“YouTube already lets users watch a smattering of TV shows for free, with advertising. Now it envisions something similar to what Apple and Amazon already offer: First-run shows, without commercials, for $1.99 an episode, available the day after they air on broadcast or cable,” Kafka reports. “The biggest stumbling block may be consumers. That’s because Google is talking about streaming the shows, instead of letting consumers download them to their computers, as both Apple and Amazon do.”
MacDailyNews Note: Both Apple and Amazon also already stream content via rentals.
Kafka continues, “Executives at YouTube and TV insist that the disparity is simply a perception problem, and cite studies that show that most people who download TV episodes only watch them once, anyway. But that’s a tough sell.”
Kafka notes, “In addition to its a la carte offering, Apple is [reportedly] trying to create a monthly subscription service.”
Full article here.
So…. let me get this straight….I pay for the show but I can’t download it…. Maybe others would be OK with that but not me. Pass.
@iPhoneEnvy:
I agree. There are some shows that I want to keep…especially some oldies.
Ew! Why does Google keep trying to be a wannabe? All those highly paid brains supplied with free food and luxurious offices seem unable to come with a new path for Google to plough, this leads me and several other people to conclude that in trying to stop M$ from becoming the monster in the room, Google have borrowed the M$ book let alone a page from it in order to try to do so, as a result, Google are buying, copying & annexing other peoples intellectual property (See Newscorp & Roughly Drafted Magazine) in a bid to declare “Mission accomplished!”.
Wake up Google!! you are not winning yourself any kudos or favours from the general public, if anything, you are building yourself up into a nice target for us to take potshots at.
If they “Package-up” some major channels, then sell them much like cable companies or Dish/DirectTV does and let us CHOOSE a monthly subscription rate to pay based on OUR selection of channels we want to watch, streamed at ANYTIME we want to watch it….
Then maybe.
All I can say is whoever figures out the magic formula for TV via the web will win the war… but trying to fight these “little battles” is going to take some time. Testing the water is the tough part especially when TV execs FEAR THE NET! They know soon, that there will be TV’s made with WiFi/Ethernet inputs.
So, what would you do with a billion dollar server farm in the Carolinas. Maybe stream media and cloud computing? Could that be what is holding up the Mac tablet? Read the tea leaves talking heads. Think, think, think.
The Droid followed the iPhone. (But it tanked.) Google is just trying to dig in before Steve Jobs and Apple take another market.
I predict that in the next decade Google will squander all of its wealth trying to make money.
These are the only people I know who panhandles wearing Versaci.
They’ll blow it big time once they begin to monetize <strike>their</strike> other’s IP. All of their products, for the most part, have been freely accessible and what made their iconic brand so powerful. Steve Jobs would agree, you don’t start out giving it away for free and then suddenly kill off your source of strength by charging for it.
Google is becoming desperate to prove it’s possible for public libraries to impose subscription fees.
I would agree. While Google has built its own image and success using great algorithms to build a solid search engine, I have no idea why Google is now emulating Microsoft, trying too hard to be a wannabe.
Julian @ http://no-spamming/
Google needs to slow its roll down. Too many things going on with no direct vision. Following the path to dark side of Microsoft they are walking.
Many tea leaves. But, so little thought. Did Apple not just make the ultra green Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server? And Apple could add a USB TV cable adapter, some software, and awaken the home entertainment hub that Steve spoke about just a few years ago. Every AppleTV, Mac, iPhone, iPod and Mac Tablet in the house would be tied in. But, the Mac mini with Snow Leopard Server has no DVD slot. Ok, it can use every DVD and media source it can reach including that BILLION DOLLAR SERVER FARM YOU ALL CAN’T SEEM TO REMEMBER.
Does any even know when the server farm will be on line?
All Google has ever been is a Me2 Company. Why would selling TV episodes be any different then what Apple is already doing, only with much lower quality and with a lot less value, You know the Google way!.
Google is almost as bad as Microsoft and they both have the same goal at their core, Control of the user by controlling the user’s data..
Open your eyes, Google is Microsoft evil!!
So Google bought YouTube, never made any money from it, and is now building a whole new service with an actual business model behind it.
So they paid 2 billion dollars for the YouTube brand.
Unfortunately the brand they bought “stands for” free content in the public’s mind.
We’ll see if this works any better than Google’s other non-search initiatives.
I had so much hope for Google, but they just don’t seem to understand basic business principles.
I don’t believe Apple streams TV rentals as you imply.
Tricky Eric did not leave the board soon enough.
$1.99 is too expensive for most TV shows. I’d pay like $0.50 at most. But at $1.99 per episode, cable is still the better value unless you watch less than 20 TV shows per month.
@Jersey
So, what would you do with a billion dollar server farm in the Carolinas.
Drop Akamai and Limelight Networks and save a tens-of-millions each year.
Apple has an exclusive data center in California and the data center in NC is five-times the size, coming in at five-hundred thousand square feet!
Whatever their plans, the scale of this project is huge, but necessary, in order to fulfill Apple’s ambitious agenda.
I predict this flagship data center will not only become a model for future data centers, but it could be the first in a chain of peer-to-peer optical networks designed to move large chunks of data at tremendous speeds to any point around the globe.
Apple is building the foundation for what will become the de facto broadcast solution that will turn the film and television industry on its ear.
Theater houses beware!
Instead of bringing people to the movies and gouging them for sugars and grains, Apple will bring the movies to our living rooms.
As for television, and this is where it gets interesting, these data centers will notify producers and advertisers in real-time, the second you change the channel. For a fee, the content providers will be notified which channel you turned to and like massive schools of silver fish, these clicks will be registered and crunched by the data center to reveal our fickle viewing habits.
The ideal subscription model would be that any purchase of a product (digital or disc) would come with the ability to log that purchase to your account, so that you would have unlimited download access to that product in the future.
I buy the disc, and the kid steps on it. But with my subscription, I can download it again the next time I feel like seeing it again.
I download a movie that I dearly love to my hard drive, which is subsequently destroyed when my house burns down. When I get my new computer, I still have access to all my media from the company.
I download a movie and only watch it one time. I don’t like it, and don’t want to ever see it again. And I don’t have to – I haven’t bought the disc, it doesn’t take up space.
That’s really the only subscription model that would interest me.
@Grrrillla
That’s what the cloud computing is all about. Like data bit-lockers that become libraries for out stuff.
@crabapple
Great point – it’s like I’ve been saying – the number #1 fans of Google – are people who want everything for free – how is that a sustainable business model? Android/Chrome copies Apple using web apps and such, so that didn’t take much originality either – especially with Schmidt sitting on the Apple board. Google is an ultra-fantastic one-trick pony, not a showhorse. If they were smart – they’d at least provide businesses with commercial streaming services. A one-click virtual video server, non-branded, with custom interfaces would solve the ‘video problem’ for a lot of companies. No one wants ‘youtube’ embedded on their home page, something more subtle without being costly is required.
Talking of clouds, I would only trust Apples cloud since Google have shown themselves to peddle data for a profit regardless of where it comes from and M$ cannot be relied on to address data security.
When Google bought uTube, their mission statement was that subscribers of uTube videos would be able to earn an income according to the number of views. Can anyone confirm to me that Google have paid them for a uTube submission?
Hulu.com anyone? Apple and Amazon’s “download and own” model is getting it’s A** kicked by Hulu. I for one am happy to watch ads on Hulu in exchange for free content. I’ll sit through a few minutes of chlorox commercials to watch the Daily Show. Hulu > iTunes.
@Crabapple… your latest post shows some reason and I would agree that Apple is to be trusted more than Google and M$. However, your first post complaining about Google seems to be a bit of whining. Come on… since when did selling something that someone else is already selling become a problem? Google didn’t invent the TV/Movie industry, and neither did Apple or M$. But they are all trying to capitalize by coming up with a delivery method that will satisfy Joe Consumer. Are you implying that Apple should have some type of sole right to sell and distribute this media just because they may have the best and most trusted method? That’s almost like saying that JCPenny shouldn’t be able to sell winter coats because Macy’s does it better. If you (and probably me too) decide that we want to buy our content from Apple, that’s great… but if competition from Google drives the price of the content down, or improves the delivery method for me, then I, as part of the general public, say “Kudos to Google!!”… there… I said it.
@maclover, to add to your point, Apple are in the process of redefining video streaming through Canvas HTML5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9134422/HTML_5_Could_it_kill_Flash_and_Silverlight_?taxonomyId=11&intsrc=kc_feat&taxonomyName=development
The adoption of this standard which is now being widely extended, will render Youtube into ancient technology, yet Google has yet to announce that it is in the process of converting youtube in preparation of the new standard or that it is updating youtube to maximise HTML5!
In case you the reader are curious, HTML5 is seeking to create a single standard for all web based applications so that “It just works” No more waiting for clips to download, no more large video filoes to take up storage space, but most importantly, it will be possible for broadcasters to stream live broadcasts such as sports seamlessly on the web.
I ask, “Is this how a high tech company like Google seeks to display its cutting edge technology”?
I watch “Amos and Andy” all the time. They’re really funny. Classic comedy.
@ Macanatic. If I sound to you like I am whining, then so be it. I don’t say that Google should not do what they are doing, I say they should do it of the back of their toil and sweat.
How would you take it if after toiling hard to create a new product, you have create a market for it then watch as someone else gives away free a copies of your product they have manufactured cheaply by copying your product?
My grief with Google goes back to the fact that people in China have been jailed for visiting websites that the Chinese government does not want them to visit. they have been arrested because Google gave the Chinese government the tools to enable them to do so.
they should not, is what I meant to say.