“MacRumors sources claim the September 7 date,” Evans reports. “These sources also point out that the date coincides with the end of Apple’s ‘Back to School’ free iPod touch offer.”
Evan reports, “The event is now expected to see Apple introduce a TV show rental service, which seems likely to field some form of cloud-based component, based on previous reports… More affordable TV show rentals is likely Apple’s response to problems encountered by the company when it tried to agree an online TV subscription service. TV content producers were understood to reject these overtures because they felt the service would damage cable and satellite television incomes. TV episodes will reportedly be made available within 24 hours of going on air and will be free of commercials unlike most on-demand services.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Hopefully, I will be able to view the on-demand TV services on any of my iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Macs, or my old AppleTV in my house.
If this means I can dump cable it will be nice. Pay a lot, hardly watch anything.
It’s confirmed, Steve Jobs is smoking WAY TOO much crack.
.99 Cents for TV shows, I guess he never heard of…
HULU???
If the rumors are true, then no they will not reinvent television. 99 cents to rent a show overvalues most television shows by almost a buck. I don’t think most americans would actually watch “Amercia’s got talent” and “Dancing with the stars” if the costs were anything more than 1 hour of time and a few brain cells. Apple could reinvent television if their hands weren’t tied by the content providers. Television studios are impeding progress.
My solution for any problems in renaming it iTV rather than Apple TV: Don’t sell it in Great Britain. There you go, problem solved.
All the world gets the wonderful, new device except those served by ITV tele. If this upsets the British public, tell ITV to stop being silly gits and agree to allow the name use (for a marginal fee, wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
@Tom Riddle:
They always use the excuse of “that is what people want” for bad programs where you –as SJ said– turn off your brain when you turn on your TV.
The same is claimed by tabloids.
But it is also claimed by Microsoft.
Shit happens, sometimes®
“(for a marginal fee, wink, wink, nudge, nudge).”
Say no more.
Good thing is that this means poor shows won’t get anything for their efforts. It may bring standards UP!
ITV in the UK is in big shit. They will make a noise but they have huge problems to solve before worrying about the positive association of Apple using the name.
If one were to pay to watch one show per day = $30 or so per month! If that’s what they mean by 99 cents per show. NO WAY! There a few show I would pay for, but right now, I am cable/dish free, just using antenna and getting all the TV I want, about 8 channels all digital of course. I did have to buy the $50 digital box since my TVs don’t have digital built in…
I don’t agree that the shows with the biggest audience are the best shows. Many shows with small audience are educational or specialized. If there was a new business model that allowed them to survive and to flourish, then I’m all for it!
The goal at the end of this evolving road is affordable à la carte TV over the Internet, that elusive and ideal service no cable or satellite provider is willing to offer. If it works and is worth the money, it could gut the cable and satellite industries and usher in a new era of user-friendly media consumption.
Go for it Apple!
Just record shows over the air then play them back…
If you only watched a handful of television shows per week and live sports/news were not a big deal to you, this could replace your cable/satellite bill and probably save you quite a bit.
I don’t think this is the case for the majority of people I know, though, and it’s not good enough for me.
$.99 isn’t too much to ask if you scrap your other television providers. It’s way too damn much if you don’t.
@Jim
Last I checked Hulu went from all free to $10 pee month same as Netflix and you still have limited content.
If cable companies can’t make their revenue on inflated subscription prices then how will these Internet video servers do it without stealing. Hulu is at least owned by a network consortium. I don’t care if it us HD video, crap is crap 49 cents per episode is my final offer, otherwise pound sand.
99 cents to remove commercials and thereby reduce watching time by over 40 percent? Might be worth it.
http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/primetime-tv-hour-includes-41-commercials-9434/
Some personal brainstorm thoughts:
1) The name ‘iTV’ is not going to fly for all the reasons given. I suspect some other name will result such as iMedia. The term ‘TV’ or ‘television’ is becoming anachronistic in any case.
2) There is nothing special about putting media out on the Internet. Crap is crap is the ‘lowest common denominator’ is forever. We know that crap sells. Need I provide an example? Oh OK: FuxNews. Crap. It sells. I won’t be watching. Sheeple will.
3) Considering this shift away from conventional media streams, those being radio and television, you can bet that the US FCC will jump in to help regulate it, keeping it from becoming merely another Corporate Oligarchy puppet show. This bodes well for the maintenance of Net Neutrality. Hurray!
4) As with eBooks, eZines and eNewspapers, the iMedia over the Internet is going to have a price warz transition as it determines what the public is willing to pay. With time prices will drop to something lower than what we are used to with conventional old world non-net, non-digital, non-‘à la carte’ media.
5) The RIAA and MPAA will be having conniption fits as their stranglehold on audio and visual media dissipates and independent media accelerates its ascendence.
6) The cultural fixture of ‘taping’/’VCR-ing’/’TIVO-ing’ iMedia over the Internet will continue as usual, despite further DRM (Digital Rights Manglement) warz. The customer rulz, not the corporation.
: – Derek
ITV have to defend their trademark if that’s the name Apple choose. It’s that or they pretty much lose any legal exclusivity to it.
As for not selling the device itself in the UK, ITV programmes have been purchased and transmitted by TV networks all over the world. So the ITV brandname has been used in all the major TV markets, including the USA.
Now ITV plc may be struggling, but a £3bn company isn’t going to just roll over and play dead even when a £180bn company comes along and stomps on their turf. The ITV board still have a duty to their shareholders just as with every publicly traded corporation. If Apple use that name they have to expect a fight.
don’t say ‘reinvention’ word. phone was enough. actually, TV can’t be doing something special by Apple anymore. again, it’s because of Apple, it doesn’t mean that Apple can create new anything they want. in TV, there were already a lot of things invented by broadcast companies. I am sick and tired of hearing ‘reinvention’ actually from Apple.
Download for 99 cents to rent TV shows next day with NO COMMERCIALS or watch later for free on HULU WITH COMMERCIALS & slow streaming interruptions?
Apple TV is GREAT today & will continue to get better in the future as long as Apple can win the battles with networks.
Can’t believe anyone hasn’t brought this up yet: $.99 to watch commercial free…OR…watch for free with iAds.
@little man
Good suggestion. If they allow an option to watch free with iAds, then you’ve got a serious competitor for Hulu. And certainly they can make up the .99 difference with iAds, right?
Apple should totally jump on this.