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

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

griz said:
Give us a season for $4.99 for 30 min shows and $9.99 for hour long shows.
That I would agree with. It needs to be competitive with basic cable. Right now I get the networks for $18/mo. So If I watch 2 different shows for a season, the model above is still more expensive. But the flexibility might be worth it, especially if they offer a lot of non network shows. Besides, my monthly internet bill would go up by $10 if I drop the TV part.
When will the cable TV companies realize, they are bit vendors.
Click to expand...

I could see them wanting to keep prices a little bit on the high side so that it doesn't cut into their cable/satellite viewers.

I feel 99-cents per show is a bit high, too, but I would still go for it if I only had one or two shows that I regularly watch (e.g. it's been House and 24 for the past few years - I don't really watch anything else). Anyone who watches significantly more, would be better off with a cable subscription. It would take about 6 regular weekly shows ($6/week = $24/month) to even out with the cost of a basic cable account.
 
newagemac said:
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.

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

You are absolutely correct, but this is a huge YMMV based on where you live. It's great that you get 40 channels, but where I live (in Ottawa, Canada), I only get about 10, and only 3 of those are HD, the rest are fuzzy analog, and most of them are French stations!

Other cities in Canada may have results closer to yours -- Toronto, Montreal, etc. but I'm a little disappointed that I don't get much OTA and still have to rely on iTunes and the like.

Granted, we haven't yet done the analog-switch-off that you guys did -- I believe ours is scheduled for next year. Though it remains to be seen whether "all stations must transmit digitally" means that the local stations will upgrade/switch to digital broadcasting equipment -- or simply stop broadcasting at all.
 
WiiDSmoker said:
$0.99 is still way to expensive
Click to expand...

This is what they mean by devaluing of content. Jobs has us trained to dislike anything over $1. I think my favorite shows are worth more than that - especially since many aren't mainstream.

But I will admit I don't want to pay over 99 cents, either. ;)
 
notjustjay said:
You are absolutely correct, but this is a huge YMMV based on where you live. It's great that you get 40 channels, but where I live (in Ottawa, Canada), I only get about 10, and only 3 of those are HD, the rest are fuzzy analog, and most of them are French stations!
Click to expand...

If only I was that lucky. I get zero channels where I live. It's either cable, satellite, iTunes or other sources.

All three options are too expensive, so I borrow DVDs from family, friends and neighbors.
 
ngenerator said:
I'd pay a dollar an episode to rent Dexter and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but not the Office or any of those types of shows. Do they not realize that the consumer will not own the title for $1, they're just renting it for 24 hours worth of viewing? How can they possibly be as split as they are? They'll still get home video revenue when the seasons inevitably come to dvd in 7 months...
Click to expand...
Broadcast commercials are a absolutely HUGE portion of revenue for television shows. By offering the show within 24 hours to download on iTunes, it seems they are afraid that people will stop watching the broadcast versions. Which means ratings go down, advertising dollars go down, etc.
 
Astro7x said:
Broadcast commercials are a absolutely HUGE portion of revenue for television shows. By offering the show within 24 hours to download on iTunes, it seems they are afraid that people will stop watching the broadcast versions. Which means ratings go down, advertising dollars go down, etc.
Click to expand...

They should give away the TV shows for free on iTunes, but with ads. Without any countries restrictions.
 
Astro7x said:
Broadcast commercials are a absolutely HUGE portion of revenue for television shows. By offering the show within 24 hours to download on iTunes, it seems they are afraid that people will stop watching the broadcast versions. Which means ratings go down, advertising dollars go down, etc.
Click to expand...

...which might be addressed by the integration of iAd. I don't know, perhaps 0.99 w/o commercials, and free with iAd integration.
 
The key to success is with live sports. Sports are the number one reason I am tied to cable. Options to watch tv shows are everywhere for varies prices.

If apple has a chance in this game then they have a deal for a live streaming subscription with ESPN (disny owned). This would then give Apple a strong chance to compete and possibly change the tv industry. The live ESPN app would also be a showcase for the power of iad.
 
newagemac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Until Hulu+ carries HBO, FX and AMC episodes, as well as all the sporting events I watch it's absolutely useless. I'll gladly pay my premium prices to watch what I want, when I want.
 
Yvan256 said:
They should give away the TV shows for free on iTunes, but with ads. Without any countries restrictions.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming...


I'm amazed that every time this 99 cent rental things comes up people complain that it costs too much money just because it's on the internet. People pay $80 for a cable subscription, but Hulu Plus for $10 w/ ads is TOO MUCH!
 
newagemac said:
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.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice if I could get MSG, MSG+ and YES via OTA, but I can't so satellite is a must have for me. Not to mention I need my fix of FSC and FSC+, being a huge soccer fan I'm limited to where I can watch games.

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

You are in the minority, the majority are lucky to get 4-5 OTA channels.

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.
Click to expand...

ESPN3 is a no-go for me because I have TWC as my internet provider and they don't have a deal with ESPN. Where I live it's either TWC or dialup.

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.
Click to expand...

That will take YEARS to accomplish, very impractical for most viewers.


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.
Click to expand...

This sounds like the same tired argument as to why people should drop cable/satellite. The fact is that they offer far more than those services you have listed. Cable and satellite are here to stay for a while, until a service can be launched that offers their offerings via a-la-carte. That service has to include sports, because it's one of the biggest motivators for people when choosing their content provider.
 
Astro7x said:
Keep dreaming...

I'm amazed that every time this 99 cent rental things comes up people complain that it costs too much money just because it's on the internet. People pay $80 for a cable subscription, but Hulu Plus for $10 w/ ads is TOO MUCH!
Click to expand...

And I'm amazed that some people pay nearly 100$ every month for television.

FYI, I currently pay zero because I don't have cable or satellite. No OTA channels for me either. And since I'm not in the USA, no access to Hulu or the TV shows via the networks websites.

The fact that networks cancel good shows like Better Off Ted and keep airing bad shows is another reason. At least there was no storyline with that show, so no closure is needed.

But I've watched all Heroes episodes. And then it got cancelled. There's no ending. What's the point of watching TV shows if we know in advance that good shows get canned and bad shows are kept on the airs?

Idiocracy really is a documentary about the future, at least as far as TV shows are concerned.
 
logandzwon said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Average American Household", so a household of 4 people, with each person watching 1-2 hours of TV independent of each other, that's easily believable.
 
Something is changing in the US iTunes Store. The TV Show pages are changing there layout right now.

Everything looks more spaced. If you have never looked at it before you would be hard pressed to notice the difference. But they are doing something in the background today.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2010-08-31 at 11.07.52 AM.png
    Screen shot 2010-08-31 at 11.07.52 AM.png
    392.5 KB · Views: 91
Let's just say...

Rupert Murdoch was not in the picture
Steve Jobs own the TV shows
and he charged .99 cents

All you fanboys would be like "oh what a deal!"
"OMG! Genius!"
"Of course I'd pay that!"
 
Yvan256 said:
And I'm amazed that some people pay nearly 100$ every month for television.

FYI, I currently pay zero because I don't have cable or satellite. No OTA channels for me either. And since I'm not in the USA, no access to Hulu or the TV shows via the networks websites.

The fact that networks cancel good shows like Better Off Ted and keep airing bad shows is another reason. At least there was no storyline with that show, so no closure is needed.

But I've watched all Heroes episodes. And then it got cancelled. There's no ending. What's the point of watching TV shows if we know in advance that good shows get canned and bad shows are kept on the airs?

Idiocracy really is a documentary about the future, at least as far as TV shows are concerned.
Click to expand...


I would too, but when I asked the SO, the response was "What about Project Runway". This was me :confused:

Guess what, we still have cable.
 
... worry that offering 99-cent episode rentals will cut into lucrative DVD sales and pull viewers away from watching network TV ...

It's going to happen regardless. Be it Hulu, Netflix, Boxee, Plex ... not to mention the illegitimate sources to download any TV show without commercials, the current format of network and cable delivery will have to evolve.

I for one would be happy to pay .99 for an episode that I couldn't find on Hulu or Netflix or whatever. Especially when I am saving $80-$100 a month by dropping cable.

I've dropped the landline and now feel like there are enough viable options out there to drop cable, and based on the curiosity I receive from friends, I doubt that I am that far ahead of the curve.
 
Its amazing how disconnected with reality rich people are. 99 cents for a tv show is a shockingly bad deal. There is simply nothing competitive about this with subscription services and they are braindead if they expect people to pay a dollar for every tv show they watch. Pull users away from network TV? So they are envisioning viewers paying around $100 a month in TV show rentals? Are they really that damn stupid? This whole thing is a joke.
 
most TV shows are so stupid anyway... why would i pay 4 bucks to keep an episode
 
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