Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media The Internet Technology

Wal-Mart Offers Up Downloadable Movies 217

An anonymous reader slipped us the link to a C|Net article on another downloadable movie offering, this time from retail giant Wal-mart. Stinging from their loss to Netflix in the online DVD rental business two years ago, they are coming out swinging with this service. They've made arrangements with all six major Hollywood studios, and (the article theorizes) will likely have highly competitive prices. With Apple's dominance of this particular market, there is still no guarantee whether Wal-mart will have any success with this program. The biggest problem, commentators note, is that there is no guarantee Wal-mart's service will draw customers into their stores: the issue that ultimately caused them to scuttle the DVD rental service. What do you think of a major retailer getting into movie download business? Will the company be able to outmaneuver Apple and Netflix the same way it has done with other retailers in the past?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wal-Mart Offers Up Downloadable Movies

Comments Filter:
  • by kmac06 ( 608921 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @08:16AM (#17902806)
    You are confusing poor service with a poor product. I won't argue that Walmart may have poor service, but that and the fact that the prices are low does not mean that the quality is necessarily poor as well. There is plenty of good quality stuff at Walmart
  • Are you a parrot (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @08:23AM (#17902840) Homepage Journal
    because if you aren't you sure do imitate one.

    I get so tired about hearing how wal-mart supposedly abuses their employees. Look, I know people who work there and they don't have any qualms. Some are students working there (because 24hr operations offer flexibility) and others just because they don't look elsewhere.

    While people love to rant about the items Wal-Mart sells how do these same people explain the grocery sections? Same brands as the big supermarkets at significantly lower prices. Heck I can find similar names in their department side of the operation as I can at the mall and save money.

    Which brings me back to the online experience. Customer service isn't the real issue, its ease of use, selection, and then cost which will make or break their service. Other than end user billing issues the downloading side shouldn't be that big of a problem. I don't think that the majority of users out there have sufficient bandwidth for high quality downloads.

    Why should Wal-Mart get into this? Easy, because it has such a low cost of operation. Pay for bandwidth, the servers, and that is a lot less than a B&M existance. They will still have lots of DVD in their stores but when people finally give up buying DVDs Wal-Mart probably hopes to be established enough to get that business.

    I still don't see why people think Apple's service is that great. iTunes is good, but the series and movies are not the quality I would pay for, especially at the price some of the offerings are. A friend told me that the XBOX service is the best way to go but I doubt I will buy a 360 just for movie downloads.

    So Wal-Mart gives us a new option. The more the merrier. The free market is a much better decider than other approaches. If Wal-Mart succeeds then they will do so because they deserve it. If they fail, that also is their fault as well.
  • Re:Security (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geeber ( 520231 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @08:32AM (#17902888)
    I think the bigger problem is price. At least for myself, I want to treat a download as a rental - get the movie quickly, watch it once and forget about it. However, according to the article, in order to keep the studios happy they have to charge a similar price to what the movie costs in stores (almost $15 for Superman Returns, for example). So you pay way more than a rental, but you don't get the cool packaging and liner notes that you would get if you bought it in a store. What is the advantage here?
  • There are already so many customers going to wal-mart, that even if the service is only used by a small fraction of their customers, it would still be a massive amount of people. That's the magic of wal-mart... super high volume!
  • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @09:01AM (#17903068) Homepage Journal

    I get so tired about hearing how wal-mart supposedly abuses their employees.

    Then we agree, because so do I. Although my solution isn't to ignore it happening and rationalizing that it's okay because people obviously work there, it's for us to try to get them to stop.

    While people love to rant about the items Wal-Mart sells how do these same people explain the grocery sections? Same brands as the big supermarkets at significantly lower prices. Heck I can find similar names in their department side of the operation as I can at the mall and save money.

    The same way I explain their stores. If you don't mind digging through misplaced stuff to find what you're looking for, putting up with aisles that are three feet wide, standing in line for half an hour because there are only two cashiers, and don't have any questions about what you're shopping for because the people that work there ignore you and have no clue what the hell they're selling just so you can save a few cents on your Charmin, then Wal-Mart is a great place to shop.

    I have too many incidents of unhappiness at Wal-Mart to recount them all here. The two that stick out in my mind were when I needed a few simple items one Saturday afternoon before Christmas several years ago. I walked in and saw two--two!--cashiers open, and people lined up too far to see. I would have been in the store at least an hour. I walked out, drove ten miles to the Target down the street, and haven't been to a Wal-Mart since. The other time was when I sprained my ankle and needed an ice pack and Ace bandage. Wal-Mart was the closest store to me (a mile or so away), so I drove down there, hobbled in, and hobbled back to the pharmacy section. A worker there who was stocking shelves literally watched me as I painfully limped up to her and said that my ankle was sprained, and I would appreciate it if she'd help me find the ice packs and Ace bandages. She pointed away and said, "I think it's two aisles over, maybe three," turned her back to me, and went back to putting the stuff on the shelves.

    So yeah, you could say that I seriously doubt Wal-Mart will be able to do anything like run an online movie business competently, and even if the movies are, as I said, dirt cheap, I won't be using it.

    Customer service isn't the real issue, its ease of use, selection, and then cost which will make or break their service.

    Newsflash, ease of use and selection are part of customer service. Cost will be a factor, but I seriously down that the target market (no pun intended) for this service will be looking for movies that cost $2.95 to download instead of $2.99. They'll be looking for the stuff that Wal-Mart truly sucks at, stuff like, as you mentioned, ease of use and selection.

    Why should Wal-Mart get into this? Easy, because it has such a low cost of operation. Pay for bandwidth, the servers, and that is a lot less than a B&M existance.

    Well hell then, let's all get into the movie download business, since it's so cheap! You're forgetting the cost of developing and maintaining the software, marketing, and guaranteeing a certain level of service and uptime. These kinds of things are not cheap. If Wal-Mart takes their typical attitude of trying to do it on the cheap, you'll have software that is excruciatingly painful to use, lots of system down time due to back-end hardware and software issues, non-existent customer service and support for the mass of e-mail complaints that will pour in, and other such problems.

    So Wal-Mart gives us a new option. The more the merrier. The free market is a much better decider than other approaches. If Wal-Mart succeeds then they will do so because they deserve it. If they fail, that also is their fault as well.

    I don't propose anything different. I'm with you on this, let them compete in the ma

  • by Threni ( 635302 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @09:14AM (#17903198)
    Hmm. I was thinking more about downloading a DVD image, burning it and watching it. Like a torrent site, only legal and with a charge (but a charge that reflects the fact that I'm going to have to download and burn it before I can watch it, and therefore cheaper than normal).

  • Wal-Mart you say? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @09:25AM (#17903296)
    So, how did their music download business? Have they made a dent in iTunes yet? Or a scratch, perhaps?
  • by xzvf ( 924443 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @09:32AM (#17903372)
    $19.88 download of Windows only crippled move. Not a deal. No extras, worse quality. Sounds like the Amazon movie thing. They appear to be trying to protect DVD margins when they should be trying to do what Wal Mart does best. Revolutionize the distribution chain to gain advantage. 1. DVD's take up a lot of floor space in stores. $$$ 2. Holding DVD inventory. $$$ 3. Physical Security. $$$ Use online distribution to cut costs, allow real physical copies that can be used in standard DVD players, and create a way people can buy DVD's in store (burning and cover art printing kiosks). Give people more for less, otherwise it will fail.
  • Re:Security (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @09:48AM (#17903552)
    Subscription music service seems to be frowned upon but yet subscription video seems to be the way to go. I pay monthly subscriptions fees to Rhapsody and Yahoo and think it is a great idea, specially with teens that change their music rotation almost daily. I already have just about everything I want in raw digital ripped from my cds but still use the those services on occasion.

    Now that I think about it, I don't think anyone in my family has bought a cd or a download in at least 3 years. Probably the same with people using video subscriptions.
  • by giorgiofr ( 887762 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @09:53AM (#17903604)
    I'd be happy with H.264/AC3 mkvs with a few subs thrown in. I watch movies on my PC anyway. BitTorrent technology would be the obvious choice, if only it were not intrinsically unsuitable for streaming. WRT to the price point, I think I'd pay up to 2$ for a movie, 10$ for an anime series. I realize I'm being cheap but, given decent adoption, distribution costs approach 0 in this scenario. That, and the distributors must understand they are competing with *free*.
    However, such scenario would never see the light of day for the simple reason that dedicated teams would pop out and buy movies and redistribute them for free (or ultra cheap). I can pay 6$ a month for unlimited FTP access to a huge pirate anime repository. I've got the bandwidth, and many series are not being distributed officially and in japanese w/subs anytime soon in Europe. The reason why this happens is that we're talking about un-DRM'ed files here: without serious DRM, the kind of scenario I'm talking about would fail quickly.
  • Re:Security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by saboola ( 655522 ) on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @11:59AM (#17905248)
    The quality difference is so minute between 720p and 1080p that its not worth shelling out an extra $1k for a difference you probably wont see anyways.

    1080p however does matter if you want to use that same TV as a computer monitor. It's generally cheaper than buying a large flatpanel monitor, but of course not as high of a resolution. For me however, 1920x1080 works quite nicely, especially at 42". Also the cost difference during my research has been about 500 dollars, not 1000.
  • Re:Link (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MadAhab ( 40080 ) <slasher@nospam.ahab.com> on Tuesday February 06, 2007 @04:05PM (#17909718) Homepage Journal
    For real - that site renders HORRIBLY. What it looks like is a badly designed CSS-heavy site with the CSS for firefox 100% broken or missing.

    Oddly it renders just fine in Konqueror. And Epiphany looks like Firefox. And Opera looks fine.

    Haven't tried, you know, using it or anything, but for a major company like Wal-Mart to do this bad a job, in this day and age, with a mainstream web browser, is AWFUL. Particularly because you actually have to go to some lengths to make it look this bad - it doesn't happen casually. You have to have made a conscious decision to do multiple different things to make it this bad!

    I walked into the Wal-Mart online video store, and they gave me the finger.

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Working...