When They Say "Portable TV"....

[filkertom]

The new iPod has a larger hard drive, a smaller profile, and a 2-1/2" video screen. You can order episodes of Lost, Desperate Housewives, and other ABC/Disney shows, as well as music videos and short films (such as from Pixar), at iTunes.

Okay, that is cool. I can't afford to get one of the little beasties yet... but I can get all this stuff at iTunes, and that's all I really want.

Now, I realize that, with the $1.99 price point per episode, this rapidly can become quite expensive, both in cash outlay and hard drive storage. DVD sets of a comparable price would have much better visuals. And many people pay for cable TV already.

But. You could get the episodes now. Your own broadband TiVo. Get one or two as a test, see if you want the rest. And, if you've got the iPod, you can carry 'em around with you until a good time to watch.

So, here are the questions: If you could buy individual episodes of TV series -- or subscribe for a season -- would you? If so, which shows? And, how much would you pay?

Let me give a practical example: I'd pay $1.99 to see a a high-quality-video (MP4 or DviX) episode of the new Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica, and, if I liked 'em, I'd subscribe to a season for as much as $30.00 (although I would hope that between cheaper broadband and more plentiful server space, $14.99-$19.99 would be a practical price).

And, if, for instance, The SciFi Channel wanted me to pay $50-100 a year for all their content online, I'd sorely think about it. (It'd be nice to have a free low-fi video option of everything as well, as a teaser.)

Comments

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

Price point comparison: the 15 hour (14 episode) collection of "Firefly" prices between US$32 and US$39 and this includes the extras like commentary, gag reels, making of, yaddayadda.

If the show was going to be broadcast and my only benefit was getting it earlier than airdate, I don't think I would pay any higher than $20-$25 for the season. I like the extras.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Earlier than DVD release, you mean. And that's a way important point: I'd want those suckers available online no later than a day after, and preferably simultaneously with, original broadcast.

Extras: Yep, it's a tough call. That's kinda why I'm putting this out there. How much do the extras mean to you? I love 'em myself, but I find that I don't need them as much for TV shows than I do for movies.

[bald-ruminant.livejournal.com]

I'd pay that for my favorite sports team's game broadcasts. I live halfway across the country from their market so I wouldn't get their games on my regional Fox Sports channel. I don't care about the other 29 NHL teams until the playoffs. I would rather subscribe like that than have to add some sort of cable/satellite service and an extra NHL package.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

In a lot of ways, this leads into something I've been wanting for years, and something some companies are finally beginning to talk about: a la carte video channels. I have a suspicion that lots of customers would be much happier paying their cable company about half the price they pay now, for basic broadcast channels and between 10-15 cable channels of their choice rather than the umpty-gazillion channels they don't watch that they get now. But that's another thread, methinks....

[aiela.livejournal.com]

Oh man, I'd absolutely love that, I've been calling for that for years. I have a huge problem with paying for 200+ channels when I watch, like, five.

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

Mind you, this may be up to ten years out of date ... back when I tried to research this possibility, it turned out that the reason cable companies didn't offer a la carte channels was that there were entire channels of nothing but paid advertising -- the networks paid the cable companies to include them in their line-up.

Whether the situation's changed now, I don't know. All I know is that it was the case in Florida in 1996.

[druidsfire.livejournal.com]

A la carte pricing isn't gonna happen anytime soon, because Big Business doesn't want it. Most cable/satellite channels are owned by big business. A year or so ago, Dish Network and Viacom (the owners of CBS, MTV, VH1, BET, etc.) had a little business disagreement, and for about a week, all those channels were missing from the Dish Network lineup. I don't know which company 'budged' (much like how the whole NHL thing went down last year), but it was sorted out and the channels restored. Disney owns the Disney Channel, ABC, ESPN, and tons of other networks. And let's not forget the prick-waving that was the whole stupidity with Comcast and the Sci-Fi channel in the Chicagoland market. Who lost out? Customers.

So let's say your local cable company (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, Adelphia [until Comcast and Time Warner complete their acquisition & divvying up of Adelphia]) wanted to buy Disney Channel and ABC and ESPN but /not/ ABC Family because they don't like the content, or it doesn't fit their demographi audience. Too bad, so sad. Disney will only sell their toys in box set packages, not a la carte. So cable and satellite has to pony up for a whole slew of channels, some of which may be watched by a very small slice of their paying customers.

From the vendor's side of things, they get ad revenue on all these channels, and their position is that they will lose out on ad revenue on their less-popular networks if they offer them a la carte and thus those less-popular networks will splutter and die. It's easier to divvy up a huger tract of ad revenue if they also buy it in a package, rather than tailor it to the specific network's chosen demographic.

So when the customer asks to pick their channels, the cable/dish operators /don't have the option/ of offering it that way. My cable company can't offer a package between their $10 local-channels and $40 basic-cable package because their contracts with the vendors forbid it. The terms are often specified that 'this channel, that channel, and this other one have to be on your lowest cable package'... and given that out of 50 channels of basic cable, they may be owned by all of 5 to 10 overall parent companies...? Not to mention what a sheer nightmare billing would be. People complain their cable or dish bill is /already/ too confusing.

I think it would take a huge outcry for this entire system to fix itself into true a la carte pricing. And even so, there will be channels that will fade out because of it, because they can't survive without sitting on the tail of their parent company.

I can't see that happening anytime when the vendors can deny service to the operators at the drop of a hat, and the cable/dish operators have to pony up or else. And who gets nailed with the price hikes? The customers.

It's all about money.

[djonn]

The thing is, given the combination of broadband Internet technology and sufficiently advanced video, it isn't going to be long before people start to realize that the cable companies are essentially superfluous. And for that matter, that "channels" as such are essentially superfluous. (Consider the degree to which file-sharing, MP3s, and iPod tech have shifted the music market toward single-song downloads vs. albums. The same principle applies....)

And then you will get people like Joss Whedon and J. Michael Straczynski and Rob Thomas and Jerry Bruckheimer making video series that are essentially direct-to-Web -- probably in some combination of sponsored and subscription-based form. At some point, it's very possible that the Hollywood studio and network system as we know it will fold in on itself and implode, because it mostly represents a centralized production/distribution model that's going to become technologically obsolete.

(I sold a short story a couple of years ago whose setting was based on this having come to pass....)

[drzarron.livejournal.com]

Course the other cool thing is that the new Video iPods will play any MPEG-4 content, so with a little prep work you could record you shows and transfer them to your ViPod for viewing on the go!

Now all this would be great if you travelled a lot or had a long mass trans trip to and from work.

For me, not so much a bonus really. I suppose if I could toss the evening shows onto it and then hook it to a monitor the next day at work, it would useful.

[aiela.livejournal.com]

I can't stand watching tv on my computer monitor, much less on a tiny iPod screen. Especially for stuff that I *can* see on TV with help from my DVR.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Ahhh, but I do all my movie watching on my computer. That's what's got the surround sound. :)

[mouser.livejournal.com]

It's sticky. Thanks to PocketDVDWizard I can put any DVD on my iPaq already, and in a common format (I don't know what iTunes uses).

Two hour movie (The Incredibles currently) on a 256M chip attached to my butt. We have come a long way.

[adamselzer.livejournal.com]

My problem so far, from what I can tell on itunes6, is that the video compatibility is pretty limited. I'd love to be able to carry around videos I've downloaded from elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have avi capability.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

I just got me a zVue, which is essentially the same thing, sans HD, with software for converting videofiles to the right resolution and codec--including DVDs. I stuck a 1GB SD chip in it, and there's room for a few eps of MST3K, or hours and hours of MP3s (archive.org has every Grateful Dead concert I went to!). And it's got a really cool flake-blue and chrome retro look, too. :)

[cktraveler.livejournal.com]

If you could buy individual episodes of TV series -- or subscribe for a season -- would you? If so, which shows? And, how much would you pay?

I wouldn't pay anything to just watch the video unless I could keep it -- but I would be sorely, sorely tempted to shell out $25 to download a complete season's worth of high-quality video files. (Any more than that and I should be getting an actual DVD.)

The possibility of buying individual episodes would also appeal to me, 'cos there are a few times I've known a show to have a bad season with a couple of fantastic episodes in it (season seven of Next Generation, anyone?) I'd expect to pay a little more for that, since after all when you buy the whole season you're getting a quantity discount.

Now that I think of it, I can see a lot of other possibilities for this. Consider the idea of a "Great Moments" video, just a sequence of dramatic clips from a series or even just a single season. You could even take selections from all the fights or battles in a season of something, and string them together as a kind of video wallpaper. For that matter, how about a blooper reel, or a "character portrait" video, or a get-caught-up summary released at the end of each season for a show still in production?

And how about just hour-long studio interviews with writers, producers, cast members, and even crew? Hold the interview on the regular set, get a staff member to ask questions submitted by the fans, and squeeze the taping into your regular production schedule.

Videos like these could formerly only really be sold at conventions, generally eighth-generation tapes for collector prices. But what if you could download perfect copies for five dollars each directly from the production company? That's not just an impulse buy, it's a collectible impulse buy.

What's more ... it's not just limited to sci-fi television. I have to wonder how many people would want to buy reality show episodes at $1.99, availability commencing, say, ten minutes earlier than the broadcast time? Throw in the interview and highlight reels there, too, with hints that both may contain spoilers (even if they don't), and we're talking serious money.

[sylverwolfe.livejournal.com]

ooh. um, House, CSI, and Bones, without question. whole seasons, $30-50, depending on video quality and file size. collections of Buffy and X-Files, probably also $30-50 each season. i might go for individual episodes of Forensic Files, North Mission Road, Investigators, and/or Psychic Detectives, for $2 or so each ep. oh! and Unsolved Mysteries. can we bring that back, please?

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one that thinks $1.99 for one ep is an egregious profiteering ripoff? I figure it ought to be worth Apple's time to support the service if they get a nickel per ep, and it ought to be worth it to the studio if they get a quarter, and the other $1.69 is nothing but gravy for the fat cats, that they expect they can get because the sheeple will pay anything they ask?

Nope... DVR...

[jalapenoman.livejournal.com]

V-iPod is just DRM Video. If I want that, I have a DVR. And it costs less per episode, for the amount I watch. Personally, I am still waiting for the convergence of three things: Phone, PDA and ubiquitous electronic payment. Music player a plus. Most everything else to me is shiny expensive high tec crap.

At the heart of it, I want to carry less stuff around, and have it do more.

[hms42]

I have a solution I am going to be using on the Dr. Who... I found a multiregion DVD player on amazon.com for less than $50 (surprised me too!) and am planning to purchase it and Dr. Who from the UK since they will not release it here anytime soon. A friend of mine recorded the 1st 6 episodes on VHS in Canada... Now to track down the rest of the series on VHS. (The .avi files on the PC just doesn't do it justice.)

Harold

More fan music videos

[palenoue.livejournal.com]

What I'm hoping is that the video iPod will create a huge demand for fan content. Video blogs of conventions where they interview the guests, highlight the activities, etc. But mostly I'm hoping this will get more fans to make music videos. They are short, fun (usually), and would work well in this format.