Letters to the Editor
-
Distribution model
In order for iTunes TV downloads to really make a dent in the marketplace, the path from iTunes to home televisions is going to have to become seamless. Even with the advent of the AppleTV, I don't think it quite is. You still have to buy shows on iTunes on your computer, wait for them to download, then either transfer them to the AppleTV box or leave your computer on to stream the show to the box. 99-cent shows will make more people willing to put up with the hassle, but still, we're talking about a $300 box that only works with HDTVs. To really deliver the death blow to the traditional TV model, Apple is going to have to get in bed with a major cable or satellite provider -- just like they had to get in bed with Cingular to make their iPhone dreams come true.
-
Pay TV on Your Apple?
I wouldn't pay anything to watch TV on any Apple product. I have a Windows-based PC and don't have an iPod, or an iPhone. As far as I am concerned, Apple products are overpriced. I am hoping that someone is able to bring to market a lower priced cable or satellite service to my area: $1 per channel, with a $15 minimum. I am tired of paying for channels I don't watch (i.e. foreign language channels and shopping channels) and having to pay extra for channels I would like to watch (such as CNN). It is hard to believe that the technology for such a la carte pricing is not feasible at this time.
-
Extra Cost to Producers
What I wonder is how much of that additional money that NBC, say, makes per episode with DVD's actually goes into their pockets. A DVD has to be pressed, packaged, and shipped. And advertised, but so would an Itunes version, I suppose. The ITunes version would presumably only need the advertising money (although there may be costs I'm not including). In other words, I'm not sure that they would really make all that much more from DVDs to begin with. If easier availability were to spur extra purchases via Itunes, they could conceivably make more there.
-
Re: Resolution matters
Maybe to some, resolution does matter to me. But many people watch a show for the story. As long as one can detect the emotion registered on the face of a character and hear the mood music the quality is good enough. For many plot driven shows such as House M.D. who cares if it's in standard definition quality. You don't need to see every age line in an actors face.
-
Not one damn penny.
I have never owned a TV. My parents had a one channel B&W (we lived in the country), and we weren't allowed to watch it anyway. When I got married, my husband had one. When we divorced, I once again lived without one, and life was pretty good.
My SO and I have been together for more than six years. He owns a standard color TV - at least ten years old. Until we joined Netflix last year, we didn't even have a DVD player - just an old VHS. (It made his children crazy.) But there is NOTHING to watch on TV!! And we don't buy movies. And I can't imagine anything more unpleasant than watching movies on a computer.
Just say no...
-
Re: Junkies have to get their fix
I think some of the stuff on TV is quite good. The Universe series on the History channel, anything written by Joss Whedon, The Countdown just to name a few. Is it worth $600 a year? I don't think so.
-
Windows-only BS
The problem I have with Amazon is the need to use a proprietary Windows-only player. A MacOS player does not seem to be imminent. Among other issues, the Windows DRM is probably the most restrictive of all the DRMs out there. It's almost totally non-portable. I won't buy in that format.
The people who are concerned with resolution, btw, have a valid point, but bandwidth and hardware improvements over the next couple of years should eliminate that issue. AT&T's HomeZone and U-Verse services already make video rentals available via IP in HD.
-
Zero
I don't pay to buy an episode of a TV show I get included in the amount of money I pay for cable and Tivo.
If for some reason my Tivo doesn't capture an episode (didn't change the channel correctly or the cable went out)
I'll either wait for it to rerun or if the website offers replays, I'll watch it there. There are very few TV shows I want to own and the ones we do want to own, we'll just buy the DVDs or record them off of Tivo with our DVD recorder.
I have never and will never buy an episode of a TV show off of iTunes. I watched one tv show that i dowloaded for free just to see what it's like and it's not worth it. I think it's just as ridiculous as the people who buy music videos when you can find them for free on MTV or You Tube or other places on the internet.
-
The Quality is Just Fine, Thanks!
Creepo is right, the resolution of an iPod episode isn't nearly as good as the standard DVD resolution, not to mention HD. 320x240 is yucky. It's fine for catching up on a missed episode, but it's only a quarter of the resolution of a DVD. It isn't the pricing of online content that keeps me away, it's the awful quality, frankly. I'll wait for my DVDs, thank you very much.
I have a cable that I plug into my video iPod and into my tv to watch shows I download.
The quality looks fine to me. I really can't tell the difference and I suspect a lot of the "quality issues" may be more imagined than real.
Just my humble opinion.
-
Pay? For low quality?
At the present time, I can't imagine anything downloadable in the way of video that would be of sufficient quality to justify paying for it.
If it's in high definition, I'll ponder it.
I'm still amazed that anyone is willing to pay for mp3 files. The sound quality of a CD is only so-so; mp3 files sound worse. I've been known to rip a CD from time to time for convenience, but I can't imagine ever actually paying for mere mp3 quality.
Still, no one ever went broke by underestimating the American public.
Count me out.