digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

NBC exec says Apple "destroyed" music pricing...

appleinsider.com — And will destroy video too if people don't start going to, Hulu.com.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nace33, on 11/01/2007, -14/+128Apple can cure all of this by just putting an HD Tuner on the back of the mac mini or AppleTv.
    • NSResponder, on 10/31/2007, -26/+19Check out Elgato's product line. I'm pretty sure they have an HD receiver now.

      -jcr
    • node3, on 11/01/2007, -5/+32Not really. iTunes is *vastly* more convenient and reliable than using a tuner.

      You don't have to worry about commercials, missing a recording, pre-empting, broadcast outage, time change not reflected in your DVR listing, overlapping shows, shows starting 1-minute early to thwart DVRs, not receiving the channel in question, reception (for OTA) or a cable bill (for cable).

      Tuners are great, but they aren't a proper replacement for iTunes. The other way around is true as well (iTunes isn't a replacement for a tuner--iTunes can't show you live programming until after the fact). They both fill similar, but not fully coinciding needs.

      jcr is right, El Gato has a few HD tuners, and they work very well. Still, I'd prefer to have the option of tuner or iTunes for NBC. I guess NBC doesn't want my money...
      • rubbers0ul, on 10/31/2007, -3/+10And Bittorrent is *vastly* more convenient than both....
        • node3, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Not really. iTunes is instant purchase, and long after the show is broadcast, the show is still available, no need to hunt it down, find one that has seeders, pick the one that's the "proper" version, etc.

          Bittorrent offers things iTunes doesn't, like HD, quicker release (by less than a day, but still quicker), and free.

          But in the end iTunes is much more convenient. They had to be in order to succeed in music. When they launched the iTunes store, they correctly noted that they were competing with the likes of Kazaa.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1apple should buy the el gato company,
        not miss the boat like they did with halo - 'big mistake.'
        • turpenine, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1umm, microsoft bought bungie for more money than apple could fathom at the time.
    • drjones78, on 10/30/2007, -1/+15He mentions pricing, buts whats really curious is they put all their content on Amazon's "Unbox" service for 10 cents cheaper than iTunes. It does have much more restrictive DRM and a cludgier user interface though. And only works on Windows.
    • skellener, on 10/30/2007, -18/+1TV tuner from Apple will never, ever happen.
      • jonashwing, on 10/30/2007, -3/+13ummm, it already DID happen. my old Performa 6220 came with a tv tuner right from apple.
        look it up.
        • nonymous666, on 10/30/2007, -11/+1Peforma was long before iTunes videos even existed.
        • skellener, on 11/03/2007, -1/+1How's that Performa 6220 working out for you? That happened while Steve Jobs wasn't at Apple. So let me rephrase my comment...."TV Tuner from Apple while Steve Jobs is around will never, ever happen". Steve HATES the whole concept of "recording" OTA television. Apple is about digital downloads. They make no money if you record for free what you can pay Apple for.
    • Bodhinature, on 10/31/2007, -3/+10General Electric's subsidiary can stop whining right now.
    • atonement, on 11/01/2007, -13/+8Who the ***** cares. Just buy a TiVo and if you just HAVE to have the shows with you wherever you go, buy an DMP. That way it's free and ***** over both Apple and NBC for being greedy.

      http://www.amazon.com/Archos-500856-Docking-Statio ...
      I love my Archos.
    • sjl127, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6I love the free market! This is how it's all supposed to work.
    • mraustin1337, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Man. When I read this all I saw with the quote, “We wanted to take one show, it didn’t matter which one it was, and experiment and sell it for $2.99,” is.

      We wanted to take a really popular show and see how much we could screw people into paying for it. Apple is trying to keep shows affordable while NBC is testing to see how much money they can screw out of the person. And wanting money from iPod profits. They don't want dvd player companies to pay them because the dvd player can play their content, unless I'm mistaken. What a total dickweed...
      • Gongjimein, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Yea, but you missed the point of them only able to make $15 million dollars of revenue even though their content accounted for 40% of all video sales that year. Mac has always made their money on hardware, thus they can care less as to how much their cut is from the content.

        When will people realize that Macs are just as evil as Micro$oft?
  • easy4lif, on 11/04/2007, -10/+520used to buy, now I bittorrent.

    guess NBC thought my money wasn't good enough for them
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/01/2007, -3/+93They are *****.
      They're out with Hulu.com now... tell me that wasn't planned.
      They were leaving anyway and they decided to see if they could throw Apple a raw deal instead.
      End of story.
      • streak, on 10/30/2007, -2/+12When NBCU sold only about 15 million videos last year, they saw the writing on the wall: $1.99 is just too expensive. That's why hulu.com was created, to give their videos away. Happy trails, Zucker!
    • akira117, on 10/31/2007, -4/+78I love how these companies think people will search for legal ways of watching shows.
      • supermanred, on 10/30/2007, -0/+12They won't. iTunes was a one stop shop where you could buy a bunch of different shows, these idiots seem to think we want to scrounge around the internet to find each show seperately. WRONG!!!!!
    • Postalwrker27, on 10/31/2007, -38/+6Used to buy and now you bittorrent.

      And people scream and shouted the other day about Comcast getting in the way. Wonder why..
    • geekee, on 10/31/2007, -50/+8Thief. Maybe I'll offer you a dollar for your computer, and if you refuse, I'll just take it.
      • ungamedplayer, on 10/30/2007, -1/+32Come get it.

      • Kier, on 10/30/2007, -3/+21http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi1 ...

        Read and STFU.
        • Viper244, on 11/03/2007, -2/+3This author obviously doesn't know what he/she is talking about and has no knowledge of intellectual property laws. When you illegally download a song or movie or any copyrighted material you are not stealing the copyright you are stealing the intellectual property. For those of you who don't know what intellectual property is, it's "property that results from original creative thought, as patents, copyright material, and trademarks." It is PROPERTY and you can steal property. It seems that everyone is looking for an excuse that will absolve them of any wrong doing when downloading copyrighted content illegally IMO.
      • weeFred, on 10/31/2007, -0/+20yeh but if i was able to make an identical copies of my computer for free, hell yes I'd sell you it for a dollar.
      • Tenoq, on 10/30/2007, -0/+7I'm quite happy for you to make an exact copy and take that. :p
        • alecks, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1What if you're an artists and most people buy your prints? Would you make the digital file available for free download so people can print it themselves?
          • weeFred, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2I'm more than happy to pay artists for their work, what I won't do is pay a middleman who ***** over their customers and the artists they represent. Maybe all of these record labels were relevant when physical distribution was needed but now they're just a parasite holding the music industry back.
    • virtualball, on 11/01/2007, -5/+32I completely agree. What these idiots don't understand is that I'd rather pay $1.99 for a video that I can play on my computer, my iPhone, and when I'm offline than watch a free flash video. Also, I'd rather torrent to spite NBC! They don't deserve my money, they put out B-Quality shows (Besides the Office) and they apparently don't even want my money.
      • StealthTomato, on 10/30/2007, -2/+6So, what you're saying is, you don't want to pay money to watch the horrible shows, because they're so horrible you don't want to watch them.

        That's why you bittorrent them, so you can...not watch them?

        That's why you want access to them offline and on your iPhone; so you can....not watch them?
      • smarch, on 10/30/2007, -2/+1office is ***** this season
    • sharp357, on 10/30/2007, -0/+18Yep, bittorrent again for me. Screw NBC. I don't see them wanting a cut of the televisions produced.
    • phoenixp3k, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2I doubt Hulu content will be available outside the US, iTunes store doesn't have has much content outside the border.
      • supermanred, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3It is NOT available outside the US. I would have gladly paid them, instead I will continue to download my shows or watch them for free on that television thingy.
    • uberkling, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3They're idiots. Customers were paying a price they wanted to pay at a location (itunes) they were keyed into using. They just lost ALL those customers.
    • noblepaladin, on 11/01/2007, -3/+0Well, Apple does underprice their mp3s and videos to push their iPods. They don't need to make a profit on iTunes, they just need to break even because iTunes helps iPod sales. How much of those 2 dollars do you think actually goes to NBC? Apple definitely takes a huge cut. Apple wants to keep prices very low so more people use iTunes so more people buy iPods. NBC probably prefers to pull it off iTunes because even if most of the users turn to pirating, the ones that turn on their TV to watch the show live will see commercials give NBC ad revenue. This might be worth more than what they make from iTunes. I want cheap TV shows, but I won't blame NBC for trying to make money.
      • fuckinhell, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Actually, of that $2, I believe Apple takes very little.
      • mburk, on 10/31/2007, -0/+4Not only that, but how do you figure mp3s are "underpriced?" Underpriced compared to what? I think .99 per song is pretty damn expensive. Hell, if you find an album on the music store that iTunes doesn't let you purchase as a whole for $9.99, then $.99 for each track can add up to a pretty penny.

        As far as I'm concerned, mp3s are OVERpriced because I have to pay $.67 per song to the record label. Cut those dudes out and let me pay only the share that goes to the artist.
  • TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/04/2007, -15/+717Wow. Just. *****. WOW. They not only wanted to jack prices up, but they also wanted a cut of the iPhone and iPod sales, saying, "Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money". You stupid, greedy, ***** delusional PIG! Yeah, it was all NBC content that drove sales of iPods and iPhones. Nah, the iPod wasn't a huge success prior to NBC on iTunes. And the iPhone was popular for a helluva lot more than just movies on the go. Thanks NBC, you've shown us what a bunch of stinking, greedy, lying bastards you are.
    • Shatneresque, on 11/01/2007, -3/+73This NBC guy is just parroting the company line. Remember NBC is owned by Universal. Universal has been out to get a cut of hardware sales since forever. They even got MS to give them a cut of Zune sales, thinking that would put pressure on other manufacturers to do the same (which it didn't).

      Universal really doesn't have any leverage anymore when it comes to selling their music on iTunes. They don't dare pull out of it, since it has gotten way too big and they can't do without it. It's too late for them to make demands or dictate terms.

      On the other hand, iTunes' TV business is still relatively small, so Universal thinks they can use NBC's TV shows as a bargaining chip to get what they want. This is a desperation tactic and will likely fail.
      • ajamison, on 10/30/2007, -9/+9NBC actually bought Universal. It's "NBC Universal" now. NBC Universal is owned by GE.
        And, Universal Music Group is a totally separate company than NBC Universal.
        Get your facts straight if you're going to call the company out.
        • Shatneresque, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Although it's true GE now has a majority stake in NBC, Vivendi (which until recently was "Vivendi Universal") still has a stake too, and they are the parent company of UMG.

          These companies have a lot of history together, and despite not being 100% owned in the same basket anymore, there is still overlap between their ownership. That means the point still stands: they are both pushing for the same thing at the same time, in all likelihood because the parent company/companies have made it part of their overall strategy.
    • mlostracco, on 10/31/2007, -0/+88I assume that, by that logic, NBC will now be asking for a cut of profits from DVD players, television sets, headphone manufacturers, microphone manufacturers, audio cable vendors, camcorder products, hard disk manufacturers...
      • karlhouser, on 10/31/2007, -1/+23Thats not all. "The Office" has brought up paper sales, Comic books are selling better since the release of "Heroes", And "Scrubs" and "ER" have more people than ever going to hospitals.
        Morally, can we NOT give them a cut?
        • mrurc, on 10/31/2007, -14/+2Morally? Did Jesus tell you that copyright infringement is immoral?

          Perhaps you mean ethical and yes, I can ethically not give them money that they did not earn.
          • sekhui, on 10/31/2007, -2/+12whoosh!
          • StealthTomato, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2Can you ethically consume what they produce without repayment for services?

            Like the poster above, you talk about how the shows are so crappy you would never want to watch them, then you bittorrent them and watch them.

            Logic! Why don't they teach logic in these schools?

            Oh, and your attempt at nitpicking? Ethics and morals are synonyms.

            In closing, "thou shalt not steal."
            Jesus _did_ tell 'im.
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3Hahaha, your sarcasm detector is broken. Here, borrow mine. Don't mind it freaking out right now, it does that when something is so obvious it could hit you in the face.
          • tao52nyc, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1"Can you ethically consume what they produce without repayment for services?"

            Can you say: "National Health Care Plan"?
    • kodybryson, on 11/01/2007, -4/+111Lately Digg has been so full of Apple Fan Boys vs Apple Fan Boy Haters. Thank you NBC for being so evil and hateful that you bring the rest of us together. In your own way you provide us with temporary world peace while we all make plans to destroy you.
      • HypocriteDigg, on 10/30/2007, -24/+2It's been more full of anti-Apple zealots vs anti-Apple zealot haters. Dumbass.
        • kodybryson, on 10/30/2007, -1/+21Save that bitter sarcasm for NBC. We need your negative energy focused on the correct target!
    • DudeAsInCool, on 11/01/2007, -3/+50You forgot to add that NBC doesn't want to share any of the online sales with the writers, who created the shows in the first place. Zucker should look in the mirror if he wants to see the face of greed.
      • StealthTomato, on 10/30/2007, -2/+2Now, see, this I agree with; Zucker is reprehensible. It's the same as these people saying that they should get something they didn't create for free.

        Burned yet?

        Okay, this is worse; he's trying to make money for something he didn't create.
      • extraspecial, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2Don't get me wrong, I hate NBC, and I'm pissed that I can't get their content through iTunes anymore, but I can't follow your logic.

        The writers sold their product to NBC for a price they obviously found acceptable (or they wouldn't have done it). If NBC then finds new ways to sell a product it owns, why must they share the profits back with the people they bought it from? If you buy a house from a builder, and a year later your property value has skyrocketed, are you obligated to go back and share some of that profit with the builder?
        • Faasnat, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I think the comment may have been geared more toward them wanting a cut from iPhone/iPod sales....

          ...or something.
        • sinfield, on 10/30/2007, -0/+0Wait ... so my builder was ***** me? Goddamnit!
    • Audacitor, on 10/30/2007, -2/+15I, for one, have never purchased any NBC content from iTunes or any or source. I bought an iPod Video for the sole reason of watching Revision3 content on the go.
      • fkr3, on 10/30/2007, -14/+3.... idiot.
      • antoniojvr, on 10/31/2007, -7/+24Sir, please remove your lips from Kevin Rose's ass and stay behind the red rope.
    • marrstu, on 10/30/2007, -27/+2I really do not understand why people act so shocked when a company tries to make MORE money. All the big companies try to do this and doing that is what makes them big companies. It is not "Wow. Just. *****. Wow" this is what capitalism is all about. Don't like it? well there is not much you can really do about it other then not support their product or start a communist/economical revolution.
      • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -6/+19This is why rampant capitalism always collapses on itself. The industry needs more regulation, not less. Protect the consumer, not the owners of the NBCs, Microsofts and Wal-Marts.
        • Gabberwok, on 10/30/2007, -5/+1I am by no means a defender of Wal-Mart, but one thing it certainly is not guilty of is screwing the consumer. They're tacky, ruthless, and for the most part evil, but their central philosophy is to bring everything together and make it as cheap as possible - two things consumers tend to be fond of... The problem is they are also the biggest (?) employer in the United States, and they royally f**k their employees, and the federal + state health programs that have to pick up the slack.
          • Spuy767, on 10/30/2007, -2/+1No, they appear not to want to ***** the consumer, just the employee.
          • mrurc, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4No, they do want to screw over the consumer, but in subtle ways like selling the consumers something for $3 that cost them $0.25 and might cause chemical burns. Selling things cheaply is screwing over the consumer if they are selling cheap things.

            And screwing over their employees is screwing over the consumers since their employees can't afford to shop somewhere more expensive. Their employees are some of their consumers and they get perks for not leaving with their paycheck intact.

            I don't shop at Walmart. You might have guessed.
        • extraspecial, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1Protect the consumer from what, the fact that they can't get their entertainment television through iTunes, that they have to do it through NBC's web site? If that's the biggest of the problems our country is facing......
      • drjones78, on 10/30/2007, -0/+13Not really capitalism.. its a cry for collusion. He's trying to enlist the other media companies to subvert the free market. Its always been the way of the media companies. Collude to keep the prices high. Dont need to worry about competition, when all your competitors decide to cheat the system with you.
      • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9OT: laissez-faire economic theory is not capitalistic economic theory.

        Traditional capitalism thrives on competition. It requires competition to advance products, services, and whole economies by proxy. As such, it needs constant monitoring -- yes, in the form of legislature -- to promote that competition. The more competition there is in a market, the more a company's available capital represents that company's overall viability. This is precisely where "capitalism" gets its name. i.e. In a wide population of entrepreneurs all competing for the consumer's dollar, the entrepreneur with the most dollars is probably providing the most effective product or service.

        Laissez-faire economic theory -- which most people actually mean when they say "capitalism" -- presumes that the best measure of product and service effectiveness is the market itself, regardless of competition. It also presumes --falsely, IMHO -- that consumers will not patronize an unsatisfactory company, even if this company is a monopoly. As a result, laissez-faire argues that market regulation should be avoided, if not foregone completely.

        Thus, it is not a traditionally capitalistic motivation that makes a corporation decide that just making money isn't enough; they need to make MORE money than they'd made before. It doesn't take a socialist rebel to see that.
        • sekhui, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2i was hoping someone would make this point. good comment. now digg me down.
      • onisamsha, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3One simple thing you can do, far short of rebellion, is to lobby congress to change the 14th amendment (amend an amendment?). It was originally enacted to give freed southern slaves the rights of an American citizen. However, due to the funny wording, corporate lawyers, convinced judges to interpret the constitutional amendment as saying corporations have just as many rights as a normal person. This expanded the power of corporations to unheard of degrees, and set the stage for the unbalanced form of "super-capitalism" we are seeing today. Before that, a corporation, it it's charter, was mandated (and restricted) to fulfilling a single business venture so they were heavily restricted from growing, a fact which prevented the major conglomerates we see today.

        You know those 8 conglomerated corporations that own the majority of all forms of news/print media in America? That wouldn't be possible if the supreme court reinterpreted the 14th amendment, along with many other industries that use their power and money to harm the common good for what's best for their shareholders.
        .
    • GregR, on 10/30/2007, -1/+32It just shows that NBC (and the music industry in general) doesn't understand that their business has changed and how if the keep acting like this instead of figuring out how to make the technology work for them they are going to be by-passed.
    • darkciti2, on 10/31/2007, -12/+26I love how they threw a shameless plug for hulo.com in there. Hula or whatever is run by Rupert Murdoch / Newscorp / FoxNews.

      The _last_ people I want to have any control over media are the Fox/Cheney/Bush crime family.
    • rocket777, on 10/30/2007, -11/+4Hey, this is capitalism, they can ASK any price they want. But I don't have to buy, and hey, for music prices, I get mine from Russia for 9 cents a tune w/o drm, so Apple is overpriced as far as I'm concerned. And Heroes for $3 is just plain stupid. It's free if you tivo it, and if you have a unit that's even better than a tivo, you get the commercials removed automatically. These guys just don't understand how things work today. So, eventually they'll just lose more money. That's the beauty of capitalism. The fat cats don't control us, unless we let them.
      • LoganT, on 10/30/2007, -4/+4The stupid thing about you is you're actually paying for music you could get for free. Whatever Russian site you use is screwing you over.
        • mrurc, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I think he might be paying them for the removal of existing DRM and to cover their costs but I could be wrong.
      • geekoid, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3And if everyone gets everything for free, nobody gets paid and the material is never produced. That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

        I don't agree at all with the large media, but I also don't agree we should download everything off the web for nothing. The material producers deserve their payment if you like their material.
        • roodammy44, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1They'd soon find a way to make money off it, trust me.
          Youtube is completely free and low budget, yet it's come up with some good stuff.
          We might even see an artistic revival when all the huge budgets and dictatorial studios are removed.
      • roodammy44, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2The russian site you download from (probably allofmp3) has been declared illegal in the US.
        You may as well just be downloading from bittorrent and not paying anything.
        Bittorrent comes in flac too :-) The best quality
    • HypocriteDigg, on 10/31/2007, -0/+22It's like them saying they should get a cut for every TV sold.
      • zoom1928, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5Like? They've already said that back when Westinghouse owned them.
      • mburk, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Exactly! This is much ado about stuff we've already dealt with. Go read up about playing songs on the radio, or cable TV, or VCRs and how big media was screaming bloody murder each time a new technology emerged. Once they figure out how to monetize it, they won't be quick to knock it.

        Hegemony at work, people. Read up!
    • chicaneuk, on 10/31/2007, -0/+10I just find the NBC exec's comments embarassing to read.. like how its so outrageous that Apple refused to jack up prices on popular shows. And the NBC guy speaks about it like they're being ***** hard done by and financially wounded by Apple. And that its so disgraceful they only made $15 million dollars.. which, as far as I see it is pure (and additional) profit.

      TV studios are greedy sons of bitches. I don't always agree with apples business practices but it sure is fun watching em make greedy bastards like this sweat!
      • MacParrot, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1The $15 million he's speaking of was their total payment from Apple for iTunes sales of NBC content. The point he was trying to make was that it doesn't replace what they have traditionally made from sales of VHS tapes DVDs etc. While he may be right in that some sales of more traditional outlets (like hard copy DVDs) will suffer short-term, digital sales will overpass them in the very near future. This is what happened with music sales. I honestly don't miss going to music stores and the ability to buy ala carte just the songs I want has meant that I actually end up buying more music than I used to.
        Zucker is short-sighted. The moves he has made to bypass iTunes and Apple will hurt them in the short and long term. Instead of giving it away in a format I and no one else can take with them will most likely fail. As a mobile society, we like having our stuff on the go and Hulu doesn't allow that.
        • zigspective, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2I don't see how anyone could assume that iTunes sales will replace the DVD or that their profit is somehow suffering from it.
          You have little itty bitty format to play on your iPod or you get a real copy to play on basically everything else. iPod format just does not lend itself to the same large scale buying that DVDs have. I know very few people who download whole seasons off of iTunes, they'll download an episode or two that they missed or just to have some entertainment while traveling. And those people aren't going to jump to the conclusion after missing an episode, oh I'll just have to buy the season DVDs now. If they are getting people to download entire seasons, they are only profiting extra. You can buy the season DVD's of The Office for $32, if you bought them all through iTunes you would be paying nearly $48 I don't see how NBC can complain.
          Basically what I'm trying to say is iTunes and DVDs just in general appeal to two different markets.
          • MacParrot, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Those are good points and I dugg you up, however think about the future. It wasn't that long ago that we are all wowed by 56k access and downloading content from the net took forever. With access speeds constantly getting better and most of our entertainment devices becoming connected to work with each other, how soon will it be that 1080p video content will be just a click away with almost instantaneous play? If you don't have to go to the Targets or Walmarts to buy a DVD, most people will eventually just choose to get it online. The "extras" most of these DVDs have to entice people to buy them is just more data that can be included when purchased online.
            The digital age for entertainment is almost here and people like Zucker would prefer it if you still bought that boxed set they can charge you more for that might not be playable on future devices.
    • brenbart, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2So... Just a shot in the dark here but maybe Apple's position would be that NBC made their "only $15 million" off the backs of Apple and then whined when they couldn't make more by just raising prices. What kills me about this is what are NBC's actual costs involved in having ITunes sell their product? Hmmm... I'm thinking nothing. After all it's not like any of this content was produced specifically for ITunes. How much does FTP cost again? FedEx?

      Gee, does the "flexibility" that NBC wants in their pricing involve charging less for anything?

      Does anyone see a contradiction in NBC quitting ITunes because they couldn't raise the price then starting their own Ad-Based distribution model? Well, since we can't charge you more we are going to not charge you at all. My guess is that HULU or whatever it's called will be free for crap that nobody wants to see in a format that won't allow you to fast forward through commercials and pay for anything recent or popular.

      I just love how business people don't seem to be able to discriminate between actual profit/loss and potential profit/loss.

      I don't really care if ITunes sells their crap or not. What I'd be willing to deal with is tiered pricing based on popularity and availability. i.e. A new Hero's episode $2 for the first week then a buck thereafter. Two and a half Men - Always a buck. With no commercials. If I'm paying for it I don't want commercials. If you put commercials in it then charge some nominal fee like $.50 across the board. Leave the same national ads in that are broadcast with the show and either sell additional national ads in the local spots or just cut them out. They could even sell a subscription model that depending on the rate would modify the amount of commercials and/or the number of different shows you watched. Just imagine the ratings info you'd get off that business model.

      I used to BitTorrent shows till we got Comcast's On-Demand. Now for the most part it's just a hassle to Download when I can just flip over to ON Demand. Comcast's solution to people fast forwarding through commercials? Give you standard ff/rev/pause controls but really, really, really crappy response time so that you actually watch the commercial three times trying to skip it.
  • NSResponder, on 10/31/2007, -8/+220Zucker still a moron, film at 11.

    -jcr

    • mlostracco, on 10/31/2007, -2/+21The More You Know.
    • hexydes, on 10/30/2007, -3/+4That's the wonderful thing about the Internet; you don't have to wait until 11 for the content to come to you. The content is there all the time, just waiting.

      Why...you could literally watch Zucker be an idiot 24/7/365!
    • dpfinearts, on 10/30/2007, -2/+0Nice Kentucky Fried Movie reference.

      But that's Jerry Zucker, not Jeff.
    • iamorangehat, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Agreed.
  • etc1981, on 11/01/2007, -3/+115"Let's see...ruin NBC by having no successor to Friends, Will & Grace, etc. and "killing" must see TV? Check! Begging viewers to illegally download network content by ripping the content off a legit pay-for location easily accessible to most everyone? Check! And last, but certainly not least,..reassemble the cast of Veronica's Closet.." - Jeff Zucker's inner-dialogue
    • beatmonger, on 10/31/2007, -1/+34You forgot the ridiculous cross-advertising they stick at the bottom of their shows now. It drives me insane seeing the bottom 1/4 of the screen turn into an advertisement for Phenomenon or some equally ***** show I have no interest in watching.
      • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -0/+23Especially the animated ones. Like when some little fat person with a measuring tape runs across the screen every five minutes to advertise NBC's 'The Biggest Loser.' LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!

        And don't even get me started about scrunching the credits into an unreadable jumble at the end of a show and speeding them up 10x in order to get more ads and promos in. Anyone ever see the end credits of Entertainment Tonight? Why even bother?
      • bulkhater, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2In all fairness to NBC, a LOT of networks are doing that now. NBC just has the largest, most annoying in-show ads.
    • MrUnderbridge, on 10/30/2007, -11/+3"Let's see...ruin NBC by having no successor to Friends, Will & Grace, etc."
      Yeah...those shows were fan*tas*tic. Seinfeld, sure, but Will and Grace? Good God.
      For what it's worth, their Thursday with The Office, 30 Rock, and Earl is still one of the better TV blocks on any network all week. NBC has to have at least a few decent (or at least popular) shows or we wouldn't be having this conversation about them.
      • etc1981, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6Perhaps, but the point Zucker is making is that Apple is successful "on the backs" of their shows. The shows you list on their "Thursday Night Done Right" schedule by no means bring in the viewers or advertising dollars that Friends, Will and Grace, Seinfeld did. Two and a Half Men and Samantha Who are the most successful comedies on television...and they are not on NBC. When Jeff Zucker took over NBC entertainment they had several comedies in the top 20 and dominated the ratings. And yes...that included Will and Grace. The point is - when Zucker ruined the opportunity to cultivate new shows when those ratings giants were on the air, he ruined the only network that consistently got the sitcom right beginning with Cheers. The same is true with him yanking his shows of iTunes. Bad decision. Bad move. Typical Jeff Zucker.
  • Zero2aHero, on 10/31/2007, -1/+177I find it amusing that he is portraying Apple as weapon carrying brutes forcing labels into their pricing scheme. If labels aren't happy with what Apple wants to do then how about just not put your content up on iTunes? Nobody in the music industry has any right to tell other people what they are doing wrong. If labels are so unhappy with what iTunes did to the music industry then they must be REALLY pissed that Amazon is selling stuff for cheaper. But... they... signed... contracts.

    Shut up NBC, shut up.
    • iburl, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4They are so angry with Apple, who created this market from scratch themselves! It reminds me of the iPhone price drop/bricking whiners! Wahhhh the market-transforming miraculous thing you gave me isn't perfect!
      • StealthTomato, on 10/30/2007, -3/+2Umm....in what way was it market-transforming?

        Sorry, what POSITIVE way?

        I mean, it transformed the market by setting precedent for $600 phones. That's market-transforming, but in a bad way.
        • iburl, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Not if they are worth every penny, as the iPhone is.
    • Flatlineskillz, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1Were the brutes carrying Spikers, maulers, or Brute Shots? Ohh wait wrong company
  • clbw, on 10/31/2007, -2/+33The exec show their color now, as obvious as it is all they want to do is provide minimum product for maximum profit. what is with these dick heads I am all for capitalism, but I don't think the the idiots will ever get it! All this does is it increases people to WANT to download content illegally! I think as a consumer that .99 is the high end of the pricing scheme why and the hell do they think we want to pay more!
    • zybch, on 11/01/2007, -25/+2Huh?

      You don't seriously think that apple DOESN'T want to "provide maximum product for maximum profit" (see what I did there)?

      You stupid loser fanboys and your sick dependence on Apple is revolting!
      • luchid, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3There's a fine line between their obligations as a publicly-listed company (maximize profits) and their consumer's rights. Apple generally does a good job at balancing those two. I'm not saying they're perfect, but they're much better than a lot of corporations out there.
    • Barbarino, on 10/30/2007, -5/+2Who the hell dugg you up? Customers maximize savings while producers maximize profits. Where they meet is called capitalism.. If the price is too high, customers will not buy it, if too low the producer makes no money. The market or invisible hand will take care of NBC.
  • scooter72, on 10/31/2007, -12/+121OK... time to BOYCOTT NBC! Pass/Digg it on!
    • drizzlelicious, on 10/30/2007, -3/+16I'd like to, but The Office... and Heroes... and Conan O'Brien...
      • drlha, on 10/30/2007, -1/+17TiVo them and skip the ads. ;)
        • thatsmyaibo, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Your TiVo tunes into the program so they still get the viewership. That would only make a difference assuming you actually buy a lot of products you see during those shows.
      • Me1000, on 10/30/2007, -1/+17Torrent it!
      • GliTCH82, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5Beyond TV now has iPhone/iPod support, so it will automatically encode your TV recordings into that format and stream them to iTunes as a podcast. Best thing I've ever done.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -1/+6Hear-hear, Scooter! Regrettably, if we do a Google search for "boycott nbc" we find quite a few groups whom they have pissed off.

      Shall we assemble a new NBC boycott site?
    • Delusionist, on 10/31/2007, -2/+4Sorry, but I just can't live without my Thursday night block of The Office and Scrubs.
    • darkciti2, on 10/30/2007, -1/+10MSNBC, anyone?

      Let's not forget that Microsoft has a huge ownership stake in NBC.
    • nathos, on 10/30/2007, -2/+1I think you should start an online petition!
    • mistafreeze, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1yes, nbc is the devil. They usually have sucky programs, and cancel anything with an original, and smart idea before it can catch on.

      however, i became addicted to heroes, and the office, I cannot give these up. Now with hulu bringing things free, maybe NBC isn't soo bad. but since they are giving things away for free, how bout reselling on itunes? maybe make it available a week or 2 after air date.

      oh, and while your at it, hurry up and make some office HD-DVD's
    • mrurc, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1I try to record NBC shows that I like on other channels, such as recording Heroes on Sci-Fi. Unfortunately, NBC has not cooperated with me this season and I had to compensate for lack of Heroes on Sci-Fi with things that I don't like to do.

      I know that watching the shows on cable channels doesn't affect the Neilson rating because I don't get to do Neilson input, but it's the point of the thing. Besides, Sci-Fi even has commercials that I am more interested in than NBC.
  • felidaeus, on 10/31/2007, -3/+185So, popping over to Amazon, the current average pricing for a new season box set is approximately $40-50.

    Now, that is for an average season of saaaaay, 22 episodes. Conservative.

    According to the article NBC demanded of apple: "a twofold increase in the wholesale price of its TV show content, which would have resulted in the retail price to iTunes customers increasing to $4.99 per episode from $1.99. "

    So let's do the math. For a net cost to NBC per episode of hmmmm, $0 per episode sold on Itunes. They were getting, let's say, $1.50 with a really really big cut for apple. That nets them about $34 per season, not bad considering it costs them nothing in packaging, and people are quite likely to pay that $1.99 for an episode rather than worrying about taping it and so on and so forth. In fact, i'm betting people are more likely to buy those episodes than download them. Whereas they might be more likely to download them if their only option was a straight out $50 buy AFTER they've seen all the episodes.

    They wanted to up that to $4.99. With a major cut to apple, they would make about $4.00 per episode. For a season of 22 eps, that makes...... $88. For a season box set complete with nice covers and a big box worth $40-50.

    Yah, I'm calling BS on that one.
    • Doughboy, on 10/30/2007, -10/+4I can go see a movie in theatre opening night, take my family and it is around $35.00 just to get in the door for the four of us!
      If I want to wait and see the movie later, I can rent the DVD for around $5.00.

      What it comes down to is how soon people want to see it! Some people are impatient and will pay a premium to buy it right away.
      And who is to say that if downloads take off they will start discontinuing DVD boxsets?!? Remember that is a physical DVD and they cannot control when and where you watch! If this NBC download or the likes of iTunes becomes way more popular, DVDs days will be numbered.


      • dagamer34, on 10/30/2007, -1/+13Except for most people, a movie theater is a better setup than what they have at home.

        NBC wants us to pay MORE for lower quality stuff that can't be technically resold. Am I missing something here?
        • mrurc, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1Yes because even though you can't resell it, you might give it to a friend. Oo scary!

          PS. I am not saying that they are right; I am saying that that is their argument.
      • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3...? Doughboy, I think felidaeus' argument was that, on its investments, NBC was making $15mil in PURE PROFIT, if NBC's numbers are even to be believed. I don't think he was criticizing online micropricing. There will always be people whom are willing to pay a premium for convenience. That's precisely the market iTunes is servicing. The production companies sell those series' on DVD at a higher quality months later with a lot more financial overhead and for a lot less per episode. That was felidaeus' point. And the point is taken, IMHO. How many people end up buying the episodes online to ditch the commercials and then turn around months later to buy the DVDs for the special features? NBC making its own online distribution company complete with web servers sure seems like an extra expense to me.
    • zybch, on 10/31/2007, -17/+2The ONLY side that mentioned such a stupidly high price incrfease has been Apple, in a pretty clear attempt to look like the good guys always protecting the consumer from the evil NBCs of the world.
      In fact the truth is a little stranger.
      Apple wanted to DROP the price (hence NBCs cut as well) and NBC told them to ***** off. After all, why not? Apple is using the music store ONLY to push their products like the iPod, and they want to screw content providers to make iTMS look more attractive and thus sell more apple hardware!
      This will probably be the start ofg a slow dwindling of iTunes. With this new NBC thing (admitedly untested at the moment) and the fantastic alternative provided by Amazon, apple had better start to get worried. Their slips with the iP{hone have now proven to all but the most stupid, brainwashed and ignorant fanboys that Apple AREN"T there for any other purpose than to make as much money for their shareholders as possible! The shine has rubbed off and its going to take a LOT to put it back on again.
      • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -0/+12The difference is that Apple benefits from giving the consumer what they want at a reasonable price point for use on a convenient, very-well designed product. NBC couldn't care less about what the consumer wants, but instead, forcing them to accept what NBC wants for themselves.
      • luchid, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3So you are against price cuts on TV shows? Wow, your anti-apple bias is making you say funny things...
      • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -2/+4Zybch, where the hell are you getting the idea that Apple wanted to *cut* iTunes Store prices? They just introduced iTunes Plus, finally implementing the second tier for which big producers were railing. I, for one, will need some of your sources.
        • ryanadc, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3iTunes plus has been around for a little while now...and they're dropping prices to the same levels as the DRM'd songs since Amazon started selling high quality DRM-free tunes the other month at prices cheaper than iTunes' DRM'd songs.
    • rocket777, on 10/30/2007, -5/+6I don't get "taping it". I have a tivo-like setup, and I get all episodes of my shows w/o doing anything. I don't think there's anything on that's worth even $2 an episode.
    • mrurc, on 10/30/2007, -3/+1Are you calling BS on the requested price listed by Apple or are you calling BS on NBC's math? NBC probably does want more than the DVD price for downloadable episodes because, as they argue, once you download them you could give them to friends.
      • stargatesteve, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3no you can't. The iTunes video files have DRM'd.
      • Avian00, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Right, since people aren't already duplicating DVD's.
    • ElectroOverlord, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2$1.99 times 2 is not $4.99
    • Davede70, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3I bet someone in a meeting at NBC mentioned your exact numbers and they were probably fired the next day. Execs (and Presidents) don't like when common sense gets in the way of their gigantic profits.
    • planetmcd, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Not that I disagree with the premise NBC is dumb. But the cost of putting out DVDs is nominal and the big money maker for TV shows is ad revenue. The IPOD downloads make the show less valuable as a ad revenue generator because the show will have less viewers. This means that distributing shows without ads will have to make up for the opportunity cost of not having the ad. Given this, I can imagine that the numbers do make the price at Itunes a bad deal. It doesn't say much for big media's ability to react to market change though.
      • mastertop, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I don't think watching a 1hour long show gives 2$ of ad revenue...
  • brendon2020, on 10/31/2007, -3/+89hahaha "seeking a cut of Apple hardware sales -- such as the iPod and iPhone"
  • andycr512, on 10/31/2007, -2/+103Excuse me, media is still -way- too expensive. Try again, NBC.
    • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -1/+12But it's our honored privilege to pay for the exorbitant salaries of television executives! Especially since all of the people that make the decisions can easily afford to pay grossly inflated prices on everything. And when things go wrong, blame your consumers!
  • JohnnyKdiggs, on 11/08/2007, -80/+12Apple didn't destroy music pricing. Apple destroyed Apple by artificially crippling the iPod Touch, imposing DRM, bricking the iPhone, suppressing innovation, etc.
    • ronin2040, on 10/30/2007, -2/+20wait, when you say "suppressing innovation", do you mean like when they decided to start offering good bitrate, DRM-free music over itunes, becoming the first big legit company to do so? Not to mention putting pressure to the labels to provide their content under this new DRM-free format...
      When you say bricking the iphone, do you mean when an update, which came with fair warning, didnt play well with aftermarket, 3rd party firmware? WHat ***** planet do you live on where you think you can throw third party firmware on a device, and then update it with first party updates, and have everything be hunky-dory? Have you ever used 3rd party firmware on ANYTHING?
      Why dont you start living in our world, not your make-believe one. And keep in mind that apple is by no means destroyed, last time I checked they were growing more and more every day.
      ***** troll fed :(
      • JohnnyKdiggs, on 10/30/2007, -17/+3Well when I say "supressing innovation", I mean that they prevent developers from adding useful applications to the iPhone...you know, the iPhone that you payed $600 for? The iPhone that you should be able to use however you want?

        When I say bricking the iPhone, I am referring to just that, using firmware to prevent you from using your $600 property however you want. Whether or not they gave warning is not the point, it's a terrible thing to do to loyal customers either way.

        And on the DRM - you shouldn't have to pay a company $.30 more to gain basic customer rights. And don't use the excuse that the bitrate is what is hiking the price up $.30, that's exactly what they want you to think. If that were true, why wouldn't they offer lower-bitrate DRM-free music for the standard price of $.99? Regardless, you think Apple doesn't want DRM? It ensures that you use iTunes and iPod/iPhones forever.
        • bobcatred, on 10/30/2007, -1/+12The dev kit for the iphone is coming out in Feb. And yes, it's universally agreed by anyone with half a brain that bricking the iphones was ***** retarded. Old News.

          Who do you think wanted DRM and inflated DRM free prices in the first place? Given how little actually makes per song on the iTunes store, I'm sure that people pirating itunes store purchases would't be their first concern if the labels weren't throwing fits about it. People will use their ipods either way. Who would benefit from crippling pirated music? Hmm... could it be the music industry? I'm guessing the initial high price of DRM-free at itunes was also at the request of the industry, who feared losing money on the music because of sharing. Maybe they'll get a grip and pull their 24k diamond encrusted sticks out of their asses now that they have proof that people will buy DRM free music, and multiple stores are making it available.

    • CraigJ, on 10/30/2007, -1/+11Keep looking for your common sense, maybe you'll find it one day...
      • JohnnyKdiggs, on 10/30/2007, -10/+2Refer to my response to ronin2040. It includes common sense.
        • MacParrot, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1If by "common sense" you mean utter insanity and denial of reality, then yes
    • mrurc, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Yeah. Apple really seems to be struggling financially.

      /me rolls her eyes as loudly as possible.
      • JohnnyKdiggs, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2How do you loudly roll your eyes?
  • shootsfired, on 10/30/2007, -4/+18its not a killer app untill i can get full screen high quality
  • secretmode, on 10/31/2007, -12/+71lol I am here just to bury HungarianHuman
  • uziko, on 10/30/2007, -1/+20HAHA that is so funny, they should be bowing down and kissing anyones feet that buys their songs and shows now. Most people get that stuff for free.
  • Duffeh, on 10/31/2007, -3/+120So... don't buy anything from Hulu.com, got it.
    • FatAmerican, on 10/30/2007, -4/+2I don't think Hulu costs money, does it?
      • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -1/+6*shrug* I'm not even going to give 'em the unique pagehit to check.
    • nonymous666, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Hulu shows are to be ad based, not paid for.
    • GoatMonkey2112, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3As long as it makes less than $15 million in advertising by us not watching, it doesn't matter.
  • monsterofNone, on 10/30/2007, -2/+22from the point of view of the record industry (and when was the last time you bought a record) zucker is right. not the music industry. the "record" industry. the music industry is going to have the best decade ever starting now. all those companies who used to sell records are completely *****.
  • chicoer2001, on 10/30/2007, -0/+34Is NBC trying to kill it self every chance it gets? What's its next stunt?
    • supermanred, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Partner with Sony and bring NBC shows to the Playstation 3 should do it.
  • yabos, on 11/05/2007, -3/+163Earth to NBC, $1.99 is already too much.
    • ImOscar, on 10/31/2007, -0/+17Hell, free is too much of a price to pay for some of the crap they air.
    • MatttK, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6Yeah, I really don't get where this $1.99 business came from. A $30 cable package gets me a ton of channels with hundreds of shows. All I really want to watch is The Daily Show to be honest.. but at $2 an episode, it'd cost more to buy every episode than to just get cable.
  • bobablob, on 10/31/2007, -1/+42NBC announces that Sony makes a great deal of money selling TVs that will be tuned in to NBC's (crappy) programming. News at 11!
  • applepro, on 10/30/2007, -4/+92***** NBC. They can pay $5 for a DRMed *****-sucking.
    • xkorbin, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1And they wouldn't like it because it's DRMed!
  • sonictonic, on 10/30/2007, -0/+28Dugg to show how much more of an idiot this guy is.
  • kashem, on 10/31/2007, -1/+52Just for that comment I'm buying something from iTunes, and for every iTunes purchase, I'll torrent 5 NBC files even though I won't watch them.
    • max1574, on 10/31/2007, -1/+17YAAARR!!! IM WITH THEE!!!
      • Chaoticfist, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8"Jumps on Kashems Pirate Ship, stabs to NBC Execs with long ass Pirate Sword, then starts torrenting NBC shows"
        YAAAARRRR
  • djkaos, on 10/31/2007, -1/+48Wah Wah Wah.... Funny how you hear all this talk about letting the market set the price of things... except for when the market is telling you revenue model is last century, you whine about how the guy who's got it right is killing your business. Typical hypocritical *****.
    • rocket777, on 10/30/2007, -1/+5Capitalism works, unless your a dumb capitalist.
  • DeFex, on 10/30/2007, -3/+12What do they make that isnt crap anyways.
    • applepro, on 10/30/2007, -4/+2Sunday Night Football is good admittedly but that's the NFL, not their jackass selves.
    • nextse7en, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Battlestar Galactica comes to mind.
  • andrgo, on 10/30/2007, -8/+5I say NBC's exec destroyed Mike Gravel's chance of getting more support. Idiots.
  • baalzebub, on 10/31/2007, -1/+22thanks to p2p i buy more music, thanks to the RIAA i buy my music at second hand stores...
    • rocket777, on 10/30/2007, -5/+1There are over 20 Russian stores that sell music for 10cents a tune. The riaa sued them for a trillion dollars, and all they did was get a new domain name. Much better than p2p, and the riaa can go rip themselves.
      • timjim31, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Id rather just pirate music than give my money to russians for hosting pirated material...
  • xXGeechXx, on 10/31/2007, -6/+68Destroyed it?
    Didn't they practically invent it? If it wasn't for Itunes no one would be purchasing music online.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/31/2007, -2/+13Apple didn't invent the market, but it definitely codified the market; making it what it is today. NBC just lost its foresight... ...and reason.
    • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -1/+10NBC's bigger threat is YouTube. Of course, customers are used to the more convenient way of getting their television, which is all through one source (cable company), which is why YouTube works. What doesn't work is having to navigate a whole whack of different network/company sites with varying success to watch a night of television on a tiny screen...the bandwidth of which is throttled (I'm sorry, "shaped") by ISPs unless you pay for "faster" service plans.

      Of course, that's only if you're a Windows user, since Hulu doesn't work on Macs since Microsoft very intentionally doesn't add the capability to Windows Media on Macs to force their ***** DRM. Whose interests are at stake again?

      Buffering...
  • rwt316, on 10/31/2007, -2/+41Everyone should e-mail and write NBC and let them know that their alternative to iTunes is horrible. I tried their service under duress, and it was awful, it would hang, or cut out to the commercials, and not even let you know what was happening. One word PAINFUL. Moreover, you cannot download the programs and take them with you. If I had time to sit down and watch the TV show I would, that is why I have a DVR. I want to take my content with me and I'm willing to pay for it. Finally, what the hell are they thinking 5 bucks for a 20 minute show like The Office, no thanks. NBC needs to wake up and stop treating their customer like they don't matter. Okay NBC, you may be hot now, but I remember a time when you could not find a hit show if it was parked in front of the 30 Rock - GET A CLUE NBC
    • CybrMike, on 10/30/2007, -8/+1The office is an hour long (45 minutes w/out commercials).
      • fjc8, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Wrong, most of the time. They do have special "hour-long" (~44 minute) episodes; they started out the current (fourth) season with four "hour-long" episodes. However, nearly every other episode is ~22 minutes long
      • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4Only the first four episodes of this season. The rest of them are 22-minutes.
  • CannedMango, on 10/31/2007, -2/+60Read as: "Apple made it too difficult for us to establish an inflated markup price for digital media that would become the standard and accepted by users."
    • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -0/+17Ticketmaster and telcos: "Phew! Good thing we established atrociously unfair standards before all this happened! Now hand over that convenience fee, please. No, that's on top of the service fee. Yes, the system access fee is something different, but don't confuse that with the steep penalty from canceling a three-year contract because you're frustrated with our patchy service."
  • Scheissen, on 10/31/2007, -1/+46Boycott Hulu, let them get stuck with the bill of hosting a site that no one wants.
    • darkciti2, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3That won't work because the hosting is just part of "the cost of doing business". Avoiding the medium and not buying products advertised on their commercials is how to really send a message.
      • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -2/+2True, darkciti2, but the hosting overhead is a "cost of doing business" that they didn't have with iTunes.
  • setrusko, on 10/30/2007, -2/+32What an idiot. If it wasn't for iTunes everyone would still be torrenting all of their music. I like how everyone wants a cut of Apple's iPod profits all the time. If it wasn't for the iTunes store the iPod would still be the best MP3 player on the market.
    • darkciti2, on 10/31/2007, -1/+9Uhm, the iPod _IS_ "still" the best MP3 player on the market (a market that it helped create, BTW). We had mp3s back in the napster/winamp days. The iPod is the Walkman that let us take them with us everywhere we go.
  • themuffinman, on 10/31/2007, -2/+24Amazing...someone finds a way to legally offer a product at a price point cheaper than everyone else, and becomes incredibly popular. NBC, capitalism; capitalism, NBC.
  • HHP2K, on 10/30/2007, -10/+18You know what the difference between Apple and NBC are?

    The same difference between a Ford and a Maserati.

    Hear me out: Ford runs advertisements all the time. Always touting their great frames and agressive styling and low financing and APR and blah blah blah blah blah. High-end luxury cars like Maserati, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz (most of the time) don't even advertise.

    Now, let's put that into the context of putting ones opinions out into the world - NBC is the Ford in this example. They'll bitch about Apple until they're not even NBC anymore. They'll constantly try to give Apple a bad name and always hold an opinion about it that they think should be shared with the world.

    Apple just shuts up and makes products that people enjoy.
    • gronne, on 10/30/2007, -2/+10Apple doesn't advertise? You've been watching too much stuff from iTunes.
      • HHP2K, on 10/30/2007, -1/+3I should have made that more clear - "let's put that into the context of putting ones opinions out into the world". I know apple advertises, I was trying to take that concept and apply it to something else.
    • goosman, on 10/31/2007, -6/+2You're reading the wrong periodicals...I see advertisements every day for Maserati, quite often for Porsche and about as often for MB. Take a look at The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Fast Company and Hour Detroit (good luck on finding the last one outside the Detroit Metro area, but they are on the web) The high end mfgrs know where their target audience's eyeballs are.
      • darkciti2, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8When was the last time you saw a Maybach advertisement? Are there any Feadships advertised in the magazines you mentioned?

        You're missing HHP2K's point by attacking minutae.

        His point remains. If you make good products, they will sell. In the case of Apple, they are fighting an uphill battle against the ignorant masses that fell for the Microsoft hype many years ago.

        Furthermore, if you buy products based on [nothing more than the advertisements in] the periodicals that you read, you are a very uninformed consumer.
        • gronne, on 10/30/2007, -7/+2Well you're perfectly living up to the Mac-guy stereotype -- being a smug jackass and thinking that Windows users are part of the "ignorant masses." Windows runs on billions of computers with a virtually unlimited amount of different hardware configurations. Mac OSX only has to run on a handful of hardware configurations. Apple also markets it's computers to people that are overwhelmed by downloading a printer driver so give it a rest Sparky.
          • DaManDOH, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2OT: *ahem* Search Digg for "Install Leopard on your PC"

            Please, gronne, continue on how stereotypical we Mac guys are...
          • matrox212, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2@DaManDOH

            You just proved his point. Even Mac OS fans would rather run it on a PC than a Mac
    • smoger, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4quite possibly the worst analogy ever
  • eQUIV, on 10/31/2007, -1/+31Wow, I guess all these electronics companies making televisions and digital cable boxes should start paying out cash to NBC as well. Coz I guess people are only buying those because they want to watch NBC shows. And obviously people only buy DVD players so they can purchase and watch boxsets of NBC television shows. Incase you're not detecting the sarcasm... What a ridiculous, asinine, self-righteous statement. I guess all media devices revolve around the NBC world.
    • gronne, on 11/02/2007, -0/+8That is the most absurd thing about this. NBC shows are free for anyone to watch with an antenna.
      • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -2/+2...at least until the digital broadcast switchover takes place.
  • tljff9, on 10/31/2007, -8/+19iTunes created the market for purchasing TV shows online. NBC should be thanking Apple.

    http://www.hubsess.com
    • gronne, on 10/30/2007, -9/+3Um, no. The market already existed and Apple just did a great job of capitalizing that. Apple is great at making new technology mainstream, but they're not an innovative company. Their OS was a ripoff of SmallTalk, there were several hard drive based MP3 players prior to the iPod and downloadable music and video services existed before iTunes. Don't get me wrong, they're very good, but let's not get crazy.
  • Mizzike, on 10/30/2007, -14/+2Hey HungarianHuman: learn how to use the comment system correctly.
    • hoshizakistar, on 10/30/2007, -2/+12um... you should too. if you want to direct a comment at somebody, you should reply to their post. nice try though.
      • Mizzike, on 10/30/2007, -5/+5well said. *hangs head in shame* At the time I posted that, he had a string of comments one after the other, so I thought I could slide in with a nicely coordinated comment below all of his. For shame.
        • hoshizakistar, on 10/30/2007, -2/+8happens to the best of us. sorry for being an ass.
    • nonymous666, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, let me intriduce you to Pot.
  • williamcfrancis, on 10/31/2007, -0/+17and on top of all of this its still has ***** DRM. You don't even own the video you just wasted $2.99 on. I ***** hate this old buisness model.
    • EbilPhish, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1If you 'owned' the video you would be allowed to redistribute it etc... even non-DRM content doesn't give you ownership, hell even creative commons doesn't, the original guy still owns the copyright but you can redistribute it, modify it because those particular permissions have been given.

      Don't confuse DRM with the law, DRM is designed to bypass the law and give corporations more power than they are granted by the law so things such as DRM and legal backups are unfeasible, they to don't share anything in common, well now that the DCMA exists making removal of DRM illegal, its now illegal to make legal backups or use things for fairuse even if those things themselfs are legal.
    • EbilPhish, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1If you 'owned' the video you would be allowed to redistribute it etc... even non-DRM content doesn't give you ownership, hell even creative commons doesn't, the original guy still owns the copyright but you can redistribute it, modify it because those particular permissions have been given.

      Don't confuse DRM with the law, DRM is designed to bypass the law and give corporations more power than they are granted by the law so things such as DRM and legal backups are unfeasible, they to don't share anything in common, well now that the DCMA exists making removal of DRM illegal, its now illegal to make legal backups or use things for fairuse even if those things themselfs are legal.
  • platypibri, on 10/31/2007, -2/+17What's Hulu? Wait, after reading this, apparently iDon't Care.
  • minder49, on 10/30/2007, -2/+21FTA:
    NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker on Sunday urged colleagues to take a stand against Apple's iTunes, charging that the digital download service was undermining the ability of traditional media companies to set profitable rates for their content online.

    So let me get this right, Zucker is claiming that iTunes pricing is somehow effecting "traditional media" companies from being profitable for their online distribution of content. Does that mean that NBC was losing money selling content on iTunes? Because last time I checked, when you sell something for more than it cost to make, you have profit. Guess it just is not enough profit for the CEO of NBC.
  • zzyzy, on 10/31/2007, -1/+37Oh yeah... try this on for size, Zucker...

    "Toshiba, RCA, and Sony sold millions of dollars worth of televisions off the back of our content and made a lot of money," he said. "They did not want to share in what they were making off their televisions or allow us to adjust pricing."

    Gee, without the TV's in the first place, you wouldn't have a business. Period.

    Laughable.
  • hammerpants, on 10/30/2007, -2/+30I'm one of those idiots that actually pays for most of my media downloaded online. I'm loyal to the companies that seem like they give a rip about me, even with annoying DRM. But look at this guy...he's admitting that he wants to screw NBC's most loyal fans, and he doesn't care which ones, just that he gets to jack the prices up on SOMEONE. This is why guys like Trent Reznor and Radiohead are long overdue...people who are rewarding their most loyal fans, not punishing them.
  • LeeSoong, on 10/30/2007, -3/+18And NBC destroyed Television with a programming lineup of worthless trash,
    but who's keeping count anyways...

    (What do you expect from NBC - they canceled Star Trek TOS - one of the most profitable SciFi franchises ever developed, earning millions upon millions of $$$$)

    • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -2/+5They also extend or shift their programs by a minute or so to confuse DVRs and to stop people from switching channels when a new show is starting. Evil, evil, evil.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1in eyetv - you can add minutes to the beginning and ending of programs,
        so eyetv always records the whole show, just edit out the commercials later.
    • pillcounterd, on 10/30/2007, -2/+5Star Trek didn't become profitable until years after it was canceled. Your example doesn't hold water. As for their programming, I don't know, since they left iTunes, I'm not watching any thing by NBC, and that includes Heroes and House.
      • locojones, on 10/30/2007, -3/+6Considering House is on FOX, I don't think NBC will be losing any Nielson ratings by you not watching it.
        • ryanadc, on 10/30/2007, -1/+7Actually, I think it's produced by Universal (as in NBC Universal), so in iTunes it showed up under there.
      • OptimismPrime, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3Lets see.....
        i've payed 1.99 for most of my Heroes episodes untill now because of the simple fact that i can't watch them on TV, because i don't get any stations aring them around here...
        But i wouldn't go as far an stop watching a show i love just because of the fact i can't get em on iTunes anymore....

        You see... i am perfectly fine with the fact that from now on, further Episodes in my Heroes collection will have a Station Logo in the corner and the files they're stored in follow the naming sheme of "Heroes.S02E06.HDTV.XviD-LOL.avi" if that means i can still get them the day after they air.
        So....i am all good with NBCs decision.....only thing i am asking myself here is: How is that exactly helping NBC making more money off of digital distribution of their content again?
      • supermanred, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Im still watching both in HD quality off torrents and on live television that I dont pay for (free to air here in Canada in HD) so ***** YOU NBC!
    • StealthTomato, on 10/30/2007, -1/+1Somebody's a bitter Trekkie....
  • acidbathfan, on 10/31/2007, -0/+21The ad based model wont work unless its embedded in the page not the video because I know that no matter how great the content if I have to sit through commercials online to watch it, I wont stream it or return to that site. I also avoid over zealous ad based page sites like Forbes because they make it such a pain in the a$$ to read their content.

    Commercial content that is non-intrusive with subtle advertising is the way of the future, the days of having ads crammed down your throat are over with and gone forever.
    • mlostracco, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5Forbes.com calls their introductory ad pages "welcome screens." Assholes.
    • davebarnes, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Use Firefox with the Adblock Plus extension and experience Forbes.com the way I do. Ad free. I do not see a single advert when I visit Forbes.com
  • boejangles, on 10/30/2007, -18/+4ABC's streaming episodes in HD quality are the *****!!! and free.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -6/+1An insightful, nuanced, and well constructed argument... troll.
      • nouns, on 10/30/2007, -4/+2Troll Troller!
        • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -3/+1Trolling the troll who called me on troll trolling! You're a troll troller's troller! Dear god, what does that make me NOW?!

          Enough of this gay banter...
    • BlueStarr, on 10/30/2007, -2/+1Too late!
  • gtothreg, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3Gee Apple destroyed music??? That's funny. I thought Viacom (MTV, CMT, VH-1, BET, etc.), and Clear Channel (every 'hit' radio station in your locality, no matter where you live) destroyed music. With their dealings with the other 4 companies that control the 90% of the media, I thought that collusion was the demise of music. Manufacturing music and using sex, violence, and other extreme images, the art in music has disappeared, and we are left with crap.... in the mainstream. However, if you aren't blind, you can find good live local musicians in your hometowns throughout the US, and some really amazing artists at music "hippy" festivals throughout the US too. Or you can just listen to 2 extremely large Media companies trying to take some market share away from apple. Your choice.
  • vwvan, on 10/30/2007, -4/+7NBC vs. Viewers. Interesting business model. Let's pull on that:
    Hmm. I pay for cable, then I pay a second time to watch local and national ads.
    So I pay NBC twice to make me watch their ads and then they still want more.
    Who do they think they are, Tower Records?
    Guess they're running short on coke, and polyester.
    Somebody tell them the sixties are over.
    • DaManDOH, on 10/30/2007, -2/+3Completely OT: The sixties, vwvan? Wasn't polyester in the seventies and cocaine in the eighties? Sorry to digress. Your comment just struck me as aggressively anachronistic.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2dugg for use of 'aggressively anachronistic.'
  • Mizzike, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9"We know that Apple has destroyed the music business -- in terms of pricing -- and if we don’t take control, they’ll do the same thing on the video side,"

    Tell that to Radiohead.

    From Wikipedia: Explaining the reasons behind the album's unusual delivery, Jonny Greenwood said, "partly just to get it out quickly, so everyone would hear it at the same time, and partly because it was an experiment that felt worth trying, really." As for letting people name the price they pay for the album, he said "It's fun to make people stop for a few seconds and think about what music is worth, that's just an interesting question to ask people."
  • davidlow, on 10/30/2007, -3/+3It's happening again, just like with music. The content owners are pushing their customers to get content from elsewhere for free. Incredible.
  • naturemade, on 10/30/2007, -4/+4I can't even remember the last time I watched something on NBC...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
  •  

    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.