Apple's iPad Will Force Consumers To Pay For The Same Content Many Times Over

For as long as I can remember, consumers have been saying that with digital content, they want to purchase it one time and then have the ability to watch it on any device they choose. While that desire has yet to come to fruition in the market, the fact that Apple is forcing people to have to buy the same apps over and over again, just because they come out with a new device, really shows the monopoly Apple has with their iTunes platform.

I love MLB.TV, even more than Netflix streaming as I am more interested in baseball than movies. But if wanted to get MLB on the iPad, I will have to pay MLB a third time, for the same piece of content. I bought MLB.TV for the PC, MLB's AtBat app for the iPhone and then would need to buy MLB's app for the iPad. How many times do consumers have to pay for the same piece of content?

While MLB might be just fine with the current model, what If MLB wanted to include the iPhone or iPad apps as part of the MLB.TV package so that the users don't feel like they are being nickeled and dimed. It would be a better user experience and would also give MLB an incentive to up-sell their higher priced MLB.TV package. But with Apple's iTunes ecosystem, currently there is no way to grant subscribers free access to a paid app. Right now, there isn't the ability to give codes to MLB.TV subscribers during the purchase process that would make a paid app part of their subscription.

To me, this lack of flexibility in the iTunes ecosystem makes no sense and is a bad decision on Apple's part. I know someone is going to be quick to say in the comments section that it makes sense because Apple makes a lot of money from it. Or course they do, but that only makes sense to Apple's bottom line, not to consumers. And since iTunes would not exist without content partners, Apple should be working harder to make their content partners look better and provide a better user-experience.

Imagine how much flack MLB will take when some consumers realize they are paying 3x for the same content. They will complain to MLB and MLB will take all the heat when it's not even MLB's fault. Now I don't know that MLB would even consider giving MLB.TV subscribers the other apps for free, but if they did want to, they couldn't because Apple won't allow iTunes to do that. Apple has such a monopoly over content owners with iTunes that neither the consumer nor the content owner has much say in how content is purchased, consumed or played back.

Comments

[dana]

With iTunes music, you can authorize up to 5 devices to have access to the same content once it has been downloaded and paid for. Is this not the same case with app content? I don't have an iPhone (I am blackberry gal) but I do have a mac, and when I got my new computer I just authorized my new computer to my account and was able to re-download all my paid for music for free.

[reyito]

I could not agree more. Apple's done a terrible job of DRM and content portability. In my family we own 1 iPhone, 2 iPods, 2 MacBooks and 1 iMac. Try buying a song on iTunes and getting it to run across that collection. I've approached insanity on more than one occasion... It's my song, it's my gear, you have my Apple ID, just make it f'ing work already!

[diy_investor]

Dan,

From reading this information from the MLB.com, I get the impression that you will not be paying twice. Perhaps, this will be clear when you pay the fee for the 2010 season.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100127&content_id=7983018&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

I am interested in knowing why the MLB.com states the following, in regards to the Flash format. Does this indicate that the Flash format will be available soon for the Apple products?

What will the media player itself look like?
The 2010 MLB.TV media player will deliver a fleet of enhancements in a convenient, cutting-edge Adobe Flash format, offering an unparalleled live viewing experience for every out-of-market regular season game.

[SB]

Doesn't the WSJ app have the ability to charge users different prices depending on whether they are a print subscriber or not. Couldn't MLB/Apple do the same?

[Dan Rayburn]

Hi dly, While it is too early to know how they plan to distribute the iPad app, or what it will cost I'll bet you anything it will not be free. The article on MLB that you link to even says that you'll have to "buy through applications", including the iPad.

As for the mention of Flash, that has to do with the MLB.TV offering for the PC, nothing to do with Apple's devices. As for what the MLB.TV player will look like, I don't know yet, will get a demo of the new player and some of its new features as soon as MLB is ready to show it off.

[Matthew Szymczyk]

Dan,

As one commenter noted, you can authorize up to 5 computers for iTunes. I just bought an iPhone 3GS and am using my old iPhone as an iTouch for games/music/video. I've had no problem transferring the same App onto both devices and imagine it won't be different with the iPad. With that said, I'm no fan of the iPad and think this was the most overhyped tech release in recent memory - more so than maybe even the Segway...

Matt

[Dan Rayburn]

Hi Matt, yes, I know you can do that, but you're talking about the iPhone and iTouch which are really the same device. While you can run traditional iPhone apps completely unmodified on the iPad, the whole reason Apple put out a new iPhone SDK is so that developers can change their apps for the specifics of the iPad.

I think the fact that Apple has rebuilt their apps from the ground up for the iPad really is a good example of what others are going to have to do. Maybe for simple dumb apps it's not required, but for apps like MLB that has all that video and interactivity, it's a new app. Even during Jobs speech, the person from MLB who did the demo said they had to design a new app.

[sb]

From the NYT article on iPad and GPS: "Apple said that iPads will run 'apps already purchased for your iPhone or iPod,' which I take to mean you won’t have to pay for two subscriptions."

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/is-the-ipad-the-finaal-nail-in-the-gps-coffin/

[B Stark]

It is possible for App developers to hand out redemption codes for paid apps. I demo'd several apps from one company that way.

[Dan Rayburn]

@sb: Yes, we know it will run the same apps as those on the iPhone, but to take advantage of the larger screen and other features of the iPad, any app that involves video, like MLBs, are going to be completely re-written. As we have already seen from the MLB demo, the MLB iPad app will be a different download than the iPhone MLB app.

[BFB]

The same can be said about broadband data access in general. I realize that you may get your data on each device from different service providers but why do I have to pay for data access for my Blackberry, my iPhone and my cable modem? I can't realistically surf all 3 at the same time!

[mass]

I think consumers have come to expect too much for too little $. The iPad is a different device than, and is not replacing, the iPhone. Makes sense to me that consumers would need to pay to get the new version of the app.

Just like most software out there - if a major upgrade version release comes out - you pay to get it.

Dan just wants everything on the internet to be free.

[ldj5000]

I don't understand the nature of your complaint. The developers of a particular app can choose whether to charge for it or offer it free and require the user to enter their username and password. MLB can charge you for the normal PC service and offer an app for free that requires you to be an MLB subscriber. They choose to charge for it. Apple is not involved in that decision.

You are also making a complaint based on no information. We do not yet know exactly how they will handle this, my guess is that iphone apps will be portable to the ipad, if you sync both devices with the same computer. So your complaining about something you are guessing is going to happen. Your headline is made up and speculative, and probably wrong.

[Dan Rayburn]

@ldj5000: I am not "speculating". The day the iPad was released, MLB.com had an article on their home page talking about how users will soon be able to pay for access to an iPad app. So we already know MLB will be charging for it and we already know that MLB is writing a dedicated iPad app, which was evident when they were on-stage with Jobs showing it off. So there is no "guessing" on my part about any of this.

[tbd]

I am a big fan of your work, Dan. But I can't help disagree with the thought process behind this particular post. Is MLB going to program an app specifically for the iPad? Of course they are! Most developers will do just that. If nothing else, it is a larger screen so it will entail some different development efforts. Does that mean the "new" app won't be backwards compatible with iPhones and iPod Touches? Maybe it is a free update to an existing app that recognizes the device it is being used on and adjusts accordingly? I get free updates to apps I have already paid for on a regular basis... it is a pretty seamless process. Will MLB charge for access to their content on the iPad? It sure sounds like it, but isn't this an iteration of a content model that could make Apple/MLB money, while delivering something the consumer wants? You've been in pursuit of such a model for years now? As far as consumers paying twice for the same content... I bought the MLB iPhone app last year for $10. I thought I was paying for MLB games on the iPhone, and that's exactly what it was. I really enjoyed it and thought it was a great value. I didn't think that purchase entitled me to watch MLB games on the next technology introduced by Apple. Why on earth would it? If Steve Jobs introduced a new Apple TV set last week, should I be entitled to watch MLB games on it too? Then why should that purchase entitle me to watch games on an iPad? And as far as burdening the consumer with multiple iTunes payments for content on different devices... as long as the consumer is paying for what he/she gets, who cares how they break it out? Paying for something on iTunes is about the easiest thing to do in the world. I'd RATHER they "nickel and dime" me for the content I want, as opposed to simply charging me a lump sum fee for PC/iPhone/iPad access! I don't own an iPad, so why would I want them to lump that cost on top of the $10 fee I paid for iPhone access? Would you prefer Apple behave like a traditional cable company and bundle an expensive package together for content I don't necessarily want, through a device I don't own?

I'm okay with a la carte MLB pricing. I welcome it!

[yvettegr]

The author of this article, Dan Rayburn, should do a little research because he's wrong. Listen Job's keynote address. He was very clear. Downloads and apps run through iTunes. You can authorize multiple systems on iTunes. I have several Macs, a MacBook, iPhone, iTouch. They're all authorized for my iTunes account and everything downloads to all those devices for one price. And the latest iTunes rev makes it even easier to sync across multiple devices.

[Dan Rayburn]

@yvettegr: You have to pay attention to what I wrote.

When you have to buy the same app, for multiple Apple devices, that's has NOTHING to do with authorizing multiple systems for iTunes. You still have the buy the app, in this case MLB, multiple times.