Alex Romanelli, Variety writes "Variety has the scoop on Apple and Amazon's forthcoming movie download services. Apple's will launch with only Disney as a partner. Amazon will have most, and possibly all, of the major studios on board. The reason comes down to price, insiders said.
Amazon.com will launch its movie download service later this week, numerous sources confirmed, while Apple will start selling films on Tuesday as part of iTunes."
First of all, the Vareity article (which doesn't necessarily know anything for certain) says:
"The only studio that will definitely [emphasis added] be part of Apple's movie store at launch is Disney.
So that still doesn't preclude other studios being on board at the time of launch [macworld.com]. Even so, it still goes on to say:
"Other studios will likely join iTunes in the next year."
Further:
"The reason Amazon will have content from most major studios, while Apple may have only one, comes down to price, insiders said. Because it also sells DVDs, Amazon has agreed to studio demands that digital wholesale prices not undercut those of DVDs. [emphasis added] As a result, Amazon.com's digital download prices are expected to range from $9.99 to $19.99 -- about the same as those for other online retailers such as CinemaNow, Movielink and AOL.
Initially, Apple was pushing to sell all films for $9.99, just as it sells songs for a flat price of 99 and all TV shows for $1.99. But due to studio pressure, it will launch with two price points: $9.99 for library titles, $14.99 for new pics in the DVD window."
Not only is this the same type of behavior we saw to a certain extent with iTunes in the context of music, and moreso with television programming, I'm quite glad that Apple is pressuring the industry on the price issue, similar to the way they took a significant part in pressuring MPEG LA [com.com] for reasonable licensing terms [com.com], which made the MPEG-4 family of protocols, including H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10, actually usable by normal people for content creation, broadcasting, and playback without the encumbrances of royalties and per-use/per-time fees that would have all but killed MPEG-4 and H.264 on anything but OEM devices and commercial broadcast services.
Then there's the question of usability: the same thing that has made the iTunes universe so attractive to users is still there as it has transitioned to video. It's not just a simple "download a media file and do with it what you will" service (though it can be treated as such; note I'm not talking about this in the context of DRM, I'm speaking in terms of the process via which you download something and play it) - it's a completely integrated system that normal people can actually use that has a pleasant user experience. With things like Front Row [apple.com] now shipping on all of Apple's systems, they've created an end-to-end solution that actually makes viewing, using, or listening to the content a tightly integrated experience that "just works". The turnkey nature of iTunes/iPod/Front Row has been one of the key reasons for its continuing success.
(though it can be treated as such; note I'm not talking about this in the context of DRM, I'm speaking in terms of the process via which you download something and play it)
I haven't looked into these services recently, but it does intrigue me. Will the DRM that holds the files down enable me to put the video file on my 2 TB storage server in the basement and stream it to my media player of choice? Because if not, this is useless to me. With the advent of large hard disk capacity, and now digital distribution, we certainly have the ability. But I don't want to watch movies on my PC, and getting a dedicated Media Center PC is ridiculous. I want to be able to watch it on any of the three TVs in my house. And why would I get a digital download that costs the same as a normal DVD just so I can have the "convenience" of watching a movie on my PC (and little screened iPod Video)?
The cost of fuel notwithstanding, why don't I just buy the physical DVD (or get it shipped to me), and get the video file myself? [google.com] I realize it's a convenience thing, non-tech users can't do it, etc. But really, how hard is it to install some software and follow some short instructions? I'd bet that even non-tech users would be willing to follow the process if they can get additional value out of something they own with relatively minor frustration.
There are rumors that there will be a device introduced alongside this that will allow basically that use, yes. (Basically a small network access point that can be streamed the movie/song from your authorized computer.)
It won't go to any device, but your DVD player can't download movies anyway. It will take a 'compatable' player, and Apple will probably have standard outs for normal TVs on it.
The rumors that I've seen haven't mentioned a price. I'd figure $50 or so more than the 'AirPort Express Base Station with AirTunes' device which gives similar music-only functionality, so that would be $170-$200.
Of course, it could just replace it at the same price.
I haven't looked into these services recently, but it does intrigue me. Will the DRM that holds the files down enable me to put the video file on my 2 TB storage server in the basement and stream it to my media player of choice?
Perhaps.
If your "choice" happens to coincide with QuickTime, iTunes, or an iPod for playback when using the Apple store, or a Windows Media-compatible playback solution if using one of the Windows Media DRM stores.
But you can certainly put the files physically on any type of NAS or SAN or storage server or whatever storage device you see fit.
There are of course various tools for stripping the DRM from iTunes DRM (FairPlay) and Windows Media DRM encumbered files.
The cost of fuel notwithstanding, why don't I just buy the physical DVD (or get it shipped to me), and get the video file myself?
Well, if it's that important to you that it be completely DRM-free in the context of your own entertainment equipment and uses, future applications, etc., then sure - get the DVD and rip the video. The problem is that this is technically "illegal" in certain jurisdictions, and that a great many people will think it's "too complicated". If you're talking about it from a purely technical point of view, someone like yourself probably should just buy and rip the DVD.
I realize it's a convenience thing, non-tech users can't do it, etc.
That's the key: Convenience. Impulse. (Almost-)instant gratification. Total vertical integration. In the context of Apple's iTunes store, it "just works".
You hit the nail on the head.
But really, how hard is it to install some software and follow some short instructions? I'd bet that even non-tech users would be willing to follow the process if they can get additional value out of something they own with relatively minor frustration.
You might think that, but it's simply not true. They're not going to be downloading DVD ripping tools and uploading video files to their 2TB in-house media server and then setting up MythTV on their new Linux media center. They're going to get a Mac mini, hook its DVI connector up to their HDTV, click on the movie poster in iTunes, click "Download" automatically charging their credit card $9.99, and then plop down on their couch and watch it with the nice little remote control. All without having to know how to do anything, and trust me: that's how the majority of people want things.
Thinking about it again, I'd have to agree. I have trouble getting my non technical friends to use CDex to rip music because they are intimidated by the options. They'd much rather just use whatever has the fewest clicks, even if it doesn't produce the best quality.
Can't you help them set up the options? After that's set, there's minimal clicks to getting the rip started anyhow.
It's still pretty hard to beat iTunes's default behavior of "insert disc, iTunes connects automatically to CDDB, automatically rips the files in AAC@128kbps (without any DRM), automatically adds the files to your music library, automatically ejects the CD then plays a warning sound to tell you it's done."
I agree, though I personally took the eighteen seconds it takes to change it to rip to 192k VBR MP3, something that most people won't bother with. Doesn't matter for people who use iTunes/iPod for all of their media needs (by and large, I do as well), but for those of us who like the flexiblity won't want to deal with AAC. This whole simplicity concept is why Apple seems to succeed so easily (discounting the OS market, but they're gaining market share faster than ever last I heard) - the trick to keeping
If you care most about "flexibility" then MP3 is every bit as stupid of an option as AAC.
Neither of the "A"s in "AAC" stand for "Apple." AAC is an industry-standard MPEG audio layer, just like MP3 is, and is every bit as "flexible." It just happens to be one which delivers better sound with fewer bits.
If you are worried about formats becoming obsolete, then there are only two good choices for archiving your music:
1. Uncompressed 2. Lossless compression (such as FLAC or Apple Lossless)
At the moment, Apple is only selling TV shows at 320x240. Great for iPods, but if I'm buying a movie, I demand DVD resolution minimum. Give me 480p, Apple. I imagine this will cause some difficulties- at the moment, iTunes can simply transfer TV shows on to iPods, but if you downloaded a 480p movie, the iPod wouldn't be able to play it- imagine iTunes having to convert multiple 2-hour video files from 480p to 320x240 every time it syncs with the PC...that could take quite a while, especially on older machi
Don't forget sound, too. Can I choose to get surround sound (Dolby Digital/DTS)? Definitely need DVD quality picture AND sound if I'm going to be paying basically the same amount as I would for local retails sales for a DVD.
Well, you're forgetting a couple of things. One, for months, many rumor sites, analysts, and the prevailing best educated guesses have reiterated that there is definitely a "real" video iPod on the way (i.e., with a bigger screen and better video decoding capabilities), and that neither the video iPod nor the iTunes movie store would be launched until both were ready. So there may indeed be a new iPod alongside this announcement anyway. Two, even the current iPod can play up to 480x480 (albeit MPEG-4 Part 2), so this suggests that the decode capability just wasn't powerful enough on the current generation iPods. There's no reason higher resolution content can't be played back on a lower resolution screen: some of the detail will just be lost.
Of course, you are correct about the disparity in general between watching something on a portable device, versus a nice big TV. Hopefully Apple handles this gracefully, because people won't want 320x240 movies (though, even the 320x240 TV shows are not bad on a standard def TV, for most peoples' tastes).
This is going to be the biggest problem with movie downloads. If you can't burn them to DVD and watch them on your home theatre, or at least download a DVD quality movie, then I seriously doubt that people will be willing to pay full price (or even close to it) for the movies. If they made the movies $2, but they were 320x240, and you could only watch them on your computer, then that would be fine. It would be great to check out movies that I wasn't sure if I wanted to buy. Later if I wanted the movie, I would buy a physical copy. However, paying full price for something that takes 5 hours to download, and won't play on my home theatre is just stupid.
Does the name iTunes Music Store still really apply? If they are now selling movies and music, you would think a name change would come about. Just a thought.
DVDs are pretty cheap these days. If this service is not cheaper than a DVD, I wouldn't use it. This is why I think Amazon's service might not be all that popular. Can I burn it to a DVD? No, I'm probably just buying lower quality, DRM files that take forever to download - and its MORE than a DVD. No way.
I'll probably try Apple's service. Wiht their TV shows on iTunes, the problem has been lack of variety. That will apparently continue to be a problem with films on this service.
Actually, I prefer the idea of having a digital copy of movies i own. DVD's get scratched very easily and stop playing properly.. I'm a bit of a backup nut so i wouldn't lose my copy either which makes it all that much more attractive.
If you are a back-up nut then back-up your own DVD's! This is fair use in Canada and perhaps?? in the US. You would likely be able to get better quality too by using a lower compression or none at all. Buying from Amazon or iTunes won't do much if your HD craps out. So what will you do? Back them up to DVD's? Gets rather pointless. It woudl be far better to spend the same amount or a bit more on a rather uncompressed (though still compressed) version of the movie, hard copy, case, extras, and then do th
I've done this with CDs for years, as I imagine many others do. The first thing I do after I get an audio CD is rip it to ~224 Kbit OGG files and place the files on my storage server downstairs. I can play the audio through my computer, my portable player, and any TV which has a media player device like XBMC. Once I upgrade my storage server with more space (and get a better backup policy than I have now), I'll move on to ripping video from all DVDs.
I'm thinking of picking up another original Xbox (or
Steve's on the Disney Board! This isn't a real surprise, give the stories about Hollywood's unhappiness over Apple's insistance on a single price for all movies, according to recent stories all over the Mac press.
Let Disney show 'em it works, then they'll fall all over themselves to join in, just like the music folks did...
Im sure both will be DRM-encumbered, and while the apple one will probably be quicktime-centric in some way I'm sure the amazon offering will be windows bases and require WMP in some form.
No thanks. Until they sell me a non-drm'ed movie download I can watch with xine/mplayer on my Solaris/Sparc desktop, I'll stick to the pirate bay...
Buy a movie download from a DRMed service, then download that same movie from the Pirate Bay. That way you get the enjoyment only Solaris/SPARC can deliver while still rewarding movie studios for putting out a product that you like.
But it's NOT a good product if you still have to download it on the PirateBay after you paid for it. That's the problem: if you have paid for it, they'll continue to give us this crappy format (DRM + bad quality) wihtout caring about our real needs (OTOH they'll blame it on piracy if no one buys it, we're SOL anyway).
Until they sell me a non-drm'ed movie download I can watch with xine/mplayer on my Solaris/Sparc desktop, I'll stick to the pirate bay I'm with you, Matey. Until the swabs make it available to me on those little wheelie discs with the colored cellophane frames and I can project it on to my Mom's laundry hanging in the backyard, I'm going the copyright infringement route as well.
Stupid studios! When will they ever learn they have to cater to ALL our home playback technologies, no matter how eccentric or whi
When anyone uses words like "DRM-encumbered" when describing iTunes, it's proof they've never, ever tried buying anything from iTunes or had any personal experience with its extremely liberal DRM--so liberal you never notice it's there.
I'm sure the artists will just love that you're making such a defiant stand with Pirate Bay by not compensating them. It amuses me that you attempt a moral stance against DRM in one breath, then advocate piracy in the next. Ah, Slashdot.
Full price of DVD, except you don't get the box nor the DVD (and most likely none of the DVD extra features), and you can't even burn the DVD from the DRM-infected file you spent ages to download.
Sure, this is going to be a HUGE hit.
Not.
To be fair, I don't think Apple's pricing is going to work either.
Why couldn't you get the DVD extras? Surely if you're downloading a DVD you can download the extras too.
There's a huge difference between $9.99 (which I think is doable for many customers) and $15.99 (for which I think people will keep going to the DVD store). So if any online movie download store succeeds, it will be Apple's.
However, I can't help but notice that there are a lot of titles at my local DVD store for $6.99 or thereabouts. I don't know if this will be as lucerative a venture as music, especially since you tend to listen to music a lot but only view movies once or twice. Rental may well still be the best movie model for most people.
While I agree with the premise of your post, I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon did offer the DVD extras. Keep in mind that they try to offer value-added services with their "digital lockers" (PDF manuals for hardware purchases, book excerpts, etc).
> Full price of DVD, except you don't get the box nor the DVD (and most likely none of the DVD extra features), > and you can't even burn the DVD from the DRM-infected file you spent ages to download. > Sure, this is going to be a HUGE hit. > Not. Then you are not the target audience. I bet you never order pay-per-view movies on cable either. Well a lot of people do. They want it now, and they don't want to go out to the store to get it. This will be a great hit, because they can download the mo
It's a store of music A store of tunes It's a store of lyrics And a store of videos There's so much that we share On Peer-to-Peer, we swear It's a small store after all
There is just one Apple And one golden iTunes And a smile means Profits for ev'ryone Though the Disney divides And their pockets are wide It's a small store after all
It's a small store after all It's a small store after all It's a small store after all It's a small, small store
For those of us who are parents, the notion of downloading a Disney movie that you couldn't burn to disc is damn near worthless. Why do you think we have DVD players in our minivans?
FTFA: "Because it also sells DVDs, Amazon has agreed to studio demands that digital wholesale prices not undercut those of DVDs. As a result, Amazon.com's digital download prices are expected to range from $9.99 to $19.99..."
"Initially, Apple was pushing to sell all films for $9.99, just as it sells songs for a flat price of 99 and all TV shows for $1.99. But due to studio pressure, it will launch with two price points: $9.99 for library titles, $14.99 for new pics in the DVD window."
Neither of these companies will get my business. Why the hell would I pay retail for a download when I can have it in a day or two on physical media with a case and an insert? $4.99, maybe - after all that would compete with "buying" a new release on DirecTV which I can save on my Tivo. This one I really don't get.
I still don't purchase (complete) CD's online - I'll take the packaging. Individual songs make sense since I might only care for a couple tracks on a disc. I've never had the desire to download specific chapters of a DVD. Music downloads are a whole different thing than video. Oh well, I hope the market takes care of this.
Interesting. Amazon lists over 6,000 DVDs under $7.49 [amazon.com]. Sure, some of them you've never heard of, but will we see Dark City for $5.99? Superman for $6.99? Fargo for $7.99?
Wal-Mart has bins for titles at $5.50 and I've seen sales on titles as low as $3.50.
Although I wouldn't consider a DRM'ed movie on its own, I'd consider a packaged deal where I get the DVD in the mail, but in the mean time can download the DRM protected movie immediately (and obviously I'd be willing to pay slightly more than the typical DVD).
This would benefit Amazon because I'd be willing to pay more to be able to view the movie sooner. This will benefit the studios because in addition to the higher price, I'm less likely to rip the DVD into a DRM free file since I already have a soft copy on my PC. This would benefit me because I'm an American and like instant gratification.
The band Pearl Jam basically did this for live shows on their 2003 tour. You could buy MP3's of the show roughly within 24 hours, and they would mail you an audio CD (acutally most shows were two CD's, some three) of the show in a couple weeks. For fans this was great, and although I don't foresee the movie studio's allowing a non-DRM format for video, I'd still be a heck of a lot more motivated to buy a downloadable movie if I knew I'd be eventually receiving a full DVD copy.
A typical movie, if compressed by half, will fit on a standard 4.5 GB DVD (unit cost $.10 without case). Immediately we see that the cost is greater than purchasing the real thing and the quality is much less, not only in terms of picture quality, but also in terms of packaging etc.
So far, this is not much different from music right? True. However! Many ISP's cap the downloads to 100 GB's/month if not less. Few spots in the US and Canada don't have capped downloads, where the iTunes store will first be releasing the movies. This means, that for those that want to buy a good amount DVD's they will have to pay a premium once they surpass their download limit. My ISP charges $1/GB over my 100 GB limit..or I can opt to get throttled down to dial-up speeds. Convenient...
Regardless, the cost of entry is simply not on par with downloading music wherein one does not have to wait hours for the download (usually) one has near immediate gratification. As well, with the plethora of DAP products, folks don't necessarily require (or rather desire) the jewel case, cover art, liner notes etc. Yet, with DVD's the vast majority WILL be ripping to a DVD and playing in their home unit watching on their TV, not on some tiny screen on a DAP.
With prices in the $10-20 range, only the diehards will go for this, or those with massive uncapped pipes (like sysadmins at a corp or university). Drop the cost to $5 and people will be far more eager to wait for the downloads, take their chances with their ISP quirks because $5 for the new Pirate of the Carribean movie is going to be far cheaper than the 15-20 they'll pay at Best Buy for the first month of its release.
I don't get why people never get this. To manufacture a cd costs very little. I can make cds of me singing and sell them. But my singing is really really bad (It hurts my own ears).
Content is more than the cost of the media. If I make a movie that costs 10 million dollars, and sell it on DVD. How many movies do I have to sell before I make my first dollar. (say I make 10 dollars per dvd sold).
10,000,000$/10$ = 1 million copies. Thats a lot of DVDs.
Everyone who does your thinking thinks of "blockbusters", movies that are so popular the cost per dvd sold is a very very small percentage of the cost of the disk. For less popular movies a good chunk of the cost of the DVD has already been spent on production.
Your right about the elasticity of demand though, cheaper means more buyers.
So far, this is not much different from music right? True.
I disagree... this is alot different than music. One of the big gripes for years before iTunes showed up was "Bands just don't release good albums anymore, I just want tracks 3 and 9 from that album... why should I spend $11.99 for the whole CD?", and iTunes said fine, $1.98 and you can have tracks 3 & 9.
There's no analog to that for movies, and in my opinion that combined with the portability were the killer features that pushed iTunes to success.
Movies, you're going to be adding portability (which no one really seems to be asking for) and convenience of not leaving your chair, and a short download wait... nice features certainly, but I have my doubts that they'll be big enough motives to make this more than a tiny add-on to iTunes/Amazon's bottom lines.
I just want tracks 3 and 9 from that album... why should I spend $11.99 for the whole CD?", and iTunes said fine, $1.98 and you can have tracks 3 & 9.
There's no analog to that for movies,
How about when you just want to watch all the boobie shots in a movie, or all the explosions or karate kicks for the action film fans?
For those that want to buy a good amount DVDs they will have to pay a premium once they surpass their download limit. My ISP charges $1/GB over my 100 GB limit
Even if these stores will go for the rather arbitrary upper limit of 4.5GB per film, you'd still need to buy 22 films in a one month period to reach that 100GB limit. If you have that kind of money to spend, you probably won't even notice your ISP's extra charge.
Why should I pay as much or more than a DVD for a download copy that it riddled with DRM and much lower in quality?
For any download I expect them playable on anything I might use. At the moment I have 3 machines I regularly use. A Windows XP Box, a Mac Mini and a Kubuntu box. I also expect to be able to stream whatever it is from my Kubuntu box as I use that as a file server. Also playing on my pda and laptop and hey even on my real dvd player are also pretty important things.
This stinks of the current trend of charginf ridiculour prices for something just because it is downloadable.
Hey companies downloadable saves you loads of money pass this on to me instead of expecting me to quadruple your profit on things.
I'll stick to DVD thanks, at least the problems with that have been overcome.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 06 2006, @12:01PM (#16053466)
There is absolutely no way that I would pay as much for a digital download of a movie as I would for a DVD. Common sense tells you that the pricing is wrong as there are no box or physical media costs. Nor is there the shipping costs to get the finished product to retailers. Then there is the format. Do I really want to pay full price to watch a movie on a screen the size of an ipod with video. No way! This thing is primed for failure. Consumers can be stupid at times, but they're not this stupid.
The best option for me is the local public library. They offer DVDs for free. Hard to beat free. I can reserve them on-line then walk in and the DVD is tagged with my name on it and setting on a self up by the checkout counter.
This is hardly news. When you're testing something, you have to use whatever's to hand. There are already existing associations between Dinsey, Pixar and Apple, so it was most probably a formality to get the relevant permission to use Disney material for the testing phase. Apple wouldn't dare risk embarrassment by offering movies for download without the blessing of the copyright holders.
By the time the movie store is up and running for real, I would expect at least some of the major studios to be wanting to get on board. The Apple brand is just too strong to ignore.
While we're comparing price points here, let's not forget that a visit to the local movie theatre costs nine bucks. Hordes of people are willing to pay that much to see a film once, on a big screen with their peers. No ownership rights at all; and afterwards they will probably never see the movie again. Plus they have to leave the house, and will probably add a four dollar soda to the bill.
Clearly there is some flexibility in prices, mostly dependent on the interest level that a potential purchaser has. The less interested they are in seeing a movie, the more affordable and convenient you have to make it before they will open their wallets.
The only reason big business is pursuing internet-based distribution AT ALL is because they perceive a demand for the additional measure of convenience that the model could POTENTIALLY deliver, and they expect to derive an acceptable profit from constructing that model.
So the big question is: Is internet-based distribution a new niche of consumers - a third category beyond theatre-goers and DVD renters - who will be convinced to watch a movie via the internet? Or are these people just a subset of that second, established category of DVD renters? In other words, do they need a lower price to bring them on board... or do they just need the same price they're already used to paying for a movie on DVD?
Personally, I think it's a subset of DVD renters. A small subset. People who own computers, and who watch movies primarily on their computers, yet are not particularly concerned with owning a physical copy of their data, and are just a bit too impatient to order a DVD in the mail. That's not a very big demographic, really. Maybe it covers a lot of college students who move too often for a NetFlix account, but at the same time, college students are rampant pirates, to whom most music and movies are contemptuously disposable.
The big advantage of digital distribution is that the costs are so much lower for the studios than manufacturing disks and selling them. What this means is that something like the iTunes Media Store is the perfect place for the studios to sell all that content that is not cost effective to release on DVD. What will be interesting is to see if the policies of "limited run" (like what Disney does with their films) carries over to the digital world or if we finally see an end to those stupid practices.
Remember that Disney isn't just Disney as they pretty much own what AOL doesn't.
Starting out with Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Miramax Films, Hollywood Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, and Walt Disney Feature Animation wouldn't be half bad!
They could have everything from Pulp Fiction, to Cars, to Snow White, to The Sixth Sense, to Starship Troopers and much more.
Misleading headline, and more info (Score:5, Insightful)
"The only studio that will definitely [emphasis added] be part of Apple's movie store at launch is Disney.
So that still doesn't preclude other studios being on board at the time of launch [macworld.com]. Even so, it still goes on to say:
"Other studios will likely join iTunes in the next year."
Further:
"The reason Amazon will have content from most major studios, while Apple may have only one, comes down to price, insiders said. Because it also sells DVDs, Amazon has agreed to studio demands that digital wholesale prices not undercut those of DVDs. [emphasis added] As a result, Amazon.com's digital download prices are expected to range from $9.99 to $19.99 -- about the same as those for other online retailers such as CinemaNow, Movielink and AOL.
Initially, Apple was pushing to sell all films for $9.99, just as it sells songs for a flat price of 99 and all TV shows for $1.99. But due to studio pressure, it will launch with two price points: $9.99 for library titles, $14.99 for new pics in the DVD window."
Not only is this the same type of behavior we saw to a certain extent with iTunes in the context of music, and moreso with television programming, I'm quite glad that Apple is pressuring the industry on the price issue, similar to the way they took a significant part in pressuring MPEG LA [com.com] for reasonable licensing terms [com.com], which made the MPEG-4 family of protocols, including H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10, actually usable by normal people for content creation, broadcasting, and playback without the encumbrances of royalties and per-use/per-time fees that would have all but killed MPEG-4 and H.264 on anything but OEM devices and commercial broadcast services.
Then there's the question of usability: the same thing that has made the iTunes universe so attractive to users is still there as it has transitioned to video. It's not just a simple "download a media file and do with it what you will" service (though it can be treated as such; note I'm not talking about this in the context of DRM, I'm speaking in terms of the process via which you download something and play it) - it's a completely integrated system that normal people can actually use that has a pleasant user experience. With things like Front Row [apple.com] now shipping on all of Apple's systems, they've created an end-to-end solution that actually makes viewing, using, or listening to the content a tightly integrated experience that "just works". The turnkey nature of iTunes/iPod/Front Row has been one of the key reasons for its continuing success.
Re:Misleading headline, and more info (Score:5, Insightful)
(though it can be treated as such; note I'm not talking about this in the context of DRM, I'm speaking in terms of the process via which you download something and play it)
I haven't looked into these services recently, but it does intrigue me. Will the DRM that holds the files down enable me to put the video file on my 2 TB storage server in the basement and stream it to my media player of choice? Because if not, this is useless to me. With the advent of large hard disk capacity, and now digital distribution, we certainly have the ability. But I don't want to watch movies on my PC, and getting a dedicated Media Center PC is ridiculous. I want to be able to watch it on any of the three TVs in my house. And why would I get a digital download that costs the same as a normal DVD just so I can have the "convenience" of watching a movie on my PC (and little screened iPod Video)?
The cost of fuel notwithstanding, why don't I just buy the physical DVD (or get it shipped to me), and get the video file myself? [google.com] I realize it's a convenience thing, non-tech users can't do it, etc. But really, how hard is it to install some software and follow some short instructions? I'd bet that even non-tech users would be willing to follow the process if they can get additional value out of something they own with relatively minor frustration.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It won't go to any device, but your DVD player can't download movies anyway. It will take a 'compatable' player, and Apple will probably have standard outs for normal TVs on it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it could just replace it at the same price.
Re:Misleading headline, and more info (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps.
If your "choice" happens to coincide with QuickTime, iTunes, or an iPod for playback when using the Apple store, or a Windows Media-compatible playback solution if using one of the Windows Media DRM stores.
But you can certainly put the files physically on any type of NAS or SAN or storage server or whatever storage device you see fit.
There are of course various tools for stripping the DRM from iTunes DRM (FairPlay) and Windows Media DRM encumbered files.
The cost of fuel notwithstanding, why don't I just buy the physical DVD (or get it shipped to me), and get the video file myself?
Well, if it's that important to you that it be completely DRM-free in the context of your own entertainment equipment and uses, future applications, etc., then sure - get the DVD and rip the video. The problem is that this is technically "illegal" in certain jurisdictions, and that a great many people will think it's "too complicated". If you're talking about it from a purely technical point of view, someone like yourself probably should just buy and rip the DVD.
I realize it's a convenience thing, non-tech users can't do it, etc.
That's the key: Convenience. Impulse. (Almost-)instant gratification. Total vertical integration. In the context of Apple's iTunes store, it "just works".
You hit the nail on the head.
But really, how hard is it to install some software and follow some short instructions? I'd bet that even non-tech users would be willing to follow the process if they can get additional value out of something they own with relatively minor frustration.
You might think that, but it's simply not true. They're not going to be downloading DVD ripping tools and uploading video files to their 2TB in-house media server and then setting up MythTV on their new Linux media center. They're going to get a Mac mini, hook its DVI connector up to their HDTV, click on the movie poster in iTunes, click "Download" automatically charging their credit card $9.99, and then plop down on their couch and watch it with the nice little remote control. All without having to know how to do anything, and trust me: that's how the majority of people want things.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might think that, but it's simply not true.
Thinking about it again, I'd have to agree. I have trouble getting my non technical friends to use CDex to rip music because they are intimidated by the options. They'd much rather just use whatever has the fewest clicks, even if it doesn't produce the best quality.
Re:Misleading headline, and more info (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither of the "A"s in "AAC" stand for "Apple." AAC is an industry-standard MPEG audio layer, just like MP3 is, and is every bit as "flexible." It just happens to be one which delivers better sound with fewer bits.
If you are worried about formats becoming obsolete, then there are only two good choices for archiving your music:
1. Uncompressed
2. Lossless compression (such as FLAC or Apple Lossless)
My only question is resolution (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine this will cause some difficulties- at the moment, iTunes can simply transfer TV shows on to iPods, but if you downloaded a 480p movie, the iPod wouldn't be able to play it- imagine iTunes having to convert multiple 2-hour video files from 480p to 320x240 every time it syncs with the PC...that could take quite a while, especially on older machi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My only question is resolution (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, you are correct about the disparity in general between watching something on a portable device, versus a nice big TV. Hopefully Apple handles this gracefully, because people won't want 320x240 movies (though, even the 320x240 TV shows are not bad on a standard def TV, for most peoples' tastes).
Parent
Re:Misleading headline, and more info (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
iTunes Music Store name (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:iTunes Music Store name (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:iTunes Music Store name (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Price is important (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll probably try Apple's service. Wiht their TV shows on iTunes, the problem has been lack of variety. That will apparently continue to be a problem with films on this service.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You would likely be able to get better quality too by using a lower compression or none at all. Buying from Amazon or iTunes won't do much if your HD craps out. So what will you do? Back them up to DVD's? Gets rather pointless. It woudl be far better to spend the same amount or a bit more on a rather uncompressed (though still compressed) version of the movie, hard copy, case, extras, and then do th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've done this with CDs for years, as I imagine many others do. The first thing I do after I get an audio CD is rip it to ~224 Kbit OGG files and place the files on my storage server downstairs. I can play the audio through my computer, my portable player, and any TV which has a media player device like XBMC. Once I upgrade my storage server with more space (and get a better backup policy than I have now), I'll move on to ripping video from all DVDs.
I'm thinking of picking up another original Xbox (or
No story here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let Disney show 'em it works, then they'll fall all over themselves to join in, just like the music folks did...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
138 million shares, or 6.3 percent of outstanding stock
Great for "the masses", Funtionally useless for us (Score:3, Interesting)
No thanks. Until they sell me a non-drm'ed movie download I can watch with xine/mplayer on my Solaris/Sparc desktop, I'll stick to the pirate bay...
Re:Great for "the masses", Funtionally useless for (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great for "the masses", Funtionally useless for (Score:2)
I'm with you, Matey. Until the swabs make it available to me on those little wheelie discs with the colored cellophane frames and I can project it on to my Mom's laundry hanging in the backyard, I'm going the copyright infringement route as well.
Stupid studios! When will they ever learn they have to cater to ALL our home playback technologies, no matter how eccentric or whi
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the artists will just love that you're making such a defiant stand with Pirate Bay by not compensating them. It amuses me that you attempt a moral stance against DRM in one breath, then advocate piracy in the next. Ah, Slashdot.
Amazon's store will be DOA (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, this is going to be a HUGE hit.
Not.
To be fair, I don't think Apple's pricing is going to work either.
Re:Amazon's store will be DOA (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a huge difference between $9.99 (which I think is doable for many customers) and $15.99 (for which I think people will keep going to the DVD store). So if any online movie download store succeeds, it will be Apple's.
However, I can't help but notice that there are a lot of titles at my local DVD store for $6.99 or thereabouts. I don't know if this will be as lucerative a venture as music, especially since you tend to listen to music a lot but only view movies once or twice. Rental may well still be the best movie model for most people.
D
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> and you can't even burn the DVD from the DRM-infected file you spent ages to download.
> Sure, this is going to be a HUGE hit.
> Not.
Then you are not the target audience. I bet you never order pay-per-view movies on cable either. Well a lot of people do. They want it now, and they don't want to go out to the store to get it. This will be a great hit, because they can download the mo
So, iTunes to carry Disney only (Score:5, Funny)
A store of tunes
It's a store of lyrics
And a store of videos
There's so much that we share
On Peer-to-Peer, we swear
It's a small store after all
There is just one Apple
And one golden iTunes
And a smile means
Profits for ev'ryone
Though the Disney divides
And their pockets are wide
It's a small store after all
It's a small store after all
It's a small store after all
It's a small store after all
It's a small, small store
Re:So, iTunes to carry Disney only (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
$9.99 and up? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Initially, Apple was pushing to sell all films for $9.99, just as it sells songs for a flat price of 99 and all TV shows for $1.99. But due to studio pressure, it will launch with two price points: $9.99 for library titles, $14.99 for new pics in the DVD window."
Neither of these companies will get my business. Why the hell would I pay retail for a download when I can have it in a day or two on physical media with a case and an insert? $4.99, maybe - after all that would compete with "buying" a new release on DirecTV which I can save on my Tivo. This one I really don't get.
I still don't purchase (complete) CD's online - I'll take the packaging. Individual songs make sense since I might only care for a couple tracks on a disc. I've never had the desire to download specific chapters of a DVD. Music downloads are a whole different thing than video. Oh well, I hope the market takes care of this.
Re:$9.99 and up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wal-Mart has bins for titles at $5.50 and I've seen sales on titles as low as $3.50.
Parent
Here's an Idea for Amazon (Score:5, Interesting)
Movie downloads are horribly overpriced! (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, this is not much different from music right? True. However! Many ISP's cap the downloads to 100 GB's/month if not less. Few spots in the US and Canada don't have capped downloads, where the iTunes store will first be releasing the movies. This means, that for those that want to buy a good amount DVD's they will have to pay a premium once they surpass their download limit. My ISP charges $1/GB over my 100 GB limit..or I can opt to get throttled down to dial-up speeds. Convenient...
Regardless, the cost of entry is simply not on par with downloading music wherein one does not have to wait hours for the download (usually) one has near immediate gratification. As well, with the plethora of DAP products, folks don't necessarily require (or rather desire) the jewel case, cover art, liner notes etc. Yet, with DVD's the vast majority WILL be ripping to a DVD and playing in their home unit watching on their TV, not on some tiny screen on a DAP.
With prices in the $10-20 range, only the diehards will go for this, or those with massive uncapped pipes (like sysadmins at a corp or university). Drop the cost to $5 and people will be far more eager to wait for the downloads, take their chances with their ISP quirks because $5 for the new Pirate of the Carribean movie is going to be far cheaper than the 15-20 they'll pay at Best Buy for the first month of its release.
Content is more than just a bunch of bits (Score:4, Interesting)
Content is more than the cost of the media. If I make a movie that costs 10 million dollars, and sell it on DVD. How many movies do I have to sell before I make my first dollar. (say I make 10 dollars per dvd sold).
10,000,000$
Everyone who does your thinking thinks of "blockbusters", movies that are so popular the cost per dvd sold is a very very small percentage of the cost of the disk. For less popular movies a good chunk of the cost of the DVD has already been spent on production.
Your right about the elasticity of demand though, cheaper means more buyers.
Parent
Re:Movie downloads are horribly overpriced! (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree... this is alot different than music. One of the big gripes for years before iTunes showed up was "Bands just don't release good albums anymore, I just want tracks 3 and 9 from that album... why should I spend $11.99 for the whole CD?", and iTunes said fine, $1.98 and you can have tracks 3 & 9.
There's no analog to that for movies, and in my opinion that combined with the portability were the killer features that pushed iTunes to success.
Movies, you're going to be adding portability (which no one really seems to be asking for) and convenience of not leaving your chair, and a short download wait... nice features certainly, but I have my doubts that they'll be big enough motives to make this more than a tiny add-on to iTunes/Amazon's bottom lines.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about when you just want to watch all the boobie shots in a movie, or all the explosions or karate kicks for the action film fans?
ISP download limits a problem? (Score:3, Informative)
For those that want to buy a good amount DVDs they will have to pay a premium once they surpass their download limit. My ISP charges $1/GB over my 100 GB limit
Even if these stores will go for the rather arbitrary upper limit of 4.5GB per film, you'd still need to buy 22 films in a one month period to reach that 100GB limit. If you have that kind of money to spend, you probably won't even notice your ISP's extra charge.
All completely useless (Score:3, Informative)
Why should I pay as much or more than a DVD for a download copy that it riddled with DRM and much lower in quality?
For any download I expect them playable on anything I might use. At the moment I have 3 machines I regularly use. A Windows XP Box, a Mac Mini and a Kubuntu box. I also expect to be able to stream whatever it is from my Kubuntu box as I use that as a file server. Also playing on my pda and laptop and hey even on my real dvd player are also pretty important things.
This stinks of the current trend of charginf ridiculour prices for something just because it is downloadable.
Hey companies downloadable saves you loads of money pass this on to me instead of expecting me to quadruple your profit on things.
I'll stick to DVD thanks, at least the problems with that have been overcome.
Idiot Movie Studios (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wanna bet? Time and time again people have proved they are more stupid than you think.
You are in denial unfortunatly. Admitting how stupid people can be scares most people so you can be forgiven.
What about the public library (Score:5, Insightful)
LionsGate announced last month (Score:5, Interesting)
Not news (Score:3, Insightful)
By the time the movie store is up and running for real, I would expect at least some of the major studios to be wanting to get on board. The Apple brand is just too strong to ignore.
While we're comparing price points... (Score:3, Insightful)
While we're comparing price points here, let's not forget that a visit to the local movie theatre costs nine bucks. Hordes of people are willing to pay that much to see a film once, on a big screen with their peers. No ownership rights at all; and afterwards they will probably never see the movie again. Plus they have to leave the house, and will probably add a four dollar soda to the bill.
Clearly there is some flexibility in prices, mostly dependent on the interest level that a potential purchaser has. The less interested they are in seeing a movie, the more affordable and convenient you have to make it before they will open their wallets.
The only reason big business is pursuing internet-based distribution AT ALL is because they perceive a demand for the additional measure of convenience that the model could POTENTIALLY deliver, and they expect to derive an acceptable profit from constructing that model.
So the big question is: Is internet-based distribution a new niche of consumers - a third category beyond theatre-goers and DVD renters - who will be convinced to watch a movie via the internet? Or are these people just a subset of that second, established category of DVD renters? In other words, do they need a lower price to bring them on board ... or do they just need the same price they're already used to paying for a movie on DVD?
Personally, I think it's a subset of DVD renters. A small subset. People who own computers, and who watch movies primarily on their computers, yet are not particularly concerned with owning a physical copy of their data, and are just a bit too impatient to order a DVD in the mail. That's not a very big demographic, really. Maybe it covers a lot of college students who move too often for a NetFlix account, but at the same time, college students are rampant pirates, to whom most music and movies are contemptuously disposable.
Where digital distribution can really shine... (Score:3, Informative)
What will be interesting is to see if the policies of "limited run" (like what Disney does with their films) carries over to the digital world or if we finally see an end to those stupid practices.
"Disney" covers a lot of ground (Score:3, Insightful)
Starting out with Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Miramax Films, Hollywood Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, and Walt Disney Feature Animation wouldn't be half bad!
They could have everything from Pulp Fiction, to Cars, to Snow White, to The Sixth Sense, to Starship Troopers and much more.