Apple In Talks To Bring $0.99 TV Rentals To iTunes

An anonymous reader writes "On September first, Apple will reportedly announce a new iPod Touch with a front facing camera, a refreshed Apple TV, and more interestingly, the arrival of $0.99 TV episode rentals on iTunes."

Comments

Subscription service

[odies]

$0.99 is way too much for a single episode rental. With the same price you can buy the whole season from store and get a physical product with extras too.

Why not a subscription based service like Spotify, but for TV episodes? I would gladly pay $10 a month if I could stream any tv show and episode I wanted to. I already do for Spotify and seriously, I haven't felt the need to get mp3's since I started using it because frankly, it's just so convenient and easy. Hell, you can even offer an ad-based service too. Just have it huge library, don't delete old episodes or shows and add the new episodes there right after or when they're showing on TV.

Re:Subscription service

[PopeRatzo]

I call bullshit. Where can you buy entire seasons of TV shows on DVD for $0.99? Name the store.

Netflix.

With a two to three-day turnaround time, I can get a dozen DVDs a month of TV shows (entire seasons' worth) for the basic Netflix subscription. If I step up the subscription, I can have several dozen DVDs come through my house, which I can then load on to my iPod Touch.

Plus, I can watch as many of the online TV seasons as I want. It comes to much, much, much less than $0.99 per episode.

Re:Subscription service

[Beardydog]

It's way too much for any type of copy. TV shows, compared to songs, are usually much more disposable. The Colbert Report is an extreme example. It comes on, I watch it, and I have no desire to ever watch that episode again. I watch backcatalogs on Netflix of a lot of things, but I've never h ad any desire to own them before getting streaming access. And yet Apple sells episodes ofthe ColbertReport for 2 dollars, if I recall correctly.

There are exceptions, and I can see people buying episodes of a Firefly, or a Gilmore Girls ( embarassing confessiion ) for two dollars, if itcomeswith guaranteed future redownloads afterdrive failures and such. But the vastmajority of TV shows are far too ephemeral. Even the Sopranos, whichI greatly enjoyed... It was fun. It's over now. I'll never watch it again.

Re:Subscription service

[spazdor]

If it's a rental only? I'd expect a (significant) further discount again

For a digital copy I don't even get to keep, well, I'd expect not to have to pay. The "watch this but don't keep a copy" model has been ad-supported on aerial TV for decades, and on YouTube for the better part of one. What makes them think they deserve any customers by stepping back onto a pay-per-play system? And isn't this the kind of shit that DRM alarmists were diligently warning everyone about back in 2003?

Re:Subscription service

[afidel]

You've been able to buy DRM'd episodes from Amazon since 2006, this is only news because it's itunes.

Re:Subscription service

[afidel]

Amazon's had rental as well since 2006, watch within 30 days of purchase, available for 24 hours.

Re:Subscription service

[anagama]

The "watch this but don't keep a copy" model has been ad-supported on aerial TV for decades

In 1990 I watched as my mom died, and in her weakened state basically able to do nothing but watch TV, her precious seconds being used up watching ads for Wisk or whatnot. By 1993 I had stopped watching television completely (kept the VCR for movies though), because the fact is, advertising is a waste of life. Sure, the shows might be somewhat interesting, but just how much is your life worth? I decided mine was worth way more than I got from the annoyance of marketing.

Then came Netflix and TNG, DS9, and even Voyager on DVD. I thoroughly enjoyed catching up on these shows without commercials. Later, I picked up an ATV and I've enjoyed commercial free seasons of Dexter and True Blood and a few other things. The whole point of a device like the ATV, is to avoid commercials and let the marketers hit the unemployment line and languish there as could only happen in a truly just world.

Finally, I just can't believe how cheap people are. What does 99c get you anymore? A Snickers? A box of Tic Tacs? You know, even if you earn minimum wage (and who really thinks their life is only worth 8-something an hour), 15 minutes of commercials is worth $2. Why would you spend $2 of life, when you can get the show for a buck? It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. If you make $60/hr, those 15 minutes cost $15 -- a season would cost you roughly $360.

And one last finally -- if we can get away from the whole advertising model, then direct user supported shows would be possible. For example, Firefly couldn't cut it in the ratings game, but how many direct subscribers would it have taken to make it worth doing?

Hmm

[mark72005]

I don't care if people want to waste $1 per episode to watch TV.

What I will care about is when Apple starts to exclusively lock down certain shows making them impossible to get through other services like In Demand, Netflix, etc

Re:Hmm

[Nugoo]

-1: Naive

wow

[Charliemopps]

All the shows? From all the carriers? They all asked for exactly 99 cents? Weird! It's almost like they all got together and colluded to keep the price high or something... nah.

Apparently they have never heard of netflix

[h4rr4r]

Netflix, all the streaming you want(if you can tolerate the drm) for $10 and dvds in the mail. I will have watched all of dexter season 4 in 1 week. That means I paid about $5 for the whole shebang as I pay around $20 a month for my 3 disc plan. Thus that is the price I am willing to pay. At ~12 episodes that works out to ~$0.42, less than half what they are suggesting. Mind you this is a Showtime show, a normal cable show might be worth half of that.

Re:Apparently they have never heard of netflix

[DragonWriter]

They've heard of Netflix. And if they are charging more per unit viewed than Netflix, they can return more to the copyright holder than Netflix can, which gives the copyright holder a reason to prefer them over Netflix.

So, if people are willing to pay for this, expect more shows to not be available for Netflix streaming, and to be available only on this or similar pay-per-view systems. Or, perhaps, to be delayed in getting to Netflix and similar services for a period, where they are available on pay-per-view systems like this, and then later move to Netflix.

Re:Apparently they have never heard of netflix

[Locke2005]

I have the same problem with this as I do with all-you-can-eat buffets. If I leave the buffet and my stomach doesn't hurt, I feel like I haven't gotten my money's worth. Likewise, if I'm paying Netflix $30/month for all the video I can veg out to, I feel like I'm screwing myself if I go outside and take a walk once in a while. Reading a book suddenly gets more expensive too.

Re:TV needs to be free!!!

[BonquiquiShiquavius]

Unless of course, they don't pay for cable. A lot of people, myself included, are tired of the cable companies bundling/pricing schemes. I only watch 4-5 shows every season...why should I pay for the hundreds I have no interest watching? I for one love the idea of renting shows online. I think the pricing is still too high, but it's a step in the right direction. Finally some real competition in TV offerings. Maybe this will force cable companies to offer plans that favour the consumer rather than the provider.

Re:Wait a second

[WrongSizeGlass]

my point was that it's ridiculous how many Americans pay $80/month to see these shows when you can see them for free.

There are millions (and I mean millions) of cable subscribers in apartment building that cannot have 'free' TV of any quality. Rabbit ears != decent reception in most urban areas (I can't speak for suburban areas). On top of that there are condominiums and home owner associations that ban visible antennae. Free isn't an option for everyone.