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:Oh, Yeah. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:5, Insightful)
Archos == Tivo (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, given that Tivo's main advantage is its ability to *record*, I think that the Archos PVPs, with their simple analog video-in jack, are a closer match. So as well as all the digital options for content, if you want to just grab some damn video, all you need is to plug the Archos into a video feed and hit "record". Low-tech, but acceptable, and I believe still protected by Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios [eff.org].
And further, given Tivo's reluctance to enable free movement of content off the devices, I think a closer analogy for Archos is not Tivo but ReplayTV, with its DRM-free show sharing and ease of moving content between devices and over networks.
The video ipod is classic Apple: as much as possible a one-way street from Content Owners through Apple to Consumers, with the ipod remaining as tethered as possible to a Mac/iTunes for operation. Making it harder than it should be for ipod owners to create and share their own content.
For myself, I prefer more autonomy.
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
Re:Archos == Tivo (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, though, that Archos devices are cool and have some advantages over the new ipods. Their screens are also bigger and higher res. As far as I can think of, the advantage that the iPod has over Archos devices is the iTMS, meaning that y
Re:Archos == Tivo (Score:4, Informative)
As someone else mentioned, iPods can also play mp3s or unprotected AACs, so there's no need to buy your stuff from iTunes if you don't want. Likewise, the chip included in the device is an mpeg4 decoder. Apple's protected music: AAC::Apple's protected video:mpeg4. You can put unprotected mpeg4s on your ipod and play them. There's no requirement to use iTMS-purchased media if you have another source that will provide you mpeg4s (optimally H.264 at up to 768 Kbps at 320 x 240, which is the best quality you're getting on the new iPod)
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.
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple, when are you going to get the Sci-Fi channel on board? I want BSG downloads.
BSG? Hmm, funding model for new Firefly? (Score:3)
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.
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: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 "sh
Video on iPod is a decoy (Score:3, Insightful)
By making the whole announcement about video iPod, Jobs is avoiding a clash (or premature announcement) with the movie studios about downloadable movies. Instead, he is making a case for how downloadable movies could work, using TV content as a proxy.
With the whole FrontRow bit on the new iMacs, he is also starting (stealthily) the assault on the living room: what is FrontRow but a potential alternative to Windows Media Center Edit
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, this is a ripoff. Particularly for shows like Lost and Housewives, where the stories are serial and build on previous episodes. I don't mind listening to music out of order or even only listening to one track from a CD, but you'll never hear someone say, "Hey, that 5th episode of Lost was really outstanding, I think I'd like to have a permanent copy of that on my computer." This is all the more relevant as TV shows make it to DVD just a few months after the end of a season.
You're paying more for less just so you can get it now. If you are serious about TV, you'll have a PVR to time-shift TV and you'll buy DVDs for archiving. If you aren't serious about TV, you'll certainly never buy the episodes online.
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:3, Insightful)
But what if you're only serious about a handful of shows? Right now, there are precisely two shows that I watch on TV. I watch them via broadcast, then download each week's episode for watching later if I want, and then I buy the DVDs later when they are released, dumping my
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:3, Insightful)
Someday I'll own a PVR.
Today, I own a computer.
Perhaps, in a season or two, I'll want the complete collection for Lost.
Today, I just want to catch up a bit on the background.
Perhaps, in a year, I'll be able to shell out $70 for two seasons of a show. Today, I'm more than willing to shell out a couple of dollars of 'expendable' money to get a few episodes as they come out.
This isn't a hard concept. People buy small when they want big all the time, if they didn't places like Rent-A-Center would never
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand what you're trying to say, it's "watchable". Fine. Big Macs are edible too. But at the dawn of HDTV, why are we settling for Big Macs when you can buy a Porterhouse at your local
Re:Portable TV never worked and never will (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Don't be a moron (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree about portable TV being retarded, but I agree that the most overlooked aspect of this is that this is a new distribution model for TV shows. Haven't we (slashdotters) been asking for this? Whenever the stories have come up about bittorrenting TV shows, how many times has someone said, "It's
128x128 (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Details? (Score:5, Informative)
Both are protected with Fair Play 2.
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.
Re:128x128 (Score:2)
Re:128x128 (Score:2)
not even TV standard (Score:2)
(tv=500 vertical lines of resolution)
-everphilski-
Re:128x128 (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were a movie, I would feel differently. Movies have real cinematographers/DPs, are shot on 35mm, etc. TV is, well, TV.
YMMV, etc.
Re:128x128 (Score:3, Informative)
2) 95% of TV shows don't have cinemaphotographers. They have a good DP, if they're lucky, but the schedule and monetary constraints of TV production don't allow for real cinematography. You don't have two hours to set up a shot in TV land, and then another hour to reset. You have, if you're lucky, half an hour for set up and five minutes to reset. For a really complicated outdoor shot, like on Law & Order o
Re:128x128 (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM (Score:2, Insightful)
I dont buy itunes music for the same reason
CABLE WILL HAVE NO ADS BECAUSE YOU PAY FOR IT!!!1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Key Milestone (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Key Milestone (Score:3, Informative)
A la carte on iTunes, those 10 shows would $2 per episode, roughly 22 episodes. 10x2x22 is $440 for the convenience of watching it any time (doable with a PVR on normal TV) and commercial free (doable with a PVR if you expend a little effort).
Of course, the sweet s
Re:Key Milestone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ipod for video (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ipod for video (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:ipod for video (Score:3, Insightful)
We can only hope... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We can only hope... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We can only hope... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We can only hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, advertisers have already coped with this. It's call "product placement ads" and it's been around since TV started. These days, you'll have strategically placed computers (noticed that most laptops tend to be shot so they're easily recognizable? They didn't take the shot of the computer screen with the Dell logo on the side as part of bad camera angles - they did it to get the logo in specifically for the shot. Same goes for PowerBooks (though, since they're really quite distinct, they're easy to take from any angle), MP3 players (Oakley thumps, anyone?), soda (main actor reaches for the distinctly red Coke can), cellphones, etc). Rather than try to advertise during the commercial break, they advertise in the show itself.
Of course, on a tiny iPod screen, it just means made-for-iPod TV filming just got more creative with camera angles and closeups.
Somewhat limited (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Somewhat limited (Score:2)
For crying out loud (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been announced/available for 2 days now. It's a revolution in how we'll get TV delivered. All the other networks will look on, see that they're missing out, and clamour to get onboard, but this takes more than 2 days...
Give it time - rome wasn't built in a day, or even 2.
Simon
Re:For crying out loud (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm. So now we can't claim that it's free. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmm. So now we can't claim that it's free. (Score:3, Insightful)
TV shows have never been free, up until now they've been subsidized entirely by advertisers, and in the case of cable channels, by cable subscribers.
Re:Hmm. So now we can't claim that it's free. (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, that's what it's "worth" now, right?
Re:Hmm. So now we can't claim that it's free. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not the first person to make this mistake. Our legal system does not work this way because there must be a deterrent. If the penalty is fixed at the value of what's taken (or "infringed upon," for the pedants), then copyright violation, theft, embezzlement, and so on are zero sum games.
If you're not sure what I mean, imagine what would happen if the law were changed so that if you robbed $100K from a bank or stole $100K from your employer, your only risk is that you'd have to pay the $100K back if you were caught.
The wikipedia article on damages [wikipedia.org] probably explains it better than I can. Scroll down to the "Punitive or exemplary damages" section if you don't have time to read the whole thing. I hope this helps.
What I want to see (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What I want to see (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.nakednews.com/ [nakednews.com]
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.
Re:One step at a time (Score:2, Informative)
I was excited ... (Score:2, Interesting)
AAA!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF?
The reason the programming exists in the first place is because there is demand for it. The fact that it's now being shown through a different medium is irrelevant to that demand.
And where there is demand, someone will find a way to make money off supplying that demand. Just simple economics.
An interesting step (Score:5, Insightful)
This could eventually spell disaster for marketing in the traditional sense but not for a while. I don't expect consumers will tolerate downloads thatr have ads embedded since they are paying a proce for that content. However, there will still be a demand for live-to-air programming for a long time. I can't imagine downloading the SuperBowl and watching it after the fact. Things like this will preserve television in its current form (or thereabouts) for the foreseeable future, I think.
However, I have to say, being able to download Lost and watch it at my convenience is a very tempting propect.
Re:An interesting step (Score:3, Funny)
You mean, in the ten minutes between the announcement of the video iPods and the announcement of the TV shows on iTMS? :^P
PVRs will change TV quicker (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find particularly funny is that the ads on TV have started to mirror the spam in email, they all seem to be pushing viagra and variants. The PVR will allow users to reclaim thier TVs just like spamassassin allowed us to reclaim our email systems.
As to selling shows over the Internet, it may have a niche market, realizing you only need a small percentage of Internet users to make a reasonable profit. But to appeal to the widest possible audience such distribution of shows will need to be bundled with the cost of Internet access in some way as part of the $40/month this most cable services charge for access.
Re:PVRs will change TV quicker (Score:3, Insightful)
So...a
Value needs to improve (Score:4, Insightful)
If you wanted, there are ways to rip said DVDs into a format playable on the iPod.
Even better, you could record the magnificent 1920x1080 interlaced MPEG-2 widescreen broadcast every Sunday going forward, it'll take up 10GBs of space which at today's hard drive prices is around $2.50 of space, and if you buy your tuner card before the broadcast flag gets rammed through there will be zero DRM encumbrances.
The value you are getting is: it's already pre-ripped and encoded for your video iPod. You can get yesterday's show for a semi-reasonable price. So this is good for people who just want to catch up with their stories and don't want to wait for the DVD. I'd be happy to get Curb Your Enthusiasm this way so I could cancel my HBO subscription. It'd save me a ton of money over the course of a year. (Don't tell HBO).
Re:Value needs to improve (Score:2)
Not to mention that ABC is adding more commercials than normal (five break
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 ni
Re:Value needs to improve (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not the greatest, but... (Score:2)
I never saw Firefly when it was on tv over here (Ireland), but I heard/read the buzz about it from the States on the Internet. If I could have downloaded it legally and had it on my iPod, I would have ranted about how great it was to all my friends (as I did w
Either pay or commercials should be an option (Score:2)
Ideally, it should be a choice on every channel. For example, to keep the times in sync they could offer a more expensive alternate channel where all of the commercials are pushed to the end of the time slot and the show is shown commercial free followed by the same set of commercials.
Some of us already do... (Score:2)
Hmmm..... (Score:2)
Maybe. A show like Firefly or Birds Of Prey that would normally draw a very limited audience and get tossed from broadcast TV quickly. Maybe this as a distribution model may keep these shows alive longer. But I don't know if that's enough to convince the PHB's that make these decisions.
"Will it kill traditional TV ads"
Yes. But they'll just pay for product placements. Problem solved.
"Will we end up eventually paying (or stealing) all of our future programming?"
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
Google Video (Score:2)
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:Car talk (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cartalk.com/Radio/Show/online.html [cartalk.com]
Re:Car talk (Score:3, Informative)
Apple's Tivo-on-demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they've got a deal with one of the networks to sell TV shows. I wonder if they're planning to go from there to the rest of the networks. And then to a set-top box hooked into the Internet. It would be like a combination of a TiVo and video on demand: you don't have to set it in advance but it plays regular broadcast TV rather than movies.
Slashdotters will probably swear up and down that it's overpriced and they'd never pay that much for DRM content. $2 a pop is kind of pricey, given that you're used to getting it for free with your cable/satellite bill. If you're the sort of person who watches the TV every night from 8 until 11 then you're going to spend a lot this way.
But I wonder if such a thing might just work. It's like the ultimate a la carte. I got rid of cable because I was too busy to watch TV, but there are a few shows I miss and I'd happily watch $10 or even $20 a month worth of TV to have it come in commercial-free and on my own schedule.
This gets really complicated. As with music, there are many independent content producers who would love to use this to bypass the networks entirely. When 24 came out on DVD it was said that this was what they were really selling, and that the TV broadcasts were just advertisements for those DVDs. I wouldn't go that far, but it really does bring up a whole new avenue for artists to produce content (in this case, short-format video), get it to audiences, and pay for it.
I'm getting way ahead of myself. Apple's next step would be to secure agreements with the other networks (and to get the rest of ABC's programming.) But if Apple starts sending out mysterious postcards again some time next year it wouldn't surprise me to discover that they're hinting at a new iPod that you leave at home.
In a way, not stealing TV shows (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't mind the commercials (Score:2)
It's an OK deal really. Provide the content for free and pay for its creation with advertisements. If we had to pay directly for content creation, what would our cable bill look like? The problem has been the creation of an inequity in the deal. More and more time going to commercials, and lower and lower quality of content.
Personally, I'd prefer it if the downloads were free and came with commercials. Perhaps you could be given a choice of commercials to be auto-inserted upon download. That way, the comme
Slashdot posting blogs now? (Score:2)
it's not just about portable; see today's Cringley (Score:2)
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.
DVD Jon! (Score:4, Funny)
Pray, o' Lord, that You giveth thine Jon of DVD, the power to release thine TV shows from Satan's demonic, ravenous, malicious lock on ones and zeros, so I may become pure of spirit and download thine shows from ThePirateBay.
Amen.
Implications of this to Apple vs. labels (Score:3, Insightful)
The important thing here is that Apple is broadening their value generation base, they aren't anymore just a record store. They gather audience from music lovers to people wanting to watch tv, this makes iTunes have more people using it, and it makes iTunes more interesting market, giving Apple more power to negotiate with content producers. The move also makes sure that Microsoft and others have to play catch up with Apple, if they want to be a part of future content and media distribution landscape.
More speculative thing is, is Apple trying to build slowly vertically integrated media platform where people can computers, content players, software and services all come from Apple? Atleast to me it looks like it. The major question now is, can Apple and Jobs this time play it right and crap a near monopoly in content area, making Apple the next decades Microsoft?
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.
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.
Edited for Content... (Score:4, Insightful)
Something else going on here (Score:3, Insightful)
They really should sell higher quality (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bet this will include commercials... (Score:2)
It doesn't (yet) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is just retarded (Score:2)
Wake up, smell the coffee. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Excuse me, but why do i have to pay to watch something that i already paid to have broadcast to my house?"
"Excuse me, but why do I have to pay for this taxi cab when I have a fully-working car at my house ?"
"Excuse me, but why do I have to pay to buy this book, when I have another copy sitting in my house ?"
Simon.
Re:False assumption (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly are you whining about?