|
 |  PC World -
Nov-05-2009Bad Apple: Five Classic Apple Marketing Tactics That Lock You In(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
- Going by a Monday report in The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital blog, Apple has proposed a new Apple TV service that would facilitate the transmission of TV programs through the iTunes software and store across an array of hardware. (More...)
- Guggenheim sees the Apple initiative as a way to spur exploration in music films. (More...)
- Cable giants are charging130 monthly to watch TV and access the internet. (More...)
- If Apple, or anyone can figure out a way to have "a-la-carte" channels, all the crap would dry up an blow away. (More...)
- Don't make me have to think about a monthly fee for each viewing device like the current content providers. (More...)
- I personally do not have cable, download all the network stuff I want to see in high def and maybe will get an OTA high def antenna for local news. (More...)
- RAM: Wooden Performance Who knew a well-placed Woody could get you nearly a million friends on Facebook? In early September, TV spots, viral videos and digital ads directed Facebook users to "Woody," a 30-something slacker who dubbed himself "Friday's biggest fan." (More...)
- I love how cable companies have been luring customers in with crippled bandwidth from day one, promising better speeds and unlimited use, and then capped it when people bit and went for the plan. (More...)
- Marvell, the chip maker not the entertainment company, announced that it is set to enter the eReader world. the company will market new digital content platforms that work with E-Ink, the electronic paper company who helped develop Amazon's Kindle. (More...)
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
Going by a Monday report in The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital blog, Apple has proposed a new Apple TV service that would facilitate the transmission of TV programs through the iTunes software and store across an array of hardware. Talking about Apples' potential $30-per-month subscription service, which will likely become available next year, Peter Kafka said in the All Things Digital blog that Apple is persuading programmers to include their shows in the proposed subscription through iTunes. Saying that the latest Apple strategy of a subscription-based the service appears to be a well-though-out one, Kafka added that the service will not only give the consumers lower bills, but also provide them with an 'anywhere' access to TV shows, sans the requirement of any other device. Kafka said that even though TV networks are somewhat wary that a new Apple TV subscription service might upset their current relationships with fees from traditional cable providers, the subscription approach actually falls in line with the present-day scenario. Speaking in technological terms, the subscription strategy is hand-in-glove with the rapid rise of digital streaming, which enables consumers to view content directly from the Internet, rather than storing its copy on the hard drive of some device. [1] Apple is gauging interest in an over-the-top service from its iTunes store with network and cable programmers, but it could face an uphill battle on gaining the content to provide a meaningful service. All Things Digital reporter Peter Kafka wrote that Apple is looking at starting a $30-per-month service early next year if it can get buy-in from content owners such as broadcast and cable networks. Instead of using Apple'''s TV box, which has largely floundered, Apple would offer the service through its iTunes store and software, which Apple re-tooled last month. Kafka wrote that Disney might be willing to bite on the service based on its past experiences with iTunes and the fact that Apple CEO Steve Jobs is the largest single shareholder of Disney based on Disney'''s acquisition of Job'''s Pixar in 2006. Cable programmers may not be willing to take the plunge given their existing relationships with cable operators. Comcast has 25 programmers signed up for its On Demand Online trial, while Time Warner Cable is launching Internet videos to its subscribers from Turner portals TNT and TBS. Cable programmers would need to be convinced that the additional revenue stream from Apple would be worth risking their relationships with other content distributors such as cable operators.[2] Kafka wrote, Disney could be the first to sign up thanks to that company's long relationship with iTunes and the fact that Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder. This is not the first time that Apple has been rumored to be looking at offering a TV programming subscription service. In August, the Web site AppleInsider reported that analyst firm Piper Jaffray wrote to clients that it expects Apple in the near future to introduce a new Apple TV in a move that could help Apple boost purchases of videos from its iTunes online store and let Apple develop a video subscription model similar to that of Hulu and Netflix. Kafka wrote that network executives are wary of a new Apple TV subscription service because of the potential for upsetting existing relationships with fees from traditional cable providers, as well as how such a service would impact advertising revenue.[3] No one's going to pony up for re-runs of Ice Road Truckers. How, assuming they want to jump aboard, do you convince these industry heavy hitters to risk incurring the wrath of major cable providers by signing up for a service whose whole existence would threaten the stranglehold they have on distribution of said content? Disney's rumored to be the first to sign up, due to the special place it holds in Apple CEO Steve Jobs' heart (and pocketbook ''' he's the top individual shareholder, because of the sale of Pixar to Disney in 2006) but despite what screaming tweens and their ticket-hungry parents say, you can't launch a subscription model on Hannah Montana alone. To be fair, the iTunes store does offer more than 50,000 TV episodes and 7,500 films, but a good number of those are from either backwater cable stations or networks that want you to watch episodes on normal TV ''' you know, the kind advertisers like and support.[4]
After working with News Corp and other TV networks to launch Hulu, however, NBC eventually returned to the iTunes fold. Another important issue are the networks, including cable networks, and their relationships with cable firms like Comcast. Cable companies worry about their bread and butter revenues from cable TV subscriptions as many consumers switch their TV watching to various Internet-based sources, including iTunes, Hulu, channel Web sites, and pirated content. The networks' own traditional models have been turned upside down by some of those very same forces, and Mr. Kafka opined that some networks may be loathe to anger companies like comcast by signing up with Apple and iTunes for a TV service. If, however, Apple "might get it right this time," the company could see TV subscriptions be the next industry it disrupts.[5] Apple isn'''t tying the proposed service to a specific piece of hardware, like its underwhelming Apple TV box, or its long-rumored tablet/slate device. It is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software, which already has a huge installed base: A year ago, Apple said it had 65 million iTunes customer accounts. With Time Warner in both the content and cable businesses, and Comcast aiming for the same, the question of just how much traction Apple can get for this new service, which they hope to launch early next year, is critical. As of this report, Cupertino has yet to sign anyone. Kafka's write up adds that content owners are both intrigue at the possibility of new revenues but also skittish about disturbing their largely settled (and profitable) relationships with cable operators.[6] We continue to believe that Apple will eventually offer a monthly subscription for iTunes TV shows accessible on Apple TV, iPods, iPhones, and Macs/PCs. Apple could leverage its deep library of content with many network and cable channel content owners to provide unlimited access to a sub-library of its TV shows for a standard monthly fee ($30 to $40 per month). Such a product would effectively replace a consumer'''s monthly cable bill (~$85/month) and offer access to current and older episodes of select shows on select channels. While timing on the launch of such a product is very uncertain given the negotiations that would need to take place, Apple may work to launch it simultaneously with a new version of Apple TV, or updated Apple TV software within the next year.[7] Given the numerous side projects of networks, like CBS' TV.com, and the attempts by cable companies to restrict online streaming to customers, Apple faces a big hurdle before it can offer a $30 unlimited TV package. That said, with more and more networks looking for a way to monetize their content online, Apple may be able to capture their attention and the eyes of 100 million iTunes account holders with a plan that puts streaming TV on any device with iTunes. With Hulu reported to start charging for content in 2010, Apple may be able to leverage its close ties with Disney to kick off the streaming service with a respectable selection. But only if it is able to offer consumers easier access to better quality TV shows -- on their televisions and mobile devices.[8] Although you can buy season passes for shows, soon you'll hopefully be able to subscribe to the service on a monthly basis. According to All Things Digital, Apple is in the process of gathering support from the popular TV networks in order to have it launch some time early next year, for the sum of $30 a month, though it's unclear whether or not this would work globally or just in the U.S. As expected, the company is said to be against aiming this at any particular piece of hardware (such as the Apple TV), but instead will have this service integrated into iTunes itself, saving themselves the worry of customers getting frustrated about being forced onto one device. Though this might be great for those who use iTunes to watch TV shows often, it might not be so great for those who offer the programs themselves.[9] Interesting murmurs are emanating from Cupertino this week about Apple's alleged plans to offer an all-you-can-watch television buffet for the princely sum of $30 a month. It's about time. The days of the public buying a single song or downloading a single show for $2.99 are waning; they'd prefer to buy digital media the way they buy pens or Twizzlers from Staples, in bulk. With savvy senior citizens figuring out how to illegally download movies and music, it can be said with some confidence that iTunes has served for many as the "training wheels" for illegal Bit Torrent downloads. (It's not a great leap -- first step: download stuff from iTunes; a year later: download the same stuff for free). This alleged reasonably-priced Apple service would probably keep these folks within the paying fold. Why? Because the price is right and it's convenient, and for no other reason. With it being so easy to get the things they want for free online, why should consumers be obliged to spend $90 a month for 500 channels, 490 of them that are never, ever watched? Paying just $30 for the things you do want to watch is a no-brainer.[10]
Over at All Things Digital, Peter Kafka is reporting that he's hearing that Apple wants to offer a $30 TV subscription service through iTunes, and is trying to stir up interest among content providers. He has very few details, but the basic idea of a technology company taking on cable with an Internet-based service appeals to me. (I've written in the past of my flirtations with ditching Comcast, although I remain a subscriber as I write this.) Sooner or later, we're all going to get all of our entertainment and information over the Internet, whether it's from Apple or Comcast or someone else or a combination of multiple options.[11] Taylor Buley, 11.02.09, 06:00 PM EST The company's got a new subscription TV service in the works. BURLINGAME, Calif. -- All Things Digital's Peter Kafka reports multiple sources saying that Apple is looking to extend its iTunes software with a $30-a-month subscription service. It's an Internet television service that would ride "over the top" of existing infrastructure and could rival the traditional ones offered by cable TV operators, notes Kafka.[12]
It seems Apple is rethinking its TV strategy, in a way that mightif the company can pull it offgive consumers the option to pay Apple less than half as much as they currently pay their cable or satellite provider for a monthy TV subscription. According to All Things Digital’s Peter Kafka, Apple has been trying to convince programmerrs to make their shows available as part of a subscription, available via iTunes. The monthly price would be around $30, he reports. We've heard these rumors beforebut that doesn't mean they're not true.[13] One subscription I can watch anywhere and everywhere. I'd like to pay one flat fee for programming I can watch on my TV, my PC, and my phone. (That's one reason why the idea of an iTunes-based subscription service is intriguing-I've already got iTunes on my computers, on my iPhone, and-courtesy of Apple TV-on my TV.) Both live streams and a great DVR in the cloud. One of the reasons I still pay Comcast each month is because it's still the best way to get news and other real-time programming. I wouldn't pay an additional $30 a month for Subscription iTunes unless it brought me MSNBC and CNN and FOX and CSPAN. (Or, alternatively, unless they all become available online for free through some other means.)[11] The word on the street (meaning Peter Kafka from AllThingsD ) is that Apple has been going around TV networks over the last few weeks pitching a $30/month subscription service that would make it possible to watch TV through iTunes. It's not clear exactly how this would work. For instance, we don't know whether this would make live programs available live or as a later download, nor whether you'd have access to the same kind of programming that you get currently from cable companies. This of course would depend on how many networks jump on board, a selling task left up to iTunes boss Eddy Cue. "that if anyone jumps first, it will be Disney (DIS), since CEO Bob Iger has shown a willingness to experiment with Apple and iTunes in the past: In 2005, Disney was the first player to sell its programming on iTunes, via a-la-carte downloads.[14] The service would be offered through iTunes and not tied to Apple devices. Apple's finally got the right idea: "We've heard these rumors before--but that doesn't mean they're not true," says Peter Burrows in BusinessWeek. Apple's approach, "if the company can pull it off," makes more sense than its old TV scheme, which hinged on getting people to buy its set-top-box, AppleTV. We think of TV as a service, so with a subscription service Apple would be giving people "more of what they really want--a lower bill, anywhere access, without having to buy another gizmo." The big TV networks won't bite: Does this rumor "sound fishy? It is," says Andrew Heining in The Christian Science Monitor. This will go nowhere without buy-in from at least "the big-three networks" and HBO--and why would they "risk incurring the wrath of major cable providers"? There's also the issue of size. "Americans like big," so it's hard to see paying to watch TV on a 15-inch laptop screen.[15] That'''s the pitch Apple has been making to TV networks in recent weeks. The company is trying to round up support for a monthly subscription service that would deliver TV programs via its multimedia software, multiple sources tell me. Apple isn'''t tying the proposed service to a specific piece of hardware, like its underwhelming Apple TV box or its long-rumored tablet/slate device. The company is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software and store, which already has 100 million customers.[16] Company allegedly exploring monthly TV subscription service on iTunes. November 2, 2009 - According to a report from AllThingsD's Peter Kafka, Apple is currently exploring the possibility of developing a digital television subscription service within their iTunes software. Kafka says that multiple sources have revealed to him that Apple is currently pitching the digital service to TV networks and that the proposal isn't tied to specific hardware – Apple TV, iPhone, etc. – but rather as a uniform feature addition to iTunes, with the hopes of tapping into the service's existing user base of over 100 million customers.[17] The networks are both intrigued by and wary of the new potential service, according to a Monday report in The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital blog. Rather than tying such a service to its Apple TV box or a rumored table device, Apple would make the TV shows available for subscription via iTunes as early as next year, wrote Peter Kafka in the All Things Digital blog.[3] The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital blog is reporting that Apple is having meetings with TV networks to see if they'd be interested in having their programs available on iTunes in a deal where viewers would pay a monthly flat fee to watch the shows. Obviously, many networks already offer various shows on iTunes, but this would be a scenario where Mac and PC users of iTunes would pay a $30 a month subscription in order to watch TV shows. That would be all shows, not just paying for each show that you want to watch. I don't know if I'm ready for this yet.[18] Now, almost a decade later rumor has it that Apple wants to revolutionize the way we get our television delivered by offering all you can watch TV for $30. Before Apple can offer consumers the opportunity to ditch their cable subscriptions for an all-you-can-watch plan it has to convince the television networks that it's a good idea, just like it did with the music labels.[8] Imagine a future where you subscribe only to the networks -- or even better, the TV shows -- that you want to watch. Your bill amount is determined by the amount of TV you consume, and while you'd have the option of watching your shows live, your subscription would automatically deposit new episodes on the hard drive of your choice (such as Apple TV, perhaps?) when they become available, and store them there until you're ready to watch. Can cable survive in the face of something like this? Or will the likes of Comcast and Time Warner find ways to adapt? They'll have to, if they want to live.[19] This is the type of service I've wanted all along. With a service like this I could probably ditch my digital cable TV provider and I use iTunes to watch all my favorite TV programming. I hope a service like this becomes available soon. Apple should have offered this with the Apple TV 3.0 software release. They shouldn't have radically changed the UI the way they did the interface changes suck.[20] Apple is reportedly planning a new subscription service that would allow viewers to watch TV through iTunes. The move would put Apple in direct contention with major video-on-demand (VoD) players, as well as established U.S. cable TV providers such as Comcast.[21] Bandwidth caps are of concern here. Many Internet providers that offer the so-called triple play service (phone, Internet, and IPTV) also re-sell entertainment that's why they cap your bandwidth so you don't stream movies via Netflix or iTunes. There's nothing Apple can do about this except hope that the Net Neutrality will fix this. Don't forget the fact that the alleged Apple deal puts TV networks in an unenviable position with cable and satellite providers that also re-sell their TV programming, like Comcast. On top of this all, sluggish broadband speeds limits streaming'' entertainment to metropolitan areas with high-speed connections.[7] Apple's VP of Internet Services, Eddy Cue, has been charged with drumming up interest among TV networks, though so far none have made a commitment to providing content available for the service. The sources so far are laying odds that Disney is likely to be the first to bite; it was the first studio to offer its movies via iTunes when Apple launched to feature in 2006. It also doesn't hurt that Steve Jobs sits on Disney's board and is one of its largest shareholders.[22] In the love column is Disney, where Apple CEO Steve Jobs has a solid relationship with Disney CEO Robert Eiger. Disney was the first company to sell TV shows through iTunes, offering both Disney video and movies and ABC TV network programming. In the love-hate column are networks like NBC. That network saw Steve Carrell's version of The Office become a hit after people watched it through iTunes purchases, but the company chaffed at Apple's controls over content-pricing and NBC eventually left iTunes.[5]
The approach makes sense. It would give consumers more of what they really wanta lower bill, anywhere access, without having to buy another gizmo. It also fixes some problems with Apple's current TV plans. It's clear, by Steve Jobs' own admission, that the company's Apple TV device is mostly for hobbyists. The products tepid sales may be less a reflection of the product's quality, than of the simple fact that most humans conceive of TV as a servicesomething that is simply delivered into their homes, not something they have to buy, set-up and repair. It's no surprise that Apple tried this approach first; it's the ultimate “product company,” filled with employees (and a CEO) that like coming to work to great some neat new object of desire. Unlike other forms of media (music fans, for instance, have long purchased their music in the form of a product such as a vinyl album, CD or digital download), TV viewers have always paid that monthly cable or satellite bill (or received terrestrial broadcast TV service for free).[13] A so-called '''over the top''' service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already buy from cable TV operators if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers. That'''s a big if: Apple has told industry executives it wants to launch the service early next year, but I have yet to hear of a single programmer that has made a firm commitment to the company, which has tasked iTunes boss Eddy Cue with promoting the idea. Industry executives believe that if anyone jumps first, it will be Disney, since CEO Bob Iger has shown a willingness to experiment with Apple and iTunes in the past: In 2005, Disney was the first player to sell its programming on iTunes, via a-la-carte downloads.[16]
By extension, that should allow the content to be viewable via computer, Apple TV, iPhone, and iPod touch (or even an Apple tablet, if and when it ever materializes). It may even be launched alongside a rumored iTunes Replay streaming service. Though Apple is said to have proposed subscription services in the past, the company seems poised to convince industry executives this time around. One executive briefed on the company's plans told All Things Digital, "I think they might get it right this time."[22] No thanks Apple for now will stick with Apple TV 2.3.1 software I already have on my Apple TV. Hopefully, the iTunes subscription service will be able to work with Apple TVs using Apple TV Take 2 software and if not a 4.0 version will be released with a better UI than the 3.0 version that incorporates this feature. No player in the video download business is offering anything like this. iTunes subscriptions for TV should be in SD and/or HD and no ridiculous time limits like on iTunes Movie Rentals.[20]
While iTunes allows users to buy individual TV episodes for $1.99, or even buy a whole seasonsometimes for a discountusers may in the future pay a $30 monthly fee and watch whatever TV they like. Industry insiders say this service will be an extension of iTunes Store itself instead of being limited to streaming via Apple TV.[22] Tech industry insiders are reporting that Apple has been conducting hush-hush negotiations with major TV networks to launch a subscription service for watching TV via iTunes. The rumored service -- which is rather vague in its parameters -- would be offered for $30 a month.[19] The most recent example: Today's report from All Things Digital's Peter Kafka, who says that Apple is pitching a monthly subscription service to the TV networks, an iTunes-based alternative to cable packages that would cost about $30 per month.[23] Apple is shopping a $30-a-month subscription TV service around to broadcast and cable TV networks, according to Peter Kafka at The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital.[15]
Writing for the MediaMemo blog within AllThingsD, Peter Kafka said Apple is looking for networks to sign on to provide content to a monthly subscription service through iTunes that would effectively put the company in competition with cable and satellite TV companies.[5] Apple's strong consumer brand, the company's proven success in delivering digital content (iTunes/iPod) to the masses, and the TV networks' quest to find new revenue streams, all add up to a solid business plan. Let's not forget the average customer's dissatisfaction with pricey cable TV plans, nearly all of which force subscribers to receive dozens of channels they don't want and seldom (if ever) watch. If the rumored iTunes TV would allow users to create their own programming bundles ''' and if the price seriously undercut cable ''' it could prove wildly popular.[23] The new subscription approach also fits with what's happening in the world. Technologically, it fits with the rapid rise of digital streaming, in which a consumer views a piece of content that resides out on the Internet, as opposed to having to store a copy of that content on the hard drive in their PC, iPod or iPhone. Long as the content can be delivered in this manner glitch-free, streamed content fits better with how many people want to get their digital video: on whatever screen is most convenient. While the Apple TV might appeal to people that are fixated on watching Web-fare on their big screen TV, more people I know are far more interested in getting TV content, and any other kind of content, onto their laptop, PC or smartphone. No company is as well positioned to satisfy this demand than Apple. Many carriers have plans to make their content available in more numerous, and interesting ways. Microsoft continues to push its "Three Screens and a Cloud" vision.[13] Cars, houses, waistlines, TVs. Either Apple is banking on social change ''' hey, it worked with the iPod: Jobs at one point said people would never watch videos on such a small screen ''' or, it's hoping more people suddenly discover the VGA jack on the back of their new flatscreen (pshaw!). Or, more daringly, it's planning on giving away a variant of its as-yet woefully received Apple TV device. Would that work? They could adopt the cell phone model (which is really just the razors and blades model). It's a stretch ''' the current Apple TV packs a pricey hard drive, but a scaled back version could do away with that to save costs ''' but it's just enough of a game-changer for Apple to try it. What's your take? How will Apple proceed in with its rumored TV subscription service? What would work? Leave a comment or tell us on Twitter ''' we're @CSMHorizonsBlog.[4] While Apple TV is bound to be part of the mix if Apple does deliver a new TV subscription service through iTunes, the whispers suggest it won't be confined to the slightly underwhelming device.[24]
The hottest new Apple rumour in town is that Jobs and co are in talks with TV networks to create a monthly subscription service to deliver TV shows via iTunes.[24] NEW YORK - Apple may be testing the waters on a new monthly TV subscription service that would deliver programming via its multimedia software. According to a story on the Wall Street Journal's blog, the company is shopping around an extension of its iTunes software and store.[25]
Word on the street is that Apple is pitching a $30/month subscription service to the TV networks, which would allow end users to watch TV through iTunes. There isn't any detailed information in this just yet, but it's certainly intriguing.[26]
This a super interesting rumor to me. iTunes is a great platform for Apple to compete with the cable companies, and it would make Apple TV even more compelling (as an easy way to watch this service in the living room). I wonder, though, if Apple would ever subsidize the Apple TV the way cable companies subsidize their boxes. I strongly doubt it, and that would leave iTunes aimed primarily at those looking to use their computers as their primary content delivery device.[5] The supposed service would cost $30 per month, and would be delivered via iTunes. This would make the service accessible to various devices and platforms, rather than binding it to a specific piece of hardware, like Apple TV.[27] Will the Apple TV finally live up to its name? Kafka notes that the Apple television service would likely be an extension of its iTunes software, rather than tied to a device like Apple TV. "There's no word on what role devices have to play in this deal," notes gadget blog Engadget.[12]
Apple could establish itself as a living room player thanks to the advent of web-connected TV, and the launch could also give a major boost to Apple TV. Long dismissed by commentators as a "hobby" venture, Apple TV currently offers film and TV rentals by linking TVs with iTunes via a set-top box. Though programme makers already offer a number of TV shows on a pay-per-episode basis via iTunes, cable operators are less likely to support the Apple venture, as it would strike a blow to planned online VoD expansions, such as Comcast and Time Warner's much touted TV Everywhere trial.[21] Apple's iTunes Store is the biggest online media distributor on the planet; it offers music, movies, games for the iPod and iPhone, and even TV shows.[9] Main menu aside, the major new feature addition in Apple TV 3.0 is support for the new expanded-feature formats Apple introduced to the iTunes store back in September, iTunes LP and iTunes Extras. Since these formats bring a DVD-menu-style interface to music collections and movies, respectively, it was a natural that they'''d end up on the Apple TV. And now they have.[28] Rumours have been flying all across the world wide wibble that Apple does not want to tie the new service to any particular hardware. It is ignoring its fairly useless Apple TV and much hyped forthcoming tablet. Since it is coming on the back of its iTunes store it means that punters could even download it on PCs.[29] Perhaps Apple is content with Apple TV never being anything more than a front-end for the iTunes store. Or perhaps Apple is well aware of its device'''s limitations and is hard at work on a new version with upgraded hardware and improved support for the rest of the stuff that'''s out there on the Net.[28]
Clearly, Apple's alleged plans would be a boon to the bottom line of the networks and turn the iTunes store into a pseudo cable and satellite TV operator. The spanner in the works, of course, is likely to be the cable and satellite carriers, which will have a lot to lose with this new equation. Serves 'em right for charging me all those years for sports channels I never watched.[10] Apple has introduced a new Music Movies section to the iTunes Store, further segregating its video. The page highlights all movies with a music-related theme, running from documentaries like Imagine and Woodstock through to straight concert films, and fiction titles like The Blues Brothers. iTunes now also has a larger amount of such content, with material including The Song Remains the Same and U2: Rattle and Hum. Billboard reports that Apple is attempting to gain exclusive early rights to a number of music movies, before copies are even available on DVD. The company already has the rights to a new Kings of Leon concert movie, and will soon gain It Might Get Loud, a documentary featuring Jimmy Page and Jack White.[30] Apple has begun to promote music-themed movies on the iTunes Store with a new landing page, a place the company plans to fill with exclusive content. The new Music Movies section currently promotes the documentary "It Might Get Loud," featuring guitarists Jimmy Page, The Edge and Jack White. iTunes will offer the film from Dec. 8 through Dec. 22 before anyone else.[31]
Apple is now promoting music-themed movies on iTunes including a concert film by Kings of Leon and is making plans to fill its new landing page with exclusive content. iTunes will offer exclusive access to It Might Get Loud, a film featuring legendary guitarists, and is negotiating exclusive early access to more music-based movies that will be promoted on the site's music movies page.[32]
The movie is one of the first exclusives Apple is offering as part of the new Music Movies initiative designed to drive digital music fans to iTunes' video content. In this Q&A, the director shares his thoughts about the state of music-themed movies, physical versus digital distribution, and how the music and movie business can better work together moving forward. What do you think of Apple's decision to get aggressive with the marketing of music films? It's perfect.[33] Apple has launched a new sub-section of iTunes devoted to music movies. Why music movies? It seems like while iTunes sells a lot of music, they're not yet selling as much video and Apple seems to think they can use the music tie-in to promote the movies. (We'll spare you the iTunes LP -esque "and it will look great on an iTablet !" line this time.[34]
If all indications are to be taken, the new service could be up in the first half of 2010. It isn't like Apple to jump into an already crowded market, but it doesn't seem as irrational as it initially appears. Apple has a very reliable iTunes install base I have a feeling this alone is enough to help Apple very quickly overtake the main competition (such as Netflix and the Xbox). Should be interesting to see how Apple pulls this off. The great thing about rumors is the idea that they might be true, and a TV option from Apple would let existing users centralize their media like never before.[35] OK, it's a rumor. It's based on one report ''' from a major organization, but citing several anonymous sources. The prospect of a TV subscription model from Apple has many around the Web pondering what such a move would do to the media landscape. First speculated on reported by The Wall Street Journal's Peter Kafka this morning, the service would bring a (presumably unlimited) roster of TV shows to subscribers for $30 a month.[4] Netflix's on-demand service is already doing exactly this. Movies and TV shows that can be streamed directly to your PC or TV (through the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Roku Player now, and Playstation3 later this year). Their selection is a mixture of 1000s of older movies, some recent titles, and a large number of TV shows (including some current runs such as the latest season of Heroes and recent series such as The Office). It is bundled as part of their $8.99 per-month DVD rental service. If Apple is looking at a $30 price point then they need to be looking at this as a replacement for premium cable TV with compelling content.[4] "Apple's $30 a month TV subscription service? Not buying it." Cable TV is going down either way: Oh, "it's going to happen, the only question is when," says Jeff Bertolucci in PC World.[15] Apple has been out talking to TV networks in recent weeks, trying to round up support for a subscription service which would deliver unlimited TV for only $30 monthly.[36] Reports of Apple shopping the $30 a month subscription TV service to major networks raise questions ''' and open a world of possibility.[4]
The difference, it seems, comes down to a vague distinction between "bill" and "subscription." With cable, you get everything, because the TV shows and networks make their money mostly from advertising that airs during the shows. With a subscription-based service, you get something more akin to pay-cable networks like HBO and Showtime, where your subscription payment to the network negates their need to sell ads, so you get commercial-free entertainment. If Apple is thinking of something similar for broadcast networks like ABC and NBC, or even basic cable networks like TNT and TBS, then this could completely change the business model of consumer television.[19] Cable networks may have the hardest time making the leap, since the service would compete with cable companies' offerings and could jeopardize current agreements with the likes of Comcast, Cox, and TimeWarner. Netflix is already streaming many TV shows as part of its monthly subscription service, and Hulu is also contemplating adding subscriptions as way of monetizing its content.[22] As for why programmers might NOT want to participate, Kafka writes, "Cable networks, for instance, don't want to threaten existing relationships and subscription fees from cable providers like Comcast (CMCSA). Programmers are also worried about the effect a subscription service would have on advertising revenue: Even if the service didn't distribute TV programs until after their initial air date, that could cut into ratings, which now measure viewership over the course of several days[37]
What's a content subscription service (cable TV, magazines, or Netflix) without the best content? To be a success, a TV subscription service needs to land the big fish of the industry ''' the big-three networks, HBO, and the like.[4]
Some are saying Apple is deep in talks with several TV companies, indicating a special subscription deal may be in the making. Apple TV has been around for a while, but if the rumors are true, then this marks the first time Apple may be going up against Cable heavyweights with their own subscription service.[35] Of course, there's also the issue of whether couch potatoes like me will take to coughing up $30 for an iTunes TV subscription (which, as the Journal notes, wouldn't necessarily be tied to Apple TV or the iPhone) in the first place.[38] In June 2005 Apple settled a class-action suit filed by iPod battery victims, offering a $50 voucher toward future Apple purchases (excluding downloads) and another year of warranty support. Over the last three years, consumers have filed multiple antitrust suits against Apple alleging that the tight connection between the iPod and iTunes constitutes a monopoly; these have been consolidated in a federal class-action suit currently under way in Northern California . "When you buy a movie through your Apple TV, and the movie is in a DRM-protected format that will not work on home theater systems from other companies, it makes you less likely to switch," he says. "But what choice does Apple have? They can sell DRM-protected movies, or they can sell no movies at all."[39] The $80 Roku Player streams Netflix movies and TV shows to the living room, and Netflix recently announced plans to stream content to PlayStation 3 consoles in the U.S. Internet-ready HDTVs and Blu-ray players are becoming commonplace too. Then there's Apple TV, which has gotten a tepid response from both consumers and Steve Jobs, who called the media-playback device "a hobby," thus far. Maybe it's more than a hobby after all.[23] Content is currently available from free, legal sources in low quality format that appears acceptable on small portable screens. Netflix offers 720p TV show streaming today for $8/mo, including movies on DVD. If Apple gets the distribution rights for network shows in their bag of goods for $30/mo, you can bet Netflix will also.[13]
A number of other initiatives by a variety of players are in consideration to make content available across multiple platforms. Disney, for example, is expected to unveil technology this month that will give consumers '''access rights''' to movies and TV shows, allowing them to pay a single price for permanent access to content across the web, mobile devices, and cable services that allow on-demand viewing. The technology, known as Keychest, allows users to purchase rights to a movie from a participating store, and the user'''s accounts with other participating services, such as mobile providers or VOD cable services, show the content as available for viewing.[40] Apple would have to make itunes available to other devices before I'd even consider that. I purchase season passes for my favorite shows from Amazon's VOD service so I can watch them on my TV via Roku.[18] The scrolling interface on the Apple TV is smooth, but I completely missed the faint scroll bar in the corner that indicates that I could press the down button on my remote to scroll down and see more of the lyrics pages. Then there'''s the matter of Apple'''s boner when it came to both these formats, which the company only released last month. People who have bought iTunes LPs and iTunes Extras in the past 50 days will discover that their files aren'''t yet compatible with the Apple TV. Apple will have to push out an update via iTunes to the libraries of every single person who has purchased this content. Sure, in a couple of weeks this will be nothing more than a hazy memory, but it shows a remarkable lack of planning on Apple'''s part.[28] Currently, iTunes sells a package of television shows on episode-by-episode basis. In Canada, the one-off fee for a hot show such as Mad Men is generally $2.49. The shows only become available after they've been broadcast on television. Apple is already in the television business through its Apple TV application.[41]
I think the basic concept is there to sell to the more media orientated computer youth than the rest of us.Still sounds like it needs a little more end product with less cash,one already pays for the ISP then $30 a month to watch TV from your computer or what ever Apple is trying to sell. Maybe If the Hardware is free and it is pay as you go up to $30 and not a dollar more not even taxes or surcharges etc.The money is in the service not the device,I say good luck to them and remember to smile it will make your day seem better the more you smile.[4] A little steep since a connection of that speed like Comcast internet is $55 without cable tv in addition to the $30 and there are the cap overages. Too much "saids" ands "woulds" to have an opinion in this matter. I think that cable is still more convenient, but as Kibaruk said, this is a rumour without much meat. It's like asking if we think the Apple tablet would be an attractive buy. Be interesting to see how this turns out.[27] I think at this point in the trend, cable providers should count themselves as lucky to be in a position to exert pressure on any content provider. In the future it could easily be Hulu, Netflix, and Apple instead of Comcast etc. We've already reached the tipping point where consumers are much more likely to choose their internet connection over their cable connection. In these economic times they'd really like to trade their cable subscription for something cheaper and easier that gives them the content they want instead of trying to give them expensive package deals.[9]
According to unnamed sources cited by AllThingsD, Apple is trying to secure backing for a monthly TV subscription service -- not unlike your average cable or satellite provider.[27] What apple needs to do is offer a subscription service like microsoft does for the Zune.why ppl pay the money they do for an Ipod is beyond me without a marketplace. Apple is going overboard with this ine.besides who would watch tv on a 3 inch screen anyway.[38] Put another way, I'm paying about $10 per hour for the shows I watch on Cable. This rumored service would be more like $5 an hour. Most of these cable shows are available on iTunes shortly after broadcast for $3 in "HD" or $2 for SD. So, either way, it would be more economical for me to BUY the shows rather than pay a monthly subscription fee.[4] Cable TV as we know it has numbered days, just like POTS Telephone lines are becoming a thing of the past. Everyone I know is tired of giving the cable company $100+ a month just to watch TV! They continue to raise their prices, block ala-carte programming, and pull pranks on consumers such as moving their favorite channel to a higher tier of programming so you are forced to upgrade your subscription or loose your favorite shows.[16]
Paying $30 a month for unlimited TV shows from iTunes might be attractive if it meant ditching a monthly $80 cable bill in the process, but only if all the big broadcast and cable TV networks were on board'''and that would be be no small feat, given how hard it was to get all the major networks to sign on for '' la carte iTunes downloads.[38]
Apple wants to launch the service early next year, provided it can get broadcast and cable TV programmers to sign up, Kafka reports. It's unclear if Apple's iTunes TV will ever see the light of day, but I'm guessing there's a very good chance it will.[23] A lot of buzz so far this week from Peter Kafka's online story that Apple is shopping an iTunes pay-TV service to various networks, both broadcast and cable. Kafka writes the popular MediaMemo for All Things Digital, where he's Senior Editor. Kafka says it's an idea that Apple has floated before. Now with 100 million customers for its iTunes store, the conversations could turn serious.[37] Apple's iTunes chief Eddy Cue has been touring the biggest TV networks trying to land a major content deal that would provide premium TV programming through the iTunes Store on a subscription basis.[7]
According to the well-informed Wall Street Journal, citing "multiple sources", Apple is aiming to launch TV content in a new iTunes section early-2010, starting at $30 a month.[7] The Apple TV may never be a hit. Consumers that decide to get their TV via iTunes rather than their current provider will be much more likely to buy new Apple products down the road.[13] The new features are welcome, and I think that iTunes Extras has the potential to drain all remaining enthusiasm Apple TV owners might have had for buying DVDs.[28] Then there'''s the Mac Mini, which has turned into a powerful, competent device that works well as a home-media server. The Mac Mini doesn'''t have the plug-it-and-forget-it ease of use of the Apple TV, and Front Row lacks some of the best features of Apple TV (namely its ability to seamlessly meld the contents of a remote iTunes computer and its own iTunes library). Front Row replacements such as Boxee and Plex are promising, but not exactly friendly to less geeky users.[28] Among its few improvements, the latest update to iTunes (version 9.0.2) lets the handful of users running Apple TV 3.0 connect their iTunes library with their set top box. At the same time it breaks the automatic synchronization Palm Pre users have with their iTunes music. Pre users once saw their device's icon in the iTunes navigation bar, but it's no longer there. Apple has screwed some of its iTunes users. This is the third time Apple's iTunes upgrades have made life more difficult for Pre/iTunes users. The same will be true for Droid users once it gets sync capability for iTunes.[42] The other major audio addition in Apple TV 3.0 is support for the Genius Mix feature that was rolled out with iTunes 9 back in September. This is the feature that looks at your music library and creates endless playlists of related songs and artists in various categories.[28] Within the individual stacks of menu options, Apple has addressed the interface feature of Apple TV 2.0 that I disliked the most: the placement of all iTunes Store-related items at the top, with the menu item containing your own media placed all the way at the bottom.[28]
I still like watching TV on my TV (though you can watch iTunes videos on your TV). If the networks were to agree to this, it would be a giant, fundamental shift in the way that people watch TV. And who knows what kinds of problems cable and satellite providers would cause. How would the picture quality be? It's an intriguing concept though.[18] Whilst the network executives are always happy to make more money one way or another, by offering shows through iTunes, it might mean that the relationship between cable networks and cable providers (such as Comcast, for example) could be severed. Not only that, but it's said that advertising revenue could be at risk, which would be a huge blow dealt to the networks. If this happens, it should become available some time near the beginning of next year, as mentioned.[9]
The other question from a consumer standpoint is that of fidelity. $30 for unlimited 1080p downloads/streams of television show would be well worth it if enough broadcasters were on board. $30 for unlimited standard definition content on the other hand doesn'''t look quite as nice. Networks are hesitant to jump on board either way, as they see that this could be seen as a move away from cable services, which would certainly upset relationships with companies like Comcast.[36] Hulu has shown it is very interested in delivering content. If they or Apple offered a premium service $10-$30/month where I could get current and past shows, I would dump cable. On the subject of 1080p vs 720p, this may be a younger generation issue.[13]
Apple's service would not only rival standard cable networks, but could stifle several video sites' attempts to implement a pay model for premium content -- namely YouTube and Hulu.[27]
Response to the potential new Apple service at the All Things Digital blog were mixed, ranging from concerns that the new service would be proprietary to joy at the prospect of being able to watch network TV while traveling.[3] Apple also released a new file format recently called iFrame that is 1/4 of 1080P.'' This size isn't going to impress anyone who wants to watch full length movies, but watching TV shows at this resolution (which is better than standard 480P) would be a good experience.'' That's right, I think this TV thing Apple is on is about the tablet.''[43] I think iTunes Extras is a fantastic idea. It allows Apple to bundle together the bonus content previously seen only on DVDs, and make it available as a part of an iTunes download. It closes the gap between iTunes downloads and DVDs in a compelling way, and I expect that it will be come the new standard for how movies are sold on iTunes.[28] The animation powerhouse was the first major Hollywood studio to offer movie downloads in iTunes and has been a vocal proponent of Apple's content store on occasions more than one.[7] The plan, according to Apple, is to offer television content through iTunes at a subscription rate, rather than making people pay per download.[36]
Each provider, netflix, blockbuster, apple, Hulu and the rest all resell that content just like reselling long distance minutes. They pay to access it, they pay for each sale / download / performance and they manage how they market and monetize that resold product. The solution to the licensing nightmare is flat licensing and that is where Apple might again have it together already because of their methods in place for iTunes.[13]
The Music Movies page promotes films ranging from "The Blues Brothers" to "High School Musical 3." "The company hopes to increase video sales on iTunes in part by luring music consumers to its library of music-themed movies," the report said. "While Apple has not released any specific figures, it sells far more music than videos, and hopes to create a strong bridge between its music catalog and its video catalog by focusing on content that appeals to music fans."[31] In an attempt to increase movie sales, Apple is pushing out more alternative content on the iTunes ]] iTunes Store. Today, they've spruced up their "Music Movies" library and added a landing page to promote upcoming releases.[44] The section includes musicals, music-focused movies, concert movies and documentaries. Apple is also adding more older music-related titles to its catalog such as "The Song Remains the Same," "U2: Rattle and Hum," "Buena Vista Social Club," "Don't Look Back-Bob Dylan," John Lennon Imagine," "Neil Young: Heart of Gold," "This Is Spinal Tap," "Purple Rain," and "The Doors." The new iTunes Store section looks to be a move on Apple's part to help drive up movie sales to its strong base of music buyers by highlighting titles they might be interested in.[45] Digital music video sales were up 47% last year to $41.2 million, still not enough to compensate for disc losses. ITunes, the biggest digital music retailer, is heavily marketing the new music section on its site and tying the films to related albums. ITunes also started taking pre-orders for Sony's Michael Jackson blockbuster doc This Is It in the section. This Is It will debut with the DVD/Blu-ray release, which Sony said will be in the first quarter. Older concert releases added to iTunes Music Movies section include The Rolling Stones: Shine a Light, The Song Remains the Same--Led Zeppelin, U2 Rattle and Hum, Buena Vista Social Club and This is Spinal Tap.[46] DIGITAL: Sony Pictures will debut Oscar-winning concert documentary It Might Get Loud on Apple iTunes Dec. 8, two weeks before the film's Dec. 22 DVD and Blu-ray Disc release. The Davis Guggenheim documentary features music legends Jimmy Page, The Edge with Jack White and their perspectives on music. ITunes is promoting the film as a pre-order on its just-launched Music Movies area of its movie section, where it plans to offer weekly music exclusives and bolster its catalog offerings. This week, iTunes debuted Kings of Leon, Live at the O2 from Sony Pictures and The Killers' Live From the Royal Albert Hall from Island Records, both a week before their Nov. 10 disc release. None of these are iTunes' first exclusives.[46] Music Movies are music-themed movies, concerts and documentaries that generally feature exclusive content and behind-the-scenes footage. While the selection is currently limited, Apple does offer a few movies that are not available anywhere else, such as an exclusive Kings of Leon concert DVD among other selections such as U2's "Rattle and Hum" and "John Lennon Imagine". In addition to the added content, a prominent landing page has been created that is dedicated to this genre of film.[44]
Music-themed DVDs reportedly fell 54.7 percent in revenue from 2007 to 2008, according to the RIAA. In recent months, Apple has looked to expand its catalog of content on iTunes with new offerings in both music and movies.[31]
With iTunes' dominance of the digital music industry, Apple may now be turning its attention to TV according to some of the latest Apple rumors.[35] The service would be an extension of Apple's iTunes software and store, Kafka writes. While "Apple has told industry executives it wants to launch the service early next year," Kafka continues, he concedes that he has "yet to hear of a single programmer that has made a firm commitment to the company."[47] Apple wants to launch the service by early next year, but has not made any announcements about any content companies wanting to give it a go. Disney might be expected to be among the first to agree to the service, having seen significant success when it was the first to allow its content on iTunes, according to the Apple Insider.[40]
Although specific networks weren't mentioned, Kafka's sources believe that Disney may be the first network to dive into an iTunes TV subscription service, citing previous collaborations with Disney on direct download films and television.[17] The move to deliver TV and movies over the Web is already well under way. Netflix, for instance, already bundles free streaming movie and television along with its disc-by-mail subscription service. iTunes and Amazon rent movies on a one-off basis, and Google'''s YouTube is trying out the same thing.[16]
While you wait to see if Apple is going to bring TV subscriptions to iTunes, try our guide to online TV streaming services.[24] Apple has been shopping iTunes as a TV service to network executives, according to a report from AllThingsD.com.[5] Apple is pushing major TV networks hard to make their programming available for rent through iTunes by early 2010.[7]
Apple is looking to launch the subscription service'''which, I'm assuming, would offer a buffet of TV episodes from participating networks for a flat $30-a-month subscription fee'''"early" next year, AllThingsDigital reports. (No comment from Apple, naturally.)[38] Gizmodo has reported that Apple is currently in the middle of pitching to networks. Pitching what exactly? Apple believes they can give you all your TV shows for just $30.[48] TV channels would stream to your iTunes-compatible devices, like Macs and PCs, iPhones, and Apple TVs, for $30 a month.[7] The rumored early 2010 timing of Apple's $30 per month "iTunes TV" coincides with the February introduction ''' also rumored ''' of the company's already legendary, but still vapor Mac tablet (a.k.a iPod touch on steroids).[6] Fruit themed toymaker Apple has been wining and dining television executives in a bid to set itself up as an affordable cable company. The cunning plan seems to be to have the great unwashed pay $30 a week so that they can watch telly through iTunes.[29] Apple Inc. has proposed a $30 (U.S.) monthly, all-you-can-watch rate for television programs on its iTunes platform. According to a report in a Wall Street Journal blog, the company is approaching broadcast and cable programmers trying to get them to sign on to the deal.[41]
Between iTunes itself and its Apple TV settop box "hobby," the company is positioned well to make a go of it.[5] Above the menu items, in the top third of the screen, is a strip of tiles similar to the ones used in Apple TV 2.0'''s iTunes Store interface.[28] The first few items of the strip all feature your content'''unwatched movies or TV shows, Genius mixes and recently-added albums (as well as the currently playing track, if there is one), unplayed podcasts, photos, and the like. For some media types, such as movies and TV shows, there'''s also integration with the iTunes store: keep moving to the right, past your recently unwatched movies, and you'''ll find top movies on iTunes.[28] I don't think many people realize you can get good quality movies for your iDevice. If they optimize them for the iDevice they can shink the file size to 250MB or less for most films and that doens't take so long to download. A 30 minute TV show should be like 75MB. It will take awhile, but I think is an untapped market for iTunes with huge growth potential.[34]
The content producers may be lining up to get this done now that Comcast and NBC Universal may be teaming up. It's not exactly a marriage made in heaven for content producers in that one of their biggest competitors owns that access pipe into millions of homes and is then in a position of leverage against them. By opening up their distribution channels they can counter any leverage the Comcast may gain in the deal. Net Neutrality would insure that Comcast couldn't penalize their content over NBC Universal content. I think that Apple may be able to pull this off. They finally realize that we don't want to own TV shows unlike our music.[13] Now your media'''movies, TV shows, music, and more'''can always be found behind the top item of each column. It makes the whole experience feel a bit friendlier and a bit less like the entire device was created as a vehicle for Apple to sell you more stuff.[28]
I wouldn't be surprised if in 10-15 years, traditional TV ceases to exist. Services like this that allow you to choose what you watch and when will probably take over. I'm not saying Apple will be the big player, but what they're doing is the future in my mind.[27] The timing is right too.'' Kafka says Apple is planning to bring out this Apple TV service early next year.''[43] Thursday'''s release of Apple TV 3.0 software doesn'''t do a lot to change that, but for the unknown number of people who have bought an Apple TV box over the past two and a half years, it seems to be a pleasant improvement that addresses some lingering interface issues while adding whole new levels of mystery about exactly what (if anything) Apple is going to do with the product. The highlight of the Apple TV 3.0 software update is its revamped main menu.[28] The Apple TV is a strange beast. Steve Jobs famously referred to his company'''s media-playback box as '''a hobby.''' In early 2008 Apple released a major software update, Apple TV 2.0, that revamped its interface and added movie rentals to the mix.[28] On the Apple TV, iTunes Extras work pretty much as you expect. I navigated to My Movies and chose Iron Man, which has a small icon of a stack of items off to its right to indicate that it'''s a film containing iTunes Extras.[28] I was excited about iTunes LP, too, but after having used it on the Apple TV I'''m less convinced it'''s a good idea.[28] When you choose Play Album, the interface drops away and you'''re left with the standard Apple TV Now Playing screen. The same thing happens if you pick a track from an iTunes LP'''s Song List menu, go to the page that features song lyrics and artwork, and click Play Song. I own a handful of DVD Audio discs, and one of the fun things those discs tend to do is display the lyrics pages for the songs as they play, along with playback controls.[28]
Only thing is I would miss my HD DVR from the cable company I have and the interactive on screen program guide with scheduling features if I ditched for an iTunes subscription TV service but could save money. I hope users who sign up for this will be able to choose an iTunes TV subscription that is Standard Def only or HD that would include the SD copies also for a video iPod as an added bonus.[13] The service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already buy from cable TV operators if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers.[29] "If Apple ( AAPL - news - people ) is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers."[12] Thanks to broadband Internet, "the cable TV industry's monopolistic, anti-consumer practice of offering bloated, overpriced programming packages is coming mercifully to an end"--and "there's a very good chance" Apple will be the one to "give the cable guy the heave-ho.[15] The cable TV industry's monopolistic, anti-consumer practice of offering bloated, overpriced programming packages is coming mercifully to an end, brought down by a slew of more affordable options made possible by broadband Internet.[23]
The trouble is that many of the USA residents get their internet via their CABLE provider. These companies have already seen the coming threat and have started to institute bandwidth caps under the auspices of "quality of service". The real threat is here, if you can avoid paying them for the programming on their channels, they can't survive on their internet income, so they will fight this. Interesting how bandwidth you consume while watching their own streaming content doesn't ding you, but anyone else's does. What good is $30 unlimited usage if you are limited by how much you can stream before paying exorbitant overages? The cell industry and cable industry both need drastic overhauls in their revenue and service models.[13] Industry executives are reportedly intrigued by the proposed service, but cable nets are worried working with Apple could sacrifice existing relationships with providers like Comcast. They are also concerned about cannibalizing live viewership, which could have detrimental effects on ad revenue.[40] Though the Internet-based television model is already being tested by services like Boxee, Netflix, NBC Universal and News Corp. 's ( NWS - news - people ) Hulu and CBS' ( CBS - news - people ) TV.com, Kafka--a former Forbes editor--opines that potential content providers are likely to tread lightly around existing revenue streams from cable operators like Comcast ( CMCSA - news - people ).[12]
I'd love for this to happen because it needs to happen. Cable costs are so exorbitant right now that a service like this would eventually cause cable companies to rightfully lower their prices, offer more channels at fair prices, and think of new ways to keep subscribers interested. Admittedly, iTunes has to get live sports with this service for it to make a real dent and I imagine with the right sales pitch, they could nab the NFL fairly easy considering they are always trying to be cutting edge.[18] By basing the service around iTunes, Apple would offer a flexible viewing platform, available on Apple and non-Apple devices alike, on PCs or on portable devices.[21] Actually, Apple has at least two other choices. It could license its Fairplay DRM technology to other hardware manufacturers and allow multiple devices to play media purchased on iTunes, as Amazon does with its video-on-demand service. Or it could use its market power to push for one of the industry-wide DRM schemes proposed by Disney, Sony, and other parties. (Given the close ties between Steve Jobs and Disney, though, Apple might eventually endorse the digital rights scheme that the Mouse House favors.)[39] Instead of being tied to any current Apple product or an as-yet-unannounced tablet device, the service would run through the company's 65 million user-strong iTunes software. Sound fishy? It is.[4] Apple is acting just like the snotty monopolist it has become in electronic music distribution and combined that lousy attitude with the presumptive arrogance of a smartphone monopolist. That strikes me as an indefensible and doomed business strategy. The problem is that, unlike Microsoft which locked in businesses with its software practices, Apple is trying to lock in fickle consumers with ephemeral products and services in a highly competitive market. It's expensive and difficult for companies to switch from one spreadsheet to a different one or from one network server to another. It is not that hard or costly for consumers to change their minds about the latest faddish toy. Businesses will whine about vendor lock-in by Microsoft or IBM, when it suits them. In truth, they really don't care that much.[42]
Is Apple preparing to push its industry-leading jukebox/device management/digital download store software in a new direction? The latest rumor making the rounds is that Steve Jobs, Eddy Cue and their merry band are preparing the way for a monthly subscription service, but you're run of the mill pay-forever-music deal that everyone else is offering.[6] With the iTunes subscription service apparently headed our way in early-2010, it'd arrive at the same time we're expecting the Apple Tablet.[24] Apple'''s proposed subscription service, which the company has floated in the past, is no longer a huge stretch. Says one executive briefed on the company'''s plans: '''I think they might get it right this time.'''[16]
I stopped TV because it is just a waste land. If Apple can cut out the advertizing and trashy programs, I would be happy to buy their TV subscription service.[4]
Twitter Trackbacks for Apple'''s $30 a month TV supscription service? Not buying it.[4] There's sure to be differing opinions on the possible $30 a month TV plan from Apple, but one thing's for sure. Long as Apple isn't the only place to get the content, consumers will win by having greater options for getting their entertainment.[8] While the few scavenge bad pre-3d Wolverine test prints, make a fortune on everyone else clamoring to pay for the content Holywood is sitting on and not making money from. Apple won't get my $$$for Apple TV. It is junk.[13] The $229 Apple TV is increasingly surrounded by competitors, from Roku'''s $100 Player that streams Netflix and Amazon Video on Demand to media extenders for the Playstation 3 and XBox 360.[28] This guy is a complete idiot. He obviously has no idea what kind of products apple has out. I currently have an apple tv and think this would be the greatest thing I could spend $30.00 a month on.[4] I think Apple TV is good for all fan of Apple products.I also like Apple's products.They are really very efficient.Thank you very much for sharing this with us.[13]
While the service shouldn't be tied to a specific device, Apple TV is a natural fit.''[7] Apple hasn't been very friendly to Sling on the iPhone and iPod touch.'' Could this be because they are planning their own TV service inside of iTunes on both Mac and on the iPhone?'' Everyone also thought there'd be aHulu iPhone app out by now.''[43] This is a missing link that Apple needs to turn the iTunes Store into a comprehensive source of entertainment that rivals Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, Google, and other aspiring services. Apple's credibility in both consumer electronics and entertainment is a big plus, as is the sheer size of its iTunes Store.[7] Apple added a new section to its iTunes Store on Wednesday geared at highlighting movies with a musical theme.[45] More importantly, it has over 100 million accounts with credit cards enabled for one-click purchasing. This makes the iTunes Store, Jobs said, one of the largest stores on the web. Such a huge installed base provides Apple's content partners with a tremendous sales opportunity from day one.[7] Apple needs to come up with a monetization plan, which would include advertising, that doesn'''t water down content owners''' existing revenue streams. What Apple does have going for it is 100 million customers for its iTunes store.[2]
Sound in the film is paramount. When "It Might Get Loud" is released on home video, it won't be with a giant Blu-ray or HD push that advertises the latest in high fidelity. The film will be distributed digitally by Apple's iTunes store, which will sell "It Might Get Loud" exclusively from Dec. 8 through Dec. 22.[49]
Only Apple has iTunes. Hundreds of millions of people have tthis program installed on their PCs, Macs, iPods and iPhones, and more than 75 million have an ongoing billing relationship with the online store by the same name. Rather than any one product, it seems to me Apple's greatest imperative should be maintaining iTunes' role in these consumers' lives.[13] It'''s telling consumers who have the temerity to buy non-Apple branded smartphones and music players to go to hell. That is exceptionally stupid long-term thinking. Consumers will remember in their next buying cycle. If they get Droid or Pre envy or crave whatever comes after those devices, they will feel personally insulted by Apple for restricting what they can do with the software on their computers. And, slowly at first, then snowballing faster than Apple can react to, consumers will find a way to get their music from other sources, such as Amazon or (maybe?) Google. They will gladly chuck their iPhones for the next cool thingamajig. Why is Apple, full of many smart people, being so strategically small minded? Why does Apple put barriers between its customers and their software? Maybe as a monopolist it does so simply because it can. Maybe it's just the way every monopolist acts.[42] A plan at that kind of price could be the death knell to traditional cable providers, which generally charge anywhere from $40 to $100 a month or even more. The report says, none of the networks have come to terms with Apple over this notion, but as the analyst at MediaMemo points out, this kind of on-demand/subscription viewing is going to happen, one way or another. Whether it's Apple that has the first major success with it or not, it's definitely the future.[19] Kafka notes that network execs are intrigued, but wary. They worry about conflicts with cable and satellite providers, and potential loss of ad revenue. No comment from Apple on this so far, of course.[20] Kafka also speculates that networks could be reluctant to buy into an iTunes service, regardless of pre-established market penetration, due to potential strains on cable provider partnerships.[17]
No one's signed on the dotted line yet, writes AllThingsDigital's Peter Kafka, who adds that network bigwigs are "intrigued" but "wary" of the proposal: intrigued because it could mean "new revenue streams" (translation: more money), and wary of antagonizing the powerful cable and satellite operators that an iTunes subscription plan could potentially circumvent.[38]
Kafka says iTunes boss Eddy Cue is tasked with promoting the idea and fingers Disney ( DIS - news - people ) as a likely early adopter. Apple's chances of being met with open arms, he says, is "a big if."[12] We end up on iTunes. He likes Journey. Why does he love Journey? I hate Journey. How did he find Journey? On iTunes." Apple's exclusive with "It Might Get Loud" coincides with the launch of the new "Music Movies" promotional campaign from the e-tailer. A number of music titles have been added to the iTunes library this week, including "Purple Rain," "Saturday Night Fever," "Don't Look Back" and "Rattle and Hum."[49] Songs used to come in a package called a "COMPACT DISC" CD for short. Anyone remember those? Just because CDs are becoming extinct as mp3s dominate music form thanks to iTunes, Apple now seems to think they can take place of your cable box, too.[48]
TV's move from broadcast and cable to the web is well under way, and Apple is perhaps positioned better than anyone to make it happen bigger and faster as no else can marshall so many pieces ''' computer, player, set top, store, delivery infrastructure ''' of the puzzle.[6] I'm personally very close to stopping my cable TV service anyway since the won't provide a way for me to access extended basic content using my own media center PC, and since I can get pretty much everything online (legally) already, cable companies are rapidly becoming nothing more than ISPs.[4] I'd cancel my current cable subscription in a second, except for the catch: ATT won't sell me the internet connection I have without a TV package. I'm paying about $65 for my internet phone (VOIP) as part of their bundle package, but my old, slower DSL connection phone service was running about $100 a month.[4] After hulu becomes subscription I won't be using it anymore, and as for appletv, why bother? Everyone has a TV.well most people have a tv and you pay good money for cable, why throw $30, or even the hulu fee for something you already have.[27] Viewing on the PC is fine, but I don't want to have to hook up my laptop to the TV every time I want to watch a show I purchase & I certainly wouldn't pay $30 a month for that limitation.[18] I also want to be able to get anything my subscription qualifies me to watch at any time. Is any of this too much to ask for? I'd cheerfully pay a lot more than $30 a month to the first company who offers it.[11]
While details are slim, a subscription offer could be similar to "TV Everywhere," while also being the first major TV subscription service available on the web.[50]
While a subscription option would certainly extend the appeal of the Apple TVmany consider the recent 3.0 software update to be underwhelmingthe service would be part of iTunes itself.[22] According to many reports, Apple is currently working on a subscription television service for iTunes.[50]
According to the report, Apple is wanting to launch the service early in 2010, but doesn't know of any networks that have actually signed on to the idea. Mr. Kafka also noted that Apple has floated this idea in the past without much success, but quoted an unnamed exec who had been briefed on Apple's plans as saying, "I think they might get it right this time."[5] Apple is said to be in talks with various networks, and if the company is successful, it wants to launch the service by early next year.[27] The company hopes to integrate the software with video games, social networks, mobile applications and other services, to make PayPal "easier for you to use." Apple is thwarting hackers and netbook afficiandos by upgrading its Snow Leopard operating system.[50] I would love to see a major company start up a scheduled lineup of weekly videos online. Apple and their crap software and insane restrictions can kiss my ass. You know, this sounds like a neat idea and all, but then I remember who it's being made by.[27]
Due to Apple's digital rights management setup, until April 2007 any music you bought from iTunes could play in only three places: on an iPod, within registered iTunes software on a limited number of computers, or on certain Motorola phones (that nobody bought). If you wanted to move the songs you bought at a buck apiece to a cheaper player from a competing manufacturer, you had two options: an onerous process in which you burned your songs to a CD and then reripped them as MP3s, or quasilegal software that essentially did the same thing using your hard drive instead of a disc.[39] The service would not be tied to a new piece of software but would rather be tied to its existing iTunes software and store, writes the D: All Things Digital blog.[40]
According to multiple industry insiders that spoke to All Things Digital, Apple hopes to launch the service early next year.[22] Deliver that service and most will sign on and stay. Hulu had that potential, but they are showing signs of their studio lineage. They now have them expire. In closing, come on Apple get Netflix and Hulu either worried or collaborate with them to break the lock the wild boys of cable have on the industry.[13]
Reports say that Apple is pitching a $30-per-month service that could replace your cable.[11] According to the post, the suggested rate for the proposed service is $30 a month, which depending on the success of Apple's partnerships, could prove to be either an advantageous or poor value for consumers. We'll keep a close eye on this story as it develops, but in the meantime, voice your thoughts below.[17] Locking content to hardware cost consumers money--especially when first-, second-, and third-generation iPod batteries began failing. Consumers could either shell out the cash for a new iPod or pay Apple as much as $100 (plus shipping) to put a new battery in their existing device.[39] Apple recently launched a new lightweight streaming protocol that adjust bitrates on the fly, depending on the speed of your connection. It's also developed a new file format called iFrame which is 1/4 of 1080p. That won't excite movie lover but it would be perfect for TV and a device bigger than an iPod.[24] The movies reside with the particular delivery company, and the user can access the movie from any device. This could mean an end to the necessity of owning of physical DVDs. Time Warner and Comcast are working on another initiative, dubbed TV Everywhere, which would allow subscribers to access their favorite cable content on other devices.[40] Tobias Buckell, who recently let go of cable to cut down on wasted time, would give Apple's take on TV a chance.[8] If Apple wants to replace cable it can't do it without football, basketball, NASCAR and hockey. It has to work anywhere. iPod, iPhone, Windows, Mac, Windows Media Center and more; it can't just be on your TV. We asked two recent cable cutters to weigh in on the option of paying a monthly fee to bring TV back in to their homes.[8] Apple TV would be only yet-another-delivery-method. It's good that there will be many but the category killer is the one place for all media.[13] You would not have to watch it on your laptop just drop the $150.00 to but an apple tv.[4] As has been said, it is deffinatly too expensive, plus, I personally look at TV as a more social area medium e.g. living room/lounge (whatever you wanna call it). I wonder if they are going to pick what you watch to keep you in the smug Apple lifestyle? I think this is bound to happen eventually Apple is concerned on making money any way they can, as a business they should, It doesn't matter what they do, they have enough swing to get it done. Then again who really cares, its Apple.[27] I think this could work, especially if they sold actual TVs with the Apple TV built in.[13] If the goal was to pick off the dollars that customers currently allocated towards pay-channels; namely, HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc. it might work if for no other reason than when Tablet comes out you could have a TV anywhere offering to view same content on iPhone, Tablet, Desktop and Apple TV for one price.[20] My TIVO is never full and the Apple TV delivers all of the content from the computer where it is backed up.[13]
When I click, Apple TV brings me to the Iron Man main menu, rather than just playing the movie.[28] Because Apple'''s addition to Apple TV is a whole lot more modest than that: Internet Radio. It'''s hard to believe that the Apple TV hasn'''t officially supported Internet Radio before now, but it hasn'''t. (You could work around this issue by adding a radio-station stream to a playlist.)[28]
For the younger generation, it is not that big a stretch to hook up an internet device to a flat screen tv, whether it be a laptop, apple thingy, whatever the marketing boys want to call it. It is all dependant on the programming choices that become available.[4]
Apple has had a love-hate relationships so far with some networks in the course of offering TV shows for sale.[5] Well, it's sounding pretty good to Apple, apparently, and according to the AllThingsDigital and its "multiple" anonymous sources, Apple execs are actively shopping the idea around to the big broadcast and TV networks, hoping to drum up some interest.[38] Apple and TV are two words that just don'''t seem to go together well. With the knowledge well in hand that their previous television integration just didn'''t work out, Apple is looking to start something new.[36]
With the exception of price cuts and storage improvements, the base Apple TV hardware hasn'''t been improved since it was released. It'''s running a 1GHz Pentium M processor and has a measly 256MB of RAM. It can'''t play video of any resolution higher than 720p at 24 frames per second, and I'''ve actually seen it struggle and drop frames consistently even on those '''supported''' HD video files.[28] Unlike many other Mac-based products, however, Apple TV has yet to achieve widespread adoption by consumers.[41] I've been saying all along that Apple needs to put more TV into the Apple TV in order to push the set-top box beyond a hobby business.[7] I suppose if you want all the episodes from your iPhone/iPod or Apple TV you have to pay up or pirate.[9] When an item in that row is selected, the Apple TV displays a column of menu items beneath it. Spatially, this layout seems to makes a lot more sense than the old Apple TV menu.[28] If you sync your photos to the Apple TV, you'''ll find support for iPhoto events and the ability to browse photos by face, courtesy of iPhoto'''s Faces feature.[28] Apple TV 3.0 is a nice, mild update to an outdated piece of hardware that'''s still not nearly as capable as it should be.[28]
I have no doubt in my mind that TV networks are seriously considering Apple's TV pitch.[7] Of course, Apple isn't the only player in broadband TV. Consumers already have other options, with more choices on the way.[23] Apple is currently shopping the deal, which would cost consumers an estimated $30 a month, with all major networks.[50] The extra cost for the TV package really only come to $30 to me. If I could get fast internet and unlimited phone service for $65, I might subscribe to something like this rumored service.[4] Neal Frankle, of Wealth Pilgrim, wouldn't be so welcoming of a new TV service provider into his home. I don't care if they gave me TV for free, it would still cost me the time I waste in front of the tube so I don't want the temptation. In the short time I've gotten rid of it my family spends much more time together, the energy level in our home is great and it's an entirely new life experience.[8] Outsell Partners With Scout To Help Publishers Maximize Paid Subscriptions Industry research firm Outsell has partnered with subscription analytics provider Scout Analytics to sell a new subscription service. Simply put: "Clients will be able to use technology to segment their customers," said Mark Upson, president and CEO of Scout Analytics.[51]
Industry executives say that if anyone bites first, it will be Disney, as CEO Bob Iger has expressed interest in experimenting with Apple and iTunes in the past.[27] Mostly because Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest single shareholder. However other networks are less enthusiastic, even if they might give a try in a bid to raise more revenue. It does mean that Apple is attempting to go down a path which other companies in the tech industry, such as Microsoft, have tried and failed to succeed.[29] Apparently, if anybody were to take it up, Disney would be one of the first to jump on board, which shouldn't be too surprising, considering that Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, is Disney's largest single shareholder. If the rumors are true, then Apple is looking to launch this service in early 2010.[26]
Kafka also speculates that if any studio/programmer might be interested in leading the charge to join with Apple on such a service, it would be Apple's pals at Disney. According to the Associated Press, on an earnings call today Comcast CEO Brian Roberts was asked if such a service from Apple would be a "long-term threat to Comcast."[37]
The service would be built into iTunes and run across all of Apple's products.'' To me this has tablet written all over it.[43] A tablet device, for example. All of this remains conjecture, and assumes that Apple iTunes chief Eddy Cue can land the necessary content deals. It won't be easy, since these partners will be loath to cross their current distributors.[13] Don't count Cue out. I wrote about him in the magazine recently, and my sources all say he's an immensely talented negotiator, that has pulled off many deals that looked impossible. Such was the case when Apple first got studios to sell downloads via iTunes in 2005.[13] Over the summer, Apple also unveiled the iTunes D45 section, featuring discounted prices on packs of two digital song downloads.[31]
The section officially launched on Tuesday. According to Billboard, Apple aims to negotiate exclusive early access to more music-themed movies and promote them through the Music Movies page. The plan is to make movies available for download before they hit stores in a physical DVD format. Apple has expanded its existing catalog of music movies.[31] Apple also plans to negotiate early access to music-themed movies and is trying to make the content available for download long before it is available in stores.[44]
Guggenheim sees the Apple initiative as a way to spur exploration in music films. "In the diet of music and movies out there, people are either going shallower or they'''re going deeper," said the director, currently at work on a documentary about the public school system. "They'''re getting the five movies they can get from the Redbox, or they'''re going deep and finding these obscure movies that no one has seen. [49] In June 2001 Apple introduced the world to iTunes, a music marketplace that largely changed the way we buy music.[8] Apple really need to come up with some kind of business focus. This kicks off then iTunes is no longer a music library, it's a media center.[27] Back in June Apple warned everyone against syncing non-Apple music players with iTunes.[42]
''With rumours circulating that major online VoD player, Hulu, is set due to begin charging for access, Apple could also establish itself as a clear VoD rival. It would benefit from the easy payment options it offers its existing 100m iTunes customers.[21] If Apple / netflix / whoever offers the big buffet in the sky of everything with a reasonable pay-per-view model, no one is going to bother to sit through another bad Russian Telesync or worse, a cam. For those who continue to pirate after that, they wouldnbt pay for it to begin with so it's not a lost customer, the fact is you eat some losses, its the nature of the digital beast.[13]
If i were the CEO of apple, id want my hand in it too, and I'm sure all the stockholders do as well. I dont think i would pay for this service (or any other one).[27] I would only if every channel would be available to me (or at least the normal ones) (pay extra for Showtime) or maybe they could do something where you pick what channels you want to build up your bill. I do think the price might be a problem for some people but if it could replace cable tv i think they might go for it.[38] I bet you don't want Disney channel - great you don't pay for it and I do. Can't believe that the cable lobby has been able to prevent the FCC from forcing AlaCarte down their throats, especially in a city where they have one monopoly cable TV company.[16]
I cancelled my cable over a year ago and haven't looked back. I download all my TV shows for free (trust me, google is your friend) and stream them to my Playstation 3 using TVersity. Many of them are BETTER quality then the HD my cable company was offering.[16] Commentators are already speculating that the initiative could launch as a VoD-style service, which could allow users to build packages of specific TV shows or channels. This would give viewers more flexibility than they get with cable operators, which typically bundle various channels together.[21] One reason I went without cable is so that I could not just timeshift my watching, but reduce wasted time watching reruns of shows I'd already watched and getting ad clutter out of my life, just like I use a popup blocker. If there's a service that works like Watch It Now, I'd be very, very tempted[8] Americans like big, so its hard to see paying to watch TV on a 15inch laptop screen. Andrew Heining of the Christian Science Monitor must not know about that little cable you can use to hook up your computer to the HD tv screen and see whatever is on your computer screen BIG. real BIG. the used computer dealer sealed the deal of the laptop and flat screen tv my friend bought this past summer, by throwing in that cable.[15] With an extra dongle it also serves as a DVR for broadcast TV. I'm also paying on the order of $65 for a "cable" TV package (actually over the phone line) and I feel that this is overpriced considering how little we use it - we probably watch on average 15 hours of video a week, and it's on the order of 30% DVDs, 30% Broadcast (usually DVRed), 30% streaming internet/iTunes, and 10% Cable.[4] Higher theatrical and cable TV financial results lifted News Corp. net income 11% to $571 million in the third quarter.[51]
Spread out across the screen is a row with seven columns which forms the backbone of the new menu system: Movies, TV Shows, Music, Podcasts, Photos, Internet, and Settings.[28] Jeff Zucker Is Not Going Anywhere Jeff Zucker, CEO and president of NBC Universal, has been trying to turn digital dimes into digital dollars for years. Currently he's delivering tv programs online through Hulu, transforming nbc tv stations into hyper local Web destinations, and selling tv advertising based on the Internet's automated, targeted model. Jonathan Miller Preaches the Agnostic Gospel of the Cloud Jonathan Miller is more determined than ever to crack interactive media's money-making code in his new job as News Corp.' s digital chief. He's got plenty of learning experience to draw from, both as a partner at venture capital firm Fuse Capital and as the chairman and CEO of.[51] The TV / Video market is branching into new areas, namely the internet based services.[27] To get the internet service I want, I'm forced to buy an expensive TV package of dubious value to me and, to add insult to injury, pay more for the internet connection than folks living in other industrialized countries would pay.[4]
I hate on demand! You have to pay extra for all movies and the TV shows are crap and very few of the shows I watch.[6] Of course, movies and TV shows sold on iTunes are still copy-protected and cannot be legally converted to a DRM-free format.[39] I already have a mac mini attached to my HDTV. I watch various streaming TV (Hulu, Netflix, etc.) and some shows via iTunes on my HDTV via my Mini.[4] I don't really see it as feasible for streaming live video and audio for just the reasons jackthompson said. It would be nice to see more options including TV shows on the iTunes rental site.[14]
This might explain why there has been no immediate response to Netflix et. al. I'll take it a step further and say that I prefer individual show to specific channels in a cable package; if it were a true iTunes experience with no advertising for thirty bucks a month they can count me in! I know things tend to get more complicated when the networks step in though. Hard to believe the NBC/Uni squabble ever happened at this point.[5] There are many who may not even have cable due to the convenience of streaming television shows today. If your show is not available on the network's website, then it's probably on Hulu. It's somewhat like the evolution of mp3s.[48] The cable companies aren't going to drop shows available on other mediums. That would be cutting off their own head. I'm not sure how you or they would figure that dropping HBO because its available elsewhere is going to help their subscriber numbers. If they drop it, the remaining people that aren't getting it online will certainly have to switch to getting it online, where they'll discover all the other content that they can get on demand rather than on someone elses schedule.[4]
Blu-ray sales rose 91%, to $408 million, in the first half of the year, while Internet downloads and streaming, combined with cable and satellite video-on-demand, which the trade group lumps together, grew 22%, to $968 million. Guggenheim said the home video release of "It Might Get Loud" will come with extra content.[49] Bloomberg News has more. VOD content distributor, iN Demand, says that "November 2009 is a record month for movies premiering on cable's Movies on Demand (MOD) the same day as their home video DVD release (day & date), signifying a sea change in the popularity of the MOD platform."[47]
What effect do you think the iTunes Music Movies program will have on the development of new music documentaries, not just the ability to find existing ones? I think it is the future.[33] One will download it on iTunes and one will buy the Blu-ray. Sometimes they'll buy both. Saying you're going to hold off the new technology, those people are Luddites and they're going to perish. Should labels and artists make more music documentaries as a way of compensating for the decline in recorded music sales? I think we found that on "It Might Get Loud."[33]
After Jobs won over Disney, Cue wooed many of the others, says one former Apple manager. '''Once a deal is worked out with a leader in a particular dealin this case DisneyEddy's great at convincing the others that they better get on the bandwagon." He does it with charm, rather than threats, says the source. "He's a schmoozer in the grand stylein a good way. Most of the people he deals with think of him as a close personal friend."[13]
Change the visual content lock like you changed the wireless lock. If it can be done, I think Apple has the best chance if they are not viewed as too powerful already by the content studios.[13] Q+A Douglas Ferguson How will we consume media in five and 10 years' time? Ferguson: When everything is digitized and libraries offer materials, we will have access to anything and everything whenever we choose, at a trivial long-tail price. Q+A Lance Broumand How will get your news in a few years? Broumand: I think it's one page that looks a lot like what the Drudge Report looks like right now.[51] Health Bills Aim A Light On Doctors' Conflicts New York Times The targets are common business practices like drug company payments to doctors for speeches and consulting services, Natasha Singer reports.[51] The Age of Consent Consumers may find it intrusive if not downright creepy, but marketers, under immense pressure to meet quarterly goals, depend on behavioral targeting to squeeze digital dollars out of dimes. The question is: Can it be done in such a way that is beneficial to everyone? DOA Q&A: Philip K. Dick At a time when the whole world feels like it's falling apart, who better to talk to than someone who suggested that might be the case? Church & State Can the news business survive once-sacred walls toppling? Work with me on this, because you, the reader, are an integral part of this story. I want you to pick up this magazine.[51] The television market is $120 billion. Of that, $700 million, half of those are spending 90% of their time doing Google keywords, not buying online video." There is a reason why Smith's intelligence is valued at CBS (which is likely to become a client at his new digital consulting firm), and his pointed summation of where the marketplace is right now demonstrates this handily: "I don'''t hate Hulu.[10] You won't need the DVR either, saving you an additional $12 a month. Then there is what could be called the "Hulu problem" which should theoretically make this service more attractive for the networks (although it might take a while to get them there): Hulu execs make a big deal about selling out the advertising inventory for Hulu, but asCBS's outgoing digital CEO Quincy Smith stated bluntly to All Things D, "You and I can say all day long, 'We'''re sold out on Web video. That'''s going really well.[10]
A year in the making, MSN Wednesday is expected to debut a refurbished home page that puts the focus on Bing-powered search, local content, in-line video, and the social networks that are consuming an ever greater share of consumers' digital lives.[51]
Apple is hardly the only business that tries to lock in customers--wireless carriers (including Apple partner AT&T ) are probably the worst offenders. Nor is Apple the only vendor to use one product as leverage to push others onto consumers (let's declare Microsoft the champion there). No other technology company exercises the same amount of control over what its customers can and can't do with the things they bought. Part of this approach is due to Apple's deep belief that a closed digital ecosystem with limited options benefits both Apple and its customers.[39] The service Apple is proposing is just what consumers have been wanting for a long time.[36] Apple has not commented on the rumours, but a report on All Things Digital claims the firm will charge USD30 a month for the service.[21] Hopefully, it will bring more competition to the market. I myself am very anti-apple so no matter what would never consider using this service. The day Hulu and Youtube start charging is the day i stop using those as well. Its always funny for me to see Apple trying to save their asses with any crap that comes to mind and yet again they always overprice it, typical.[27] Apple offered to remove the DRM from the music that iPod owners had already bought, as well as to bump up the sound quality, for an additional 30 cents a track. (Gee, thanks, Apple.)[39] BlueBeat Ignores EMI, Still Sells Beatles Catalog Online EMI Group on Tuesday filed a copyright violation suit against an online music site selling MP3s of Beatles albums and individual tracks. Apple's App Store: 100,000 Apps, But Most Are Unused Apple's App Store has surpassed 100,000 apps -- but how many of them are actually in use? The number might surprise you.[23] Apple's store passed Wal-Mart as America's No. 1 music retailer in spring 2008, according to data from NPD Group.[49]
Here are five classic examples of how the company has done it. When the iPod arrived in fall 2001, followed by the iTunes Music Store in spring 2003, few early adopters realized the commitment they were making by buying their media player and their media from the same source.[39] When you're obsessed with music, you're following a path. How many times do you go to a record store thinking you're going to buy one thing and you discover this other album? On iTunes, you can do that.[33]
Along with iTunes LP, iTunes Extras was also unveiled in September. It offers DVD-like bonus features with movies sold on the iTunes Store.[31] The extra content is believed to be an attempt to increase video sales through a connection to the iTunes Store's more popular audio section.[30]
Right now the biggest advantage of Apple'''s box is simply that it'''s the only one that can play videos purchased from iTunes. It remains woefully ignorant of the rest of the Internet'''the addition of Internet Radio at this late date proving the point.[28]
The structure would seem to be similar to that of the current Netflix arrangement, but the service would require iTunes. This would present a bit of a problem from the convenience side, especially if the files aren'''t easily streamable or require a set-top to play on a TV.[36] For $30 a month, so much as one 5-second ad at the very beginning of the program is unacceptable. Then if there are no commercials, that means if the shows start at the same time, they will finish 20 minutes (for an hourly show) earlier than they would on the live, free TV broadcast.[18] Time Warner's total revenues, including its TV, filmed entertainment, publishing and AOL divisions, fell 6% in the third quarter of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008, declining from $7.58 billion to $7.13 billion.[51]
Cable giants are charging130 monthly to watch TV and access the internet. All these cable giants are in the pocket of politicians. Now they made it'''s even harder to get free TV. These buffoons can't leave well alone. Remember that antenna that used to be on the roof top of your house? Well its making a come back. [8] I cancelled my cable bill last month and put up a new Winegard FreeVision tv antenna.[10] Are consumers ready for broadband TV? Wireless media streaming still seems a bit flaky ''' and the concept may be too geeky for mainstream consumers used to having the cable guy come up and hook up everything.[23]
I hope Apple, or anyone else, blows away Crapcast any all other cable companies just like it.[13] Apple has succeeded in many things. Their business strategies are always of the highest standards. Who is to say that they won't succeed here?They'll make mony and like the iphone, they'll make people suscribe.We shouln't hate. Ithink Apple deserves the thumbs up and they should go ahead with their business.[4] Consumers are not IT departments. They want what's cool. They want easy to use. Apple is making its own software harder for people to use.[42] But. Isn't that the Apple way? Why would they care now? Their business model is based on forcing consumers into their devices.[9]
The fact that new models are being conceptualized that incidentally challenge the role played by cable and satellite providers means people are already itching for the old to give way to the new.[20] I think it would be interesting to see what cable/internet providers would do, QOS-wise to this service. They could put QOS limitations on bandwidth from itunes servers, for example.[4] I think the subscription service would be doomed to failure unless the package contained content from 100+ channels.[13] If it contained channels than streaming shows, then yeah. I would kick my TV subscription and use this only then.[9] Do you know anyone who would be interested in purchasing a subscription to every show on TV or even every show on a single network? Me neither.[19]
The first three TV of Tomorrow Shows were praised by sponsors, speakers, exhibitors and attendees not only as true experts' conferences that attracted a veritable "who's who" of the interactive TV industry, but as offering a thoroughly unique and enjoyable experience.[47] Our free industry database called The Database contains many listings of operators, broadcasters, software developers, design firms, manufacturers, Web sites, consultancies and many more organizations and people working in the interactive multiplatform TV industry.[47]
The holy grail which is the box / app that gives you PPV & Free OD for the entire back catalogue of all TV, movies and archival footage everywhere. The barrier is not technology, it's licensing and the Gordian knot of who gets paid for what type of performance. The fractions of cents that go to each extra, AD, script supervisor for each download and viewing is what kills this. That and people fighting about how much they want to charge for each property and its delivery method. It's herding a exabyte of cats.[13] I downloaded "The Sting" the other night and I couldn't tell the difference between that and a DVD. I think the quality issue is gone. The issue for me is how long it takes to download, but it's still just 12 minutes to download a movie, which is faster than driving to my favorite video store. You don't have a strong opinion if people buy "It Might Get Loud" on DVD or download on iTunes? I want this movie to make a profit, because I want to make more of them.[33]
The formula that we've known for the last 10 years is clearly changing. Where are people going to see movies, where are they going to pay for movies? There's no doubt that's changing, but that's about all I know. Certainly as a filmmaker you have to be concerned about what the outlets for your films are if you want to continue making more of them. For music movies and music documentaries, it's such a niche market. The fans are rabid, but those fans--and I'm one of them--feel like "hey what happened to us?" We need a place to find these films, to see these films, to talk about these films.[33] For the last 10 years, you could catalog a hundred articles calling for the death of Hollywood, or the death of distribution. Prognosticating that this industry is dead, the music industry is falling, the movie industry is next.[33] Prior to joining Mediaedge:cia in a strategic digital and social media capacity about two years ago, Wolinetz honed a range of skills as a music industry insider, a medical school coordinator, a.[51]
Principally due to lower search and advertising revenue, News Corp.' s Digital Media Group saw its earnings decrease by $22 million year-over-year, the company said during its fiscal first quarter earnings call Wednesday.[51]
Apple didn'''t respond to requests for comment. Network executives I'''ve talked to are intrigued by the idea they are eager to find new revenue streams but are also wary, for several reasons.[16] Peter Kafka reports that "mulitple sources" say Apple has been trying to "round up support" for the idea from the networks. In the post, Kafka notes that he has "yet to hear of a single programmer" that has committed to the idea.[20]
As far as I am concerned - anything Apple does is great. I love the company, their products and all the wonderful people that bring their ideas and products to all of us.[4] For example, people watching the series finale of Lost commercial-free on the Apple pay medium would learn the secrets of everything about 20 minutes before everyone else.[18] In one fell swoop piracy will be reduced by half if not 75%. Piracy is not about people not wanting to pay, it's mostly about access. The game of hide-and-seek the networks play on their "come to our site and watch this weeks episode" is pointless. people want to be able to see any of that show, and the others and dont mind commercials or even paying for it. They just want access.[13] Want to watch that special movie or show and it is not available on the cable, SOL. Own it and you have the control to watch it when and how you want.[13] According to iN Demand EVP, David Asch, over the past three years the company has seen "a more than seven-fold increase in the number of titles offered to cable's Movies On Demand the same time as DVD."[47] Too bad for the big boys. They made money for years by charging too much money in a bloated economy. Let them adjust or go by way of the dinosaur. It really is a matter of time before commercial free tv is the norm.[4] Company president Akio Toyoda, who has been apologizing a lot lately,. Colbert To The Rescue: Can He Save U.S. Speedskating? Time What Formula One really needs, perhaps, is the support of a hot satirist to give it some gas with the public. AT&T Sues Verizon Over White Space In TV Spots Reuters AT&T is suing Verizon in a federal district court in Georgia over TV ads that claim that AT&T has gaps in its coverage areas, Computerworld's Matt Hamblen reports.[51]
Who wants to watch TV ''' let alone pay to watch TV ''' on a small computer screen? Americans like big.[4] Until it comes along, I'll muddle along with a combination of Comcast, iTunes, Roku, Amazon on Demand, Slingbox, Netflix Watch Instantly, podcasts, various network-specific sites, and old VHS tapes. I figure they get me about two-thirds of the way to where I'd like to go.[11] As the others have stated before, we need more details. I'd have to get a good look at this and probably read reviews from sites I trust (like this one) to see if getting this would be worth it for me. My first impression is no, but it has it's possibilities. Without more specifics, there is no way to make a call on this. If they (or anyone else) can beat my Comcast bill and provide the same amount of flexibility and channels, definitely worth taking a look. At this stage, just not enough info.[27]
For $30/month, with things like SciFi, and the commercial knowledge based channels (History, Animal Planet, Discovery, ect) without waiting an extra day like I have to do now for online content, then I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. The only chance they have is to move away from their current model. Newspapers are already learning this.[4] From Ad Networks To Audience Aggregation: Where Advertising Is Heading The ability to target and buying audience segments is rapidly becoming the holy grail of online marketing, replacing traditional media planning strategies built around content. Who will win in this race to deliver targeted audience? The new crop of ad exchanges? Ad networks? Agencies creating their own.[51] Progressive Targeting Boosts Lord & Taylor's ROI Rocket Fuel has partnered with Morpheus Media to drive sales, loyalty and brand engagement for Lord & Taylor. The fledgling hybrid ad network that launched earlier this year helped to triple the retailer's campaign goals from the first to the second for online sales of women's fashion, apparel.[51] The nyc Wine and Food Festival had taken over half the Meatpacking District for the weekend, putting the focus. Trim Marks Original online video took a beating this year, but the shine hasn't quite worn off yet. Despite a string of high-profile broadband start-up flops earlier in the year, media companies like Alloy Media + Marketing, studios like Generate and Web destinations such as the Sony-owned Crackle continue to.[51]
After a year of steadily shaking up consumer habits in the supermarket, the recession has produced some clear winners -- and new research from Nielsen shows that most of them are on the edges of your local grocery store. JC Penney Promoting Joyful (And Affordable) Giving 6 hours ago It's been said that "it's better to give than receive." JC Penney is looking to prove that with its holiday marketing effort that highlights the "Joy of Giving."[51] If you're just a guy out there that loves movies, rock and roll music, and rock documentaries, you've seen all the music and movie venues disappear. The local music store, the local art house theater… they're gone. That's the bad news.[33] Guggenheim spoke fondly of mom-and-pop record stores, but added, "there's no music store that can have everything that iTunes has."[49] "I used to think that the quality of downloading music on iTunes was a barrier for me," Guggenheim said.[49] The last vestiges of DRM-protected music vanished from iTunes two years later.[39]
The iTunes LP format comes packaged with a full album and bonus content in the form of additional recordings, photos and videos.[31] Up to nine additional songs will be available, the director said. The iTunes edition will be part of the "iTunes Extras" initiative, said an iTunes spokesman, but the additional content on "It Might Get Loud" has not yet been revealed.[49] While the revenue was not as strong as live TV ads due to cost per eyeball in the delivery, it was as close as I could get to having content available when I wanted it.[13]
For now, of course, you can get on-demand (and ad-supported) TV shows on the likes of Hulu for the low price of nothing, but from what we've been hearing, that may not last for much longer.[38] I assume this means TV shows without commercials, but sadly enough, I don't think that's even a safe assumption anymore.[18] It's safe to say that that most of us are able to catch up on our TV shows thanks to the wonderful world of streaming online.[48]
Better than unlimited TV for $30? I'm sorry but you must be broken.[34] I'm getting 55+ stations for free over-the-air but I would definitely sign-up for a $30 a month all you can eat iTunes.[10]
Sounds too good to be true. The question would be, what do you get for $30.00? If it is basic only, this would not be a big deal. I don't see this being a replacement to my cable service.[27] I don't watch 98 percent of the channels included in my cable package, and never will-and the only reason I'm paying for the tier of service I'm getting is to get one or two stations that interest me.[11] We had Cable HD and I find the response time and lack of content cause me to spend most of my viewing/recording on the standard channels. Owning shows/movies is less about owning and more about being able to watch them when you want.[13]
If Apple, or anyone can figure out a way to have "a-la-carte" channels, all the crap would dry up an blow away. [13] No one should be surprised. What's so head-scratchingly strange about the whole thing, though, is that someone inside Apple thinks making life more difficult for its software customers is good for business. That's how Microsoft is supposed to think.[42] You'''re dancing because you think Apple added support for Netflix or Hulu or Vimeo or MLB.tv or something, right? Well, stop dancing.[28]
Don't make me have to think about a monthly fee for each viewing device like the current content providers. [13] Hollywood Asks FCC To Back Three-Strikes Piracy Plan Entertainment companies have been saying for a while that they'd like to see Internet service providers deal with piracy by. Why Is Adoption Rate Low For Google's BT Service? It's been nearly eight months since Google announced a behavioral targeting service, which it calls "interest-based" ad targeting. It gathers.[51]
From what I've read, one can get fast internet at reasonable prices in many European and Asian countries (A quick internet search shows a person living in the UK could get service more than twice as fast as what I have for about 15 pounds or about $25).[4]
Windows 7 Upgrade Woes Mount: Endless Reboots and Product Key Problems Microsoft message boards are active with users complaining of upgrade problems related to Windows 7. Consumers Won't Pay $120 for Windows 7 Upgrade We've gotten used to free or cheap software, so Microsoft should offer some deals for its newest OS.[23] I just wish Netflix would offer it's entire library online with instant streaming, and have more in HD ^_^. I don't use Itunes so doubt I would use this if it came out.[9] From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online.[16]
I personally do not have cable, download all the network stuff I want to see in high def and maybe will get an OTA high def antenna for local news. [4] USA Network steadily has the highest rated non-premier cable shows around. Would be odd to sell that all off to Comcast, seeing as how GE's Peacock Network is sucking so much wind they have their own vortex.[5] One train saying that it was happening, and Comcast saying it wasn't. Of course, there is no reason for Comcast to make it public until the acquisition is in the final stages and awaiting FTC/FCC approval much like Marvel/Disney did, but with the amount of money NBC is pulling in from shows on the USA Network I doubt they would be so ready to let NBC Universal go.[5]
Updates from Facebook and Twitter are now central to people's information networks, much like bulletins from news wires or major dailies.[51] Keep in mind we rarely watched the networks anyway, choosing instead channels like Discovery, Science, and my kids favorite Animal Planet. If they could get programming from the better channels, movies similar to Netflix, and Sports, I'm in.[6] If it were commercial free tv, and for that price included all major networks and the common cable/satellite channels, it might be worth that much per month.[18]
RAM: Wooden Performance Who knew a well-placed Woody could get you nearly a million friends on Facebook? In early September, TV spots, viral videos and digital ads directed Facebook users to "Woody," a 30-something slacker who dubbed himself "Friday's biggest fan." [51] Well, how about MS Media Center driven mini Asus attached to your plasma huge TV. even better. This is again, an interesting idea.[14] Networks' ratings could suffer as well, unless the way ratings are calculated are adjusted to include digital downloads.[22] Besides, pretty much everything I watch is already on iTunes for sale with no commercials, or Hulu for free with 1 15 or 30 second commercial in the slot the networks put 6 to 10 commercials in.[4] DISH Network and EchoStar are currently attempting to persuade a federal appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling that DISH must stop offering a DVR service that the lower court has ruled infringes on TiVo's so-called "Time Warp" patent.[47]
I love how cable companies have been luring customers in with crippled bandwidth from day one, promising better speeds and unlimited use, and then capped it when people bit and went for the plan. It's ridiculous. The biggest flaw in our system is that in Japan they're getting 50mbps optical speeds for the equivalent of $50 a month because neighborhoods aren't monopolized by one company or another. [7] Two years ago we dropped our cable when it went to $50 a month, and haven't looked back.[6]
I dont have cable and I still rely on ( LoggTV.com ) for good movies and music.[13]
Marvell, the chip maker not the entertainment company, announced that it is set to enter the eReader world. the company will market new digital content platforms that work with E-Ink, the electronic paper company who helped develop Amazon's Kindle. [50]
SOURCES
1. Apple proposes subscription service for transmitting TV shows via iTunes | TopNews United States
2. Report: Apple has OTT envy
3. Apple Pitching $30-Per-Month iTunes TV Service: Report - Retail - IT Channel News by CRN
4. Apple's $30 a month TV subscription service? Not buying it. | csmonitor.com
5. Apple Reportedly Shops iTunes as TV Service | News | The Mac Observer
6. Would you pay $30 a month for 'iTunes TV'? - MAC.BLORGE
7. TV channels to premiere on iTunes early 2010 at $30 a month ''' Computer Chips & Hardware Technology | Geek.com
8. Rumor: Apple to offer $30 unlimited TV package
9. Apple said to offer $30 iTunes TV subscriptions next year
10. Is Apple about to launch all-you-can-watch monthly iTunes subscriptions? | Brand X | Los Angeles Times
11. Heres the iTunes TV Service Id Actually Pay For - PC World
12. Apple's Over-The-Top Plans For TV - Forbes.com
13. Apple To Reinvent Apple TV. For The Rest Of Us - BusinessWeek
14. OhGizmo! » Archive » $30/month iTunes "Cable Killer" Subscription Service On The Way?
15. Apple'''s cable TV pitch - THE WEEK
16. Apple's iTunes Pitch: TV for $30 a Month - Digits - WSJ
17. IGN: Apple Exploring iTunes TV?
18. Would you watch TV on iTunes for $30 a month? - TV Squad
19. Apple wants to replace cable TV for $30 a month
20. Apple To Offer iTunes TV Subscription Service? - Tech Trader Daily - Barrons.com
21. StrategyEye
22. Apple pitching TV subscription option for iTunes to networks - Ars Technica
23. Apple iTunes TV Pitch: Another Nail in Cables Coffin - PC World
24. Apple planning TV service to tie in with tablet? - mirror.co.uk
25. Cartt.ca
26. iTunes To Challenge Cable TV?
27. Apple working on a $30 iTunes TV subscription service? - TechSpot News
28. First Look: Apple TV 3.0 | Ethiopian News - EthioPlanet.com, Ethiopian Politics, Entertainment, Ethiopia
29. Fudzilla - Apple to compete with cable
30. iTunes Store gains Music Movies section | iPodNN
31. AppleInsider | Apple launches iTunes Music Movies with exclusive content
32. StrategyEye
33. Q&A: Director Davis Guggenheim On iTunes' Music Movies
34. Apple Launches "Music Movies" on iTunes | The iPhone Blog
35. Apple iTunes To Offer TV Subscriptions?
36. Apple Could Offer Unlimited TV at $30 a Month | High-Def Digest
37. iTunes Shopping Pay TV Service; Comcast CEO Brian Roberts Responds to the Idea : TVBizwire : TVWeek - Television Industry news, TV ratings, analysis, celebrity event photos
38. Report: Apple floating $30/month iTunes subscription plan to TV networks : Ben Patterson : Yahoo! Tech
39. Bad Apple: Five Classic Apple Marketing Tactics That Lock You In - PC World
40. iTunes Pitches $30 Monthly Subscription for TV Content - MediaBuyerPlanner
41. Apple pitches all-you-can-watch iTunes for TV - thestar.com
42. Apple's small-minded strategy
43. Apples $30-Per-Month TV service would fit tablet - Computerworld Blogs
44. Apple launches Music Movies on iTunes
45. iTunes Store Highlights Music Related Movies | News | The Mac Observer
46. ITunes gets It Might Get Loud doc early - 11/4/2009 - Video Business
47. News Round-Up | InteractiveTV Today
48. Apple's iTunes To Replace Your Cable Box?
49. 'It Might Get Loud' director Davis Guggenheim stands behind digital distribution | Pop & Hiss | Los Angeles Times
50. Apple Reportedly Pitching $30/month Apple TV Subscription: MediaBytes with Shelly Palmer November 3, 2009 | MediaBytes with Shelly Palmer
51. MediaPost Publications - Home of MediaDailyNews, MEDIA and OMMA Magazines
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on Bad Apple: Five Classic Apple Marketing Tactics That Lock You In by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
