TV Networks Not Keen on Apple's $0.99 Rentals
The whole $0.99 rental scheme may not fly for long.
When Steve Jobs showcased the new iPod products and the revamped Apple TV, some of us were excited over the promise of $0.99 TV show rentals. Walt Disney Co.'s ABC and News Corp's Fox were listed to bring their popular shows to the table including "Glee" and "Modern Family." However apparently other networks are reportedly not too keen on the $0.99 idea.
According to several media executives, Apple's terms are somewhat of a turn-off, demanding 30-percent of the rental fee. Currently consumers can download episodes for $1.99 and $2.99, a far better profit networks are unwilling to relinquish.
One executive said Steve Jobs believes that networks will "sell more stuff" if the price point is lowered. "This is a plan that is designed to sell iPads, iPods and iPhones," another executive reportedly said. "It is not a plan that is designed to appropriately value content."
Media companies fear that they will suffer the same fate as the music industry, struggling to cope with declining price points. There are also fears that the "episodic pay-per-view model" will further undermine DVD sales--currently the industry is making a huge profit off boxed sets of individual TV show seasons.
Bottom line, networks may fear that the iTunes consumer who previously bought TV episodes to watch only once may be inclined to merely rent the show. That's less money in the network's pocket, especially if Apple is demanding 30-percent of the rental fee.
- Samsung Unveils Galaxy Tab
- PlayTime Allows Android & iOS to Play Together
- Pictured: First Look at the T-Mobile G2 Android
- Prepaid DROID, BlackBerrys, Palms to Hit Verizon
- Apple Announces Apple TV, Three New iPods Designs, Social Network in iTunes
- Sony, Amazon Said to Be Prepping Media Services
- LIVE BLOG: Apple's San Francisco Music Event
- Mercedes Luxury Machine Applefied by Brabus
- Canon Develops 120 Megapixel CMOS Sensor
- Augen Says It's Working on Next-Gen Tablets
- Samsung Reveals New Android ''Honeycomb'' OS
- Microsoft Officially Unveils the Arc Touch Mouse
- Windows Phone 7 is Finally Officially Finished
- Google Responds to Steve Jobs' Activations Gibe
- Sony Delays PS3 3D Blu-ray Support Until October
- Gunman Demands Discovery Channel Save Planet
- Students Help Crash NASA Satellite Into Ocean
- ViewSonic's Dual-Boot Tablet Named ViewPad 100
- Sophos: Ping Slammed With Scams and Spams
So Apple will take the blame instead of blaming "piracy"? lol
I wonder what percentage Amazon is taking for their 99 cent VOD episodes?
Aren't we talking about TV shows that you can normally watch on the net for FREE?
So paying 99c an episode that you keep for 2 weeks, (and if you really want to watch it again, will cost you another 99c) is better than charging a one time fee of 1.99?
If people are going to watch it only once, wouldn't they DVR the first time it's on, and I don't know, save it from being deleted? Also, hulu is a free service that people can watch anytime, yeah, you have to sit through commercials, but they only last 15 seconds (from what i remember) and happen every 15 min.
Why pay for something you can get for free anyways, talking about major network broadcasts that are received over the air. I would think more people would be inclined to renting shows being 99 cents over buying, costing twice the price or more.
I guess some of the major conglomerates aren't ready for change because it may possibly find less money lining their pockets.
I have not seen anything on these shows by the networks that warrant all these gadgets and devices. Who in there right minds would want to spend $0.99 or any amount attempting to keep track of content that is mindless, boring and highlights actors who should have choosen another vocation?
TV Box sets have always been horrendously overpriced... To use that as a basis for the kind of profits they should be making is just insane. If they cut those box sets to be about 1/4th their price they would probably sell 10 times more of them. I like this attitude and it's a shame Apple and other companies don't see the benefit of pricing things like this.
The gaming companies could learn something from this too.....
I meant to say "it's a shame Apple and other companies don't see the benefit of pricing things like this more often."
Yeah because I totally want to pay dozens of dollars each month, for channels I don't want, pay for the advertisements in the show that they already got paid for, and then pay them some more for a DVR that fast forwards through the commercials that they already got paid for that you are paying for that you don't watch. Great idea, it's worked so far - why change it? /sarcasm
Aren't we talking about TV shows that you can normally watch on the net for FREE?
Not really free, if you are the person think time is money...
These streaming TV shows are Ad free (if Apple does not put its own iAd in there).
If people are going to watch it only once, wouldn't they DVR the first time it's on, and I don't know, save it from being deleted? Also, hulu is a free service that people can watch anytime, yeah, you have to sit through commercials, but they only last 15 seconds (from what i remember) and happen every 15 min.
Unfortunately not everything is online or on hulu for free. And if you don't have TV (or a DVR), that's not an option.
News flash: TV networks are greedy! Who knew! /s
so reducing the price means they can sell more stuff. maybe if they reduced the price of an apple mac they would sell more of them too.
so apple isn't being greedy enough for the networks ?? bwahahahahaha
so reducing the price means they can sell more stuff. maybe if they reduced the price of an apple mac they would sell more of them too.
Good point. Apple says it can't make a computer for under $1000 that isn't a piece of crap (while lots of companies can), but then it says TV producers are just being greedy and stupid when they don't see the value in renting a TV show for $0.99?
iTunes is like the new WalMart. You either sell your product in their store at their price, or they will drive your whole damn company out of business. Personally, I try to avoid WalMart, and I successfully avoid iTunes, if only others showed the same restraint.
@hellwig: Maybe you should get your mom to teach you some economics in between tricks. There's a bit of a difference between a computer (which costs $$$ per additional sale) and a media file (which costs basically zero per additional sale).
@above failtrol.l. lrn 2 comprehension.
This article is halarious. The networks are whining about this when I can rent an entire season off netflix for even less! Also networks want you to sit through gheir ads which is why they price dvrs so high as to "recoup" tthe "loss" because if you don't see the add for walmaart, pepsi, and mcdonalds then the adverts aren't worth being maid by said companies and thusly not made then paid for to be aired. Seriously advertising is sooo overdone most people have learned to tune it out completely. Like myself. I don't give 2 toots about the new chevy truck I can't afford. I go get something to drink.
so apple isn't being greedy enough for the networks ?? bwahahahahaha
Read the whole article.. the problem is that apple is not just trying to milk the consumer dry, but the networks feel that now Jobs is taking advantage of them, too. They think Apple is being TOO greedy. As the nameless executive said, their valuable shows would be used as a selling point to move apple hardware (a new perk of the iphone would be that watching episodes of X show is a dollar cheaper than on your computer's itunes), rather than the other way around. Moreover, apple would be taking 33 cents on the dollar.
Also, basking in the little in the typical internet hatred of 'damn that greedy company, wanting to charge me for the content they spent millions of dollars creating!' They have to make money off of their expensive-to-produce property somehow, and that means either charging for it or wedding it with ads which generate revenue.
Why aren't their open-source television programs yet? Get on that, internet. (Though I guess pre-ad youtube counted..)
Haha "sell more stuff if the price point is lowered". That comming from steve jobs is totally hilarious.
Read the whole article.. the problem is that apple is not just trying to milk the consumer dry, but the networks feel that now Jobs is taking advantage of them, too. They think Apple is being TOO greedy. As the nameless executive said, their valuable shows would be used as a selling point to move apple hardware (a new perk of the iphone would be that watching episodes of X show is a dollar cheaper than on your computer's itunes), rather than the other way around. Moreover, apple would be taking 33 cents on the dollar. Also, basking in the little in the typical internet hatred of 'damn that greedy company, wanting to charge me for the content they spent millions of dollars creating!' They have to make money off of their expensive-to-produce property somehow, and that means either charging for it or wedding it with ads which generate revenue. Why aren't their open-source television programs yet? Get on that, internet. (Though I guess pre-ad youtube counted..)
no guy please read it again as you are obviously taking it wrong as i did.
what i said is bang on the greedy part.butttt the networks isn't making as much as they wanted to. They feel that they are loosing out because the price is to cheap since apple is having a nice bite while hocking their overpriced crap... not sure about you but I don't usually watch reruns let alone pay another buck to watch it over again. so the network is making 66 cent instead of $2.11 per episode
like a big company is feeling for the consumer give me a break....
read between the lines....
i should talk i barely read the article the first time... happy consumerism
So I take it that they make more then .99$ on a typical ad supported tv episode viewing?
What I'm wondering about is if Apple TV will be portable. I travel the world and there are many times I wish to watch my favourite show or to rent an online movie when abroad. The current iTunes model does not allow this, so this makes me think that Apple TV won't either. WE NEED BOARDERLESS INTERNET TV -- something I'ld be willing to pay for.
Well you can rent it to me for $0.99 or I can get the torrent. Your choice.
iTV is by far a stupider product then the iPad. I didn't think Apple could possibly beat themselves, but they did. The charge rate on it is ridiculous for lower quality television.
Aren't we talking about TV shows that you can normally watch on the net for FREE?
Depends.
Depends on wether you torrent them an hour after they air or not.
hmm sort of split on this one , on one hand you got greedy networks wanting to charge 2-3 dollars for renting a show that was/is normally aired for free.
but then on the other hand you got greedy apple , charging them 30% of the proceeds ??? WTF i have heard of mobsters and gangsters that take less of a cut for more work than what apple is doing.
screw the networks and screw apple both seriously.
Greedy meets Greedy. I don't see the need to rent shows, period. Most of the stuff I like to watch is on Netflix anyway, and more. So fail on both.
.99 cents... is still way too much for re-runs of FREE over the air TV, I say NO thank you. If I missed a show I just log on said network and watch that episode for FREE.
The $1.99 - $2.99 pricing is just plain bad. I can't believe the networks sell any copies at all with that pricing. I've never bought a tv show I've missed on Amazon because of this over-pricing. I'm lucky because I've had DVR's (a Panasonic OTA and now a Dish Network) for years. So I rarely miss something either I or another family member want to watch. Or just wait a couple of months or so, and the network will show a re-run.
Why watch it in your 55 inch flat screen when you can watch it on your Phone.
Well you can rent it to me for $0.99 or I can get the torrent. Your choice.
Ill go for the complete season torrent for 0.00$.