Hard to believe networks are this stupid. So let me see, this will cannibalize the market like 99 cent songs did to albums? I guess we will have to CONTINUE to watch on sources like megavideo, or bit torrent. JUST like we got most music online before iTunes offered their options. Oh well, guess boxee box gettin better by the moment.
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
apple has been marketing apple-tv for a number of years and while this is a shift (renting/streaming only), clearly networks are not that excited over this, of what ever reason. Apple has continually failed to get networks on board, and the excuse "wait it will get better" gets old
Agreed and that's my point, but two tv shows a night is not much, one hour a tv, if you watch sitcoms, or two hours of dramas. Less time then watching football/baseball/some other sport.
I don't watch that much tv, but who are you to judge if a person chooses to watch that much (and more) tv. For them, it is a life well lived by their own terms. Personally, I don't watch any network tv, I like some cooking shows on the foodnetwork, some sports but I spend my time reading or on the computer as well.
Many people will buy AppleTV, because it's a very convenient devices. US people have Netflix app on AppleTV and many people will be buying it so they can stream media not rent it. That's what i will be doing.
The beauty of renting is for the event that if you've missed an episode,say due to power failure or signal degradation (rain fade for satellite for example). Or if you've only discovered a show well after it has started. Or if it is not available free to air in your region (something we have to grin and bare here in NZ all the tim). You can't TiVo your way out of those situations. And without a rental offering, many will take the only real option left - illegal downloads. So instead of offering a rental show for $.99, they've lost a sale.
Agreed, those who already don't have a device that streams netflix certainly can and will use apple-tv. I'm not saying that apple-tv is bad or fail to provide the consumer with any benefit. My point is that for the common consumer, there's nothing earth shattering that pulls them into buying it. Its lack luster sales of prior apple-tvs illustrate this.
The main issue I see with the comments on these sorts of news stories is that most people have no idea how these things work, or how much it all costs. People are quick to criticise the networks for not jumping on board these sorts of deals, but have you considered that they may actually be unsustainable? I'm pretty sure that WB will have seriously considered the options that Apple have given them, and calculated their figures. If it turns out that they predict they'd make less money by offering a 99cent rental, then it's clear that they will likely have to say no to the offer.
I'm sure Apple would dearly love nothing more than to have a sizeable chunk of the home TV content market (this is clear from their renewed second attempt at the Apple TV rather than just letting it die), but they need to make the whole thing sustainable for the networks who provide the content. It's a really difficult balance that they have to strike; it needs to be cheap enough to attract the punters, but be expensive enough to get the networks on board. I'm sure that Apple are wanting to take a cut of the profits in their too.
I'm sure Apple would dearly love nothing more than to have a sizeable chunk of the home TV content market (this is clear from their renewed second attempt at the Apple TV rather than just letting it die), but they need to make the whole thing sustainable for the networks who provide the content. It's a really difficult balance that they have to strike; it needs to be cheap enough to attract the punters, but be expensive enough to get the networks on board. I'm sure that Apple are wanting to take a cut of the profits in their too.
It looks like you can shift from cable/sat to ATV rentals if you only watch a few shows, mostly from the major networks, per week.
Nice, but it'll have to a lot farther to be a real alternative. I for example watch all kinds of shows, from all kinds of oddball networks. Sure I watch Modern Family on ABC and American Idol on Fox, but I also watch shows on TruTV, Bravo, Lifetime, MTV, Disney, Food Network, Travel Channel, etc...
At some point in the future I might have a box (like the ATV) that managed my subscriptions directly with these "networks," and I could purchase episodes and stream them whenever I wanted. It would have to be a heck of a lot less than $1/per episode, though.
For the moment, the "all you can watch" model with the cable/sat providers is the best choice, but I can see it shifting sometime in the future.
Nice, but it'll have to a lot farther to be a real alternative. I for example watch all kinds of shows, from all kinds of oddball networks. Sure I watch Modern Family on ABC and American Idol on Fox, but I also watch shows on TruTV, Bravo, Lifetime, MTV, Disney, Food Network, Travel Channel, etc...
At some point in the future I might have a box (like the ATV) that managed my subscriptions directly with these "networks," and I could purchase episodes and stream them whenever I wanted. It would have to be a heck of a lot less than $1/per episode, though.
For the moment, the "all you can watch" model with the cable/sat providers is the best choice, but I can see it shifting sometime in the future.
Unfortunately, simply being able to plug something in, select a show/season/episode and hit play is revolutionary (at least it would be if the rest of the networks signed on). No device does this today without substantial effort configuring in advance and/or large monthly service charges. Netflix is probably the closest, but their TV selection is very limited and requires a monthly commitment.
BTW - this model is good for longer shows, but I feel 1/2 hour sitcoms need to be commercial driven. $.99 is too much for 20 mins of content.
Problem with that argument is if .99 song if you added up an ablumn worth it either cost about the same as a album or more if you bought the songs one at a time.
From WB point of view they are right. It will caniblize their season sales as most people do not go back and watch a show after wards that often.
Dear Dummy at Warner Brothers,
I have never purchased a full season of a tv show on iTunes, bought an episode of a tv show on iTunes nor bought any season of any tv show on DVD.
I would actually buy the ocassional show for .99 to fill in the gaps of my viewing. There are many more people like me.
Plus who cares if someone chooses to rent episodes for .99 cents over buying the whole season. For many shows that means if they rent half the season or more they are paying the same or more. I just don't get it.
I don't think he understands there is a massive price resistance in the marketplace for this stuff now, and in order to have any substantial impact they will have to lower pricing. People are not jiust going to keep jumping on board at the current prices.
I have never purchased a full season of a tv show on iTunes, bought an episode of a tv show on iTunes nor bought any season of any tv show on DVD.
I would actually buy the ocassional show for .99 to fill in the gaps of my viewing. There are many more people like me.
Plus who cares if someone chooses to rent episodes for .99 cents over buying the whole season. For many shows that means if they rent half the season or more they are paying the same or more. I just don't get it.
I don't think he understands there is a massive price resistance in the marketplace for this stuff now, and in order to have any substantial impact they will have to lower pricing. People are not jiust going to keep jumping on board at the current prices.
I wonder what the studio's average profit per viewer is if people watch via cable or OTA TV. A deal with Apple might be different than what networks are used to, but I'm sure they can find a way to make good money off of it. Certainly they'd make more than they do offering free streaming from their own websites.
By the way, why am I not surprised that NBC (who Comcast recently purchased) mysteriously isn't on board with the idea of changing their business model to support on-demand content from the internet. Our anti-trust regulators need a good punch in the nose.
By the way, why am I not surprised that NBC (who Comcast recently purchased) mysteriously isn't on board with the idea of changing their business model to support on-demand content from the internet. Our anti-trust regulators need a good punch in the nose.
I wonder how many sales/dollars are lost from new DVD/Blu-Ray sales because of the used media market? Digital downloads may not have the profit margins of a DVD/Blu-Ray set but they do guarantee the studios a piece of EVERY transaction. It's a sacrifice of margin for volume.
I'm not in the movie/tv business so I don't know if this would be a smart business decision but it seems clear there is a market for digital downloads and from a perspective of securing content, streaming seems to be the safest solution and has the least impact upon the consumer.
I'm not in the movie/tv business so I don't know if this would be a smart business decision but it seems clear there is a market for digital downloads and from a perspective of securing content, streaming seems to be the safest solution and has the least impact upon the consumer.
Aren't digital download packages better for the environment than physical products? Less gas spent on shipping, less trees for paper, less ink for printing, less plastic/cardboard for cases, discs, and packaging, less spent on maintaining manufacturing, less pollutants, less future garbage. Also less money spent on the process. Companies can complain about loosing revenue, but if they didn't pay for the process, they would probably have a heftier profit. JM2C. Physical media doesn't have to go anywhere, but it should be trimmed according to demand. Long live digital downloads - or even better streaming!
On top of all that, TIVO has absolutely ZERO movies or TV shows. Talk about comparing Apples and Tivos. If you can TiVo a show, you've already overpaid for it via cable or HBO or it's such an old flick it's on free tv.
downloads aren't as green as you may think
You haven't looked at the electric bill for a server farm, have you? Or the environmental issues with manufacturing and safely disposing of servers?
Creating and shipping a BD disc is a one time cost. Running servers and clients for downloading is a 24x365.25 cost.
Or have you looked at studies that suggest that it can be more carbon efficient to burn gasoline in autos than to use fossil fuels to generate electricity to charge electric cars (let alone ignoring the predictions that a quick change to electric cars would collapse the nation's electrical distribution system). (e.g. http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=9965)
When the "OMG - plastic" movement moved to ban foam fast food containers, it was shown that it took less oil if you turned the oil into foam, than to use oil to make paper containers.
When the entire long term picture is examined, sometimes the simple view turns out to be wrong. While you may save on "X", you may increase the costs of "Y" and "Z".
Unless you have an off-grid solar electric installation in your home, for the server farm, and for all of the network hubs in between - there's a real monetary and environmental cost just for the electricity to support downloads.
You haven't looked at the electric bill for a server farm, have you? Or the environmental issues with manufacturing and safely disposing of servers?
Creating and shipping a BD disc is a one time cost. Running servers and clients for downloading is a 24x365.25 cost.
Or have you looked at studies that suggest that it can be more carbon efficient to burn gasoline in autos than to use fossil fuels to generate electricity to charge electric cars (let alone ignoring the predictions that a quick change to electric cars would collapse the nation's electrical distribution system). (e.g. http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID=9965)
When the "OMG - plastic" movement moved to ban foam fast food containers, it was shown that it took less oil if you turned the oil into foam, than to use oil to make paper containers.
When the entire long term picture is examined, sometimes the simple view turns out to be wrong. While you may save on "X", you may increase the costs of "Y" and "Z".
Unless you have an off-grid solar electric installation in your home, for the server farm, and for all of the network hubs in between - there's a real monetary and environmental cost just for the electricity to support downloads.
They also said the price was too low. So you have people with cable / satellite subscription who get the show bundled, the people who buy season passes and people who buy box sets on disc. If you want to sample the show, you can buy a couple of episodes and then the whole lot via season pass or box set.
That really doesn't leave much of a market for rentals ... probably doesn't even cover the legal fees, especially after Apple take their cut.
Maybe they will come around like Apple thinks, but who knows yet, the whole idea could be a flop.
In response to your "thirdly" response, yes, it is a life well lived watching 2-3 hours of TV every weekday evening with my lovely girlfriend.
In response to your "thirdly" response, yes, it is a life well lived watching 2-3 hours of TV every weekday evening with my lovely girlfriend.
I have a 40 minute train ride commute each way to work every day. I'm pretty much the target consumer for this subscription TV mode. Doesn't mean I'm not doing anything with my life... if anything I've shifted my TV watching to my commute so that I'm NOT in front of the TV when I come home.
I have never owned an Apple TV, but I used Front Row on my Macbook Pro to stream a few shows in HD that I bought on iTunes when our DVR missed a few shows for some reason. I bought a couple of episodes of Life (now defunct), a few episodes of House, and maybe one or two other shows. While I was in iTunes, I looked up every show that my wife watches, and I was able to find every one of them on iTunes. They were not for rent - you had to buy them and fully download them before you could start watching them - which is a pain. But the bottom line is that every show that I could think of was already available on iTunes, and not only the current year but for every year of its existence. Even though they cost $2.99 per episode, if we decided to drop our cable and go with an Apple TV solution, we would have been able to purchase season passes that would have made each show less expensive. Our cable TV bill is about $1,000/year. Even with the old Apple TV we would have saved hundreds of dollars every year if we dropped the cable service. With the new Apple TV, the savings would be even more dramatic.
So, I am not really sure what you are referring to with the "wait it will get better" statement. The TV show content is already out there on iTunes. The only problem is that the networks don't want you to rent their shows - they want you to buy them. I do not want to own TV shows. I do not want to clutter my storage and worry about what to do with the shows that I bought - once I have watched them. I need a replacement for cable service, and the new Apple TV will replace it for me. It will not happen right away, but it will happen within a year or two - I have no doubt about it. In the mean time, the shows that I cannot rent on iTunes or stream from Netflix, I can still purchase via iTunes on my Mac and AirPlay them to the new Apple TV. So, it will be more expensive than $1 per episode, and I will have to wait for 30 minutes before I can watch the show. But within a couple of years, this experience will drastically improve when every network gets on board with the streaming model. I am planning to drop my cable TV as soon as I get the new Apple TV, which should be within a few weeks now.
I am who I am. I can judge anyone and anything I want. This (the United States) was still a free country last time I checked.
Pricing was always the problem. The old Apple TV would have been great, but $3 for an episode is just too much. Watching one show a night, well exceeded the monthly cost of a cable bill.
If they can get the other networks onboard with the $1 rentals, I will use it instead of finding shows through other means (Hulu, Netflix, etc).
I pay $20-$40 a season on disc, I have no idea where you get your figures.
Philip Hodgetts claims to have calculated that networks get about 35 cents per viewer per half hour, on average.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2007/09/nbc-points-gun-at-own-head-apple-pulls-the-trigger/
Combine that with a rental probably getting 70 percent of the rental price, they come out about even if two people are watching that rental.
You're right that the ISPs will want to make up the difference if people start canceling their premium cable bundles, how well that will succeed is anyone's guess. The current rentals don't appear to offer any cable episodes yet, so I don't see the danger.
I really don't think it's meant to replace cable for heavy users. I would take it as for a light user or for the occasionally missed episode.
The head of Universal Music was complaining that Apple took US$0.30 of a US$0.99 song. It's been a few years, so I can't find the exact quote.
However, this article claims slightly differently:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030301852.html
"Currently, for a 99-cent song, 72 cents goes to the label, and 8 cents to the publisher, leaving Apple's per-song profit margin at 19 cents per song, he said. "
It should be noted that this is gross profit, not net. The cost of bandwidth, server farms, programming and maintenance aren't figured into it.