Switched On: Why it's time for an iTunes TV subscription
Each week Ross Rubin contributes Switched On, a column about consumer technology.
In the 10 billionth song that Apple sold through iTunes, Johnny Cash's "Guess Things Happen That Way", a man other than Steve Jobs famous for black attire bemoans the happenstance of his romantic misfortune. But nothing could be further from the story of iTunes, in which Apple's meticulously crafted ownership of the end-user experience led to a dominant position in music sales. Now, on the dawn of releasing a new device that could be to television shows what the iPod was to music, Apple has an opportunity to create as commanding a lead in TV distribution -- if it is willing to again capitulate to consumers' media consumption habits.
Apple has enjoyed great success with iTunes in part because it adopted the purchase-to-own model that had been so successful with CDs and records before them. However, Apple didn't simply mirror that model. By allowing consumers to purchase the vast majority of songs as singles, it provided better perceived value, Such an option was also a natural fit for the iPod, where playlists made it trivial to create the digital equivalent of "mix tapes." The iPod's capacity for thousands of songs was also no match for most albums that typically had a dozen or so songs.
When Apple moved into movies with iTunes and then Apple TV, it first stood fast to the purchase-to-own business model that had worked for music. But as it launched the second major release of the Apple TV software, it acknowledged the popularity of rentals. Again, Apple merely offered a means of consuming media familiar to what consumers had adopted at video rental stores and video on demand. And again, the move complemented Apple hardware, in this case Apple TV, which brought iTunes movies to their best consumption environment within the home.
In addition to the more than 12 million songs and 8,500 movies Apple now offers through iTunes, it has a catalog of more than 55,000 TV show episodes. And just as music has the pocketable iPod and movies have the big-screen capable Apple TV, Apple is on the verge of releasing a device that is a perfect match for them in iPad. While the company played up the slate's content convergence capabilities at the iPad's launch, video remains the medium at the intersection of popularity and purpose for the iPad -- as Switched On discussed last April. No 3G? No Flash support? No interest in reading? No gaming skills? No problem.
But to really exploit the TV-on-iPad opportunity, Apple needs to again optimize its content distribution model. By creating an unlimited option for TV show rentals, Apple could not only compensate for the current lack of Hulu on the iPad, but position for a competitive edge against Hulu's future, which is likely to include HTML 5 and subscriptions. It has been said that Apple has an aversion toward subscriptions, but the company offers two of its own in MobileMe and AppleCare, and the success of cable and satellite providers as well as Netflix provide ample evidence for consumer's acceptance of TV subscriptions.
Once again, Apple would be doing no more than offering the dominant consumption business model, but optimized for one of its platforms. Furthermore, the company would have incredible pricing leeway given that open access to the iTunes buffet would include many of the advantages of a DVR subscription. And if Apple really wanted to avoid subscriptions per se, it could offer pre-paid access as it has for 3G on the iPad, with a lower fee offering a limited number of TV episode rentals per month and a higher number offering unlimited rentals during the month.
One open question, of course, is whether networks would agree to such a plan given potential coercion by cable companies that account for the overwhelming majority of their income. Indeed, there would be both similarities and differences when compared with the Hulu-on-Boxee conflict. But at least Apple, unlike Hulu, isn't owned by the studios, and so is therefore less likely to bow to their whims so readily -- as NBC likely well remembers. And Apple has vast financial, legal and lobbying resources that make it a far less vulnerable competitor than Boxee.
Finally, with a TV show rental plan, Apple could certainly continue to sell TV shows a la carte as it does with songs and movies. Some might opt for this as an alternative to purchasing TV shows on DVD. And faced with this new option, that business would likely be cannibalized. But the overall effect would be to greatly expand the appeal of using iTunes for TV as something other than a hangover remedy, easing the pain for those who forgot to set their DVRs, or the forgettable bit breeder filling the hard drives of avant garde cable cord-cutters. Apple is about to ship a device that could redefine the TV set. Now it just needs to redefine TV service.
Ross Rubin is executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.

Apple has enjoyed great success with iTunes in part because it adopted the purchase-to-own model that had been so successful with CDs and records before them. However, Apple didn't simply mirror that model. By allowing consumers to purchase the vast majority of songs as singles, it provided better perceived value, Such an option was also a natural fit for the iPod, where playlists made it trivial to create the digital equivalent of "mix tapes." The iPod's capacity for thousands of songs was also no match for most albums that typically had a dozen or so songs.
When Apple moved into movies with iTunes and then Apple TV, it first stood fast to the purchase-to-own business model that had worked for music. But as it launched the second major release of the Apple TV software, it acknowledged the popularity of rentals. Again, Apple merely offered a means of consuming media familiar to what consumers had adopted at video rental stores and video on demand. And again, the move complemented Apple hardware, in this case Apple TV, which brought iTunes movies to their best consumption environment within the home.
In addition to the more than 12 million songs and 8,500 movies Apple now offers through iTunes, it has a catalog of more than 55,000 TV show episodes. And just as music has the pocketable iPod and movies have the big-screen capable Apple TV, Apple is on the verge of releasing a device that is a perfect match for them in iPad. While the company played up the slate's content convergence capabilities at the iPad's launch, video remains the medium at the intersection of popularity and purpose for the iPad -- as Switched On discussed last April. No 3G? No Flash support? No interest in reading? No gaming skills? No problem.
Apple is about to ship a device that could redefine the TV set. Now it just needs to redefine TV service. |
But to really exploit the TV-on-iPad opportunity, Apple needs to again optimize its content distribution model. By creating an unlimited option for TV show rentals, Apple could not only compensate for the current lack of Hulu on the iPad, but position for a competitive edge against Hulu's future, which is likely to include HTML 5 and subscriptions. It has been said that Apple has an aversion toward subscriptions, but the company offers two of its own in MobileMe and AppleCare, and the success of cable and satellite providers as well as Netflix provide ample evidence for consumer's acceptance of TV subscriptions.
Once again, Apple would be doing no more than offering the dominant consumption business model, but optimized for one of its platforms. Furthermore, the company would have incredible pricing leeway given that open access to the iTunes buffet would include many of the advantages of a DVR subscription. And if Apple really wanted to avoid subscriptions per se, it could offer pre-paid access as it has for 3G on the iPad, with a lower fee offering a limited number of TV episode rentals per month and a higher number offering unlimited rentals during the month.
One open question, of course, is whether networks would agree to such a plan given potential coercion by cable companies that account for the overwhelming majority of their income. Indeed, there would be both similarities and differences when compared with the Hulu-on-Boxee conflict. But at least Apple, unlike Hulu, isn't owned by the studios, and so is therefore less likely to bow to their whims so readily -- as NBC likely well remembers. And Apple has vast financial, legal and lobbying resources that make it a far less vulnerable competitor than Boxee.
Finally, with a TV show rental plan, Apple could certainly continue to sell TV shows a la carte as it does with songs and movies. Some might opt for this as an alternative to purchasing TV shows on DVD. And faced with this new option, that business would likely be cannibalized. But the overall effect would be to greatly expand the appeal of using iTunes for TV as something other than a hangover remedy, easing the pain for those who forgot to set their DVRs, or the forgettable bit breeder filling the hard drives of avant garde cable cord-cutters. Apple is about to ship a device that could redefine the TV set. Now it just needs to redefine TV service.
Ross Rubin is executive director of industry analysis for consumer technology at market research and analysis firm The NPD Group. Views expressed in Switched On are his own.





















Time to replace my TV for an ipad lol
@Alexpeegs No way! Unless they find a way to reproduce the same experience I get from watching TV at home (i.e. sitting on my big comfy couch watching America's Best Dance Crew on my 60"), iPad will never replace my TV set.
It's good for portable movies on a plane, train, or automobile...that's about it. No thanks to a TV subscription.
@Alexpeegs
death to television, huzzah for Netflix!! ...HUZZAH!
@Chizzed: I'm with you. And that he brought up Apple TV at all is kind of funny, considering how much of a joke that thing is (unless you install Boxee on it, in which case it serves a purpose, though any cheap ION nettop is a way better option).
@Chizzed
it's just sarcasm i'd rather have my satelite and netflix instead :)
@Chizzed
It's not about the iPad, but rather iTunes TV.. Something you could watch on your regular TV with the proper setup. I personally wouldn't want it because I don't like to load the bloated iTunes to any of my computers, but I could see it being better than cable.
Technically, TV should be free with the abundance of commercials they make us watch.. I would gladly pay the same, if not more for a TV experience without commercials.
@Alan Strangis
Why? Apple TV is easily the best way to get your itunes library on the TV. While not as good as Vudu in terms of picture quality it's far ahead of Netflix streaming and Amazon VoD.
While not as successful as other Apple products, it's generated more software revenue on an annual basis than Hulu, YouTube, Amazon VoD, Xbox Live (movie and Tv sales and rental), Vudu, Cinema Now etc etc. Netflix is a different beast since it's free with a subscription. But, Apple TV beats Netflix handily when it comes to video and audio quality.
Apple TV with 35% growth and easily the #1 platform by software sales in it's market is a hobby only because it is an Apple product. Apple has a different standard when it comes to margin, profitability and revenue targets for a product.
@jaffreywali
sure, but ONLY because of apple's DRM. there is, in fact, no other way to watch that proprietary content, other than buying a licensed ipod dock with video out. in every other respect, the apple tv is definitely one of the worst values for putting digital content on a TV. it's overpriced, under-featured, and was technologically obsolete the day it came out.
@jaffreywali I will buy an iPad to use primarily as a portable video player, I will use the other features, but video is probably what I will use the most. As for getting video from iTunes to my TV, that is what my PS3 is for, and Netflix streaming on the PS3 is the best netflix streaming that I have tried. As much as I like the Apple TV I think that my PS3 blows it out of the water when it comes to getting video to the TV.
@Alan Strangis
Ha, Engadget commenters are so damn cheap...
Steal steal steal...
@patches66
I'm confused when you say " it's overpriced, under-featured, and was technologically obsolete the day it came out". Certainly the $200 price range for the QUANTITY of things you get with an ATV is better than the $99 you pay for a Roku box no? So Overpriced? I dunno.
Underfeatured? Movies, TV Shows, Music, Podcasts, YouTube, Pictures... What is underfeatured about that? Roku gives you NetFlix-PERIOD.
Technologically Obsolete? Uh... It is a set top box, guy. It is supposed to be simple.
I dunno I have my entire Movie Library streaming from my tower to my ATV (over 750 films) as well as all of my TV episodes and all of my music and pictures. Its pretty impressive, actually, when friends come over and they have immediate access to all of that with just a click of my remote control. Again, for $200... I just can't agree with you.
@Alexpeegs
I'd rather see Apple go back and focus on selling hardware and software only.
@Wesscoast
If I am going to BUY something, then I want to play it on any device I own. The idea of being forced into buying Apple hardware in perpetuity should deeply offend EVERY ONE HERE. Physical media may have it's problems. However being trapped into a single monopoly vendor is not one of them.
Once I get video, whether it be in the form of cable TV or a download or a DVD, then I want to be able to use that video in any manner I choose.
Of course the Apple fanboys with nothing meaningful to say will scream piracy. I don't need to pirate in order to dramatically undercut Apple prices, get access to more stuff and play it on a wider range of devices.
Some stuff, I can just get off the public airwaves.
@TonyMontana2367 A Netflix streaming app would totally rock on every device I own. I love them so much.
@jedi Who's forcing you? I think people like you are just looking to Apple bash. And no, I don't support Apple in this. I'm one of those strange people who wants physical media because I don't trust anybody or any thing, including the safety of downloaded files. Once you lose them, how do you get them back?
But what happens when the tv shows you want to watch have boobs on them? Or anything negative about apple , or violence? Will apple block the tv shows like they do the apps?
I would assume they would
Shut up fool.
@Hydra
Anyone that desires for one company to be the singular distributor of all digital content is a fool plain and simple.
In the past, the internet would have gone basaltic at the prospect.
@LAY
I upranked you solely because you used the word "basaltic."
@LAY
Also that's not how you spell "ballistic."
@LAY basaltic magma is fluid.
@crazacool Oops! Was in a hurry and had Firefox correct my spelling. Not a good move.
@LAY
Indeed a nice lettuce dressing should be free for all!
@Cy Starkman You're thinking of balsamic. Totally different.
@Cy Starkman
I think you're mistaken. We're talking about good quality rice here, no?
@Hydra Look at the R-rated movies you can get from the App Store. "Eyes Wide Shut" is one, "Sin City" is another that has a lot of nudity/violence.
Apple isn't going to censor movies and TV shows.
@ColinMcGraw Then why do they censor the apps?
@Hydra I assume it's because their brand is more associated with the apps than the movies.
No one faults Apple if there is graphic content in an R-rated movie, but if an App made with Apple's API, sold through Apple's proprietary store and promoted through Apple's top app rankings, they do get blamed for what makes it in.
This is speculation on my part, but the point is that you almost certainly won't see the same kind of heavy handed policies for TV and movies, as is demonstrably the case today with the wealth of graphic video available for purchase through the iTunes store.
I'm beginning to think that the more and more these big companies are offering TV shows, Movies and Music on demand that their wont be a need for TV stations in the future.
I dunno whether to be happy about that or Sad?
@SPENone
If radio isn't dead yet, TV isn't going anywhere soon.
@SPENone
well, you look pretty happy anyway so..............
@SPENone Well, as of now i have cable, but i also have boxee and boxee is nice it still has to do some growing but in a couple of years i can see myself ditching cable for it if they start streaming in HD and offer more shows and movies, i have no doubt about it
@skyblaze
LOL!
@The Geek
Yeah that sounds about right. Especially if it's coming through in HD!
....i guess Apple is on the right track. As long as Steve doesn't try to say he invented TV and tries to sue the networks. ;-]
@SPENone
TV stations are already irrelevant.
Many of them have long ago abandoned their programming genres for whatever sells.
A&E now shows trash reality programming when in the 90s it was actually about "arts and entertainment". What's the point for it now?
@sintricate
Radio isn't dead because it's free. If it means a better product for a cheaper/reasonable price, people will rush to kill cable TV as we know it.
@dg988
let's not get carried away: the best case scenario is that cable gets some serious competition (and/or regulation), and adapts to a new reality, bringing us better prices and service. cable companies own major networks now--they aren't going anywhere, and aren't about to roll over and die without a fight. they can afford to lower prices, if they need to.
"Apple has enjoyed great success with iTunes in part because it adopted the purchase-to-own model that had been so successful with CDs and records before them."
what kind of whacky definition of purchase-to-own do you guys have?
I dont call purchasing a song then only being able to use it on an ipod or itunes as owning it. Perhaps you meant Apple has enjoyed great success for itunes because a bunch of people already have ipods so they use it, and the only reason they gave up on DRM is because amazon was gaining market share because they didnt have shitty drm plastered all over their music service.
I think thats what you meant.
@omegaslast
I walked away from iTunes when they went DRM free and wanted to charge me 30 cents a song to get the DRM off my stuff. Having purchased around $1k from iTunes, I saw the ~$250 price tag and almost cried. As much as I would LOVE to be screwed over again, I'll pass on this one.
@cherryboom
Still have to buy the discs. Cheap now, but back in the day could get pricy. Regardless, defeats the point of having an iPod
@cherryboom yeah, really convenient. Even burning images and converting, still not worth the hassle.
@Delta have you really spent $1K there ? holy crap id rather have a macbook
@BlackTaxi2d i'd rather have 5 and a half years of Zune Pass access!
@kojo87 haha, no kidding man. y'all can enjoy paying $ per song, and ill just go download half the internet ^_^
I agree and get the impression that the iPad was made as a compelling video device over all else. The problem, like you said, is with the studios, however.
If Apple had a TV subscription service of purely on-demand shows for a reasonable monthly fee (or tiered, consumption-based month-to-month pricing), I think they'd have a very compelling story for video, with access to shows on TV at the touch of a button via Apple TV, and portable experiences with iPhone and iPad.
My family keeps kids movies on the iPhone and the kids watch them all the time in waiting rooms and at restaurants, etc. The iPad would be the perfect device to hand to them to watch cartoons on the way to Grandma's house.
@ColinMcGraw Forget the iPad, it sounds like you need to give your kids a book man! TV at every single opportunity, even when waiting at restaurants? They might just benefit from some mental stimulation from, like an actual conversation or some reading from time to time.
@Luxury Guy All three of my children are under three years old. Right now they're focusing on not crapping their pants rather than reading or holding a conversation consisting of more than the few words they know.
They do like books at bedtime, but they climb out of their high chairs in restaurants if they're finished eating and have nothing to keep them occupied.
@ColinMcGraw
Seriously dude I am with Luxury Guy on this one.
@glamajamma Did you miss the part where I said the kids are one and two years old? I'd be quite the proud parent if they could read or carry out a conversation that consisted of more than one-word phrases like "Eat" or "Mommy", but younger toddlers don't work that way, gents.
We let them watch movies while Mom and Dad finish dinner, or we don't get to go out. We equally use vocabulary games we downloaded from the App Store if it makes you feel better.
@ColinMcGraw After they eat you could just break out the nyquil. I mean really, you would want to actually have to take care of your kids when it isn't convenient for you?
@hgill Huh? Do any of you have kids who are one and two years old? Are you old enough to drive a car? Do you have any clue what you're talking about?
We're not the type of family to set the kids in front of the TV all the time because we'd rather do something else. My wife only works part time to be home with them as much as possible and they all tend to be pretty active.
All I said was that we have portable video players (iPhones) that we sometimes use when we go out as a family to restaurants, doctors appointments, etc. Most families with as many young kids as we have just don't go out because of the difficulty of wrangling them all up, but our kids like getting out and we have a good solution to make it work where my wife and I don't have to skip meals.
It's a bit insulting to be lectured by people who are probably just kids themselves about how it's a mortal sin to let my kids watch any sort of movies or cartoons. Guess what? In the real-world, people take portable DVD players to keep kids occupied on a two hour drive to Grandma's house or the three hour plane trip to Disney World. The iPad has to potential to be a replacement device for what was the portable DVD player, app player, and even e-book reader and packs a lot of promise into a device that can fit in a diaper bag.