Apple flexes on flexible pricing? HBO iTunes deal rumored, NBC hits the UK

It looks like Apple might finally ready to give up its demands for straight up and down $1.99 TV show pricing on iTunes. If you'll remember, Apple and NBC had quite the squabble over price flexibility and margins last year, and some other show providers have held off providing content until they can get a more favorable deal from Apple. It seems one of those content holders was HBO, with word on the street that Apple is finally going to bow to desires for flexible pricing, and has signed up HBO to kick things off. Apple has also in recent months added NBC Universal shows to its UK store with variable pricing, which might be a sign that a return to the US store isn't far off.

[Via Silicon Valley Insider]

[Jonathan Keim @ May 12th 2008 1:56PM]

'tis sad

[Steve Jones @ May 12th 2008 2:28PM]

An apple a day wastes the money away.

[Jim @ May 12th 2008 1:57PM]

Death to Flexible Pricing! Long live bittorrent!

NBC is network TV, for chrissakes!!! It's free to watch!!!! Why should they charge more than $2 an episode or package it with some movie I don't want to watch!??!?!?

[gabe @ May 12th 2008 2:32PM]

Thank u. $1.99 is too much when free is $0.

[ChiWax @ May 12th 2008 2:35PM]

You need help!!!! It costs money to create content. No matter what you have been taught. Downloading commercial free content on Bit-Torrent is not going to be accepted by the content creators. You're inability to see that is disturbing....Q

[DoctaDJones @ May 12th 2008 2:49PM]

Why don't they just add a few commercials in there like Hulu.

I'd watch 5 min of commercials for a 30min show before I'd pay any money for it.

Hell why not release it on bittorrent. I'd happily torrent a legal version with commercials instead of a cutup, horribly encoded, pirated version.

[Billy Fiul @ May 12th 2008 2:58PM]

Network TV isn't free, you ignorant fool! Consumers pay for that content during the frequent, annoying commercial breaks. The cost to consumers is not currency but time. Content creators have to charge the consumer directly to deliver commercial-free content (plus Apple needs a piece of the action to cover bandwidth costs and make a little profit).

[gabe @ May 12th 2008 3:12PM]

then why don't u put a ban on dVrs moron?

we can skip commercials already.

listen u humanitarians - shut the hell up already - its not like u are an angel and didn't download mp3s before.

[wickedpheonix @ May 12th 2008 5:21PM]

I agree with you gabe - but we do need to find some way for the content creators to make their money.

If I could download a version of a show that was higher quality but with ads so it was legal, I would. Naturally I would prefer if they used RapidShare, but torrents or HTTP/FTP would be fine. I just don't like Hulu because I don't like online watching with streaming/hiccups/constant buffering, much prefer to just hit Windows-E and navigate to a show.

[snowraver1 @ May 12th 2008 11:48PM]

"Hell why not release it on bittorrent. I'd happily torrent a legal version with commercials instead of a cutup, horribly encoded, pirated version."

Except that is hardly the norm. Most of the pirate stuff is cut perfectly, properly encoded, and put out in a more timely manor than the official version.

[dubbbya @ May 12th 2008 2:02PM]

True Romance was awesome

[dubbbya @ May 12th 2008 2:04PM]

wait a second....sopranos?

[Gav @ May 12th 2008 2:05PM]

The UK's iTunes TV shows are extremely overpriced. £1.89 (Pretty much $4) is outrageous.

Especially when some of the shows are offered on free download-on-demand services. For example Skins on Channel 4 is available Free (or at least, a lot cheaper, depending on the series) on '4oD' - Channel 4s on demand service.

[Tajakistani @ May 12th 2008 2:11PM]

Good for Apple, Bad for Consumers!

[sinai @ May 12th 2008 2:15PM]

mac fans, say, "thank you microsoft!"

[Rob @ May 12th 2008 2:22PM]

And yet, you guys still pay for it. I'd never buy any of this DRM-infested crap. I don't care how good the movie/show is. If I can't play the file with the flexibility of a dvd or cd, then they won't see a penny from me. And, like the post above, it's free tv. Why are they charging for this?

[Jonathan Keim @ May 12th 2008 2:23PM]

There are no commercials or revenues from the cable companies... why else? They don't produce that content for free.

[ChiWax @ May 12th 2008 2:38PM]

Bit-Torrent is the reason there is no flexibility. Deal with what's been made of the medium. Q.

[Rob @ May 12th 2008 2:44PM]

Keim:
My reference was to network tv, including NBC. I think paid tv, like HBO, it's a different story. But, I still wouldn't pay for DRM files. All these people need to brainstorm and find a way so that consumers and content owners are happy. Right now, they're playing off an archaic game plan.

[gb @ May 12th 2008 3:36PM]

So you shouldn't have to pay for DVD sets of "free TV" shows?

[Rob @ May 12th 2008 4:00PM]

gb:
Obviously you didn't read my post well. Here's a recap just for you: "If I can't play the file with the flexibility of a dvd or cd, then they won't see a penny from me."

[gb @ May 12th 2008 4:05PM]

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a reply to you, but for the original post about not wanting to pay for something that's on "free tv."

[Tubes @ May 12th 2008 2:27PM]

As mentioned over at elsewhere, the pricing for end users (aka: Us) will likely stay the same, while Apple pays NBC variable prices per episode from their own pockets. That's how some other NBC digital retailers are doing it. Thus, NBC gets more cash straight from the source - the iTunes Store - and Apple can keep their user prices low as long as Apple eats the extra costs.

[David @ May 12th 2008 2:33PM]

Seriously??? I doubt it! Then how come Apple don't act so saint like and make UK iTunes prices the same as the rest of the EU or USA??? It's not like there's shipping charges on the product!

[Aaron @ May 12th 2008 2:34PM]

Great. Now HBO can overcharge for their shows on DVD and for download.

[tundraboy @ May 12th 2008 2:37PM]

Apple will eventually yield to the content providers' price flexibility demands. This is a battle they have no point in fighting. The assertion that non-uniform pricing will 'confuse' the customer is a lot of B.S. I don't see people in supermarkets walking around in a daze, rendered silly by the multitude of prices they are confronted with on the shelves. This is just Jobs' control freakiness pushed beyond sensible limits.

Apple needs to get as much content as possible available on iTunes if AppleTV, iPod and iPhone are to maximize their market potential.

[Jeff @ May 12th 2008 3:06PM]

I don't think it's about "confusing" the customer as much as it is about "giving the customer the opportunity to question the purchase"

when ALL tv shows are $1.99, i'm always mentally prepared to spend the $2.

When i could buy this show for $1.74/ep and that other show is $3.12/ep but one season has more episodes blah blah blah, it gives me pause enough to allow me to consider if it's "worth it" or not.

Uniform pricing makes purchasing decisions automatic. "do i want it?" is all that is asked.

Variable pricing introduces an artificial "Is it worth it at this price?" step in the purchase process, which will lead to less sales.

though i think variable pricing will eventually replace the uniform, i can see why Apple is fighting against it. (also, you KNOW the studios want $5/ep of their "hit" shows and still want $2 for their back catalog of crap)

[ChiWax @ May 12th 2008 2:40PM]

They charge whatever they can get for their content. The reason they charge so much for DVDs is because the people who buy them always pay it. It really is that simple. Q.

[eric53110 @ May 12th 2008 2:42PM]

So what I say! This is just another thing I'm not going to pay money for. I stopped buying tracks off of iTunes and am buying them from the Amazon MP3 store. Just more flexibility for me. And that's the point, I'm spending money on what suites ME!

I didn't mind paying Apple for good quality and complete songs (I hated file sharing because of that). But now that there is another choice, this bodes well for me.

And why would I want to pay for a show that I can just catch on their website for free (NBC)? I don't have HBO (In HD yet) but there isn't anything on there that I am willing to pay for that I can't DVR.

[ChiWax @ May 13th 2008 12:46AM]

There are different uses of content for different people. The website viewing choice is a horrible choice for me. Paying for portability and flexibility in the home is a must for me. I like how people attached to their rigs all for everything they do are the ones that have such a problem with all of this...Q

[Db @ May 12th 2008 2:50PM]

Who cares if its variable pricing, if you dont want to pay for it then you wont anyway. So moaning about it does not make any difference. Just throw as much as possible in to the store and let the consumers choose with their $s. Sooner or later one company like a "Costco" of online content will arrive and stock everything at discount prices.

[ChiWax @ May 13th 2008 12:45AM]

2 measly bux an episode is not a discount? I am shocked they don't charge more. I got a price deal on The Office by buying it on Unbox. But that worked for me since I hub compute with all of my media. It wont play on extenders(correctly) but it will play on my 360 which is attached to an LCD. I saved money, don't have to shelve mulitple discs, and I can view with a few clicks of the remote. This works for me and 2 bux an episode is fine....Q

[aardvark sandwich @ May 12th 2008 3:42PM]

IS THAT THE GRAND SLAM?

[mongoos150 @ May 12th 2008 5:57PM]

Can't Apple just talk to Uncle Ju? Sil, Tony and Paulie'll take care of the folks at NBC.

[Justin @ May 13th 2008 9:55AM]

I am not paying 3.99 for an episode of house, dammit