Is Apple’s iTV change you can believe in?
The rumor of a possible replacement to the AppleTV set are running rampant, and everyone has their ideas. Today, Kevin Rose of Digg fame blogged about his theories regarding what we might see as early as September, stating that this is all going to change everything. But is it change that we can believe in?
Rose believes that iTV will be a iOS based system, and will include a marketplace for iPhone and iPad apps for television use, such as video sharing, streaming, and recording, as well as interactive news apps and games. He also believes that “content producers (eg. ABC/NBC/etc.) can directly monetize and distribute their content…” using iAds. “This will eventually destroy the television side of the cable and satellite industry,” he says, “as your only requirement to access these on-demand stations will be an internet connection. Say goodbye to your monthly cable bill.”
Excuse me? Does Rose actually have a television now? I mean, television content producers monetize their content with advertisements RIGHT NOW. And yet, we still pay a monthly bill. I doubt that iAds will suddenly produce a whole lot more in monetization for these huge corporate structures that they will suddenly drop the right to demand a monthly fee in addition to advertisement revenue. It seems pretty fantastical to me, not to mention rather selfish, to say you pay a one-time $99 fee and get all the content you want for the rest of your life (or at least the life of your iTV).
What it will really come down to is that Apple will be faced with providing access to non-professionally made content such as found on YouTube for a one-time fee of $99, or giving into professional content producers that spend millions to make their content and paying regular licensing fees, then passing those fees onto us in the form of a monthly fee. Take a wild guess as to which one you think it might be?
Think of it like this. A television show is like a MMOG. You don’t expect to pick up the game, and never pay a cent for the additional content. Somewhere down the line, if you want more than just what you originally got, you are going to pay for it. You pay for it in the form of a monthly fee to get the whole shebang. Or you get the initial game for free, and then pay extra for the richer content (such as premium content or microtransactions, etc).
The reality is that iTV, even if it is successful, may turn into just another cableTV set-top box. Good quality content costs money. If you want access to it, you’re basically going to have to accept the fact that your going to have to pay for it. Pay for the salaries of the actors, writers, sound editors, producers, and every other person who worked to create that content. The technique in the past has been to pay monthly, though it would be great to see some alternative payment schemes.
But you will pay for the content. After all, it’s only fair. Someone did the work to make it for you. Shouldn’t you pay them for it?
Comments
One Response to “Is Apple’s iTV change you can believe in?”
Loading ...
Omaha–
The reason cable bills are stupid high even WITH advertisements is that the content providers (i.e. Scripps [Food Network, HGTV, etc.] and Disney/ABC/ESPN) want more money per cable user, and threaten to pull their content out if they DON’T get their way, and the costs are inevitably thrust upon us users.
It’s a sad situation, and if Apple does indeed get their way with the iTV in terms of content the way Mr. Rose laid it out, up to and maybe even including pay-per-channel-app pricing of, say, $4.99 or something ridiculously cheap, you pay for the channels you want to watch WITHOUT having to be saddled with a growing monthly cable bill AND you can really enjoy ONLY what you want to watch.
I know there are certain cable channels I would want to throw something at the TV if it was on those particular channels, and if the iTV introduced a la carte channel pricing on this sort of scale, and it only costs $99, I would be able to have my TV on MY terms alone, and NOT the whims and withers and whatnot of the cable and satellite companies’ idiotic programming bureaus.
Also, if Apple were to say, “Hey, we want you to pay 99 cents more in order to view these channels on any device you want, including iPhones and iPads”, I could watch TV on my other devices too, and NOT have to be stuck with whatever is on the public televisions (say, in restaurants, bars, etc.), I could actually HEAR what is going on, AND I don’t have to bother someone else with what I want to watch, and vice versa.
Also, let’s say that there’s this niche channel that has been off the airwaves for God only knows how long. For this example, I will use the now defunct Nickelodeon Games and Sports for Kids. If, say, Apple were to allow the programming gurus they have to program the channel in order to broadcast all those old Nickelodeon game shows, AND you could record the shows you liked (with season passes, et al.), then this could have a gigantic potential.
The potential for these devices are huge, and I am more excited than I ever have been for the future of television.
BJ