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.
Research Study: iTunes Video Failing To Duplicate Music Success
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I must be in the 4% as I have been buying more TV shows and Movies than I have been buying Music, lately. I do wish they had more content and offered rentals, but would never waste my time with ad supported streams. I got rid of my TV over 5 years ago and haven't looked back since. There is absolutely nothing on any channel, broadcast or network, worth paying for cable or satellite service. It's all mindless teen-pop-fear mongering garbage. At present there is only 1 show I actually like to watch (Little People, Big World), and I get it via season pass through iTunes. For less than the cost of a TV+DVR service, I get to download and watch the episodes whenever I want to, wherever I want to.
I have no respect for anyone that likes any of the television shows currently airing on any of the major broadcast stations. It's all crap.
Good riddance to NBC, as well.
I have no respect for anyone that likes any of the television shows currently airing on any of the major broadcast stations. It's all crap.
Good riddance to NBC, as well.
Actually, I'd love it if Apple were to release free, ad-supported content on iTunes. Currently there is no real reason for me to use iTunes for video, as one can either find free ad-supported shows on their repective company websites or find ad-free true high-def TIVO rips on torrents for free.
My other complaint with iTunes video is that my iBook G4 struggles with h.264 videos within iTunes, yet I can run a much higher resolution DIVX movie (with higher bitrate audio) without a hiccup in VLC. iTunes video playback leaves much to be desired.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3)
Agreed. I think that HD content would help tremendously and the AppleTV is already able to play it. There just needs to be content available to purchase. If Apple released HD movies on the iTunes store for say $11.99US (less than the average DVD and half the cost of a Bluray or HDdvd) I think things would improve.
Squonk said:I want HD content and movie rentals on the music store. And forTV I want HD or BR and surround sound support. Thank you.
Agreed. I think that HD content would help tremendously and the AppleTV is already able to play it. There just needs to be content available to purchase. If Apple released HD movies on the iTunes store for say $11.99US (less than the average DVD and half the cost of a Bluray or HDdvd) I think things would improve.
Big Media SUCKS
I'd love to drop my satellite TV subscription in favor of buying shows from iTunes. Given that I don't watch much TV, it would be much cheaper for me to go this route, plus it would be commercial free. Love that. However, iTunes doesn't offer all of the shows I want and the NBC fiasco proves that content availability is not stable.
I don't have any interest in buying movies via iTunes, but I'd do rentals in a heartbeat. As many others have pointed out, I don't think the fault lies with Apple. They are trying. It's the dinosaur media companies that can't see to figure it out. They are so insanely greedy that they'd rather fight their customers, sue them, etc. than give them what they want.
Of course, there's another option altogether. A new Seagate Terabyte drive is $320, give or take. Add MacTheRipper or HandBreak and you're in business. Rent, Rip, Return. Watch the movie or show when you want to and throw it away when you're done. In essence, a delayed rental. Of course I'd prefer a more legit route, but I think that's up to the studios. I'm not about to watch shows on my computer. I want them on my TV, so the content the studios post online is useless to me.
The studios should be more worried about producing quality programming and films than forcing their customers to consume media by their rules. Let there be advertising-supported free content for those who don't want to pay and let those of us who would *gladly* pay do so for advertising-free content. There's room for different models. The studios need to stop being so greedy.
Oh well, until then, Netflix + MacTheRipper = No Hassle.
I'd love to drop my satellite TV subscription in favor of buying shows from iTunes. Given that I don't watch much TV, it would be much cheaper for me to go this route, plus it would be commercial free. Love that. However, iTunes doesn't offer all of the shows I want and the NBC fiasco proves that content availability is not stable.
I don't have any interest in buying movies via iTunes, but I'd do rentals in a heartbeat. As many others have pointed out, I don't think the fault lies with Apple. They are trying. It's the dinosaur media companies that can't see to figure it out. They are so insanely greedy that they'd rather fight their customers, sue them, etc. than give them what they want.
Of course, there's another option altogether. A new Seagate Terabyte drive is $320, give or take. Add MacTheRipper or HandBreak and you're in business. Rent, Rip, Return. Watch the movie or show when you want to and throw it away when you're done. In essence, a delayed rental. Of course I'd prefer a more legit route, but I think that's up to the studios. I'm not about to watch shows on my computer. I want them on my TV, so the content the studios post online is useless to me.
The studios should be more worried about producing quality programming and films than forcing their customers to consume media by their rules. Let there be advertising-supported free content for those who don't want to pay and let those of us who would *gladly* pay do so for advertising-free content. There's room for different models. The studios need to stop being so greedy.
Oh well, until then, Netflix + MacTheRipper = No Hassle.
Apple can add free TV episodes with embedded commercials, that's cool with me, as long as they keep the commercial-free versions available, too. It's probably a good idea and would increase the popularity of TV downloads a lot.
I think there's only so much Apple can do as far as movie purchases, though, a lot of the problem is with the studios. If I buy a movie I want to purchase something that I can watch at the very highest quality on my TV when I feel like it, with the option to buy DVD or HD formats (720x480 and 10 Mbps with surround sound, or 720p/1080p with full bitrate and surround sound), yet also be able to convert to an iPod size/bitrate if I want a portable version. And I'd want it cheaper than a DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray version if it didn't include the "bonus" features, and also because I wasn't paying for media and shipping costs.
The movie studios wouldn't want it to be cheaper, and wouldn't want it convertible to an iPod format, they'd want you to buy it twice, and Apple can't do anything about that, unless they want to start making their own films. So studios need to shoulder a lot of the blame for movie purchases not being more popular.
For rentals... I'd again want full DVD or HD quality for watching on my TV, with some way to convert to an iPod format.
As it is now, the iTunes movies are best purchased when you're in a rush, and only want to watch something on your iPod, but don't have the time to buy and convert a DVD. I think that's all Apple is aiming for, because movie studio restrictions prohibit them from really delivering a product that could threaten physical media sales.
(Also, most people in the USA don't have broadband, and that will have to change for online downloads to make serious inroads.)
I think there's only so much Apple can do as far as movie purchases, though, a lot of the problem is with the studios. If I buy a movie I want to purchase something that I can watch at the very highest quality on my TV when I feel like it, with the option to buy DVD or HD formats (720x480 and 10 Mbps with surround sound, or 720p/1080p with full bitrate and surround sound), yet also be able to convert to an iPod size/bitrate if I want a portable version. And I'd want it cheaper than a DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray version if it didn't include the "bonus" features, and also because I wasn't paying for media and shipping costs.
The movie studios wouldn't want it to be cheaper, and wouldn't want it convertible to an iPod format, they'd want you to buy it twice, and Apple can't do anything about that, unless they want to start making their own films. So studios need to shoulder a lot of the blame for movie purchases not being more popular.
For rentals... I'd again want full DVD or HD quality for watching on my TV, with some way to convert to an iPod format.
As it is now, the iTunes movies are best purchased when you're in a rush, and only want to watch something on your iPod, but don't have the time to buy and convert a DVD. I think that's all Apple is aiming for, because movie studio restrictions prohibit them from really delivering a product that could threaten physical media sales.
(Also, most people in the USA don't have broadband, and that will have to change for online downloads to make serious inroads.)
This one is easy...no HD content for iTunes in 2008 = AppleTV dead. Add HD content (TV & Movies) and for movies, at least make them rentable and you might increase the base. If no HD and no movie rentals are coming, they might as well end of life the product in January.
Good, I hope video distribution fails. Hate the idea of compressed video. I can tolerate the Music Store eventhough I've hardly used it, but I like having a physical copy of the films I buy without the need to download and back them up myself. Plus they haven't solved the problem of including bonus features yet. The behind the scenes stuff is half the reason I buy DVDs anyway. On top of that I've stopped buying standard def and have strictly moved to HD.
DivX Elephant in the room
iTunes/ iPod's success was founded primarily on a base of fair-use ripped CDs and illegal downloads, that consumers then built upon from the itunes store. The inclusion of mp3 compatibility was central to the ipod's success. Apple probably got away with pandering to pirates because at the time Apple would not have been considered a significant threat by the studios. By the time Apple came to dabble in video, Apple had emerged as the single biggest (legal) threat to incumbent media distribution companies. In having to establish a new video business, it looks like apple complied with industry concerns.
The world of online video, is, lets face it, primarily DivX torrent downloads. While the Apple catalogue remains limited (or non-existent outside the US), it is understandable that people would want to expand their choice. Neither DivX or a digital TV compatible format is supported onTV. Outside the US, TV can only show movies and shows re-coded by the end-user; really too much bother.
I'm not endorsing illegal content, but it seems to me that realism needs to prevail here. iTunes music store has proved that many individuals value honesty and supporting artists over free content. That said, most of the world's ipods are probably weighed down with pirated music. This in turn has probably kept The Studios real; demanding rich content at a very fair price. The iTunes video service has not been kept real; limited content for a relatively high price-premium. If iTunes offered most of the world's TV and movie releases for a fair price, many ordinary people wouldn't even think about bit torrent. But without that "bottom-up" pressure from pirates, I can't see anything changing.TV will remain an elegant solution for United States citizens who enjoy the simplicity of iTunes and can tolerate a relatively limited catalogue.
iTunes/ iPod's success was founded primarily on a base of fair-use ripped CDs and illegal downloads, that consumers then built upon from the itunes store. The inclusion of mp3 compatibility was central to the ipod's success. Apple probably got away with pandering to pirates because at the time Apple would not have been considered a significant threat by the studios. By the time Apple came to dabble in video, Apple had emerged as the single biggest (legal) threat to incumbent media distribution companies. In having to establish a new video business, it looks like apple complied with industry concerns.
The world of online video, is, lets face it, primarily DivX torrent downloads. While the Apple catalogue remains limited (or non-existent outside the US), it is understandable that people would want to expand their choice. Neither DivX or a digital TV compatible format is supported on
TV. Outside the US, TV can only show movies and shows re-coded by the end-user; really too much bother.I'm not endorsing illegal content, but it seems to me that realism needs to prevail here. iTunes music store has proved that many individuals value honesty and supporting artists over free content. That said, most of the world's ipods are probably weighed down with pirated music. This in turn has probably kept The Studios real; demanding rich content at a very fair price. The iTunes video service has not been kept real; limited content for a relatively high price-premium. If iTunes offered most of the world's TV and movie releases for a fair price, many ordinary people wouldn't even think about bit torrent. But without that "bottom-up" pressure from pirates, I can't see anything changing.
TV will remain an elegant solution for United States citizens who enjoy the simplicity of iTunes and can tolerate a relatively limited catalogue.
I don't know how it works in the USA, but you can't do this at all around here in Canada (except maybe half a dozen channels in the major cities).
No cable/satellite = one or two channels at best, and certainly not ABC/NBC/Fox/etc.
As for the iTunes prices, I'd pay 0.50$ for a TV show rental and 0.99$ to buy it. For movies, let's say 4.00$ for a movie rental and 8.00$ to buy it. The resolution could be 640x480 because it would play on iPods, wouldn't look that bad on a TV and is less than a DVD to explain the price difference to the studios. As long as the bitrate is high enough and a good encoder is used, of course.
No wonder why the videos aren't selling like the music is selling. IT COS'T MORE MONEY!!! If I were to buy every video I liked off iTunes, I'd be bankrupt within a week. Plus, some people don't like buying movies cause you only watch it once or twice then you never watch it again. So, it's kind of a waste of money to some people. That's one of the reasons why I don't like buying videos.
Prof.
Prof.
Advertising model?
You've got to be kidding me. Aren't we advertised to enough, already? Yeesh.
The way I see it...
If I were to "PAY" a total of $1.99 per TV Show download, then I do "NOT" want advertisements in the middle of my viewing experience. If I were to "Rent" TV shows, then I should be free of advertisements as well. Now, if I were to use a Subscription based model, then I would expect that they would want to put in Advertisements, but I would hope that Apple would extend a feature set that would allow to skip advertisements. Yet, if the content were FREE, meaning I do not pay for the Download nor do I have to pay rental or subscription fee, then I would expect see advertisements. But, this doesn't mean that I will use other services over iTunes.
You've got to be kidding me. Aren't we advertised to enough, already? Yeesh.
The way I see it...
If I were to "PAY" a total of $1.99 per TV Show download, then I do "NOT" want advertisements in the middle of my viewing experience. If I were to "Rent" TV shows, then I should be free of advertisements as well. Now, if I were to use a Subscription based model, then I would expect that they would want to put in Advertisements, but I would hope that Apple would extend a feature set that would allow to skip advertisements. Yet, if the content were FREE, meaning I do not pay for the Download nor do I have to pay rental or subscription fee, then I would expect see advertisements. But, this doesn't mean that I will use other services over iTunes.
P said:
Well, it actually depends on the movie. There are movies I like to own. But, where the article does make sense is by asking for a "Rental" service.
I am still leery of Subscription service model, since I actually like to own what I want to own. Based on how other Subscription based services [Napster, Rhapsody, etc] I would not like to have to pay a monthly fee, on top of paying to own certain content I want to own. Not that music has anything to do with discussing video downloads, but based on the "models" being discussed, it can easily apply to both music and video downloads.
I won't mind renting a video, then purchasing the few that I would like to own, but I don't like renting music.
Actually, the difference is bigger than it looks. A 16:9 DVD is encoded at 720x480 (345600) pixels and upscaled to 853x480 (Anamorphic). A 640 pixel-wide 16:9 iTunes movie is 640x360 (230400) pixels; this is a 33% reduction in total pixel count over DVD content, which is certainly nothing to overlook. Plus, since the iPods need the AVC Main profile, some of the really good compression tricks of h.264 can't be used because of the lack of processor power.
Well for a start people can't rip their current DVDs as they can with their music, which means they have to re-buy their current collection to get it on iTunes before they think about buying any new movies.
Not ideal.
Not ideal.
Ever since the details were announced about the AppleTV, it's a product that's just never interested me. I mean, apart from my complete and utter lack of interest in television programming, I remember thinking "Ok, but where's the functionality for recording off of TV/satellite? How come this thing isn't a DVR?"
I've never seen a point in people spending $300 for a box that basically just lets them stream purchased TV off of their computer onto a TV set. Oh well...
I've never seen a point in people spending $300 for a box that basically just lets them stream purchased TV off of their computer onto a TV set. Oh well...
I've loaded my entire DVD collection into iTunes and now I don't have to worry about my kids ruining another DVD. This is a great product for parents.
AGREED!!!
And Apple please don't make any movie service subscription base. I don't want to pay a monthly subscription fee because I do not rent, purchase or see that many movies outside of what's on cable tv as it is now! To pay each month for the privilege of possibly renting a movie, HD or otherwise, to play on AppleTV or iPod or iPhone or iMac etc. would be a real turn off, for me anyway.
If you want to sell a digital "membership card" for a one time small fee, I can live with that, but not a "X" amount / a month fee, please!
Forrester Research, Inc has released a new research study that is critical of Apple's iTunes video attempts, and states there is room for competition in the industry.
Forrester conducted an online survey of 5,379 US and Canadian individuals aged 18 to 88. Forrester believes that only 4% of the online population buys iTunes videos, in contrast to a total of 19% iTunes store consumer population. Forrester acknowledges that while those 4% are satisfied with their service, the iTunes video store will remain a curiosity rather than a game-changer.
One of the pitfalls mentioned is that there are currently easier ways to get [free] TV shows, including consumer DVR's and services like NBC Direct. Furthermore, Forrester calls out Apple's lack of a catalogue of hit movies. One result of Apple's video misfortunes is that although awareness of the AppleTV is at 45%, the purchase intent is only at 3%.
In an open letter to Apple, Forrester suggests it's time to change their video game plan, including winning NBC back (background), adding a movie rental model (rumored), funneling more web content into iTunes, and supporting an advertising model for TV shows.
Article Link
This is not surprising at all. With iTunes Apple brought in a completely new way of doing things that was better for the consumer. Instead of 12 -18 songs, you could now carry thousands of songs in a smaller package and buy them from your computer without ever having to go to the store.
Videos and movies are completely different. Instead of ushering in a new age for movies, Apple is instead holding that age back showing only arrogance and stubbornness. He's the deal apple gives you: you have to pay almost as much for an iTunes movie as you do for a DVD. The iTunes movie is of lower quality and doesn't have the extras that DVDs do. In order to watch the movie on your TV you have to spend at least $300 on an external Apple TV. You can't import or export movie files like you can music files.
In addition, unlike the music files, movie files are still very large. About 20-25% as big as DVD video. ACC music files are a little over 10% the size of of the song on the CD. A regular movie is about a gig in size limiting how many movies your computer, iPod, or AppleTV can carry. This could be avoided with a rental service, but Apple doesn't want to move a way from its music model. Speaking of the store, it really only carries Disney movies. One last hurdle is that you can't record off TV. Sorry, but many of us don't want to buy highlights of the game a week after the fact.
The movie model is failing because it lacks most of the advantages of both the music side of iTunes and traditional video media. It has future potential, but physical hurdles and Apple unwillingness to adapt are major roadblocks.
not a big surprise to me... seems that whatever it is I want to watch I can't find on iTunes, and what I can is low quality, SD, 4X3, and unusable in anything but an iPod or appleTV.
For tv shows, typically I watch them on the network site, for shows that aren't on network sites, I download illegally. It's not an issue of the money for me - I'd gladly pay the dollar or two, if the quality was there, and the freedom to burn it to a DVD.
For tv shows, typically I watch them on the network site, for shows that aren't on network sites, I download illegally. It's not an issue of the money for me - I'd gladly pay the dollar or two, if the quality was there, and the freedom to burn it to a DVD.
Apple TV has been dead in the water ever since it was introduced. It looks cool but needs a massive overhaul to be a real player.
AppleTV doesnt output HD and there is no surround sound
To make matters worse even if it did, with FIOS it would take you quite a while to download HD quality flicks from the itms.
With the introduction of BR and HDDVD no one even thinks about buying a full length feature that you cant really use freely besides on your pc.
Why pay for television shows when all their respective sites will be showing their own content there for free? No NBC content whatsoever will hurt them as well. No desirable content and limited capabilities make this venture a bust
AppleTV doesnt output HD and there is no surround sound
To make matters worse even if it did, with FIOS it would take you quite a while to download HD quality flicks from the itms.
With the introduction of BR and HDDVD no one even thinks about buying a full length feature that you cant really use freely besides on your pc.
Why pay for television shows when all their respective sites will be showing their own content there for free? No NBC content whatsoever will hurt them as well. No desirable content and limited capabilities make this venture a bust
A typical 'analysis' based on the premise, invented by the writer, that 'iPods are probably weighted down with pirated music;.
Sorry, no.
My analysis shows that ipods are full of legal music, with an average of 3 'pirated' songs per iPod.
(Yes just like you and Forrester, I made it up)
I might also remind the writer that only the USA has an issue with what you call 'piracy'.
In Canada, for example, it is not illegal to share songs.
This is the same in many countries.
The RIAA may scream piracy, but thats NOT the rest of the world.
Eventually, the idiots at NBC will realise that they can run their buggy-whip business and still get cash from selling shows on iTunes. Why they think its an either/or, I cant imagine.
Maybe one day, some of the fools on this forum will see that the big reason for high-priced music and films is because all the people involved feel they are entitled to salaries that are equal to the entire LIFETIME earnings of one working man or woman - for just making ONE film or record.
What do you call that?
I call it......PIRACY.