser.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.