eHomeUpgrade on FacebookeHomeUpgrade on FriendFeedeHomeUpgrade on TwittereHomeUpgrade on YouTubeSubscribe via E-mailSubscribe via RSS

Premium Distributed Content from Apple?


apple itunes 6 videoI’ve been thinking about the iPod 5G and the video capability in iTunes and the ITMS and considering the success announced this week believe that it’s quite possible for things to accelerate much more rapidly towards a new network model.

If you think about the manner in which you subscribe to a podcast and apply that to a TV show, you can probably agree that it’s easy to see offering beyond the single pricing for programs. If you add in the rest of the networks and possibly some cable access (Comedy Central) – even consider shows from premium networks like HBO and you can see a pretty intense disruption to how we collectively understand how TV works.

The current iPod supports a doubling of the current 320×240 resolution, which is great, but not ideal yet for true home watching. It’s even better for portable viewing, but that’s about it for now. Perhaps what’s missing is some additional networking capabilities within iTunes, like BitTorrent. As you enable a richer level of subscription content, it’s quite likely that the economics of delivering the materials could change considerably. Let’s not forget that there’s more than just licensing to deal with here and in fact the bandwidth required to deliver high resolution content on a mass level could be quite considerable. Assume Apple can nail this piece — if not BitTorrent for political sensitivities, than perhaps Kontiki or some other more acceptable private version of P2P. I don’t want to understate the shift this would create with how iTunes works, but it could be a very good thing to consider.

If Apple cut deals with quite a few networks for content – even movies, you would not need a cable or satellite box to bring you programming you like. I’m hopeful that when the day comes, we’ll see something similar to how HBO on-demand works which is that if you choose to watch on the day, you can, but if you want the on-demand option (not recorded from DVR) you have to wait 24 hours. This is quite reasonable to me and matches how ABC is offering their shows to Apple now.

You would still probably keep traditional viewing going for “appointment TV.” Things like sports, and special live events are prime candidates, though streaming is an option as well especially as our network access speeds increase. If you still retain the basic options through your cable or satellite provider, you’ll need to pay more just for the right to have that option, unless you switch over to antenna viewing.

At $1.99 per video how much would your subscription run with Apple? Well, if I look at my own viewing habits, I watch (or try) to watch about 7-10 shows a week. It’s pretty hard currently to keep up with my DVR actually and I usually watch a few in succession on Friday or Saturday night. We record a few more shows for my wife and daughter so if I add it all up we probably consume closer to about 15 shows a week. That’s about 30 bucks a week to Apple if we could subscribe on a per show basis and 120 bucks a month which is WAY more than I currently pay for cable and for considerably fewer channels. Let’s not forgot as well that this is the current pricing for low res material and that the cost for high res (not even high def) would be more.

Clearly there are some economic issues that quickly add up with per show pricing. Admittedly, I don’t have the solution here.

I do however see a future through iTunes with Front Row and what else might be planned here. Any subscribed video would be available through Front Row and as we already know this runs on machines beyond the current iMac so a small form factor box like our friend the Mac Mini makes an excellent future candidate for the living room. I’m sure though this type of machine gets even more capable when the switch to Intel takes place. Intel already has reference platforms of this size and has shown their Viiv technology running on them. Imagine the enhanced capabilities with a more powerful processor, digital audio and surround capabilities. Enhanced transcoding capabilities [PDF file] will make transfer to portable devices like the iPod or multi-room viewing very attractive and allow for higher resolution content to delivered to a larger screen (whether TV or computer).

As we step beyond single show downloads towards subscription models through syndication and P2P, TV and of course the Long Tail content we already download becomes an extremely viable source of programming through non-traditional sources. On-demand services are just beginning to deliver and will hopefully continue to grow rapidly to meet the pent up demand.

Update: I was just checking in with Memorandum and see that News.com has a piece on this worth a read.

Comments | Post via Twitter / Facebook ID or Register

Short URL: http://bit.ly/9yb951 [+]  Filed in: Content Providers  
____________
Jonathan Greene is a Contributing Writer on eHomeUpgrade and is the Publisher of Atmaspheric Endeavors and Featured Maemo Apps.
[Subscribe via RSS 2.0 | Follow us on Twitter]

  • What is needed for Apple, or anyone for that matter, to become the new content distribution king is to get enough high def content available in one place and to have it instantly available. In order to do this at scale they would need a huge amount of momentum. Only then will people cancel their cable and satellite service and move to this new distribution model.




    There are several reasons that this is unlikely.





    1. Bandwidth is too expensive to stream people's television to them in high def at present (this perhaps will change in the future). Jonathan brings up Bittorrent and other distribution methods to consider, but I doubt you'd ever see them as central to the possibility of a service like this would be lock solid control over the files.





    2. This idea represents too threatening of a concept to the cable and satellite companies and they do have both clout with the content producers as well as political influence.





    3. It would be difficult to stream live television -- like sports -- and this would necessitate keeping some form of satellite or cable service which would add to the cost of a download only solution.





    4. At $1.99 per download, most people would probably pay more under this model than the current all you can eat model. You'd need to get the per show charge cheaper and then there would be fighting between Apple and the content providers over what the right price was and who got to keep what.





    5. You'd need a computer (or at least an extender unit) in every living room and this is going to take a long time.





    6. The owners of the content want more control over the content, not less. They already hate the PVR, they will fight something like this even more. They will especially fight high res downloads as it will interfere with their far more profitable DVD business.





    7. If ever confronted with a serious challenge, the cable and satellite providers would drop their prices to save market share and the ensuing price war would make the whole business unattractive.





    8. Bittorrent and other pirated TV files will eat into any download model business.





    Unlike their more succesful music downloads, Apple's video downloads will remain a niche offering for a select few shows and I predict in the end will not be very successful. People will tire of watching television in low res on tiny little screens. There will be an audience of loyal Apple fans who use the service and probably kids in particular will gravitate towards the music videos. But this will not be the thing that turns television distribution on it's head. As much as I wish it could be.





    This being said, I do think that internet television will be a super fun place full of all kinds of long tail niche content. Again, I don't think Apple will be the company to aggregate this content, but I do think that little companies will emerge here and there and have a lot of fun things to download and hopefully over time in higher and higher resolution. This is a long way away though from the vision of everything online all the time. Unfortunately I think I'll still be paying Comcast or DirecTV for a long, long time.
blog comments powered by Disqus