Network TV Downloadable Via iTunes 527
IconBasedIdea writes "Dallas Mavericks owner
and opinionated media entrepreneur Mark
Cuban blogs
about Walt Disney cheese Robert
Iger, and his recent deal with iTunes to allow TV episodes to become available for purchase and download. Granted, it was only a matter of
time, but someone had to go first, and it is apparently ABC. Could this help
niche shows stay alive longer? Will it kill traditional TV ads, long
on the downswing of effectiveness? Will we end up eventually paying
(or stealing) all of our future programming?"
Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:2, Interesting)
let history be the judge [bbc.co.uk]
Oh, Yeah. (Score:2, Interesting)
Look out! I can watch "Just Shoot Me" and "America's Top Model" anywhere!
I pay good money to hide from this stuff.
Re:128x128 (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, with the video out feature, the screen is really just for personal use. For group viewing, one would simply output the stream to the TV or monitor.
Hmm. So now we can't claim that it's free. (Score:4, Interesting)
What I want to see (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:128x128 (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's not HDTV or even DVD quality, but it's not THAT much worse than cable TV.
I do feel though that the price needs to be slightly adjusted. Take a 22 episode TV season... that's almost $44 in iTunes. I could buy the DVD (if it was available) for less. TPTB need to keep that in mind.
One step at a time (Score:5, Interesting)
One other thing: what I find amazing is that apparently the RIAA finds 1.99 for whatever music video a good price, and different prices for more popular video's were not mentioned.
I was excited ... (Score:2, Interesting)
The market always provides... (Score:5, Interesting)
Advertisements in their current form are different than they were 10 years ago. They're tested at regular speed and fast speed. Thought is given to logo placement early before one can click skip.
Yet the distributor doesn't care who pays, as long as someone does. iTunes should consider a survey ad system for buying points. Watch a 60 second ad, answer 5 questions, earn 50 points to use for purchase.
Also, piracy is counterproductive for true fans. If Firefly 2.0 gets on SciFi and 80% of you bootleg it, don't expect a third season. I'll never understand the people here who complain about lack of good content yet have 3000 songs from Limewire.
In the long run, offering multiple acquisition options makes sense. I'll pay a subscription for content I like. I'll pay extra for HD and DD. I'll pay extra for bloopers and outtakes, and maybe for getting it a few days earlier.
Content control doesn't bother me. As long as I can watch it on my TVs at home and on my PDA unlimited times, I'm fine with DRM. Shows requiring deletion after a week I just won't watch.
iTunes won't kill the networks. Freedom of choice will kill those unavoidable to provide what the market wants.
Until government regulates iTunes to protect the networks.
Who protects tv content? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:We can only hope... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Key Milestone (Score:5, Interesting)
If things go this way, there will be plenty of free content. How else would you get someone hooked on one of your shows so that they'll buy more episodes? So I can download the first couple episodes of some new sci-fi show for free, and if I liked it, then I'll pay for the rest of the episodes when I have time to watch them. Ads make sense with the broadcast model of television. With cable, they make less sense, since I'm already paying a tidy sum, but I guess that ad revenue helps subsidize more shows/channels. With video on demand, and a pay per show model, ads don't belong. And notice I said pay-per-show. If I pay to watch all the episodes in season 7 of Stargate Atlantis, I want to be able to watch it again later without paying for it again, or at least be permitted to record it.
Firefly's hope? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would this allow a producer to make a show, throw it on iTunes for $2 an episode, and then just continue to produce as long as they're making money? Sounds like a good way for fans to rescue worthwhile shows that are cancelled in place of "Who's Your Daddy" and the like.
Purchased content (Score:3, Interesting)
1. it would have to be available in multiple size/screen resolutions - atleast the basics, and be availble in its original format.
2. the content (even if drm crippled) would have to allow me to watch any resolution show as many times as I wanted, still based solely on the first purchase (I buy a DVD, and I encode it to any resolution I want today, and maybe tomorrow, and perhaps again in three months when I've lost the first encode)
3. the content would have to be reasonably priced. I figure I pay somewhere between $30 and $40 for a complete season of episodes, depending on the show. Break that down between ~10 episodes, and I'm looking at roughly $3-$4/episode. If I am going to purchase a single show, commercial free, it would have to be comparable to this price.
4. the license and/or use of said content would have to be transferable. If I decide that I want to sell my copy of said content/media and relinquish my rights to it, I ought to be able.
I'm not a freak when it comes to DRM. I am all for fair use, and I truly believe the media companies ought to have some say in how their contents is distributed, as long as it is within the confines of fair use, I'm for it. If I buy a DVD, and decided that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be, I will either sell it to CDMax (or other retail chain) or sell/give to a friend. The same should apply for media purchased online.
Thats about all I can think of at the moment. Perhaps overly simplistic, but I'm looking at the lowest requirments. I would prefer that the media be playable on alternative OS' , but it would not be a requirement.
Harryk
Re:ipod for video (Score:5, Interesting)
No
About selling video on the ITMS
Yep. Apple and the big media networks stand to make a lot of money selling TV shows and news clips and eventually films if they can persuade enough networks/producers to sign up. Yes the resolution is not great, but it's much better than most videos available for download from websites (news.bbc.co.uk or the comedy channel in the US).
Now I'd rather something I could play full screen on a monitor, and I think they'll be forced to provide that eventually if they want people to start buying en masse, but this could signal a revolution in TV similar to that brought by iTunes in the world of online music. Easy ordering, massive catalogue, and low prices all led to mass market adoption. Critically, Apple already have the installed base of ITMS customers who have entered their credit details and are just a click away from impulse purchases.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out against Microsoft's Media PC thing-me-bob.
Car talk (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparing the price of a song with a TV show such as desperate housewives is a bit apples and oranges. But comparing a one hour radio show with a one hour TV show isn't. At least in my mind.
A TV show for $1.99 is worth more than a $5.95 radio show generally speaking. I hope that this will help push Cartalk down to $1.99 or even below.
Re:128x128 (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW the price for a full season is already adjusted (just as the price of an album isn't the sum of its $1 songs). You can buy the first season of 'Lost' from iTunes for $34.95.
If I had a video iPod I would be pretty interested. But for pumping to a tv this just doesn't cut it.
In a way, not stealing TV shows (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a big difference now (Score:5, Interesting)
This technology if taken to its fullest potential could be what truly expands the movie industry for the next decade or more. If they work with Apple to create an alternative payment processing system that takes a fee of only $0.05-$0.20 per transaction the amount of money they could make on selling eventually a full length movie for $7.00-$8.00 on iTunes would be amazing and would allow them to undercut their hated ally Wal-Mart.
Btw, my dad bought one of those portable TVs back in the 80s and if you have ever seen one, you know why it was a failure. The display sucked and the reception sucked even worse. The iPod by comparison lets people have a gorgeous display and can hold hours of stored video.
Letting the market decide... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ultimately, the reason why this has more potential than the Casio TVs are because iPod is already a well established brand, and starting now (or whenever these iPods are released), anyone with an iPod that's not a nano or a shuffle will have video capability. They might not all use it, but I'm willing to bet that people who give it a try will purchase one, two, or ten shows that they can't live without.
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:2, Interesting)
An Evolution, Not A Revolution (Score:5, Interesting)
I watched a few episodes of Lost through iTunes the other day. The quality wasn't great, but on my iBook's 12.1" screen it was good enough. That H.264 codec makes even low-res video seem much better than you'd think. Would I pay $40+ for a season of a show on iTunes? Nope - I'd rather buy the DVDs and get the extras and better video quality.
What this represents is a step. The biggest hurdle isn't technical - it's legal and cultural. Apple could offer full-resolution versions of these shows at any time. They could do the same with movies. The technology may be in its infancy, but it's here today.
If Apple can prove that this works, we'll start getting things like a true video iPod, more shows, more networks, and wireless streaming of shows through an AirPort-like base station - or better yet the iMac with Front Row will morph into an Apple PVR/media center. And unlike MCE, that solution will look good inside and out.
Apple's testing the waters, making sure this thing will actually work before they throw themselves fully into becoming a media distribution company. They're making evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes, which is the way to go when you're navigating a legal minefield of IP law and business relationships. The networks are facing the possibility of drastic changes to the way their products are distributed, and dragging them kicking and screaming into the future just won't work.
I think had this new form of direct distribution been around, shows like Firefly, Wonderfalls, Greg the Bunny, etc that were well-written, well-acted, and deserving of viewer support but were killed by networks who didn't understand what they had would get a chance. Shlock like Joey, whatever other sitcom-of-the-moment, or the latest reality show may still get the big ratings, but more challenging shows could show a real bottom-line profit that would mean that the horribly flawed Nielson system wouldn't cause them to be prematurely axed.
But that will take some time, which is why the long-awaited video iPod is somewhat underwhelming - but make no mistake, this is just a way of laying the groundwork for what will be a revolutionary way in which we view TV.
My main usage of iTunes TV (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard that Battlestar Galactica rocks but I'm hesitant to spend the money on the whole season or whatever is out now. Some sci-fi shows I just don't like (Star Trek for instance). If there was an episode of Battlestar Galactica on iTunes I would definitely get it and possibly get the DVD's then.
For some shows like 24 they have released a "first few episodes" DVD. What I would like to see though would be a DVD with 4+ episodes of different shows. 1st episode of 24, Alias, Lost, and Desperate Housewives for instance (yes I know different networks blah blah blah... work with me here!). I would love to go to the store and purchase a "1st episodes" DVD of TV shows that are already out. You can watch 'em then maybe find a show you'd like.
Either way would be fine for me and I'd imagine a few other people too.
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:1, Interesting)
Fuck that for a game of soldiers - I just got the DVD-Video of 'Straight Story' for £2.99, explkain to me again why I'd pay £1.79 for a SINGLE EPISODE of some shitty TV show in 320x240 not-even-the-right-aspect-ratio-o-rama?
If Apple want to offer D1 sized files FOR A START, maybe we can make some progress.
Re:BSG? Hmm, funding model for new Firefly? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an interesting idea, maybe I'll get some feedback here.
How about a functional investment ("bond") distribution model for a show like Firefly?
Let's say Whedon needs to see $5M before he attempts online distribution. Instead of trying to merely pre-sell 200,000 $25 yearly subscriptions, maybe offer $25 subscriptions and $100 investment bonds. $100 gets you 1 share (out of 100,000). Assume WhedonCo buys 51,000 at $5.1M for 51% ownership. I'd gladly invest $10,000 for a 0.1% share.
Once production begins, others will likely pay $4/episode or $30/season. I'll make my percentage after overhead, and have a major reason to promote the show to friends and family.
Heck, if I can make $0.01 per subscription and 2M people end up subscribing, that's $20K for me. I'd be happy with that.
Surely, the SEC will screw it up.
What Ive really been waiting for (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Details? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmmm... MPEG1/VCR resolution at only 500Kb. Audio has a nice bit rate. Even if they are using h.264, they should be using at least 1 mbit for video. They really should be using at least a 1.5 mbit overall bit rate (1408 Kb/s video, 128 AAC stereo). Crapy low bitrate encoding is their problem.
Let's all pay (Score:3, Interesting)
God, I hope so. Maybe then:
- the competition will shift from serving up eyeballs to advertisers and towards producing decent shows
- people will limit their viewing to something they actually find interesting, instead of channel surfing
- and most importantly, active interests/hobby will be able to stand on a more even footing with the always-on, always-free insanity box.
Archos - Drag'n'Drop (Score:3, Interesting)
If by "technicial issues" you mean the use of drag and drop to move videos onto the excellent Archos video players, than I guess you may be right.
Archos has been at this a lot longer than Apple. Its version of the "ipod video" (as in, small screen with backward-looking enslaved-to-old-audio-paradigm form factor) was the Jukebox Multimedia, released back in 2002. The newer generations of players released since then are a way better. It's nice to have a single device that will happily play back so *many* formats at once. And the video-in jack to do easy quick'n'dirty analog->digital recordings doesn't hurt for snarfing content either.
Re:UK / International (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess the real question the networks need to ask themselves is whether it's overall more profitable to sell via iTunes to overseas from broadcast and expevt lower licensing fees from foreign broadcasters or whether it's better to hold out for higher national fees.
Personally I'd prefer it if they took the risk for some shows and put them on iTunes for at least overseas English-speaking download. Perhaps the hard data from overseas download sales could even be used to increase competition between Sky/C4/C5/ITV/the BBC etc for the really big series (and hence fees). Increased buzz ahead of domestic broadcast may result in a net increase in UK audience. Downloaders may watch again. And if all of a few million viewers pay for the download then who needs a UK broadcast audience?
They really should sell higher quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Archos == Tivo (Score:3, Interesting)
how is that classic Apple? Just because it requires specific software? Without that software we'd be adding song ratings on the ipod itself which would be a major pain in the ass.
you can add your own music if want, you dont need to download from the iTunes store, so it's not hard to create your own content, least music wise.
Speaking of specific software, how many MP3 players have been released requiring Musicmatch? Tons, so apple's not doing anything worse than everyone else.
Anyone RTFA??
"But the move raised questions about whether instant Internet access to current prime-time shows might diminish their future value in the burgeoning DVD market and in broadcast syndication."
Does he mean does having the show for download 24-hrs-later mean we wouldnt want to watch the original show? LOL i dunno, does knowing a movie is gonna be out on DVD six months after hitting the movie theater stop people from going to the movies? Not really.
Re:BSG? Hmm, funding model for new Firefly? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a great idea and I hope that somebody tries it, but if I were a potential investor, I'd consider the potentially huge factor of the "Information wants to be free! Bork bork bork bork!" idiots who'd help themselves to it on BitTorrent.
While intuitively it makes sense that people would be a little cooler in a situation like this, it's easy to overlook the power of our ability to rationalize just about anything. We'd see rationalizations like:
Re:128x128 (Score:2, Interesting)
The majority of television shows are still shot on 35mm film. About several years ago, some sitcoms started shooting instead in HD video to try and reduce costs. Some dramas have followed, but the number of shows shot on HD is nowhere near the majority.
Television shows definitely have smaller budgets than movies, but they both have time constraints in their shooting schedules. If movies only shot 5 scenes a day, they would fall behind schedule and over budget very quickly. The DP's job is the same for TV shows and movies, to use their knowledge and skills to light a scene according to the artistic vision of the director. To say that it doesn't count as real cinematography because the end product will only be broadcast on television belittles what DPs do to improve and perfect their craft.
Do independant films not use real cinematography? They can have budgets smaller than television shows and shooting schedules just as tight.
From reading some of your other posts, it seems you're dismissal of television shows has more to do with the content (writing, acting, etc.) rather than the visual aspect of the show. And I'm right there with you, you'll find more movies with good writing than you will television shows. But I disagree that good cinematography is limited to the big screen.
-wolfhead
Re:BSG? Hmm, funding model for new Firefly? (Score:3, Interesting)
My big problem with public stocks is that they seem only valuable if they increase in price. I own zero public stocks. I do own a ton of private shares and bonds in projects so I get not only a nice dividend, but also a real controlled stake in direction.
As an e-bond, WhedonCo owns 100% of the company, but must pay back the bond plus interest at a given time. The bond is just a loan to get things going. I shouldn't have said "share" or "profit" but "coupon" and "interest" is more correct.
If enough interest was shown (money where your mouth is), the project wouldn't need $5M per episode, I think. First, the old budget includes marketing. Bond holders would incur that personally, a la viral marketing. Second, the old budget reflects a portion of risk distributed among many shows, that too can be removed. Lastly, advertising can still be a minor income if its a provision like "Firefly 2.0 brought to you by Linksys Cisco" at the beginning of the program. A more directed ad showed us geeks who helped bring the program back wouldn't be shunned as much as 5 ad segments.
Re:Why should i pay? (Score:2, Interesting)
Total savings to us? 12.95 TiVo/month + ~$35 regular cable/month (never did find out what it would be at the new place, the old place had a special deal with the cable company)= $48. Let's round that to $50 for taxes and stuff. We now have 2/time unlimited NetFlix subscription, which is $15/month.
This means our total freed-up entertainment budget is $35/month. We also stopped going to movie theaters entirely (except in the special cases of movies we want to 'vote with our dollar' on, such as Serenity and March of the Penguins) so that is an untold savings per month. We also watch zero commercials now.
With the money left over, we could buy 17.5 shows PER MONTH on iTunes with this money. That's a lot. If you consider 4 shows/month for a particular title (like Lost or Desperate Housewives) it means we could follow 4 titles per month if we wanted to, without commercials. If we had less to spend that month, we could just hold back. If we didn't want to stay current (mostly I want to watch a couple so that I don't hear 'spoilers' at work or at the store or in the news..) we could wait for the DVDs to come out or until we have more funds available.
So let's review:
Your plan - pay a bunch of money for cable service, with countless amounts of programming you'll never watch. Do things on their schedule, build a PVR, or pay for TiVo. Watch commercials. Go through wankery if you want a digital copy.
Our plan - save a lot of money by not paying a monthly subscription for something we don't use that much anyway. Never watch commercials. Do things on our schedule, and have everything as digital content.
Of course, YMMV. Personally I've been happy with all the 'free time' and 'extra entertainment cash' hanging around that resulted from not having cable service.
Re:For crying out loud (Score:1, Interesting)
When Sky (US think Fox) in the UK started to look at this, basic packages got split over more and more channels and you had to increase you subscription to get those channels just to get the same programming. There was no more programming with the additional channels, just higher frequency of repeats. Ask any soccer fan how much they have to pay now. Originally, all the sports and films channels could be had for ~10 UKP, it's now closer to 40 (~$70) and there's a loss of shows/events to PPV.
How about CDs? Expensive to start with mid 80s, supposedly due to high manufacturing costs. Are they cheaper? No. Do they cost anything like the original amount to produce? Hell no, not even close. Yet cassettes are still cheaper, despite no one buying them!
They'll find an entry point, and the costs will increase. It's not as if the suppliers will be able to compete with the same products. The producers will fix the price, and it will go up over time.