Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I suppose some might spend that much, but more likely a lot less. I'm paying more than $100 a month for some 2-300 channels, most of which I only watch late at night when I'm desperate to kill time. It's mostly an expensive tranquilizer.
If I bought programs, I'd buy the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and maybe three or four others all week. Sports, live. News? Which? Right-wing Noise, or lamebrain CNN? Jeez. I think I'll get it on the web.
I'm 12 miles from the Mt. Wilson towers. I get really good pictures on an amplified set of rabbit ears.
You don't own it. You buy a license to play it on Apple approved hardware/software. You can't give it to someone else without opening up your iTUnes account to them.
I don't see that NBC content is anymore valuable than the others. I will continue to not rent their selections, hence, not grand them any revenue from my household.
Unless it is a made for TV movie that I enjoy, or a show episode that hits me hard, I don't buy TV shows, Period.
Unless it is a made for TV movie that I enjoy, or a show episode that hits me hard, I don't buy TV shows, Period.
Is your 20min of tv-quality writing and production worth as much as a full-length 2-3 hour feature film that took years to write and produce? As artistic as a feature film? Perpaps, unlike a song, which took as much time to write & record, which I'll listen to hundreds of times, and is still worth $.99, you want more for a crappily written tv episode I'll watch once?
HA! You LOSE! You get NOTHING! I say Good day sir!!!
thepiratebay it is!
HA! You LOSE! You get NOTHING! I say Good day sir!!!
thepiratebay it is!
How is .99 devaluing in the face of blockbuster and netflix?
A rental cost 4 bucks for 4 or more episodes, that's .99 cents. Or $15 or less for unlimited monthly and streaming.
Sorry that doesn't compute.
You'd have to explain to me how that's any different from what apple is looking for.
Remember, NBC-Comcast
Smart guy Zucker has already figured out how he wants to rescue his company: by letting it become NBC-Comcast. A la carte becomes On Demand. Healthy fees per view. No more Net Neutrality.
Smart guy Zucker has already figured out how he wants to rescue his company: by letting it become NBC-Comcast. A la carte becomes On Demand. Healthy fees per view. No more Net Neutrality.
Apple is absolutely CERTAINLY doing the right thing, so if you're disagreeing with them....well....you're inept.
That is good logic for some shows. Lets say I had the bad taste to watch, "Who Wants to Fart Like a Millionaire" or some other lame reality show. Half way through the show, tornadoes start popping up all over my state and they end regular TV broadcast for weather coverage (Happens all the time where I live).
I will never want to watch this lame show again, but I do want to see how it ends. Paying the extra dollar would just waste some HD space for me.
Lets say I am watching the last episode of White Collar season 2. I will want to save it so I can watch it again just before season 3 starts.
RalfTheDog said:
But we're talking about hardware, which has substantial Unit costs, whereas digitally transferred TV, movies, and music has almost zero Unit costs.
This whole concept of "ownership" is overstated. When you own an electronic version of a TV show, what does that even mean? There are still going to be restrictions on how many different iTunes accounts you can copy it to, rules about redistributing or reselling it, etc.
Whether you rent it for 99 cents, or buy it for $1.99 and watch it a thousand times over, the buy it and keep it option has made the network twice as much money as the rental option. Unless you plan to rent the same show two times or more, the network will be making less versus you buying the content to keep.
This is probably the crux of the issue. I guess what Apple need to do is prove to the networks that they will be able to make as much money as they are now, if not more, from the rental market. It sounds like they are having a hard time selling that concept, which would make me think that Apple simply can't yet make the numbers add up.
Companies still sell hard copies to the rental companies, many of whom have agreements with the content providers more involved than one would think.
It doesn't compute because you don't own the stream. You can't keep those files.
As a content creator, I'm afraid of Apple's "dollar store" mentality. If you drive the cost of everything down to that bottom price point, you make people waffle at anything greater than 99 cents. You devalue the whole market, and soon all you have is the crap that is cheapest to make.
It's just my own fear of further devaluing artist work. Not everyone can relate to it and I can see your viewpoint. 99 cents IS desirable from a consumer standpoint. I'd happily buy shows that I can own at $2 a pop. THat puts them right in the area or the cost of a whole season on DVD. but it's stuck in iTunes and licensing hell.
When artists have to deal with long hours, outsourcing to foreign companies who will work for pennies on the dollar, and media companies folding under the pressure to get prices lower and lower (that's everything from Visual FX companies to game developerspublishers), soon talented artists and creators will simply stop making content to buy, because the ROI will be too low or even negative.
One could argue that artists simply have to create a better product, but that's disingenuous. Fantastic television shows, video games, and music already fail because of the downward slide of this market.
Just my opinion, so nobody take it personally.
It takes a ton of people a lot of time, work, and money to create a TV show or movie. Even if it only exists virtually on a digital storefront, the cost is nowhere near zero.
Right - but it isn't Apple's content. It's NBC's content. It cost Apple nothing to have a 30 minute television show, which was entirely paid for by NBC, on one of their servers.
It seems to me like the product is much more appealing if you have 1,000,000 different products to choose from, as opposed to THREE (3).
I am guessing...
I am guessing that some of this has to do with the royalties that the studios have to pay out, and that depends on what model you use.
Right now if you buy an episode of say, LOST on iTunes, you pay 1.99 (std def version). Under the DVD formula that they've been using for those downloads, for example, the actors all split one penny off that rental. But, you can have that episode forever if you want.
If you whack it to .99 and it's under the DVD formula, the actors split half a penny (maybe) tops. But, it expires after 24 hours so that may mean a different formula (i.e. one for "downloads" - royalties are paid out on a format-specific basis).
Fun fact, if you buy a movie on videocassette (because everyone has those new releases of Shrek in 3d on VHS, yes?) the actors would be paid more because the formula is different.
That's all just the actors. That doesn't count the studio, the writers, etc. So I can see why the studios aren't necessarily seeing this for what it is and are counting pennies. Remember, a lot of these folks are in a ton of debt, or are parts of bigger companies that sell nuclear weapons and lightbulbs and don't need to care too much if their network TV offerings suck ass.
Point is, a .99 rental for a tv show to essentially get a DVR function isn't really worth it for them or you as a viewer since you could either pay for Hulu at a flat 10 bucks a month and have fewer ads, or watch the stupid ads and pay nothing. I've been using the hulu app for Mac for a while now and it's not bad at all.
I am guessing that some of this has to do with the royalties that the studios have to pay out, and that depends on what model you use.
Right now if you buy an episode of say, LOST on iTunes, you pay 1.99 (std def version). Under the DVD formula that they've been using for those downloads, for example, the actors all split one penny off that rental. But, you can have that episode forever if you want.
If you whack it to .99 and it's under the DVD formula, the actors split half a penny (maybe) tops. But, it expires after 24 hours so that may mean a different formula (i.e. one for "downloads" - royalties are paid out on a format-specific basis).
Fun fact, if you buy a movie on videocassette (because everyone has those new releases of Shrek in 3d on VHS, yes?) the actors would be paid more because the formula is different.
That's all just the actors. That doesn't count the studio, the writers, etc. So I can see why the studios aren't necessarily seeing this for what it is and are counting pennies. Remember, a lot of these folks are in a ton of debt, or are parts of bigger companies that sell nuclear weapons and lightbulbs and don't need to care too much if their network TV offerings suck ass.
Point is, a .99 rental for a tv show to essentially get a DVR function isn't really worth it for them or you as a viewer since you could either pay for Hulu at a flat 10 bucks a month and have fewer ads, or watch the stupid ads and pay nothing. I've been using the hulu app for Mac for a while now and it's not bad at all.
Apple TV will still allow you to play back purchased media. Instead of syncing it to an Apple TV device it will stream from your Mac.
Hmmmm. Free OTA and free on the internet, yet 99 cents is devaluing it?
Anybody care to explain? Anyone? Bueller? Frye? Anyone?
I would assume that between Hulu Plus subscriptions and online ad they are making more then .69 cents per episode they make after Apple's cut. Plus, I bet NBC would love everyone to use Hulu Plus instead of Apple Store rentals.
Of course, I need to STREAM Hulu content so I can't take it with me on my iPod Touch. I'm not paying $70 for an iPhone (with 2GB of data) or paying to watch it on my computer or PS3 when I have a perfectly good HDTV and DVR. Make me think what kind of demographic they are hoping to jump on Hulu Plus.
Um... iPad anybody? Apple pitched the unlimited data plan, no contracts, sign up and discontinue the service as you please. Then a month or two later AT&T pulled the plug on it and everyone called it a bait and switch.
Apple is going to have a hard time trying to sell a device aimed at rentals when a few months after it launches everyone ups their prices or pulls out of the service because it's not profitable.
I don't think there is any specific iPhone App that is driving iPhone/iPod Touch sales which they need to keep low. The market pretty much decides the price, and when stuff like Angry Birds is doing so well at .99 cents it skews towards lower.
I think the networks are concerned that buying TV shows outright will cut into DVD sales, just as buying music singles has cut into CD sales. Compared to renting, buying a DVD offers the "ownership" incentive for the customer and is much more profitable for the network.
You do not understand. Some shows are only good to watch once (for me good example would be Nikita or Covert Affairs or The Event). For me buying these shows would be a waste of time, money and disk space.
Apple does have costs -- opportunity costs.
Each day that Apple provides a television rental model that nobody wants to buy into, it means they've lost a day of profits from a television rental model that people do want to buy into.
This was my point (I think). Apple does not control the price-points of applications sold in the App store. I have purchased apps ranging in price from Free to $19.99. It appears (to me, at least) to be a free market system.
But which model would be rather buy into?
A rental service which consists of three content providers, with their price points all at $0.99
or
A rental service which consists of dozens of content providers, who set their own price points.
I am not an economist so I have no idea if this is economically valid, or not. I just know that for myself, as a consumer, while I am intrigued by the Apple TV for the possibility of streaming my NetFlix content, the lack of other serious content is a serious downside.
That wasn't Apple, that was the Networks themselves with Reality TV.
Nonsense. As I said, the TV industry already headed themselves in this direction. They make more profit without the visual effects and high budgets. Apple was nowhere near this industry when this practice began.
Being one of those people myself not too long ago, I can tell you that this is BS. Plain and simple. You should write a song about it and play it on a darkened street corner.
I fully expect the demise of OTA TV, and that is how I make a living now. Again, this has been in motion for quite some time. Technology and the broadcasters themselves will be the culprit, not Apple.
The financial risk is ALWAYS on the developer's and creators. The distributors ALWAYS devalue the product. The only people who ultimately determine a show's value is the viewer.
If you watch 3 TV shows a night 7 days a week, that's 21 TV shows a week, then you have more important problems to deal with.