digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Apple Seeking Price Cuts on iTunes Television Episodes!

macrumors.com — Hmmm, could this be why NBC didn't renew the contract?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19I don't think so, I think NBC wanted higher prices and now that their gone Apple sees this as an opportunity to lower prices. I still think it will only be new seasons that are the $2 per episode price and older ones will be the reduced price. That is if any studio goes for this.
    • DanteDefiance, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Hmmm...could this be A DUPE!

      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070907-apple-wants-to-slash-tv-show-prices-in-half-aggresively-drive-ipod-sales.html
    • bigdoof, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not really. Apple makes it money off of the high profit margin hardware and uses iTunes moslty as a low margin front end to encourage people to continue to buy their hardware. The problem is that media companies (NBC, et al) don't have a cut of the hardware profits, and Apple wants to cut further into their revenue by cutting the offering price of the content. Looks great for Apple since it seems like they're just looking out for the consumer, but in reality they are just taking comparatively small loses in their iTunes segment to further drive their hardware segment.

      Megacorp vs. megacorp arguments rarely have a "good guy" and this is really no different. Of course, Jobs' worshippers will spin this as Apple fighting off the Evil Major Studios against their profit grubbing ways.
      • malliemcg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In this case the consumer are the winners in this mega-corp vs mega-corp argument. As a consumer I want the best prices things for me!
    • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I'd buy an entire season for $19.99 that's for sure, can't beat having it already ripped and ready to play on my iPod or TV
  • Chewie67, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21I'd say this is a very likely reason why NBC bolted. Despite what they say, I can't believe it had nothing to do with money. NBC may not have wanted $4.99 like Apple suggested (though I can't imagine why they would mention a specific price if it wasn't true), but you can bet that NBC did not want to lower their price.
    This shows the absolute greed of the various media companies (music, movies, television). Before iTunes they had ZERO income from online sales. Now they start getting a taste, and instead of being happy with that, they start demanding more.
    Go ahead, NBC. Leave iTunes. Where do you think people get your shows from? YouTube or Bittorrent. Now how much income are you making?
    • phytonix, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Maybe NBC wanted the $4.99 price for the hit show just aired. Then drop to $1.99 after a few weeks.
      • jaxcs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Don't know the specifics of this deal but music and vid execs have been pushing for variable pricing for some time. It's one of the main causes of dissent between Apple and the music and vid industry. They want to charge more for hit shows, and less for unpopular shows - just like you would find at the retail store. Apple wants a single pricing structure. Apple's policy is considerably more consumer friendly but the industry execs want to make more money now.
    • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11NBC wanted control over what their products are worth. Every other company, *INCLUDING* Apple, dictates what their prices are and leaves distributors to take it or leave it.

      I suspect Apple is chasing a price cut because without NBC's shows they have a gaping hole in their lineup and need to do what they can to retain customers who will go to Amazon to get their NBC fix, and in doing so cuddle up to an iTunes competitor.
      • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think that what they wanted to do was to be able to sell combo's of shows (like a My Name is Earl/The office/30 Rock combo) for more than $1.99, and apple didn't want that because it would ruin what people *thought* things cost, not what they actually cost. I'm not sure, however, if they would've left single shows at $1.99, but according to NBC's response to apple, it definitely seems like the $4.99 price was for combinations of shows, not single shows.
      • SPECOPS, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Why do you think WalMart is so successful? They don't allow prices to go too high, if they do, WalMart doesn't cover you anymore. I mean, would you goto WalMart to buy your (insert whatever you buy at WalMart here) for 2x the price overnight? No, you'd goto Target or some other competitor. So, WalMarts model is we will sell for the cheapest price we can, if you (the supplier) can't do that they don't sell through WalMart. Apple has a similar strategy, you won't find over inflated prices here, that's their business, not NBCs, and obviously Apple stood by their business model, and told NBC to go elsewhere or come back and play by their rules. You are free to go buy your stuff at WalMart, or goto Macys and buy stuff for more money (yes maybe better quality, maybe not) same as with going to Amazon or recording it on your own.
        • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Walmart can do that because there are always alternates to a product. There is no alternate to a tv show or a song there only different stuff.
          • moofer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3isn't different stuff an alternative?
          • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're right but you still know what I mean I think. If you want the latest season of The Office or the latest album from Evanescence, the latest season of The OC and the latest album from Christina Aguilera are not substitutes.

            Whereas if you want a screwdriver Walmart can provide you with one from a number of manufacturers.
          • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0How does that make a lick of sense? There are still alternative providers to the SAME stuff. It's not like Apple barters for exclusivity for TV shows; you can get them many other ways. Pretty much all the EXACT stuff in Wal-Mart is sold elsewhere, too. Just at Wal-Mart, you'd better be damn sure it's cheapest.

            You'd have to jump through more hoops to play them on your iPod or in iTunes, tho.
      • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think it's far more likely that people would simply be find with their DVR's or DVD's and ripping them to their iPods if they really want, and ignore the other sources. You know why NBC's shows did well to begin with? iTunes already had the eyeballs and the foot traffic, and NBC happened to have some shows that appealed to that demographic. (iTunes effectively kept The Office on the air, as it was about to crash and burn in the same way other shows do on commercial television... The iTunes audience propped it up.)

        Hell, I don't think people would pay more on ITUNES either, if it was to go up to 3 or 4/episode. At that point you're paying double the DVD price for a season, without all the other advantages DVD's offer. ...and if NBC goes to Unbox or other places and does NOT charge more per episode... just what were they bitching about?

        In that case, it would seem to be a fight between NBC wanting Apple to crimp their DRM, crack down on piracy (probably in many fun, new rights-violating ways), and have an open pricing scheme where they could fluctuate whatever they want, whenever they want, which they already know Apple is averse to. (Damn them, wanting consistency and consumer non-confustion...)
    • twisted12, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Days of our lives and the biggest loser will surely be missed.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Nah, just tune into digg.com and look at the apple fanboys desperately defending their favorite big corporation if you want a taste of The Biggest Loser each and every day.
    • MikeCerm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I know that people won't agree, but the price drop that Steve may be pushing for is not some philanthropic endeavor. I'm sure Steve isn't going to be taking a loss, he just wants the studios to reduce their take. Steve doesn't care if NBC or any other content company makes money. He wants them to lower prices, so more people will buy through iTunes, and more people will become more locked-in to the iTunes/iPod system.

      Is NBC really all that greedy? Maybe, and I agree that $2 is more than I'm willing to pay, but I think that the real issue here is that NBC doesn't want to give someone else, certainly not a megalomaniac-monopolist, like Jobs, total control of their digital distribution, including the right to dictate what their content is worth. They'd prefer to not be dictated to, and to be able to set their own prices.
      • Ziziros, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well NBC may not want to have there prices dictated to them, but still they have to realize that in a market of $2 episodes, almost no one will pay $5 for a single show.
  • Hoffer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30I know $2 is too much for an episode for me. I would definitely buy more at $1. In fact, I just subscribed to The Daily Show on iTunes. $10 for 16 episodes seems much more worth it to me.
    • listrophy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I am strongly considering going to the over-the-air-only route with TV, and buying the remaining shows (eg: Daily Show, BSG, etc) via iTunes. The $1.99 price point was pretty high for me... I would have only bought the shows I *really* wanted. Bringing it down to $0.99 would definitely make me buy more.

      Twice as many? I don't know. Like I said, I'm *considering* going sans cable. That means, as of now, I purchase zero TV shows from iTunes. A price drop would increase that purchase rate infinite-fold.
      • Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1BSG is Sci-Fi isn't it, which is Universal, which means it wont be on iTunes.
      • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0My friend actually has done just that. He worked out the figures, and found out he'd pay a whole lot less if he dumped cable and only picked up the shows he watches through iTunes and/or DVD sets after a season is out. This depends entirely on one's viewing habits, of course. (Would never work for me, for instance.)

        I do think the $2/episode is irritating for some shows, but thankfully they seem to be pretty liberal in what you can charge for a season, or what you can "multi-pass" with... As you note, the Daily Show ends up being $0.63/episode if you buy them in 16-episode blocks, which is way below the individual price.

        Going to $1/episode and retooling seasons and multi-pack prices would make even ME rethink my setup.
  • streak, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Apple was certainly unwilling to pay the $1 NBC Universal tax for every iPod sold that Microsoft was willing to pay for every Zune.
    • KingLukas, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3That's because Apple sells a crap ton of iPods. I could see microsoft not wanting to do that if they sold as many zunes as Apple does iPods.
    • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well duh. I think publishers trying to step in and force ANY manufacturer to pay them a "piracy tax" is ridiculous. Do they get the same deals from VCR manufacturers? DVD player manufacturers? PC manufacturers? Oooh, how about double-dipping for PC manufacturers who have DVD players!

      It's retarded.
      • samuel514, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1right ***** NBC and all the publishers who just don't get the Internet thing.
  • fugrank, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3While I would welcome lower prices, I don't think Apple has the right to lower the price of other companies products when they are charging the premium prices they do for their own. Lower the price of iPods and Macs and Displays closer to those of other companies, then talk. Their margins are quite ridiculously high. If they are want to cut the prices of television episodes out of their own wallet, more power to them.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hes got a point you know, even if he is being dugg down.
      Why do apple get to dictate the cost of something made by another company?? Is it because they control the market?
      If MS did something like that they'd be dragged over the coals but because its Apple its okay??
      • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If MS did something like this it would be because--again--the industry decides to GIVE them the power to do so. In this instance, Apple has essentially created and DRIVEN digital media downloads, and are trying to keep the publishers from exerting overt influence on the market they essentially created. (Especially since at every turn the publishers show they lack vision, enjoy spitting on customers, and want as much control as possible and the distribution networks to be their lapdogs... if they don't already own them.)

        There's nothing stopping competition and there HAS been competition, but it all has had minimal impact, handles poorly, and works inconveniently with all devices. (And, by and large, is only Windows-based.) The iPod/iTunes-scape has fuelled itself much like the Macs themselves have kept going through the years and have more appeal now than ever... the "just works" mentality. Only in this case they forged into a NEW market instead of swimming upstream against a monopoly (one of the few entities to not die doing so), and found that that "just works" design is what appeals to consumers of that kind of product.

        Apple will get less insular when real competition actually ARISES, but in the meanwhile I'd expect to see them playing the game as they want to play it. (And the way that's actually made it SOMEWHAT popular.) NBC may be able to create some competition by aligning against them, but in the meanwhile they'll likely find out just how much revenue they're losing and giving to their competition. And for the still-last-place-among-major-networks-where-they-used-to-rule-the-universe NBC, you'd think that would be in continuing to EMBRACE places that have done well for them, instead of thinking they have the clout right now to change it.

        (For reference, "Heroes" was their most popular scripted show (only football and "Deal or No Deal" ranked higher)... at 21st.
    • imikedaman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As much as I hate to admit it, you're probably right - although this new iPhone price drop and $100 rebate at least shows that they aren't afraid to slash their own margins.
    • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Macs aren't "high priced" as much as they have fewer ways to configure, and don't compete on the lowest-end, lowest-margin machines. As well, they tend to have a lot more software value included, which may be of nebulous value to the customer, but seems to NEVER come into account when people compare price tags.

      iPods, meanwhile, have been pretty competitively priced. They're not the cheapest of the cheap, but they also COULD sit a lot higher. (And ARE cheaper than a whole lot of other "premium brands" from competitors that deliver less.) When they iPods drop in price--which they certainly do--they drop the industry with them, and there have been a number of occasions that they've completely undershot their competition. Check out the MSRP on the Zune lately? Creative's Zen's? They're usually right alongside, with the only difference being that you can find them cheaper online or on sale occasionally, whereas iPods seldom are. Same thing with Sansa on the low end; they'd been happily forging ground with good devices, but just got outplayed and even "out-cheaped" by the new Nano... at which point you see the distributors struggling to reprice everything to find out just how MUCH cheaper than an iPod they have to be to get the right amount of demand. (This, while the iPod still hasn't bothered to build in some features other competitors have had for a while.)

      The iPod's biggest competitor is... itself. And it's had no problems competing with itself to our benefit instead of resting on its' laurels. ;-) Apple is under no obligation to drive margins down so low to compete with any and ALL other manufacturers out there... I mean, how does that make sense?

      Especially since you seem to be only looking at price, ignoring all other aspects of quality or capability, thereby making even LESS sense. They're not even at 30% margin on most products, and that's considered a "healthy" margin, not "ridiculous." If you want to complain about RIDICULOUS, go talk to Microsoft about Windows and Office. ;-)
  • bouche, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I really hate to see the value of DVD quality visual and sound compared to low res stereo downloads. Shows like Heroes and Battlestar Galactica are amaxing to watch on HDTV with 5.1 surround. DVD's also come out 1 year after the season starts. The point of the download is to watch shows that you may have missed on air. For the people without a PVR, it's a good deal.
    • locojones, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3An even better deal is to watch them for free, on NBC's own website!
    • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Resolution is pretty much the same (iTunes 640x480 versus DVD's 720x480), but the sound quality is certainly less. I prize DVD more for the extra features and ease of lending to get my friends into shows. ;-) But then I don't have a good TV and 5.1 setup, so I'm not overly concerned with that side of the experience.
  • KingLukas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think there might be a slight possibility that NBC will come back... you never know.
    However I do agree with these two things; I would much rather pay $1 than $2 it's, and NBC screwed themselves big time when they canceled there contract.
    • yabos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't it be freaking hilarious if they bolted at the price of $1.99 only to come back and have their stuff sold for $0.99
  • johnpaul191, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Apple is not twisting arms (according to the reports)..... they are trying to promote the idea of making more money through volume. i admit if shows were 99ยข i would probably be a lot more likely to dump cable. i generally now buy shows i miss with my TiVo.

    i would never pay $5 for over-the-air shows. i doubt even HBO could have gotten that with the Sopranos..... which is an expensive channel to add to your cable lineup.
    • strax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Apple did not create online music sales, but they improved it, with both ease of use and proper pricing, to a point where they are now the third largest music distributor in the US. They are working towards the same goal with video, and they have a good track record on pricing models, so any smart executive would at least be open to discuss the mater.
    • B1663r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, Apple is competing. They have to do something because in the last week Unbox has gotten massive basically free publicity of their 99 cent feature movie rentals. For example, you can rent 300 for 99 cents right now. I think that is an awsome deal. Since Apple seemingly lacks (AFAIK) a system for movie rentals they have to do something to stem the tide, or else they lose a large part of the value of their iPod product line.
  • arctic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Buried as Duplicate
  • GnKnight1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6@fugrank

    I find it interesting that people (like yourself) still make false assumptions that Apple's products are soooooo overpriced. Sure, there are some MP3 players of the same capacity that may go for a little less than the comparable iPod, but there are also other MP3 players priced the same or more. If Apple was having problems selling iPods due to their outrageous prices, then the basic rule of Supply and Demand would lead to Apple lowering their price. The bottom line is, people seem to be finding a lot of value in the iPod line of MP3 players. This is due to other things besides capacity, which I simply do not have the time to explain to you.

    And as far as computers go, if you really compare the Mac line of computers to other computers WITH THE SAME HARDWARE, then you'll find that the prices are not gonna vary by much. The problem is, most people think Apple computers are overpriced because Apple has chosen not to compete in the sub-$500 POS computer market. Do not make the mistake of comparing a Mac to a sub-$500 eMachine and then complain that Macs are overpriced. They are nowhere near the same machine (thank God!).

    If people pay the price that Apple sets for their iPod platform, then the prices must be right. I think Apple's market dominance of the MP3 market is a clear sign that people overall find the prices right.
  • GnKnight1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@locojones

    And I can do this during my daily commute to work? I don't think so.
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And I can easily use the 'reply' option!
      How bout you give it a try.
  • shibbay, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1The bottom line is this: Until NBC is in the red from dropping online sales, they don't care what users think. Their business is about numbers, not about your feelings. Unfortunately the customer no longer matters.
    • Spartycus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You partially hit on it. They care about the numbers alright, and those numbers come from.... the customers. That being said, either this will somehow turn out well for NBC, like, if they retain similar revenue for their online content, or they will come back to iTunes in the future. The online marketplace is still really new and these firms are trying to see how much revenue can be gained through the new venue. NBC just attempted to throw its weight around like the manufacturers of old, and has discovered that the modern marketplace is retailer driven.
  • rheaume, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I guessing Apple wants too much per download than they deserve for all the work they put into they media they sell (ZERO)
    Apple is just a new type of record company, taking giant profits from work they never produced but I'm sure Ill get dugg down for speaking the truth
    • strax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2No, you'll get dug down for being inaccurate in your analysis. Oh, and for claiming ahead of time that anyone who diggs you down has ulterior motives.
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Whats inaccurate? Apple DOESN'T spend any money in the production of content but they DO want to completely control how its distributed on-line and what prices it goes for.
        As much as I hate a lot of what the content creators do and how they work, its their content and they should have more control over it that a company (which if it wasn't Apple would be in the courts over monopolistic practices) that simply distributes it in order to push and then lock people into its expensive DRM and hardware.
        • clackerd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2no, apple spends ALL the money on hosting and serving them. NBC et al don't do any extra work outside of their traditional production costs to get them on itunes. i think apple deserves a cut.

          by the way, your DRM comment is pretty funny considering NBC left Apples DRM scheme because it was not strong enough.
          • B1663r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1That is an interesting spin... NBC didn't leave so much as, Apple showed them the door (after NBC asked for some marketing flexibility) then slammed the door into them (On their way out Apple removed all of NBC's content from iTunes) on the way out after hollaring insults at them(claiming NBC wanted 5 bucks for television episodes) .

            Also, it wasn't the strength of the DRM that NBC was concerned about, it was the lack of DRM options. By NBC's choice of Unbox, it looks like NBC wants the option of renting content. AFAIK Apple has no provisions for rentals, and has no plans for rentals at any point in future.
        • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0They want to "completely control how it's distributed online?" Funny. I thought they wanted to control how it's distributed THROUGH iTunes. (And they certainly don't have complete control, else things would be different. ;-) )

          Content creators have, by and large, shown what complete dickholes they'll be. You'll notice that Apple managed to get out there first with the LEAST-restrictive DRM (while studios didn't really know what to expect or what was possible) and is fighting to KEEP it that way. You ever take a gander at the DRM you seem to object to on Amazon's Unbox, or any of the other services?

          Admittedly, now that iTunes has established itself, Apple really does need to look to set up different content levels to allow for classic content, HD content, etc., as "one size fits all" in the end... doesn't. But what else did NBC want of Apple to get shot down like that despite offering a lot of content that was really driving TV sales? To raise the prices on anything remotely popular. To hammer away at Apple's "far too liberal" DRM policies. To try to affect the capability of iPods and iPhones simply because they CAN carry NBC's content and... "other stuff." Considering one of NBC's big announced complaints is that Apple is essentially "lovin' them pirated shows!" and won't help crack down on pirated media on their devices (seemingly wanting Apple to spy on individual's content and forbid/delete it, or track it so they can be sued)... Apple already does NOT support the common pirated formats anyway (while many other players are, and consumers would be ***** off if studios made them STOP), and NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE can stop people from transcoding or ripping their DVD's... Does NBC expect them to make it so you can ONLY play DRM-enabled media on your device? It sure seems that way.

          Seemingly, despite all the ***** the RIAA and MPAA dish out and the constant lambasting they get online and all the privacy concerns and consumer abuse they bring about, the only way to get people to CHEER ON the content providers is to have them butt heads with someone you dislike more.
    • Anim8me2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Apple takes very little from music and video downloads. As has been pointed out Apple views music and video as a lost leader to attract sales of iPods. I dug you down for speaking speaking out of your ass.
    • awhiteflame, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1In addition, I don't know if you've heard of this, but there's this little thing called bandwidth, and it's not cheap. It's not horribly ungodly expensive, but it's not $0 as you claim.
      • rheaume, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You are right, sending 5megs of data now must cost... .02 cents?
      • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So TV episodes are 5 megs now? I do believe you're off by a scale of about 50 or so. For half-hour episodes.
    • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Apple doesn't spent money to produce the content, but they spent an awful lot to create the vehicle to bring it to the consumer--and well--that makes the consumer actually WANT to buy said content. And there are continual software and bandwidth costs that go into this kind of service.

      Meanwhile, they make little enough off content as it is (they only started making ANY quarterly profit off it in--I believe--the last two), so... Also, you seem to be arguing that they want "too much per download" in reply to an article speculating that they want to HALVE the price per episode. Apple is certainly willing to cut into their margins--or even take a loss on it. So who do you think WILL be resistant...?
  • image0434, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't feel like 2 bucks an episode it too much to ask for as is.
  • maehem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or I can just rent the DVD from Netflix for about $1 or 4 cents per episode.
  • stephend, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If Apple are that keen to lower prices, they might consider starting with their new video service in the United Kingdom where they are currently reaming us for 4 bucks an episode. Thieving sods.
  • RiotOfWords, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Next Apple headline will read "Apple seeks to eliminate profit"
  • MKREdit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I love the way apple has made NBC the bad guy in all of this. First of all its not as if NBC gets the full $2 from a $2 episode apple gets a substantial cut and I am sure apple was not going to reduce its percentage. Why should apple care if NBC shows cost more? Does Mac Mall tell apple it must charge a certain price for a laptop? for apple it's not about itunes, it's about ipods. Apple (a hardware company) is only concerned with moving ipods. itunes is just a conduit to make that happen. Online sales is not a cash cow for networks. Networks make more from a :30 spot then from all it's itunes sales. These companies (networks) are not going to let apple dictate policy so they all will watch this to see who blinks first . If NBCU is successful all the others will follow.
    • cthellis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Apple cares if a lot of different pricing confuses or irritates the consumer, causing them to buy less content overall; the studios should, too. So far Apple's approach has worked very well, as the consumer knows EXACTLY what to expect. Aren't you more wary of something that costs a $0.50 cents more or a buck more per episode? How about something where the first couple episodes are cheaper to draw one in, then the next few get more expensive once they think they've got you hooked? A series that changes price mid-season? That kind of monkeying about is EXACTLY what to expect if you let the studios manipulate it at every turn.

      $2/episode is already on the high end for this kind of content, as it's just below DVD quality, doesn't have extras, doesn't have alternate audio or subtitle tracks (at least I don't think they've done that yet?), and yet for the most part it costs more than DVD season sets and has no resale value. I'm DAMN sure NBC wasn't talking about only wanting to set a lower price tier, either; they were saying "hey, The Office is selling well online (in large part DUE TO iTunes), so let's start charging more. Also, people seem to like Heroes and BSG and Earl, so..."

      Apple is not ONLY concerned with moving hardware; they're also concerned with building an ecosystem that sells digital content well. BETTER. And so far they've been doing that in spades. And while commercial television is certainly going to remain the profitable arm for a good long while, you're completely underestimating their digital revenue even now--which will only continue to grow. Even commercial television is going digital/online without concern, as DVR's and On Demand alternatives will bring it to people when and how they want--trying to reach their computers and portable devices as well--and along with it bring ease of commercial skipping and a new style of "watching TV." The networks are already joining in on the internet end by making some of their content watchable on their websites.

      However, the studios are NEVER going to be happy unless they have ALL control over their content, and they've consistently shown themselves to be anti-consumer and completely retarded about technology. They want a cut of device sales simply because they have the POSSIBILITY of playing pirated content (so do VCR's and DVD players and DVR's...); they want to violently cut back what you are ALLOWED to watch their more-expensive-than-DVD-for-no-particular-reason digital content on (which is never an issue for physical content), and as a better man than I has put it, "when you NOTICE there's DRM, it's being done wrong"; they want to charge whatever, whenever, and are completely oblivious to WHY something might have become popular to begin with.

      You'd better HOPE NBC blinks first, because there are a number of reasons the iTunes-scape is doing so well, and they all for the most part start with "not continually trying to screw over the consumer."
  • cjschmidt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think 99 cents makes a lot of sense. I don't even think I'd mind if episodes of current seasons stayed at 1.99, there's no reason for a 15 minute hannah barberra cartoon to cost the same as the hour long episode of House that aired last week. (Although I'd rather everything stayed at .99) The best news would be 720p for 1.99 and standard for .99.

    Either way, I'd buy a whole lot more than double what I do now at 99 cents.
  • Ziziros, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Studios will come around. The price cut is a very logical move to increase sales. $2 for an episode is far too high, especially when a DVD set can be purchased for around the same cost per episode, with special features. NBC may have considered this price cut an additional threat, but as has been stated they left mainly because of Apple's refusal to charge $5 an episode. With Hulu coming soon, $1 episodes may be what Apple needs to stay in the TV market.
  • 2Logical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't buy any shows from iTunes. Some have commented that NBC, and others, fear the DVD sales will fall if the prices get too cheap. "Heroes" on DVD is ~$40, for the 23 shows. On iTunes at $1.99 is ~$46 and doesn't have the extras. The "24" series makes it even worse. It seems, from my side anyway, Apple has a point.
    Also I would probably pay .99 cents to see a missed show but not 1.99. I guess everyone has their threshold. Not to mention I'm unlikely to do it 23-24 times to get a series just have it on my iPod.
    NBC is making yet another financial blunder IMHO. If it's true NBC wants $5 a download, sales will skid to a halt, and the idiot that suggested and pushed it will get promoted.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.