Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

NBC Universal Unlikely to Join Apple's 99-Cent TV Show Rental Program

I don't understand the point in renting a TV show, when you can own it for $1.99 or $2.99.

They really need to get the price down to make this a good option. I don't think $.99 is low enough.

Personally I continue to purchase shows from iTunes. I like being able to go back and watch episodes whenever I want too. And since I travel a lot being able to take show's with me on the go has always been a big plus with iTunes.

Storing them is not a problem. HDD's have become so cheap just about anyone can build 2TB+ iTunes library's if they want too
 
They don't seem to understand that the 99¢ is the rental fee, and the shows will stay at $1.99/$2.99 to buy. Better to get a guaranteed payment from iTunes, than to hope you'll get something from the ads on Hulu or their own website.

TEG
 
jlblodgett said:
I don't understand why Apple tries to maintain such a stranglehold over pricing points of music / tv shows / movies / books / etc. Can someone explain why they keep the screws so tight on this type of thing?

Why does Apple care what price point things are set at? If NBC wants to charge $49.99 per episode and Apple gets 10% of the sale - what difference does it make?

This is a free market economy. Let them price things to where they thing the market will bear. I don't think there is so much price control on iPhone / iPad apps, is there?
Click to expand...

Why? Because Apple believes Apple, the networks and everyone will make more money from volume if they price things cheep than they could from a small number of sales at a higher price.

Apple is very good at judging the market. If the networks want their failing businesses to make money, they need to listen to those who are making money. If not, they are free to not offer their products on Apple platforms.
 
dwd3885 said:
The AppleTV will fail if there are only two networks on there for rental. Go back to purchase, allow customers to save the content in the apple cloud, like Zune or Amazon Unbox.
Click to expand...

Who wants to purchase and manage disposable content?
I can't think of any network content that I would need or want to permanently own.
 
This is found money for the networks, and they're saying 'no thanks'. They're hidebound, dull, and plodding - no surprise there.

The nets should stick one ad in each show. Better still, take a page from Google's book and target the ads to the viewer.

People pay for movies, and still get ads. They'll pay for TV with FEWER ads, the ads don't have to be entirely absent. But they won't pay more than a buck for something they can't even keep. Get real.
 
GQB said:
Who wants to purchase and manage disposable content?
I can't think of any network content that I would need or want to permanently own.
Click to expand...

you don't have to manage it. you but it for .99 like Amazon Unbox and you can watch it whenever you want, no matter what. You basically purchase the right to stream that video as long as the service is in place. I don't understand how it's possibly a bad thing.
 
I read somewhere a typical 1 hour of TV with 15 minutes of ads, gets them on average 30c per viewer.
 
Zucker is a dinosaur. I honestly don't even know how that clown is still employed. He completely doesn't get that the model of people sitting down in front of a box at a fixed time to watch 10 minutes of commercials in a 30 minute show is dead.
 
How much do you want to bet that the Google/Samsung/Android axis is going to stuff ads down our throats.

Google knows more than enough about me already, thank you.
 
RalfTheDog said:
Why? Because Apple believes Apple, the networks and everyone will make more money from volume if they price things cheep than they could from a small number of sales at a higher price.
Click to expand...

That sounds exactly counter to every piece of hardware Apple has ever sold.

RalfTheDog said:
Apple is very good at judging the market. If the networks want their failing businesses to make money, they need to listen to those who are making money. If not, they are free to not offer their products on Apple platforms.
Click to expand...

Perhaps - but how can they judge a market that doesn't really exist? The Apple TV sounds like a great idea, in principle. But an Apple TV with ABC, Fox, and Netflix only sounds like complete crap.
 
At the end of the day these guys aren't worried about devaluing their shows, they are worried about Apple taking their power away. They don't want the TV to die. They use the term devalue because that is the equivalent of saying "we aren't getting enough money from Apple to risk losing the power we have right now."

It's the same situation the music industry was in not that many years ago, they didn't like digital music because it would take away control from the labels and put the power in people like Apple. Even today those labels have been fighting to get the prices raised because Apple has too much say in terms of pricing because they have such a popular service.

Ultimately the great equalizer is competition, and honestly I don't think Apple is so anti-competitive really. The fact that Amazon and other services offer stuff gives the TV networks a bargaining chip. I mean already the TV networks seem to like Amazon more and are giving them better deals.

They don't want Apple to become the biggest player for TV on the internet, it's that simple.
 
spatlese44 said:
Do they get more money out of ads than $0.99 a show?
Click to expand...

This is the real key. I can't imagine the per-viewer return on Ads from each show is anywhere near $0.99 - Apple's cut.

This is basic lemonade stand math here, if you're selling lemonade for a quarter, and someone else wants to pay you $0.75, you should be happy, not throw a tantrum, claim he's undervaluing your product and then demand he buy your whole stand for $5.
 
jlblodgett said:
That sounds exactly counter to every piece of hardware Apple has ever sold.
Click to expand...

Different market, different pricing rules.

jlblodgett said:
Perhaps - but how can they judge a market that doesn't really exist? The Apple TV sounds like a great idea, in principle. But an Apple TV with ABC, Fox, and Netflix only sounds like complete crap.
Click to expand...

Apple TV is doing quite well without rentals. Add rentals for everyone but NBC and it will remain a good deal. If you must watch an NBC show, just purchase it from your computer or watch it free on Hulu.

My guess? people will rent TV shows from the other networks, but they will P2P them for NBC.
 
jlblodgett said:
I don't understand why Apple tries to maintain such a stranglehold over pricing points of music / tv shows / movies / books / etc. Can someone explain why they keep the screws so tight on this type of thing?

Why does Apple care what price point things are set at? If NBC wants to charge $49.99 per episode and Apple gets 10% of the sale - what difference does it make?

This is a free market economy. Let them price things to where they thing the market will bear. I don't think there is so much price control on iPhone / iPad apps, is there?
Click to expand...

Probably because the content, fairly or not, is a reflection of the device its being shown on in these new device markets.

The iphone by itself has some impressive features but would be nothing if not for the apps.

Similarly for things like the iPad and Iphone and Apple TV, if the content price point is controlled and set at a favorable number, it reflects better on apple and encourages people to spend some money, of which apple gets a piece of the action.

If Apple allows people to set their own prices the potential is there to restrict the functionality of the device as a whole because of costs involved.

Me for example, I don't really feel all that bad about stealing content, and say what you will about that and me, but apple has put the price point right in my wheelhouse so to speak, where paying for content is worth more than the time it would take and the risk you take in stealing that content.

Would the market regulate itself? yes, but not necessarily fast enough in this extremely fast moving segment of electronics.

Would ATT be offering no-contract deals for ipads if they weren't strong-armed into doing so by apple? I say hell-no.

Anyways that's my own view, not saying it's accurate or that opposing views are wrong.
 
Man NBC don't get it. They will be left behind. Remember we will also probably get a HULU Plus app on the Apple TV too..
 
They ARE devaluing television shows. And other media. They already drove the game market down to bottom of the barrel pricing. If they do the same with television shows, expect less shows with high budgets and visual effects. It will start, of course, with the people who work on the shows making less money.

As if artists need another company trying to devalue the final product of their work so they can sell more hardware.


Tilpots said:
Hmmmm. Free OTA
Click to expand...

Over the air is not free. They have commercials. You pay for that with your time and/or inconvenience. If television networks can't make money on broadcasting OTA, expect that to stop, too.

and free on the internet
Click to expand...

There are two kinds of free television shows on the internet. those supported with ads, and those people pirate. One of them doesn't help the bottom line.

yet 99 cents is devaluing it?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Apple puts all of the financial risk on the developer/content creator and then drives down the value of their product. And Apple doesn't care, because they have the high cost, high profit making hardware to make money from.

more companies should give apple the finger on this one.
 
jlblodgett said:
I don't understand why Apple tries to maintain such a stranglehold over pricing points of music / tv shows / movies / books / etc. Can someone explain why they keep the screws so tight on this type of thing?

Why does Apple care what price point things are set at? If NBC wants to charge $49.99 per episode and Apple gets 10% of the sale - what difference does it make?

This is a free market economy. Let them price things to where they thing the market will bear. I don't think there is so much price control on iPhone / iPad apps, is there?
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to buy a $49.99 episode, so Apple gets 10% of zero, or $0. But if a million people buy a $.99 episode, then Apple gets $100,000. So it is in Apple's best interest to make sure the products it distributes are affordable.

Also, there is the more intrinsic issue that this media is being distributed through iTunes, and if content providers start charging exhorbitant prices, people will lose faith in the iTunes model.
 
Am I the only one that understands what he is saying? He is basically saying why pay .99 cents to rent something when for $1 more you can OWN it.
 
Why would anyone in their right minds think NBC, also known as Comcast, will want to support a rival TV delivery method?

Anyone else think its simply a coincidence that the other standout is "Time Warner" also known as owners of "Time Warner Cable"?
 
If you can get NBC shows on Hulu, wouldn't the perceived value of their shows already be $0? Convincing people that they were worth a $0.99 rental would be an increase in perceived value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back