Josh OngAlthough some executives within the two media companies have reservations about the deal, the partnership is ready to be announced Wednesday, according to the The Wall Street Journal. Citing "people familiar with the matter," the Journal noted Tuesday that while some of the management at Fox was uncomfortable with the pricing, which could jeopardize traditional income avenues, they were willing to go along with the "experiment."
ABC is generally assumed to have been the first studio on board, as Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney's largest shareholder and a board member. Disney was also the first content provider to agree to sell its TV shows on iTunes in 2005.
Fox has agreed to offer broadcast shows that it "both produces and airs," such as "Glee," "Bones," and "Lie to Me."
Earlier reports claimed that Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp., was prepared to agree to Apple's pricing in order to help solidify a relationship with Jobs. Since Murdoch is pushing for a dedicated iPad and tablet news division, getting on Jobs' 'good side' with a TV rental agreement could benefit the news side of News Corp.'s business.
Alongside the newly priced TV show rentals, a $99 re-designed Apple TV with a focus on streaming content is expected to be announced Wednesday at Apple's media event, which begins at 10 a.m. Pacific Time, 1 p.m. Eastern.
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
57 Comments
I'll rent one!
ABC/Fox is a good start but they really need to tap into some cable/satellite favorites to make a big splash. Discovery, Viacom, etc. All the NBC stuff -- which might be really difficult if Comcast is pulling the strings. (though the move to buy NBC signals Comcast is being realistic about the future of selling content and not access) This is a bit of a moot point though if they have an SDK for these networks to sell directly to the consumer. Even with Apple taking a modest cut (just like any video provider) they'll have a huge incentive to get on iTV one way or another. That's all that really matters. (we also have apps like ServeToMe that facilitate streaming pirated content to iOS devices as a fallback)
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
so you have to pay $99 for an iTV and then pay for each TV show you want to watch? these aren't even cable shows, these are network television that you get for FREE over the air with BETTER HD QUALITY than streaming OR cable.
if you replace your high end digital cable (let's say $60/month) and completely move to iTV, you'll end up paying the same price and you'll be limited to watching two shows a day. The average American watches something like 4 hours of TV a day.
Can you see how media companies are already ready to shoot themselves in the foot with streaming IPTV? If they don't give us a real deal, people are just going to resort to free online streaming video (piracy).
Network TV shows should be FREE. Cable TV shows should be available for a very small cost. Not 99 cents for every episode you watch.
rent a TV show? for 99 cents? i thought you could buy episodes to watch forever for $1.99. isn't this even more of a rip off?
so you have to pay $99 for an iTV and then pay for each TV show you want to watch? these aren't even cable shows, these are network television that you get for FREE over the air with BETTER HD QUALITY than streaming OR cable.
if you replace your high end digital cable (let's say $60/month) and completely move to iTV, you'll end up paying the same price and you'll be limited to watching two shows a day. The average American watches something like 4 hours of TV a day.
Can you see how media companies are already ready to shoot themselves in the foot with streaming IPTV? If they don't give us a real deal, people are just going to resort to free online streaming video (piracy).
Network TV shows should be FREE. Cable TV shows should be available for a very small cost. Not 99 cents for every episode you watch. With the cost of distribution over the internet being lower than cable or broadcast, it should all be free, with a reduced number of ads.
1) If I want to watch a show once, how am I being ripped off if I?m paying half the price that I?d have to pay today to watch a TV show from iTS once?
2) Do you take your cable box or satellite with you when you leave the house? With iTS can you can take your videos with you.
3) Network shows are not free. You pay for them with your cable and with your time by sitting through commercials.
4) If one isn?t a heavy TV watcher then I?d say that $60/month for a service you aren?t using is a waste of money and a ?ripoff?. Don?t you agree?
5) If one doesn?t have a PVR, if that PVR for some reason doesn?t record a show, or if you are not at your home then catching up on a show you?ve missed by renting it for 99¢ sounds pretty reasonable. Don?t you agree?
6) If you were taking a long flight and wanted some video content for the flight would you pack your PVR and TV, would try to stream it at home and hope if decides to save a local copy in RAM for your flight, or would you rent it from a service that allows you to keep a local copy on your device for a month? The latter sounds the most reasonable to me.
6) I don?t understand this concept of a service should be free or shouldn?t exist at all simply because it doesn?t suit one?s particular needs. I probably won?t be using this TV show rental service much if at all (I don?t use the iTS as it is) but I can certainly find reasons and scenarios why this would appeal to certain consumers.
I wonder if this means the shows on abc.com and fox.com will no longer be free?