What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
184 Comments
- jger82, on 10/10/2007, -0/+75They should charge $.99 for SD and $1.99 for HD. I would actually consider buying shows then.
- chriskzoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+71When you think about it - you listen to a song FAR more often than you watch a TV show, show 99 cents seems reasonable. How often do you watch a show? Maybe twice, rarely 3 times.
- monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+64If a low quality, 99 cents iTunes download could kill their DVD sales, that means the DVD simply do not provide the value it charges.
- mywhitenoise, on 10/10/2007, -0/+50For me I'd rather have quality, and better sound, plus extras. But 99 cents a show is pretty awesome.
- lovepotionno69, on 10/10/2007, -3/+53What I don't understand is how they think it will cannibalize the sales of their DVD. I for one love the fact that I can download a digital version of it the day after it airs and it has not kept me from buying the DVD versions of it when it comes out.
- AlexFerny, on 10/10/2007, -16/+45Yer, because people will rather but a low quality DRM infested thing online - compared to a much higher quality DVD (which only has CSS for DRM)...
Please, now if Apple would actually sell a usefull product (Full HD episodes, or DVD quality episodes, or god forbid H.264 HD episodes) without DRM then MAYBE people would not be buying the stuff, but as it stands I'd get higher quality if I just record the EP from the TV (or get the EP via "piracy") than if I buy it via iTunes (which I can't since I dont use OS X or Windows) ...
DVDs still have a place, that place being to be sources for those of us wanting to download DVD isos. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28Makes sense. I wouldn't pay more than a buck for an episode of a TV show I could tivo or download.
- DanteDefiance, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26It's clear the Networks are just being greedy if they don't agree to this. They act like it will be the end of DVD sales if they drop price point. Look at 99 cents an episode, you get just that, the episode. For those of us that love extras (See: Me) you go and pick up the DVD.
I think Apple is doing the right thing. - LoganT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20I got it.
$0.99 for iPod (touch, classic, nano) and iPhone TV shows
$1.99 for HD Apple TV downloads - NeilVickers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Because the resolution is better, the sound is 5.1 Dolby Digital or THX, there are extras, the DRM is easily circumvented, and you can conveniently play it on any TV with just a cheap and ubiquitous player?
- mywhitenoise, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15"Yer, because people will rather but a low quality DRM infested thing online"
I don't know if you keep up with iTunes sales, but a ***** of people actually do buy these. Personally I wouldn't, but most people don't know how to rip a DVD onto their computer, and then convert it into an iPod format. - drlha, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16In my experience people with your attitude would still just be making excuses why they don't buy from Apple even if they made things available at HD or without DRM. Its all about your own personal justification for pirating things.
- treed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13They already dropped the iPhone by a third. You want more of a discount?
- Chompy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Let's not get crazy. While a media price drop certainly benefits the consumer, keep in mind that Apple wants to sell hardware and cement their leadership of this market. When it comes to corporate nature, never attribute and action to altruism when plain avarice will suffice.
- djSyndrome, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You're confusing 'loss leader' with 'thin profit margins'.
- danielwsmithee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10DVD's are 720x480, iTunes is 640x480. The resolution is better on the DVD and it has not been compressed as drastically as it has on iTunes.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17it's well know that iTunes has been a loss leader for Apple. They used iTunes to sell iPods. Anything, including http://seeqpod.com/iphone that contributes to the sell of iPods is what they're after. Good for consumer in one respect: They're forcing the old hat music, tv, movie industries to change for the better. Welcome to the new world.
- MadOtaku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Not quite. iTunes breaks even or makes a bit every year that I've heard of. But your point is still a good one.
- streak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8While video-capable iPods aren't cheap, don't forget flat screen televisions + DVRs aren't cheap either. They serve to make enormous amounts of money for their manufacturers and indirectly even greater amounts for the networks, too. Make video downloads cheap enough and people won't care to store them permanently.
- skellener, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Music videos should go back to FREE like it was originally!! Yes, iTunes used to GIVE you music videos for free! Music videos are ads for the bands and their albums. They were, and should always be, FREE!!!
- sint4x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Wow, thats cheaper than a coffee for a full episode. I dont think it would replace DVD sales at all, most people would like the option of using their iPod or TV, and an extra 99 cents is nothing to have that option.
- monospaced, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7That actually makes sense. Apple's content looks terrible when blown up to full screen, let alone how much worse it looks on an HD Television.
- Dagreenman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I like the idea. Yes, i know we diggers are Torrent savvy, but what about the average joe? The normal computer retarded person dosen't give a ***** about video quality. What they see is "[insert tv show here] at .99 cents?! AWESOME!!!!". So yeah, this is brilliant.
- natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Apple *wants* to distribute episodes in HD, or DVD quality, or whatever. They *want* to distribute Apple Lossless songs. They *want* drm-free formats. That means more people will buy stuff from iTunes, which means that a lot more people will buy iPods, Apple TVs, and so on. They don't give a ***** whether or not the content producers make any money.
My advice is that if you want to see high-quality, low-priced offerings on iTunes (or anywhere else), bitch to the content producers. Apple wants whatever sells more gadgets, and higher quality content will do just that. - natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Mmm, nothing quite like the family gathered around the subnotebook to watch TV from a website...
- superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That analysis fails to take into account the large hit Apple takes in costs of providing previews, or even in development of the store itself. I see no reason to doubt the numbers Apple gives are substantially correct.
- skellener, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I would rather have the DVD than anything from low iTunes. Give me HD on iTunes and I may reconsider.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14why would you still buy the DVD?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Dude, just yesterday Jobs gave his customers a 100 million dollar refund. A 100 millions dollars is chump change to companies like apple.
- mandarin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11I dunno, Seinfeld keeps having reruns for years and its nice to have it playing in the background while you do other things like cooking...
- natedouglas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Really? Content producers will be doing customer service and support for iTunes? *****. Call up Apple right now, say you have a problem with a TV show, and say you want to speak to a CBS customer service representative.
People would buy *a lot* more shows if the price was one they perceived to be reasonable. 50 cents a song, a buck an episode, two or three bucks for a movie. People would go nuts, have massive libraries of music and movies and tv shows, and Apple and the various content producers would become even more enormously wealthy.
The alternative, approaching at an amazing pace, is continued stagnation, decline, and eventual death at the hands of younger, more intelligent companies. - GregR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You are ignoring the fact that more people will buy the content (sure wish it was available in Canada at that price) at the lower price and the content providers will actually come out ahead.
- tryferos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7If the TV shows all moved to this price, I wouldnt even consider "alternate sources".
- unmarked, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6now who is being greedy? I think $.99/episode at current quality is a good compromise. I always thought $1.99/episode was a bit pricey, especially for 30 minute shows.
- qpdb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I want "Complete my Season" feature in iTunes.
- Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9This..... Kicks.... Ass....
I wonder if their music will still be 99 cents then if their shows are cut down to the same price. - Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5We're not disregarding the economics of the situation. For decades, the only money they made off of TV shows was through the advertising they sold during/between them. Now they found a second source of income (DVD sales), and iTunes is becoming a third. They'd get along just fine with having neither DVD nor iTunes sales, albeit with lower profits. So in effect, the other two revenue streams are pure profit. They've already created the content, they've just found a way to make even more money from it.
But I'm sick of this argument. It's been done to death, and it's not worth my time to say it anymore. What I can say with absolute certainty is that if they dropped prices to 99c/episode (or increased to at least 720p HD at $1.99) and dropped the DRM, I'd pay for all of the shows I watch now. It's easer than torrenting, and it supports the content producers - which is a good thing. Until that happens, I'll keep "stealing" it. Then they make NO money from me, since I'm not paying anything and someone has already taken the liberty of ripping out the commercials from it.
Their call, really. But halving prices will more than double sales - it's pretty basic economics. With most products, you can only do that so much before it becomes unfeasable with manufacturing costs, etc. But those costs are already paid for - they're selling you bits, and Apple's footing the bandwidth bill. It's PURE PROFIT for them. So it's absolutely in their best interest to lower prices and increase sales by an amount that more than makes up for it. - exomni, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I'm suprised they're more than 99 cents right now.
I sure as hell wouldn't pay anywhere near more than that. - hyperfocal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Almost all HD shows are broadcast in 5.1 dolby digital.
Also, widescreen DVDs are 720x480 anamorphic transfers, so a widescreen show is the full 480 lines, while an iTunes widescreen TV show is about 640x360. - cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's "No soup for you!"
- DevlinD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm still ticked that Apple' is pretty much ignoring the Canadian market with its video content.
But that aside this does make perfect sense from an economic standpoint from BOTH ends. Why should an entire season of something on iTunes be just as or more expensive as a DVD with some extra bells and whistles?
If people just want the show then let them have the show, what are the chances that every single person who wants to watch a tv series is going to go out and drop $40+ on the DVD? All you are doing here is providing variable pricing...the FCC would compare this somewhat to a post office. You pay for different levels of service...you want the extra deleted scenes then go out and buy the DVD and pay the extra money for it. If you don't want that extra stuff then the chances that you would shell out the cash to buy the DVD are smaller and pretty much totally dependent on how big a fan of the show you are.
Personally I only own DVDs of tv shows that I love (for the price I pay I better love them), and really that is not all that many. Providing a stripped down entry level version that is inferior to (yet cheaper than) the DVD only opens up the door to more potential customers in a lower spending bracket. Even Mercedes Benz has an entry level $30k car so why can't NBC have an entry level product for its content?
Just absolutely no vision at any of these media companies. They don't believe in lower pricing = more sales?? Take a look at WalMart and its quarter TRILLION dollar a year revenue earnings and tell me that this model doesn't work. - Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Way to go apple.. Look at what you pay for tv service and divide it out by channels and hours of the month.. .99 is still expensive.. they networks would make more by selling on itunes than on a cable or satalite servce.
Music is still over priced. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Not doing extensive research on this topic -- but going from my own experience, I'd have to say that Jobs is right;
The market for these TV-Shows on the iPod are for people who want to wait somewhere and need a distraction. So you won't get a lot of money for them. Having or not having DRM is less of an issue, because real aficionados will archive the DVD collection of say, the entire year of 24. I'd like to have "Family Guy" or South Park, around for when things get boring.
If I were at home -- I'm not going to be playing stuff on my iPod for video. In the car, we have DVD-Players for $200 that have 8" screens.
So, it's not going to be for the HD-DVD with digital surround-sound movie experience. YouTube videos are perfect for this market -- as are episodes of "The Office" or that show you forgot to tape.
I'd like to know exactly where most people view these iPod videos... I'd be willing to bet it would be on airplane trips, standing in line at court, waiting at Motor Vehicles, or showing some family or friends some home movies.
I might buy a DVD version of all the episodes of a really good TV-show. But not for light entertainment.
MOST of my iPod content is actually podcasts of radio shows, Berkley Physics, how to on graphics, new technology -- so mostly, Educational Content. I'm a geek -- sue me. I have some music which gets played on car trips and jogging.
But I'm not going to put on any NBC show for $5.
If the quality got better for the video -- that might change the paradigm -- that's a bigger issue than the DRM right now. IF I paid more for an HD movie, then I'd want to back it up somewhere. A Burnable BlueRay or HD-DVD is going to cost more than buying that video in the store right now -- I don't see that happening. When you store something -- DRM is a REAL issue, because in 5 years when I play that back, am I going to have the same computer? Apple's DRM is a bit easier to deal with than most of the "Windows" flavors -- because those lock to the CPU (from the little I know).
So, if NBC had an HD version, for $5 -- I still wouldn't buy it, because I'd want to keep it and I would have to commit a hard drive to storing a few movies. Then I'd have to pay attention to keeping around a device to play it back one day -- really, not the sort of thing a consumer is going to want to deal with when sitting around the tube, or entertaining company.
NBC is looking for a market that doesn't exist. Think "light distraction -- impulse buys" and nothing over $.99 seems to fit that category. - bang21, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7And since every show is as good as Seinfeld, you are right!
- Diganta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Music video should undoubtedly be $0.99. They used steam them free on iTunes moons ago. I'm not paying $1.99 for a music video that is less than 10 minutes. Wake up RIAA.
TV Shows 0.99 to 1.99 depending on SD or HD content
Movies starting at $4.99 going to $9.99 depending on content or recent release
Another model Apple could look into is, free TV shows which have adverts in them. Take a slice of the ad revenue for
bandwidth, server costs and infrastructure from the burden of free downloading video TV shows with ads.
Movies with advert model, wouldn't be as enjoyable. - surfing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I watch the episode of "The Office" where Dwight rams his car into the fence all of the time.
- kriminalintent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Now all they need is to get a Video store on the ipod touch and this would kick more ass.
- jkoke, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Cool. All 4 of you can form a support group. Just remember, "no hugging"
- Antialias, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How does that make any sense?
- tjex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And the articles it pulls up are from 2003-04. What's your point?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 184 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is