For you then it doesn't make sense. But for those who don't want a Cable TV/DISH/DirecTV package or who want to rent to watch past episodes or missed recording episodes or even watch old series or seasons it makes perfect sense.
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.
Warner Bros. Opted Out of iTunes TV Show Rentals Over Pricing, Impact on Full-Season Sales
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For you then it doesn't make sense. But for those who don't want a Cable TV/DISH/DirecTV package or who want to rent to watch past episodes or missed recording episodes or even watch old series or seasons it makes perfect sense.
Sure, for people who don't watch much tv, that makes sense but
Renting just 2 tv shows a night would equal the cost of cable and again you only get two networks to select from. Add in more shows per night and you could easily surpass the cost of cable.
My question is what demographic is the apple-tv aimed at? Is it the person who doesn't watch much tv or someone who watches it a lot.
And, maybe I will buy after I rent a show because I become a fan of the show. I definitely will not buy a show I haven't previewed for free elsewhere. Don't you get it?
You should clarify the question. Do you mean, is the AppleTV for people that don't watch Television (as in sequential programming from analog or cable sources) or for people that want to watch streamed TV shows and Movies on their own time? For my family, it is the latter. We have the former but we never, ever watch sequential programming on cable TV. In fact, for all intents and purposes, we love iTunes and Netflix because it puts us in charge of the shows we want to watch, when we want to watch them, on the devices we want to watch them on, and, perhaps very importantly, without commercial interruption. It is so much more pleasurable watching a show without the constant 5 minute (or longer) interruption every 15 minutes you get from network television. In fact, whenever we have watched network TV, we tend to turn it off after the first commercial because we find the interruption so distasteful. But that's just us.
For me to get into this, the standard definition TV shows would have to be sold for 99 cents and rented for 25 cents.
Let's say I want to buy season 3 of Heroes on DVD. Amazon.ca can sell it to me for 47$CAD. There is 25 episodes in season 3, which means about 1.88$ per episode. And I own it on physical disc. But the studios want me to otherwise pay 65$ for the HD version (only if I buy the whole season, otherwise it's 2.99$ per episode) and on top of that I have to pay for the storage space too?
If the networks thinks that 99 cents rentals will cut into sales of 2.99$ shows, they're over-evaluating their importance.
Heroes wasn't a sitcom where there's no real beginning or ending. It was a story. NBC simply cancelled the show, so we don't even get an ending. Nobody would buy a book that's missing the last 50 pages but that's exactly what NBC did with Heroes.
Let's say I want to buy season 3 of Heroes on DVD. Amazon.ca can sell it to me for 47$CAD. There is 25 episodes in season 3, which means about 1.88$ per episode. And I own it on physical disc. But the studios want me to otherwise pay 65$ for the HD version (only if I buy the whole season, otherwise it's 2.99$ per episode) and on top of that I have to pay for the storage space too?
If the networks thinks that 99 cents rentals will cut into sales of 2.99$ shows, they're over-evaluating their importance.
Heroes wasn't a sitcom where there's no real beginning or ending. It was a story. NBC simply cancelled the show, so we don't even get an ending. Nobody would buy a book that's missing the last 50 pages but that's exactly what NBC did with Heroes.
Look What Happens Down the Road...
Apple is moving so fast on so many fronts that the industry can't keep up.... When rentals are a smash hit (they will be), and Warner wants aboard, Apple should tell them to pound salt..... however, they will run to the anti-trust lobby and raise hell to get into the iTunes rental package.....
There is no justice in the system..... maybe the anti-trusters should be examining the content holders and busting up their monopoly over access to content.... that would get progress in the digital age in fast forward.
Apple is moving so fast on so many fronts that the industry can't keep up.... When rentals are a smash hit (they will be), and Warner wants aboard, Apple should tell them to pound salt..... however, they will run to the anti-trust lobby and raise hell to get into the iTunes rental package.....
There is no justice in the system..... maybe the anti-trusters should be examining the content holders and busting up their monopoly over access to content.... that would get progress in the digital age in fast forward.
No way I am paying $60.00 to $80.00 for a season of TV. Technically I can get the big four TV stations for free over the air and in HD. With some hardware on my end even recorded. I don't care how you look at it.
At $.99 an episode that puts it in the $24.00 range, I would pay that. Comparing to Movies the amount of watchable footage is quite a bit more but, I believe they are overpriced as well. My feeling is this: Music and Motion Picture companies are too fat on themselves and we have paid the high price too long this proves it to me. It's entertainment, a luxury, so it's always high priced. I do commend apple for the attempt at bringing it to us a lower prices, even if they will be fatter because of it. TV and Movie companies, you want to sell more? Make it cheaper and easier to get a hold of.
At $.99 an episode that puts it in the $24.00 range, I would pay that. Comparing to Movies the amount of watchable footage is quite a bit more but, I believe they are overpriced as well. My feeling is this: Music and Motion Picture companies are too fat on themselves and we have paid the high price too long this proves it to me. It's entertainment, a luxury, so it's always high priced. I do commend apple for the attempt at bringing it to us a lower prices, even if they will be fatter because of it. TV and Movie companies, you want to sell more? Make it cheaper and easier to get a hold of.
Don't worry about the networks and the will they or won't they allow their materials to be rented. Instead, Apple, go after the cable crowds with apps sponsored by those channels themselves. An ESPN? are you serious?? Hey mr Hollywood, I would bay $20 a year for that, rent some shows on the side, and even be willing to take on minor and subtle adverts and you'll get paid -or- I'll continue finding my media elsewhere. But I like it delivered the apple way and they're tryin to reach out to you, offer to take on the hosting for a percentage and the important part is YOU WILL GET PAID!
Not all customers will switch and want the apple way, so you'll still get paid from cable subscribers. It's win win, right? Or am I missing something?
Not all customers will switch and want the apple way, so you'll still get paid from cable subscribers. It's win win, right? Or am I missing something?
Apple TV vs TiVo
People who say "I already have a DVR" or compare the price of rentals to a DVR just aren't getting it. Do you store every show you ever recorded on your DVR? Have you ever forgotten to record something? Yeah, I know about season passes, but sometimes you miss something.
I love my TiVo, but I don't see Apple TV as a replacement. It's a supplement. In theory, I could rent my favorite episode of a show from last season. For a buck, it's not even an issue to rent it again 3 months later to watch with a friend. Or if I missed the season premier of a show before I programmed in a season pass, I can catch up.
But the real value is renting movies. I don't have to have a cable box or even cable service and I can rent a movie in 30 seconds. I also enjoy watching the free movie trailers on the big screen, or YouTube movies.
People who say "I already have a DVR" or compare the price of rentals to a DVR just aren't getting it. Do you store every show you ever recorded on your DVR? Have you ever forgotten to record something? Yeah, I know about season passes, but sometimes you miss something.
I love my TiVo, but I don't see Apple TV as a replacement. It's a supplement. In theory, I could rent my favorite episode of a show from last season. For a buck, it's not even an issue to rent it again 3 months later to watch with a friend. Or if I missed the season premier of a show before I programmed in a season pass, I can catch up.
But the real value is renting movies. I don't have to have a cable box or even cable service and I can rent a movie in 30 seconds. I also enjoy watching the free movie trailers on the big screen, or YouTube movies.
Streaming VS Download
Personally, I don't think the internet over here in the UK is quite up to the task of being able to stream HD content on demand. I would've preferred an AppleTV with the ability to download rather than stream, even if it was still just a "watch once" type deal. However I think an 'as many views as you want' within a week or something of that ilk would be much more practical.
The price point is about right though, I'd happily pay the $0.99 or more likely £0.99 to watch something in HD (1080p if possible) without commercials.
Personally, I don't think the internet over here in the UK is quite up to the task of being able to stream HD content on demand. I would've preferred an AppleTV with the ability to download rather than stream, even if it was still just a "watch once" type deal. However I think an 'as many views as you want' within a week or something of that ilk would be much more practical.
The price point is about right though, I'd happily pay the $0.99 or more likely £0.99 to watch something in HD (1080p if possible) without commercials.
Yes there are only 2 networks for 99 cents right now, but you can also stream movies from your laptop, netflix, iPad, iPhone, etc.
IMO cable is like an all you can eat buffet, there can be some good stuff but you also pay for a ton of crap. Between netflix, over the air HD, and something like apple tv I have enogugh access to video content. Maybe some people want more than that but I am not one of them.
I wouldn't pay a dime for anything unless its something I get to keep. Who actually pays for episodes? Just seems ridiculous. There are so many ways to watch episodes for free these days......not even including torrenting.
Its really a tough call and I can somewhat see WB side of things (Flame Suit on)
When we rent a TV show from ITMS we are getting it without the advertisements that paid to produce the show (so to speak) But we are paying to watch the show.
The question is, does the revenue from rentals without ads offset the revenue lost because we don't watch on TV with ads? What percentage of the tv watching public does it take on either delivery method to generate a return?
This overlooks the markup the cable companies make to deliver the content. Comcast wants to sell us TV, internet and phone. A lot of people are cutting the phone lines, that's a lost revenue stream. Then people start to cut the cable in favor of online delivery in one form or another, there is another lost stream.
So in our effort to save money Comcast will turn around and jack up the price of the internet to make up for what they are loosing..
Personally a full line of HD rentals of the few primetime shows I like to watch would finally be enough to cut the cable down to really basic or go to OTA. But I'm also torn when it comes to the wife and kid as they like to just turn on the TV and flip. (Who am I kidding, so do I)
When we rent a TV show from ITMS we are getting it without the advertisements that paid to produce the show (so to speak) But we are paying to watch the show.
The question is, does the revenue from rentals without ads offset the revenue lost because we don't watch on TV with ads? What percentage of the tv watching public does it take on either delivery method to generate a return?
This overlooks the markup the cable companies make to deliver the content. Comcast wants to sell us TV, internet and phone. A lot of people are cutting the phone lines, that's a lost revenue stream. Then people start to cut the cable in favor of online delivery in one form or another, there is another lost stream.
So in our effort to save money Comcast will turn around and jack up the price of the internet to make up for what they are loosing..
Personally a full line of HD rentals of the few primetime shows I like to watch would finally be enough to cut the cable down to really basic or go to OTA. But I'm also torn when it comes to the wife and kid as they like to just turn on the TV and flip. (Who am I kidding, so do I)
That is interesting, because I have never purchased a TV show at $2.99 because it costs too much. If it were .99 I would. They are loosing my purchases because of that.
This kind of thinking reminds me of the record labels playing hard ball with Apple when iTunes was introduced. Apple's new model was to legally sell individual songs when the music labels demanded only full LP's because they thought it would hurt sales. Ironic don't you think...
Honestly the price of a rental is not worth it to watch a show regularly. Its good if you miss an episode and want to catch in good quality on-line. But if you want to watch a whole season, its better to just buy them.
That said, I think the price to buy an entire season of shows might not be such a savings in the future (compared to buying all episodes) because if they make it too good of a deal then the rental price is obviously not a good deal.
That said, I think the price to buy an entire season of shows might not be such a savings in the future (compared to buying all episodes) because if they make it too good of a deal then the rental price is obviously not a good deal.
this is so dumb. If someone is using an apple tv as their man resource for watching television shows they aren't going to buy cable just for WB shows. They will just download it for free using a torrent site or some other site. So instead of making 99 cents per episode WB will make 00 cents per episode. Good thinking WB.
$0.99 is too much.
AC Nielsen indicates that the average US household watches 6.5 hours of TV per day (that takes into account multiple TV households). That'd be almost $200 per month. During that same time, the average US digital cable bill was $75 per month. So, people are currently paying $0.35 / hour for what they already watch.
What if the show in question were a 30-minute sitcom? Ouch! $2 / hour? I understand that it's video-on-demand and without commercials, but it's not really price-competitive even at $0.99 / show.
AC Nielsen indicates that the average US household watches 6.5 hours of TV per day (that takes into account multiple TV households). That'd be almost $200 per month. During that same time, the average US digital cable bill was $75 per month. So, people are currently paying $0.35 / hour for what they already watch.
What if the show in question were a 30-minute sitcom? Ouch! $2 / hour? I understand that it's video-on-demand and without commercials, but it's not really price-competitive even at $0.99 / show.
As others have noted, TiVo is hardly free. Plus you have cable/satellite fees in addition to your TiVo subscription. The purpose of AppleTV/iTunes is to break free of cable service. I bet if you made a list of all the shows you watch/record with TiVo and then priced those shows on iTunes/Amazon/Netflix/Hulu you'll find that ditching cable and TiVo and buying/renting your shows as digital downloads is actually less expensive per year even with an initial expenditure to purchase the proper equipment (assuming you don't already have a computer to attach to your TV).
This is what I have done. I was spending about $100 per month (after taxes and fees, etc.) to have satellite service and the plan necessary to watch the shows I like. But when I sat down to list all the shows I watched with anticipation (I did not include the shows I watch just because I'm bored and they're on) I realized I only watched 17 shows out of the 100+ channels all broadcasting 24hrs per day over the course of a year. I ran the numbers of what it would cost to purchase every show on iTunes, even the ones available for free on Hulu, and I found a huge savings. The first year I broke even because I bought a new computer just for streaming content to my TV but this year I expect to save over $700.
Well lets see on my DVR it is programmed to record every show I like if and only if it is a new episode.
It works great because I programmed it once well over a year or 2 ago and some shows are starting their 3rd season since I programmed it and guess what I never have had to go in and changed it. Hell they even moved time slots and days or the week and STILL I have not had to go in and change it.
On the rare chance that I do miss an episode I generally will torrent it and then play it on my 360. Worse I have had to do for HD part is take the file and re-encode it in a different format.
DVR works out to be a hell of a lot cheaper and I can steam any show I record to any one of 4 TVs. AT&T Uverse is great.
This is just disgusting - greed, pure and simple.
"I'd like to purchase a viewing of 1 show out of 24 that I haven't seen," says mild mannered consumer.
"No, you must purchase entire season," says greedy corporate b*****d.
I find this so disgusting that this isn't illegal and that people are allowed to make such statements.
"I'd like to purchase a viewing of 1 show out of 24 that I haven't seen," says mild mannered consumer.
"No, you must purchase entire season," says greedy corporate b*****d.
I find this so disgusting that this isn't illegal and that people are allowed to make such statements.
...
Why the **** would i ever rent a tv show when all the major networks are on for free over the air in HD via an antenna. I can dvr whatever I want and watch them and i just fast forward right past their precious commercials. Same reason i don't pay for cable, 95% of what I want to watch i can get for free, most of the rest is pay per view anyway which i can just go watch at a restaurant (ufc fights etc which i wouldn't pay 45 bucks for even if I did have cable)
Why the **** would i ever rent a tv show when all the major networks are on for free over the air in HD via an antenna. I can dvr whatever I want and watch them and i just fast forward right past their precious commercials. Same reason i don't pay for cable, 95% of what I want to watch i can get for free, most of the rest is pay per view anyway which i can just go watch at a restaurant (ufc fights etc which i wouldn't pay 45 bucks for even if I did have cable)
So we seem to have a tivo/dvr vs. apple-tv argument which will naturally occur and as I posted I'm on the "dvr not seeing the value of apple-tv" side of things.
Way back when apple first released itunes and the iPod they provided the consumer with a tightly integrated, polished solution, giving consumers access to large volumes of music that they can carry with them. There was no other device capable at that time in providing the volume, ease of use and integration.
To put it succinctly apple succeeded providing a solution that exceeded the abilities of the current technology. MP3 players of the day had tiny storage and no tie in to any sort of music store.
the iPhone, and iPad are also great examples of apple exceeding the competition in giving the consumer more then what they could have done previously.
Apple-tv is NOT providing the consumer with any increased functionality they generally didn't have before. That is why apple-tv has failed to catch on and why its not going to be a huge hit even in this iteration. With WB opting out of the mix only increases the odds of it being a non-hit.
While we focus on dvr vs. apple-tv we dance around that point, Most consumers have at that their disposal right now the ability to watch/tape/rent any show movie they're interested in. What motivation/justification is there for them (I mean plain old consumers not apple fans) for them to drop a c-note for the device and then spend a buck a show just for the convenience of having it streamed to their tv when they already equipment to basically deliver the tv-shows/movies they want.
I'm failing to see the hook that will draw consumers in. Those folks who watch a lot of tv, will already have the equipment to basically provide that level of functionality and those people who don't, will generally not want to spend a lot of money on tv. So they may be the apple-tv but they'll not be using it a lot, thus not really making the device wildly popular. People who don't watch much tv, don't tend to buy a lot tv related equipment.
Way back when apple first released itunes and the iPod they provided the consumer with a tightly integrated, polished solution, giving consumers access to large volumes of music that they can carry with them. There was no other device capable at that time in providing the volume, ease of use and integration.
To put it succinctly apple succeeded providing a solution that exceeded the abilities of the current technology. MP3 players of the day had tiny storage and no tie in to any sort of music store.
the iPhone, and iPad are also great examples of apple exceeding the competition in giving the consumer more then what they could have done previously.
Apple-tv is NOT providing the consumer with any increased functionality they generally didn't have before. That is why apple-tv has failed to catch on and why its not going to be a huge hit even in this iteration. With WB opting out of the mix only increases the odds of it being a non-hit.
While we focus on dvr vs. apple-tv we dance around that point, Most consumers have at that their disposal right now the ability to watch/tape/rent any show movie they're interested in. What motivation/justification is there for them (I mean plain old consumers not apple fans) for them to drop a c-note for the device and then spend a buck a show just for the convenience of having it streamed to their tv when they already equipment to basically deliver the tv-shows/movies they want.
I'm failing to see the hook that will draw consumers in. Those folks who watch a lot of tv, will already have the equipment to basically provide that level of functionality and those people who don't, will generally not want to spend a lot of money on tv. So they may be the apple-tv but they'll not be using it a lot, thus not really making the device wildly popular. People who don't watch much tv, don't tend to buy a lot tv related equipment.