Apple pitching $30 a month TV service for iTunes to the networks?
By Paul Miller 
posted November 2nd 2009 1:32PM
posted November 2nd 2009 1:32PM
According to Peter Kafka over at AllThingsD, he's had "multiple sources" tell him that Apple is shopping around a subscription service to TV networks that would give iTunes users a catch-all subscription for $30 a month. As far as he's heard, nobody's jumped on board just yet, and of course networks have to work out their typical fears of such a service cutting into ratings and biting into cable revenue. However, at least one unnamed executive briefed on the plan says "I think they might get it right this time," and with Disney's cozy relationship with Apple there's reason believe they'd be the first to sign up. Unfortunately, for people scrounging for a new evidence of an Apple tablet or something useful for their oft-dormant Apple TV to do, there's no word on what role devices have to play in this deal, but we have to believe that Apple would be working to push the content to the rest of its iTunes-based ecosystem, whatever that might encompass if and when the service launches early next year as Apple has proposed.
DRM-free = Sale.
DRM = No sale.
Simple as that.
Has everyone forgotten about antennas? It's a magical device that captures over-the-air broadcasts.
Apple better be delivering more than major networks, because I receive all of them, for free, in full high definition MPEG-2 glory. There already exists a handful of options for adding a DVR or computer capture device to that antenna.
"JUSTIN"
please exit the forums.
daguila29, please suck my balls.
Commercial free, anytime I want, transfer to iPhone/iPod, no dickering over tiers or wrestling my antennna, and for just $30 per month = win
Bah.. 8 bux a month - usenet access.
25mbit pure stream downloading, commercial free, a 1 hour show in ~3 minutes or so.. I'd say thats pretty much on demand.
Toss it into a folder, play it using Plex on my plasma.
Why are some people saying "$30 PER NETWORK?" The article clearly states "a subscription service to TV networks that would give iTunes users a catch-all subscription for $30 a month" This basically means "access to all iTunes videos for $30 per month", right?
Nothing anywhere mentions the $30 being PER NETWORK. That would be stupid.
I seriously think some of you guys are dyslexic. it doesnt say $30 charge per network and apple would be crazy to do that. i mean come on if you chose 4 networks its $120. its a $30 per month charge for the entire video library. if you cancel you probably would loose all the shows you downloaded if they even let you download. cable bills are outrageous so this may be a good idea but they also need live sports and news to compete with cable.
Finally Apple finds out way to sell Apple TV that nobody wants....
Apple TV died when the Roku/Netflix box arrived.
I see the benefits over Hulu as so:
1) For those who own a video-capable iPod or iPhone, this allows on-the-go video of a TV show, which in my experience, works better since I'm usually not traveling for 2 hours but rather 20-30 minutes at a time. Or you could download on your laptop, go on a train and not worry about Wifi.
2) For some shows on Hulu, only the last 4 - 6 episodes are broadcast online. This would allow you to watch multiple seasons.
3) Commercial free.
If that service let me pick the channels i like the most, history, discover... several other network with real contents, streaming HD quality. Even its $40 a month, I'd say ByeByeBye to Comcast, Cox, and name some more greedy suckers.
No way in hell I would pay $30 a month to Apple when they have let AppleTV languish around with the pitiful label of "hobby" for so long. Not too mention I am sure this would just add fuel to the fire of Comcast, Verizon, etc... about tiered internet access.
Mac, iPod, iPhone are multi BILLION dollar businesses annually.
AppleTV isn't there yet.
That's why its called a hobby.
Are you annoyed that the customers haven't bought more AppleTV's?
By the way, this is on iTunes, not just AppleTV. That means Mac and PC's can watch TV shows for 30 bucks a month. So the guys who claimed Apple was a niche player in a niche market, haven't thought this through.
Of course, if you have an Apple TV, that's the ultimate set up.
Many on this board who advocate stealing copyright material don't really get that there's a world of people out there who can afford 30 dollars, eg, less than 8 dollars a week and less than $1.50 a day.
The real problem is, "Hey Apple, what about Sports?"
I think it really depends on your preferences. I currently pay DirecTV around 85 a month for a standard package (no premium channels) plus HD and a HD-DVR. (I can't get cable as it's not offered in my sub-division) This would really benefit me. For 30 a month, I could get almost the same thing I have now. Apple gets shows up usually by the next day so that wouldn't bother me that much. I can still watch sports live OTA, and Apple's quality is much better than hulu. I've tried hulu and the quality is just not there for me. But that's a personal preference. Quality means a lot to me and all the free streaming stuff just can't compare. I would pay the $30 a month but that's cause it makes sense for me. No company is going to get a magic solution that works for everyone, but for me this makes sense. I would do it. You can't bash Apple saying this doesn't work for me so it will fail miserably. You also can't praise them saying they found the magic solution that works for everyone. It is a preference thing. Quality matters to some people, like me, and don't mind paying for it over the free, lower-quality, alternatives. I know you can get good quality on torrents, but then there is the legal issues. It all comes down to preferences.
I think its a steal, we pay about $70 for the top tier channel package on satellite. I would buy it if you came through on it Apple.
If this included HBO and Showtime shows I'd bite. For that, 30
dollars seems reasonable, especially if it gave me access to back
catalogs of show seasons and could be put on any iTunes capable
device.
Hulu may be a great idea but its achilles heel is stingy viewing
windows (one minute its there, next its gone). And the quality sucks
on anything larger than a 20" computer monitor. Netflix has much
better quality but again the selection is a problem. Very little new content that people actually want. And streaming,
while nice as an option, is just not always possible. The content
companies aren't stupid. They know that first run content is their
golden egg. They aren't going to let people access unlimited amounts
of their premium content be [i]anytime, anywhere for free[/i]. You
might get it for free with viewing window restrictions (hulu) or you
might get it anytime and anyplace but not get the newest content
(Netflix). But to get all three of these things you are going to
have to pay more.
Am I the only one that feels that $30 a month is rather steep for TV shows? If it's not live and doesn't include premium channels like HBO, SHOWTIME, MAX, then to me this is crazy.
30/Mo would be ok, and I'd even accept commercials, IF I get all the channels (live) that I have with my current cable subscription, and at least in 720p.