MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Meanwhile NBC will be fretting and wringing their hands trying to figure out how to make up the money they're going to lose in this Fall season. They've got another think coming if they think the News Corps deal is their salvation.

Weird analysis. If anything, iTunes surprised and showed that people were willing to pay to have advertising free television content.

This is ridiculous: what iTunes (and bittorrernt) has done is to show people that they can watch a 42 minute program in one shot rather than having to sit through 18 minutes of commercials! I, for one, will never go back to watching TV with commercials again. If NBC et al think we'll go back to the dark ages of ad-supported TV, they are the ones who have another thing coming.

"Rather than focusing on selling downloads of their programming, the strategy being pursued by NBC, News Corp.'s Fox, CBS , Disney's ABC and Viacom's MTV and Comedy Central is increasingly emphasizing the sale of advertising to keep their content free."

This is the biggest pile of BS that I have ever heard.

The fact is advertising is down because competition is drying up, and the reason for that is the population is increasing and more direct efforts, like paying supermarkets to gain shelf space (Walmart), is much more effective and pernament.

Put it in front of the customer as the only choice and they are forced to buy.

Content providers have diversed into selling TV shows as a way to offset the monopoloy of cable companies.

This NBC "price hike" was just a cover ploy. Because they know Apple has to charge one price for the same type of content because PRICE SENDS A SIGNAL.

Why is it that at movie theaters all the movies, good. bad and horrible are all priced the same? Why is it that the new haircutter at a barber shop gets the same price as a experienced one?

Because if their price reflected their experience the customers would line up behind the more expererienced haircutter as to avoid a possible bad cut.

Same thing with movies, price sends a signal that the quality is bad. Who wants to see a crappie movie with their new girlfriend?

Apple has to charge one price for each content type as not to cause chaos from: price wars, which will shut out the less wealthy studios; conspiracies to set prices higher and basically kill the iPod/iTV sales; and other manipulative tactics.

All the other contents providers have agreed to the one price, knowing exactly this information. Sure they all can agree AT ONE TIME, to increase the prices.

So why does NBC want to raise prices? Control.

With price as a signal they can manipulate you as the customer to buy cappie movies and reward studios who give them a bigger cut of the pie. They can also punish studios that want too much by lowering their prices on iTMS.

Apple is catering to the richer crowd which can afford to download content to avoid advertising.

The great experiment has been if this method can superceed advertising/free method, but appartantly it hasn't. ABC moved their content to the web paid for by advertising. ABC is owned by Disney which Steve Jobs is the major sharholder.

So NBC is off to do it themselves too, although they would have been better off keeping a foot in iTunes.

I suspect they didn't want to upset the cable companies, so they needed to keep their prices uniform.

So many buisness models, so much competition. No wonder the customer just plops in a chair nightly, turns his mind off and watches the idiot box as it slowly destroys his ability to think.

The old guard network execs are still the butt puppets of major advertisers.

Now what begs the question.

What if Apple allowed a iTunes streaming option to watch free TV content in exchange for advertising?

Sure Apple has to charge for bandwidth, so lets say monthly subscription to offset that?

Of course the cable companies would be livid and demand a cut of that for using their cable lines.

I'm just wondering if Apple blew a big opportunity here.

I don't think it's sorted out either way yet. A very small portion of people buy their tv on iTunes. It's successful, but it's not exactly huge when compared to the established advertising-based model.

If anything, iTunes (and Steve) need to remain flexible and adapt when necessary, be strong and plow others over when necessary, and stay sharp. Easy enough.

MW "serious" as in "I'm super cereal."

Apple hasn't been doing a lot of listening lately.

It seems like Steve is pushing to extract anything and everything he can, like he has a defeatist additude.

Why cheap looking glossy screens? To push people into the more expensive machines?

Why not listen to the needs of the Networks and offer a advertising based option in iTunes? Why make everyone PAY only?

Why not own the online market completely?

Look at Google, immensly rich from advertsiing.

I quit watching television forty years ago because it was crap. Hasn't seemed to have changed much since then, either. Nice to see Apple isn't constipated. heh.

btw, MDN .. we ordered one of those 2.8 GHz iMacs. It'll get here in two or three weeks. We also got a free printer, a free nano, an iWork '08 family pack and a copy of Parallels to go with it.

And no .. I still can't get an account at the iTunes Store with the same credit card that the iMac is on, regardless. Me? I think Apple oughta just tell the whole damn entertainment industry to shove their contracts up their ass and sell all available media to everybody, worldwide. Not that I'd purchase any TV shows, mind you. It would just feel good to see Apple do it. ahahaha.

Don't forget advertising isn't just about products, it's about politics, ideas, you are required to watch advertising so that ideas can be implanted in to your mind. Those 15 - 18 minutes per hour taken up by advertising are useless to you in small chunks but together you can put those minutes together to do something, something else, something useful, when you should be watching the propaganda.

Advertising is clearly a time waster, you only purchase a fraction of the products that you see advertised, most adverts are just taking your time away. The most advertised products are junk, that is how they can afford to spend so much on advertising, the resources don't go in to the product.

There was a time a few decades ago when people were quite contented with their monetary wealth, they opted to work less hard, have fun, seek enlightenment, enjoy music and art, try to make the world a better place by demanding fairer employment terms and fewer wars. Now people work longer hours, unpaid overtime has become the norm, they have less time to make up their own minds and so opt for what is promoted most vehemently. Advertising has played a pivotal role in degrading the life experience for most ordinary people.

Most people have heard of Sigmund Freud and his research in to how the mind works, few people have heard of his nephew, Edward Bernays, who took that knowledge and transformed it in to a tool for mass manipulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

If you're so phuquen smart why aren't you doing something important with your life?

There is a market for ad free TV show sales.

The sale of missed episodes can make or break a new offering on network TV. NBC is just trying to make their upcoming ad infested service more palatable. If it doesn't work on an iPod it won't be successful. NBC will learn the hard way, just like everyone else.

Just another FORBES hack job on Apple, move on.

BTW anyone else buying puts on RIMM &MSFT;?

@No Matte? No Sale!

What a TROLL, I saw the new iMac for the first time just the other day. IT IS GORGEOUS! I want one, and the gloss screen DOES NOT LOOK CHEAP, you frigtard.

Actually, this is what I have been expecting for years.
Cable and FIOS will become another utility, offering the infrastructure.
The content will be on the internet. Streaming.
Eventually, you will watch the shows from the production studio web-pages.
There will be no need for the networks, except the specialty channels.
I think this signals more to the end of over-the-air dominence rather than iTunes.

Gandalf:

Although your commentary was a little muddled - I couldn't agree more with the main point of your post.

Even France, under its new president is trying to reverse the 60 year-long, hard-won principle of more leisure time and less work time. The time to enjoy family, art, music and literature. To relax. Paradoxically, this made the French worker more productive - per man-hour - than a number of its neighbors and much more productive than American workers [and that gap is widening]. The proof seems to be, a happy worker is a productive worker, n'est pas?

Degrading the life experience will kill us all. I'm often reminded of that old advertising campaign from Europe: It basically ran... 'No-one said on their deathbed, "I wish I'd spent more time at the office".'

Pretty stupid analysis. It only looks at the content providers' point of view. Guess what? It's the consumers who ultimately decide. It's been proven that consumers have had enough of advertising and we are willing to pay a small amount of money to watch a TV episode anytime and anywhere we want. Ad-supported streaming? Can we watch a stream when we are not near a broadband connection? If as a tech "journalist," Hau can't get excited at the battle that will determine the outcome of the next way to consume content and as a consumer, Hau will remain passive when being screwed by the content provider, Hau should get out of business of writing for the public.

I want to own my content. I don't want ads. I want to pay to watch when ever I want, where ever I want, and not have to "rent" content from a store. If I want movie rentals, I'll go to Blockbuster or Netflix. I want my content from iTunes.

@No Matte. No Sale

Print advertising, such as magazines or what Google trades in, is totally different from ads in television. Print ads are non-intrusive: they sit there waiting for you to take notice. You can choose to ignore them or read only them if you like. Ads in television and radio are interruption based. They take you out of the story or out of the topic through which you are being entertained. Advertising in free, over the air, TV shows is a necessary evil to foot the bill. But advertising in content that I am taking the time and covering the cost of the hardware/software overhead to search out, download, provide storage for? No way is advertising interruptions acceptable.

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls...

If you're so phuquen smart why aren't you doing something important with your life?

I am.

I saw the new iMac for the first time just the other day. IT IS GORGEOUS! I want one, and the gloss screen DOES NOT LOOK CHEAP...

Good for you. Get one.

Use it in a sunny room with windows all around and call me in a few years when you have rubbed your eyeballs deep in your head from the eyestrain caused by the reflections in the glossy screen.

Then I can have a good laugh at your ignorant ass.

WiFi and Safari enabled iPods will obviate the necessity for iTunes anyway. iPod owners will be able to get their NBC shoes from Hulu.com. Apple doesn't care where people get their content - they get their money from iPod sales, not iTunes. Let someone else host the media; it's one less thing for Apple to worry about.

Sorry for the typo - it's "shows", not "shoes."

Print advertising, such as magazines or what Google trades in, is totally different from ads in television. Print ads are non-intrusive: they sit there waiting for you to take notice. You can choose to ignore them or read only them if you like. Ads in television and radio are interruption based. They take you out of the story or out of the topic through which you are being entertained. Advertising in free, over the air, TV shows is a necessary evil to foot the bill. But advertising in content that I am taking the time and covering the cost of the hardware/software overhead to search out, download, provide storage for? No way is advertising interruptions acceptable.

I see your point, but if the industry is moving back from the experiment in paid downloads to a ad revenue based system, Apple should have provided the option in iTMS as to continue selling iPods/iTVS.

For instance Apple provides free podcasts and internet radio stations on iTunes, there are advertising in these mediums and they do interrupt the listening experience.

Apple already compromised it's high standards by offering Windows losers iTMS and Safari. So what's the diff if they offer a advertising based alternative to the TV shows on iTMS?

The reason ABC and NBC is doing their own site is because Apple doesn't listen to the networks needs for a ad based content delivery system.

Apple could have listened, and owned the space with their hardware devices.

It wouldn't cheapen the experience, it would be the USERS CHOICE to cheapen their experience with ad based content.

Steve Jobs thinks everyone can afford the high prices for all his gear, but the networks have to cater to everyone's economic status.

After all most folks making $10 a hour buys virtually the same products as the guy who makes $50 a hour to a certain extent of course.

I think SJ didn't want TV shows on iTMS to fail and made a bad call.

iPod owners will be able to get their NBC shoes from Hulu.com. Apple doesn't care where people get their content - they get their money from iPod sales, not iTunes. Let someone else host the media; it's one less thing for Apple to worry about.

Uh there is a little DRM problem of course as Apple devices won't use Microsoft based DRM. NBC reportly asked Apple for more stringent DRM along with higher prices for TV shows.

Microsoft's hand is in this for sure. Because they have promised very stringent DRM before. Never delivered of course.

@John - Well said.

I understand that a simple pricing structure is best but the only change I would make to the pricing model is to charge less for "1/2" hour shows. I regularly purchase a "1 hour" show (42 minutes) for the iTunes rate of $2 but I can't bring myself to purchase the 21 minute show for $2.

That means I did not purchase the episodes of 30 Rock from NBC this past year, though I did buy a few Heroes.

Regarding movies: Rent or Purchase @ 720p (for now), please.

@No Matte -
You have a host of horrible conceptual errors about the marketplace in general, and about the current rift between Apple and NBC in specific, not the least of which is:

"Apple has to charge one price for each content type as not to cause chaos from: price wars, which will shut out the less wealthy studios"

Apple is not protecting some fantasy group of impoverished studios - they are protecting iTunes sales, since one-price sales are more attractive to the customer. Apple is a business.

You seem to have constructed a little class struggle scenario here (as I'll bet you do quite a lot), albeit with a third-graders understanding of the marketplace. Truth is, both Apple and NBC have legitimate concerns here - hence the impasse. The only real item of interest here is how much power Apple has here to leverage.

I want to own my music and rent my video. What's an average Joe to do?

Help Mr. Wizard!

@No matte, no sale!

"Use it in a sunny room with windows all around and call me in a few years when you have rubbed your eyeballs deep in your head from the eyestrain caused by the reflections in the glossy screen."

I couldn't put my matte-screen iMac in that situation and use it comfortably either, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Most users I know put their screen so that it's not directly behind a Window. I have a glossy-screen MacBook also, and I've never had any trouble with it.

I couldn't put my matte-screen iMac in that situation and use it comfortably either, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

My matte scren iMac is in exactly that situation and I can use it just fine because the screen doensn't have refelctions.

On the other hand a glossy iMac screen will require me to block out all the windows and live in a darkened depressing room to eliminate the glare.

See the problem now?

Most users I know put their screen so that it's not directly behind a Window. I have a glossy-screen MacBook also, and I've never had any trouble with it.

Well I have used both extensively in all conditions and matte screens offer the most ease of use.

NBC FIRES BACK!!

Since MDN is obviously off for the weekend

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/apple-pull-nbc-shows-itunes/story.aspx?guid={319BB7B3-734C-41D2-BC03-F1B465968708}&dist=MostTopHome

NBC
We never asked to double the wholesale price for our TV shows. In fact, our negotiations were centered on our request for flexibility in wholesale pricing, including the ability to package shows together in ways that could make our content even more attractive for consumers," said Cory Shields, executive vice president of communications for NBC Universal, in a statement.

Flexability in wholesale prices means Apple would have to charge more per show for all shows from all networks in order to create a buffer, keep retail prices the same as not to cause problems from "price as a signal" and "price wars" from rich networks.

So basically Apple would have to charge $4.99 per TV show, regardless of the network, in order to keep prices the same all around.

If Apple allowed variable prices, cheaper shows would send a signal that the show isn't worth buying. That's why movie theater charge the same price for crappie movies as they do blockbusters.

Howver the wholesale prices content makers charge for movies to theaters do perhaps change. A expensive movie would cost more to produce and sell more seats at a theater, so they charge more.

What Apple is doing is not charging a markup on the wholesale price, outside a little for bandwidth and CC, so they can't absorb much change.

The networks realize that people are only buying the few good shows on iTMS, so they want to charge Apple more for those shows. Since Apple doesn't have any flexability with a markup they can't do anything.


"It is clear that Apple's retail pricing strategy for its iTunes service is designed to drive sales of Apple devices, at the expense of those who create the content that make these devices worth buying," Shields added.

So basically they want Apple to stop offering the shows at just above wholesale prices and instead charge retail prices. This is why Apple would have to charge $4.99 per TV show. Basically making iTMS sales dry up quicker than anything.

If Apple swallowed that bait it would have killed them, so they soundly booted NBC.

Well according to my calculations, 30% of 50 million TV shows at 1.99 = about 30 million dollars that NBC has already made from iTMS. With Apple hardly making squat on top of that because iTMS is a loss leader for the iPod/iTV.


NBC Universal also asked Apple to "take concrete steps" to prevent privacy, the spokesman stated, "since it is estimated that the typical iPod contains a significant amount of illegally downloaded material."

So they want Apple to police a users iPod? Get real!!

Another poisoned bait tactic.

What bastards. FSCK NBC.

@ Matte? You certainly do have a passion for Matte screens! & that is good. As for those who would desire or can live with a glossy screen, that is good too! Live & let live.

Your argument about Apple V. NBC specifically Apple not listening to the networks ned for ad based content delivery system. I would think that NBC and the other networks have exactly that and have always had it, only they have channelled this delivery through TV as the predominant system pre-Internet.

Apple has curved a new business media model by creating an alternative platform that we all now know as itunes & ipod in all its iterations. This model has been deemed to be successful without needing advertising money to subsidise it, perhaps because it could be argued that ipod sales negate the need for advertising.

Who would benefit if Apple did indeed decide to host advertising on its media? Apple inc of course & by the same token Apple incs. customer would be the net loser as at least a quarter of the content using up the storage space available would adverts that do not benefit the owner. Would NBC profit from those ads.? I would venture to suppose that ipod with ads would lead to free downloads which would undermine NBC's offerings on DVD & other internet based hardware. So why is NBC asking for a price increase & using ads. as a reason for doing so? Because they are GREEDY BASTARDS who've blinded themselves into thinking the American consumer is ignorant because of how they have been fleeced by the mobile phone operators, of course Apple have now opened the publics eyes to the scam that has been going on.

If you Drink Camel's Milk, it will open your arse to myriad possibilities of farts you can extrude!!

We may be underestimating the need, perhaps the word "desire" would better express my thoughts, of the media to embed social modeling into the products they have to offer.

Talking about Blinded GREEDY BASTARDS, NBC will not see the strike to the back of their heads when Newscorp moves in for the kill with a 10 inch nailed club!

The BBC didn't see it coming either when they owned a satelite channel and merged it with SKY to form BskyB!

This will happen when NBC realise (too late) that the only hardware suitable for delivering content when you have the time to access it is either the ipod video, or the iphone. iphone as the bar since you can watch the content in widescreen and still not miss out on calls, emails & news alerts. When you get home from the train, plane or bus journey, you will have caught up on required veiwing & can therefor spend quality time with your loved ones & still get a good nights sleep knowing that there is nothing for you to catch up with. Not emails, not programmes, not phone calls, not the news, not friends...nothing, just your family & friends.

If it is not on the iphone, it will not be worth it. Is the standard train of thought that will soon become the norm. NBC will not be worth it. NBC will then be ripe to be swallowed by News Corp or M$ or a rival studio! Short sighted blinded by their greed GREEDY BASTARDS!!!

They need Camel's Milk to wash their eyes out externally & internally to blow their arses out!!!

@No Matte

Idiot. You CANNOT use matte screens in direct sunlight. The light causes everything to wash out.

Glossy screens, however, can be used in direct sunglight despite the reflections. The image isn't as bright but glossy screens are still very readable in full sunlight.

If you don't know this, you are obviously making up all the stuff about your iMac being in full sunlight.

Idiot. You CANNOT use matte screens in direct sunlight. The light causes everything to wash out.

Glossy screens, however, can be used in direct sunlight despite the reflections. The image isn't as bright but glossy screens are still very readable in full sunlight.

If you don't know this, you are obviously making up all the stuff about your iMac being in full sunlight.

*sniffs* *smells troll*

*pulls out nuclear weapons and fires*

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061018-8022.html

http://macslash.org/pollBooth.pl?section=&qid=192&aid;=-1

http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=527

*troll disintegrates*

@No Matte,
What are you, twelve? Seriously, your repetitive posts re the effect of pricing signals have to be the most inane thing I've read in years. Do you actually believe that stuff? OK, higher prices are sometimes interpreted by consumers as representing higher quality, but by your extreme logic the most expensive products would always be the best sellers--yeah, right!

Seriously, your repetitive posts re the effect of pricing signals have to be the most inane thing I've read in years. Do you actually believe that stuff? OK, higher prices are sometimes interpreted by consumers as representing higher quality, but by your extreme logic the most expensive products would always be the best sellers--yeah, right!

I did'nt say they would be the best sellers, only that the consumer reflects price to quality. Since a customer can't judge quality of movie by a poster, or even a 10 second clip, they go by price. Movie theaters are forced to price all movies the same or customers will avoid the cheaper priced ones. Same thing with iTMS, Apple has to charge the same price for all TV shows.

The problem is there is little margin for Apple in the present pricing sceme and therefore no flexability in wholesale prices. Apple needs to keep the content prices low as to sell hardware.

The answer is that pricing sends a signal. People have come to believe that “you get what you pay for.” If you lowered the price of a movie, people would immediately infer from the low price that it's a crappy movie and they wouldn't go see it. If you had different prices for movies, the $4 movies would have a lot less customers than they get anyway. The entertainment industry has to maintain a straight face and tell you that Gigli or Battlefield Earth are every bit as valuable as Wedding Crashers or Star Wars or nobody will go see them.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/11/18.html

The problem is there is little margin for Apple in the present pricing sceme and therefore no flexability in wholesale prices. Apple needs to keep the content prices low as to sell hardware.

Anyway this is all moot, NBC full well knows why Apple has to charge one price and a lower one at that.

They are just trying to fsck up Apple because they plan on becoming competitors. Apple refused to let them drag them down beforehand and that's the real story.

I do like the "advertising is brainwashing" post. It's absolutely true that the US Government influences Hollywood and advertisers.

Look at Oprah, no talent what so ever. But they needed a leading black woman role model to reverse the effects of discrimination.

Somebody decided to make her, and make her rich too.

"NBC Universal also asked Apple to "take concrete steps" to prevent privacy, the spokesman stated, "since it is estimated that the typical iPod contains a significant amount of illegally downloaded material."

What concrete steps? Like disabling hardware and software that's CAPABLE of copying the signal when "premium" content is being played? Sounds like they're wanting Apple to adopt their new partner, Microsoft's anti-piracy schemes. I guess NBC believes we're all crooks. I think, "since it is estimated that the typical network executive's bloodstream contains a significant amount of crack cocaine", that random drug testing should be required of all the executives at NBC involved in these negotiations. What?!! Are the NBC folks offended at the idea? Join the club, A$$holes.

iPhone BLOWS UP!!!

Not a trick, from hacking of course.

http://hackint0sh.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4019

@No Matte? No Sale!

Man, your theory has just a few issues. Movies in a cinema are not priced at the same rate because people can't tell the quality of them. If that was the case, then all DVD's and CDs at Target or JB HiFi would be the same price.

Customers pay for the experience of going to the cimena. They choose the movie based on the story outline - provided through trailers and heresay. In addition, they see a poster that interests them, and they want to go see it. In this respect, quality is irrelevant.

If cinemas charged varying rates, based on the wholesale cost to them plus "their interpretation" of quality, customers would quickly get very pissed off. Everyone has a differing opinion on what's a good movie. What you like would probably bore me to death - but that doesn't mean that the movies you like are poor quality, it just means we have differing tastes. Quality in content is subjective and unique to every individual.

If the price is the same for all movies at the cinema, then no one can complain about the quality, hence the pricing structure.

Buying DVDs, CDs or downloading content is a totally different thing. I buy what I want to see, as I know what its going to be like (ie that it will interest me - high quality TO ME), as I've probably already seen it on free-to-air.

Apple should be allowing varying prices for new and old content. In this, Apple is wrong and being down right pig headed. But, having said that, if Apple did have varying prices, they must also impose a price limit for all content. That way the consumers are protected and the content providers are happy.

What ticks me off is that NBC are dumb enough to believe that people will only want to watch free-download content, full of advertising. If that was the case, Target, JB Hifi, and other chain retailers wouldn't have a market for selling TV series collections on pressed media (ie DVDs). They've just set themselves up for a piracy free for all. What a bunch of dumb-asses.

NBC issued a non-denial denial today. Morons. Looks like jacking up the price was not all they wanted to do:

NBC issues non-denial denial.

Great link Tom

“Furthermore, we (NBC) want consumers to know that all our returning series, including new episodes, will be available on iTunes through the remainder of the contract, which expires in early December”

Didn't hear that line.
Haha, Apple pulled the rug out of that plan.

NBC = Nothing But Crap

Apple press release

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/08/31itunes.html

I was surrpised they just didn't cancel NBC completely. Gone *poof*

Why give them another buck?

"Rather than focusing on selling downloads of their programming, the strategy being pursued by NBC, News Corp.'s Fox, CBS , Disney's ABC and Viacom's MTV and Comedy Central is increasingly emphasizing the sale of advertising to keep their content free."

Wow that's a real list of winners. Good thing they're pushing to keep the content free; at least it'll remain worth its price.

BTW, when did advertising become a part of "content"?

As far as original content goes, I'd love to know where NBC gets theirs. We did better skits in grade school...

Gruber has a couple of thoughts on this.

I highly doubt that people buy the video iPods to watch TV shows. At the moment it is a bonus feature. Most people buy iPod videos for the extra storage space for their music.

Video and internet distribution is still evolving. Idiots like NBC and Universal are trying to milk the situation way too early.

MW "old"

Since when does the media want to give there stuff away. What a bunch of FUD!!! Apple does listen and Apple listens to the people that buy there stuff at iTunes. The last thing people want is to pay more for online downloads. Streaming media is not what many want. It's low quality with adds running all over. NO THANKS!
People want to download there music and videos and play it when they want without commercials! Forbes has got there head up there you know what?

Peterson! Take your fecking meds, you fecking sod!!

No Matte, No Sale, NO LIFE!!!

sheesh.

Tell us the one about IBM, Intel, and the Cell processor again, whydoncha? The one where Apple goes tits up?

Great - I really don't want to sit in front of my computer to watch tv - iTunes lets me watch on my TV-iPod-iPhone... NBC are a bunch of idiots

What Apple should do - what they should have done from the beginning - is make AppleTV WITH A DVR. And a DVD player. what better way to put the fear of the Almighty Dollar into these idiots?

Personally, I hope this is a wake up call for Steve Jobs. He really needs to stop pretending that this situation is ever going to get better. He's been pinning a large share of the company's future on remaking the success of the iPod/audio paradigm in video, and it just ain't going to happen the way he's been playing it. The hollywood studios are just too paranoid of Apple's success - and power - at the expense of the record companies. It doesn't matter that he's practically saved the music industry from financial oblivion (or at least delayed it). The CEOs of these video/movie companies would rather have the ship they sail hit the shoals than give up that kind of control to one man/one company - even if it is in their shareholder's best interests.

Jobs has been pussy-footing around this fact for too long. As a studio exec himself, he's been 'self-indentifying' with them way too much. What's good for Apple should be his focus. And what's best for his Apple customers - not for his country-club cohorts - is what's good for his company.

I've said it countless times before here, and I'm going to say it again: The iPod/iTunes system works BECAUSE the system allows you to record and/or rip your own audio and do what you want with it. The record companies don't dare leave iTunes now because they know that people will have absolutely no incentive to buy from them otherwise - the hardware and technology Apple provides makes it easy to make them irrelevant if they try to gouge their customers.

The same thing - and ONLY the same thing - will work with video. Only when companies like NBC/Universal come to fear an AppleTV DVR, with all the software polish that only Apple can bring to bear, as well as a built in DVD player that makes ripping a snap (even if Apple doesn't provide the software for that themselves), will they begin to negotiate with Jobs in good faith. They will do so for the same reason the record companies do now; to do otherwise is to accelerate the coming of the day when they can't make money on selling movies or TV shows any longer.

C'mon Jobs. What more is it gonna take? How much more do you need to see? Leave the DRM shit behind. Don't screw us over like that. Forget about tying your customers to iTunes first & foremost. If you give them the easiest way ever seen, to record their own pre-owned or already freely obtained content, then - just as with audio & the iPod - everything 'video' will fall into place.

All you have to do is JUST DO IT

MDN Magic Word = "had"

As in: "Both Steve Jobs, and the general public have been HAD in thinking there will ever be any satisfying these companies. They are too short sighted for their own good. Better to show them in no uncertain terms how technology has made them, and their business ideas, obsolete. Just like the iPod, and the Mac, and the Apple ][ all did in their own day, so too should AppleTV be unleashed."

I may have gotten a little carried away there ... but you get the idea.