Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. to Be Swing Vote for 99-Cent iTunes TV Show Rentals?

[jayducharme]

The companies are also worried about an overall devaluation of their content due to dropping prices

What a joke! The other day, 3/4 of the front page of my local newspaper was taken up with a pointless article about Silly Bandz. That was the lead article! Meanwhile, "news" was buried inside, occupying a paragraph or two.

News corporations don't have to worry about devaluing their content. Currently, their content has no worth. That's why people aren't buying it. It's gotten to a point where the only news sources I trust are The Onion and Jon Stewart. That's pretty sad.

 

[JAT]

$0.99 is still way to expensive

Especially if its streamed.

Yes.

No, cable/satellite tv is the biggest ripoff in the industry. Hulu Plus is a far better value in comparison although I prefer a combination of Netflix and free OTA.

It's amazing that people still spend $70 to $100 (or more) every month on cable (about $1000 a year) loaded down with a sickening amount of ads when there are so many other entertainment options out there nowadays that present a better value. Habit I guess... and an expensive one at that.

Not if you have a DVR. I don't watch ads unless I choose to. But I still want to drop the sat bill.

 

[leenoble]

I have no intention of ever paying Sky for their TV plans as I object to propping up stations that are redundant to me as I'd be forced to buy a package of channels just to get a few shows I want to keep up with.

I ended up paying for much of the last series of Lost on iTunes for the sake of convenience but it galls me when you look at the figures and see what Sky paid for the last 2 seasons of Lost. Each Sky subscriber effectively paid £1 PER SEASON for Lost. I just want to rent these shows a reasonable price. 99p per episode isn't too far from being reasonable provided I can watch immediately after broadcast. Although that really should be a purchase price.

 

[ChrisGonzales90]

just a pavlovian reaction to anything Murdoch/FOX?

That.

I'm thinking of getting hulu plus. I already like Hulu and iTunes is a hog. People who dislike hulu are eirther too much in lovew with their cable or are inn too much love with iTunes.

 

[penx]

I can buy the Seinfeld complete collection on DVD in the UK for £72.

At 180 episodes that's 40 pence per episode ($0.61).

That's to buy a physical copy, with loads of extras, that you can lend to friends etc.

And I know this is an old show but I've picked up a lot of more recent shows for similar prices.

There's no way I'd pay $.0.99 for a rental (sticking to bit torrent, dvd purchases, borrowing off friends), perhaps around $0.25 - $0.50 would convince me for pure convenience.

 

[Yvan256]

Once you rent and watch a show, it will disappear, so how does this erode dvd sales? When you pay for cable every month, you are basically "renting" the entire channel line up for that month. People still go out and buy DVDs of particular series.

You are trying to use logic to understand how network executives think. That will not work.

I also think that 99 cents to rent a single episode of a TV show is way too expensive.

I agree with griz. Give us a season for $4.99 for 30* minutes shows and $9.99 for 60** minutes shows.

* actual length is 22 minutes
* actual length is 44 minutes

Or if they want to put ads in the TV shows and let us watch for free, go ahead. Apple already has a functioning rental system for iTunes, use that. No need to waste time on making a special program that I won't install or a Flash client that won't work everywhere and that will require a quad-core CPU just to watch a video.

 

[logandzwon]

Can't wait!!
I pay $80 a month for the U-200 + HD. The next lowest tier doesn't get comedy central nor cartoon network which are the networks we watch 70% of the time.

A standard TV season is 20 to 26 shows per wikipedia.
So, $20 - $26 to watch, at your convenance, a season of TV.

My self AND my kids, (they are between 4 and 6 and ONLY watch TV when I'm present to watch with them,) watch about 6-10 programs a year total.

U200 (80x12= $960)
this (26x10=$260)

If your complaining it's too expensive get a job and/or a life.

 

[Full of Win]

I would pay cash money to see Steve Jobs warmly greet him as he is asked to come up and give some remarks. This place would MELT DOWN.

 

[Žalgiris]

A standard TV season is 20 to 26 shows per wikipedia.
So, $20 - $26 to watch, at your convenance, a season of TV.

TV Shows are usually 12/13, 20, 22 or 24 episodes per season.

U200 (80x12= $960)
this (26x10=$260)

If your complaining it's too expensive get a job and/or a life.

Of course it's too expensive. Even if you use money instead of toilet paper doesn't mean you can through money away for nothing.

 

[e-coli]

Oh yay. People might be able to get Jim Jones...I mean Glenn Beck...on PPV now.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Sounds like a "a la carte" cable line up to me.
Should be good if the other studios get in line.

Lets see, the average cable bill is ~$75/month.
That is 75 hours of TV on iTV.
Now, between OTA and iTV do you really think that you will be spending $75/month?

Nope.

 

[velocityg4]

No, cable/satellite tv is the biggest ripoff in the industry. Hulu Plus is a far better value in comparison although I prefer a combination of Netflix and free OTA.

It's amazing that people still spend $70 to $100 or more every month when their are so many other entertainment options out there that present a better value. Habit I guess.

But the average american household watches nearly 200 hours of TV per month. That cable plan becomes much cheaper than $0.99 per episode. Plus you can just flip the channel if a show is not interesting rather than being stuck with the rental price.

Sure with hulu + you have some options but from what I have seen of hulu they offer very little of what I watch and what is available is in 480p compared to 1080i from cable. Netflix may be alright but I doubt they will have many of the shows my family watches or I would have to wait until they are released on DVD/Blu Ray. Usage caps on internet preclude streaming every show as well and I doubt my connection could handle three or four streams simultaneously. Over the air is useless as the only networks watched in my house are not over the air.

The biggest problems with online TV shows is it precludes casual viewing. Each time a show ends one needs to spend 10-15 minutes scanning through a giant database full of garbage rather than seeing what is next on a small group of channels you commonly watch, plus you can end up missing a lot of good movies. When watching a show you have to put up with stalls in your connection freezing the show or slowdowns severely degrading the video quality.

My cable plan is about $115 a month and I get HBO, Showtime, Encore, MGM, AMC, TCM, numerous on demand TV shows and movies for free, and many HD cable channels. For TV shows we only view the various Discovery networks, BBC (Star Trek TNG reruns) and A&E networks documentaries. As for movies the bulk watched are from the 40's to 70's.

Now cable is not perfect either as we have to pay for lots of networks we don't watch. If they changed the system were you pay a base fee for cable access then $0.70 per channel plus current premium channel packages. I say $0.70 per channel since I think they currently pay the channel owners $0.35 per signed on user. Then had the guide only display channels you pay for the system would be perfect and fairly priced. As it stands I find cable is the best offering currently.

 

[mambodancer]

Obviously they still don't get it. I don't buy DVDS any more and I've stopped watching TV and cable in favor of shows that I can stream or download on my schedule.

 

[-=XX=-Nephilim]

OMFG that wrinkly face >_<

I wouldn't be consuming any of his media if he was to PAY ME!

Hezuz...

 

[cmfilms]

pull viewers away from watching network TV, thereby eroding a $20-billion advertising market, these people said.

There you go, Fox! Let's concentrate on trying to get people in front on their televisions instead of trying to embrace new media. Good luck with that! (Idiots.)

 

[huntercr]

They already sell the shows in HD for about 90% of the networks.

I meant at the $.99 price

 

[logandzwon]

I can buy the Seinfeld complete collection on DVD in the UK for £72.

At 180 episodes that's 40 pence per episode ($0.61).

That's to buy a physical copy, with loads of extras, that you can lend to friends etc.

And I know this is an old show but I've picked up a lot of more recent shows for similar prices.

There's no way I'd pay $.0.99 for a rental (sticking to bit torrent, dvd purchases, borrowing off friends), perhaps around $0.25 - $0.50 would convince me for pure convenience.

Your buying the whole series at once though. You can not really compare that this. I can goto the used DVD store and get DVDs for $3.99 US. If I buy 3 I get one free! That doesn't mean a digital download rental of the newest blockbuster had any reason to compete with that price point!

Anyway, iTunes already does digital download packages of older series. They are not always discounted though. IE, Curb your Enthusiasm is $19.90 a season. I think that works out to about 90 pounds for 7 seasons.

 

[mattwolfmatt]

I would pay cash money to see Steve Jobs warmly greet him as he is asked to come up and give some remarks. This place would MELT DOWN.

I agree. Anytime there's a Fox or WalMart article, MacRumors goes crazy.

 

[Cynicalone]

I meant at the $.99 price

Good point.

I have to say that it wouldn't surprise me in the least for Apple to rent it for .99 for SD and 1.99 for HD.

Basically you only save a dollar off the current purchase price.

I still don't like it, and hate to see them change the system.

Right now I don't mind buying shows, but renting them would be a rip off. If I wanted to watch it and not own it I would just go to the network site and watch it.

 

[logandzwon]

But the average american household watches nearly 200 hours of TV per month.

That is 7 hours a day. We don't even watch that much TV, if you included movies, on a weekend, while were all sick and in bed most the day.

 

[Yvan256]

Just to keep things in perspective, I'm sure Apple is looking into doing this in all countries where the iTunes Store operates. Don't forget that other countries don't have access to Hulu or the network websites.

Our options are much more limited, even in Canada. I can't count the number of times I have seen the "You cannot view this content from your location" and "This content is for USA residents only" messages.

 

[iSee]

Those media companies currently holding out against Apple's plan cite a number of factors, including fears of sabotaging their own lucrative DVD sales and losing customers for traditional cable companies that pay significant fees for the right to carry their content, in their reluctance to sign on. The companies are also worried about an overall devaluation of their content due to dropping prices, causing a ripple effect for revenue streams such as syndication.

This isn't logical:
1. You can't lose DVD sales to RENTALS. Duh!
2. Cable companies are middle-men the size of an 800-lbs Gorilla. If you can't make more money cutting them out, you are brain-dead. I don't know the average amount a network makes when a show is aired via cable -- but they do and they will make money if it is less than .99 cents (I'm guessing it is significantly less).
3. The content devaluation could be an issue, but again you've got to compare the revenue you get from airing an episode through syndication vs. renting it on iTunes. If you're cutting out a middle man you stand to make more money.

I don't really believe these are real objections. Seem like nenotisting tactics -- lame ones at that.

 

[Dooger]

I'd pay a dollar an episode to rent Dexter and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Great call dude. I'd never heard of the latter show, now i've 70 episodes to get through! Haven't been this happy with TV since the day I discovered The Wire

 

[danielwsmithee]

I just don't watch enough TV to make a hefty cable bill or even hulu plus worth while. However 99 cent episodes may work well for someone like me that maybe watches 1-2 TV episodes per week.

The bigger desire I want filled is sports content without a hefty cable or satellite TV subscription. I would be all over 99 cent reruns of sporting events if they became available much quicker then the current 24 hour period.

 

[newagemac]

I don't see myself dropping cable unless live, HD streams of local sports are available. I don't think my situation is unique.

They ARE available. It's called hooking up an antennae and getting the OTA broadcast free. You can get ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, and other channels all in digital glorious HD. And in better quality HD than your satellite or cable company can provide because it's straight from the source. And it's all FREE.

You just have to watch the ads just like you do with satellite and cable. You can buy a Tivo DVR and skip through the ads but I don't mind as much when I don't pay for the service like with cable where you actually PAY to watch a large amount of ads per show.

I actually get 40 channels where I live with a cheap $30 antennae from Best Buy with about 15-20 of them worth watching.

Of course you won't be able to watch as much live sports as if you had cable but the major networks do carry live sports. And then there are other online options like ESPN3. After cutting cable, I've found more interesting things to do in my free time and enjoy life more. For example, I play my own sports again now. And guess what? It's far more fun and entertaining (and healthier) than watching someone else do it all day.

Forget these media companies. Their content isn't worth nearly as much as they think. And if they don't want to provide it how the customer wants it, then start showing them where it hurts, their pocketbooks. They won't start listening until they start losing cable/satellite viewers (subscriptions) in large numbers and it starts hitting them in the wallet. Only money talks to large media corporations.

Teach them a lesson that if they don't adapt then they will forever lose the attention gap they used to command. Once you lose the attention, it's hard to get it back. People move onto other things and never look back even if you eventually improve your product. Just ask baseball. ;-)

As long as you continue to pay for cable and satellite the longer the situation will stay the same. You only have yourself to blame. Any step in the right direction is a good thing. Support things like Hulu Plus, Netflix, iTunes, ESPN3, Revision3, and anything else that breaks the old outdated way of doing things.

And for the record, this post isn't pointed specifically at the person I quoted but to the average consumer. It's just that the quoted text is the same sentiment I hear all the time when people complain about the current situation.