Why doesn't Hulu have season 5? It has 1-4 and the beginning of 6.

this is just not how purchasing TV episodes on itunes or amazon has ever worked.

You're right. No, this is not how it has ever worked....before -- but there's a 1st time for everything.

For example, HD films on iTunes used to consistently cost far $5+ more than the SD versions, and they were at least $14.99 and usually $19.99. That's how iTunes worked -- people who only had iPhones NEVER bought HD versions, and in general HD versions were rarely bought by anyone, even those with iPads.

Before the iPad, the iPhone and iPod video were the only portable devices that could play iTunes movies. The difference between SD and HD didn't matter in quality, since they looked nearly exactly the same. So, no one really bought the overpriced $20 HD anyway -- THIS WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART TO APPLE. These conversions were going to WASTE because no one wanted a data-bloated, expensive, useless copy.

But then, 1) more and more people were using iPads, 2) more people were using Apple TV, Google Chrome, and Roku, and 3) the iPhone 6-plus was just released, which is the first iPhone with true 1080P...which means that there are suddenly all these new viewing devices and methods that show the huge difference between SD and HD.

Suddenly, people wanted HD films and episodes -- which plays right into Apple's hands.

But with the above #1, 2, 3 factors in play in 2015, people who built a library full of SD videos to save $5 each are left with these ugly letter box versions of episodes and movies when they play them on TV. On my iPhone 6-Plus, I can see a slight but noticeable difference between SD and HD, and that's on a phone screen. On an iPad, it has always been an eyesore to watch SD vs. HD.

So, what did Apple do?

They lowered the price of HD by a large margin. You could buy some popular movies that were on sale (like Hunger Games:Catching Fire, Star Trek Into Darkness, Edge of Tomorrow, etc.) for $9.99 -- even cheaper than SD versions back then. Movies not on sale, the SD would be $7.99 and HD $9.99, or maybe $12.99 and $14.99. You can buy the ENTIRE Nolan Batman Trilogy on HD for $14.99 (or $5 per Nolan Batman film (!!!) -- it cost $4.62 to rent a DVD from Blockbuster back in 2004 when I worked there during college). That's just insane, paying less than $5 to own The Dark Knight in HD on iTunes.

Apple WANTS people to buy HD.

1) It makes it worthwhile for the conversions 2) Apple makes more money 3) It makes Apple devices look better, since for years, people with iPads and Roku/Chrome were showing their friends SD versions of iTunes episodes and films, which looked ugly. Now, they can show HD versions, and HD Planet Earth on a big iPad looks amazing MOST IMPORTANTLY 4) It gets people to download HD onto their devices, taking up way more space. This way, down the line, people will tend to buy the biggest-capacity device they can because they're now used to HD. For example, I own Watchmen:Directors Cut, which is only 2.7 GB in SD but 6.2 GB in HD. That's 2.3 times as big -- more than double the size, almost 2.5.

This means that a 128GB iPhone 6-Plus with HD films isn't even like a 64 GB iPhone with SD media -- it's more like a 55 GB phone (2.3 factor).

BOTTOM LINE: Just because things have always been done one way doesn't mean things won't change. Just because Fox did something new doesn't mean they did something wrong.

so it isn't too shocking that people would get upset

Newsflash: People HATE CHANGE.

Just like how there was a time when Hulu -- NOT HULU PLUS -- literally was commercial-free, not a single ad, EVER. Again, I'm not talking about Hulu-Plus. I'm talking about just regular Hulu. It was like pre-ad YouTube, but with licensed, fully-authorized TV shows and ZERO ads. You put on an episode, there was no ad in the beginning, middle, or end!

Then, in an act of madness, Hulu started putting ads in (obviously to make money), and EVERYONE started complaining. People were planning on "boycotting" Hulu. As if people were ENTITLED to a FOR-FREE, AD-FREE instant streaming service of the latest episodes of their hit shows.

That was for free, and people complained. The point is, just because "that's not how it ever worked before," doesn't mean it will always stay that way. Also, people will ALWAYS complain about anything, especially change.

So, for Fox, even though it hasn't been the "system" to show commercials on paid episodes -- they're going to keep doing it so long as it is profitable to them. People will ALWAYS complain anyway about change, and Fox doesn't care. Hulu is a great example of people always complaining when something NEW to the system is implemented -- and that's to a free system.


feel like Fox is trying to be greedy by going against that system

Fox isn't really going against the system. They're just trying out a new thing. It's not really greed, since the ads aren't profit centers; it's not like Fox gets PAID to place their own ads in their own shows. There's nothing greedy about telling viewers that they might enjoy shows on the same channel.

I think we should trust that to Fox, as important as it is to advertise their other shows -- it's 10000x more important to sell home media/episodes.

They don't want to lose $40 sales because of 12-second ads before their episodes.

The fact that this is their THIRD year showing 12-second ads before episodes, and it shows that as much as people bitch, people are still buying them in healthy numbers, and the ads do NOT affect the bottom line enough (and they raise awareness to other shows).

It's a vocal minority, at best, who hate Fox's ads.

it isn't too shocking that people would get upset and feel like Fox is trying to be greedy by going against that system

You're right, not shocking. But 2 things worry and/or bug me about it.

FIRST, I don't think they should be rating the episodes with 1-star, because they can't take those back once they've cooled down. Sure, they can rate any iTunes product, especially one they purchased with whatever rating they'd like -- that's 100% their right. They obviously don't think that the episodes or overall content are one-star -- they're just upset at the *moment* that the episodes come with ads, and not even random product placement like Mountain Dew. If the episodes began with a cheesy over-the-top Mountain Dew ad, I'd be peeved.

REGARDLESS, the ads are FX-based (doesn't take you out of the Archer "feel"), they're maybe 12-15 seconds (and they take literally 2-3 SECONDS to skip), it's only ONE AD and there aren't any placed in the actual episode, and most importantly, eventually you can re-download the episodes WITHOUT ANY FX involvement or ads -- i.e., it's 100% "normal."

Basically, many or most of the 1-star ratings were in the heat of the moment out of a feeling of entitlement AND arguably not indicative of the true quality of the show. Many or most of the 1-star people are simply angry at the moment and want an outlet, and rather than watching the entire season and getting used to literally 10-15 seconds of ONE FX AD -- or about 20% of a minute -- they write the bad review.

SECONDLY, they take the ads off eventually, but you can't take back the ratings. After the season ends, after a few months, you can re-download the eps for a 100% ad-free experience. But the 1-star rating is FOREVER. I've been doing this for 3 years now, and I'm impatient -- but even I see that 10-12 seconds of one AD before a show should be more than bearable. You basically put on the episode, treat it like a pre-episode credit, and then come back to watch the show.

They could be more upfront about what they're doing and what you're getting for your money. The way they're doing it now, it just seems sneaky and evil.

Is it really sneaky and evil?

VHS showed trailers before the movies, DVDs and Blu-Rays showed trailers before the menus all the time -- and they were NEVER ERASED. And they definitely were never "upfront" about the trailers. Were they considered "sneaky" tactics? Hell, a lot of the time, the VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray would advertise Pepsi, Pizza Hut, Toys, and other things totally unrelated to the movie or movies in general.

When you buy apps, many do the same thing by mentioning their related products -- even if their not apps of the same kind.

When you watch a movie in a theater you see previews -- and not even previews of the same genre, or even from the same studio.

When you watch shows On-Demand on your cable box, you see previews/ads for totally different shows -- no different from the way Fox does it.

I just don't see what's so "sneaky" and definitely what's so "evil" about showing another show within their lineup for literally less than 1/4 of a minute before the episode starts. AND YOU CAN FAST FORWARD IT, unlike ON-Demand. That takes literally 2-3 seconds. They NEVER play it DURING the episode, too. Lastly, it's not really an advertisement since FOX doesn't make a single penny off of the "ad." Other media have literally advertised products, movies, apps, and other things that were paid-for.

TL;DR -- It's a 10-14 second mention of a show on the same channel -- it's barely an ad, since it generates no revenue. Sure, change is bad, and while it was jarring to me 3 seasons ago (3rd season now), I got used to it by the 3rd episode. It's not like they showed it during an ad break -- in which case I would definitely get irate. They showed it before and after the episode. If you don't take the 3 seconds to fast forward the ad, you could push play, find a way to get comfortable to watch, and BOOM, the episode has started.

/r/ArcherFX Thread