El Stevo needs to let illegal downloading of movies and shrinking theater attendance eat away at the studio's profits for another year before rolling out iTunes movies. That'll learn 'em!
Besides, $9.99 for a DOWNLOAD? Forget that. DVDs are still cheaper to buy and to store than a backed-up version off of iTunes (if that will even be allowed is anyone's guess)... Count me unconvinced. \
I could cope with 'Sell to Own' over 'Rental/Subscription if they weren't charging crazy prices! $4.99 (or even $5.99) as mentioned earlier is a more appropriate price. But it still depends on Quality/Features.
I'd rent for $1.99... maybe. But I get a whole lot of rentals off of Netflix right now, so I wouldn't be their customer.
Steve should wash the whole thing out of his hair and move on... to the iPhone.
I hope we'll see rental rather than purchase to own when it comes to feature films. Unlike with music, renting movies is a great business. I just want to rent a movie for a week or so for say $1-4, see it and then trash it. That would really compete with illegal torrent activity.
I'm a little surprised that Apple has been so adamant about a $9.99 per movie model. A monthly access charge is a potential jackpot recurring revenue model for Apple, and the bandwidth can be notched the same way Netflix does it: charge for a certain number of concurrent movies.
Netflix seems like a good price model. Apple customers would be able to to "return" movies and get another one faster because they're not waiting on the mail, but Apple's overhead would be lower than Nexflix because of cheaper distribution.
(For that matter, Apple could BUY Netflix for $1.5B to $2B and get an asset with great brand equity and a devoted, cinefile customer base.)
The other model is PPV: $4 for 24 hours.
Either way, the rental model makes a lot more sense for consumers than the single-purchase model.
I'm skeptical about the long-term viability of ~2-hour content on a video iPod. I think that shorter programs like sit-coms and up to 1-hour programs work pretty well for that format. Anything longer than an hour -- like the 2-hour Dave Chappelle Inside the Actors' Studio that I'm STILL working on watching -- becomes too much. Who really has the time to sit down for two hours while they're out and about to watch a movie? Yeah, it might work on flights, but the average commuter, lunch breaker, or on-the-go person will have issues with it. I can watch a half-hour show on my iPod over lunch, and maybe even a 1-hour show (depending on where I eat). There's no way I'd want to watch a movie, though. It's annoying enough having to split up that Actors Studio.
If the iTunes movie store is not happening before next year, do you think this will also delay the 'video' iPod? Jobs had mentioned that it doesn't make sense to him to release a video iPod without movie content on the iTunes store.
so what's the drm on those things, i can dowload, and burn my copy to keep, or do i have to play it on my 14" screen? it's got to make sense to the consumer in the way consumers are used to their dvd's. are they offering first run in the theaters now option, it might pay for a family of four even at 20$ i'd save 20 on popcorn and drinks and therefore get more to "see" the movie. hmmmmm the theater houses will get mad. but the studios want the bucks before they can get pirated.
I think the idea is that we all buy cute Mac Minis & plug 'em into those lovely LCD TVs (or even buy VGA/s-video adaptors for out existing kit). Works really well, definitely the way forward if only iTMS provided content in HiDef. I'd pre-order a Mac Mini BD for $999 today.
If the iTunes movie store is not happening before next year, do you think this will also delay the 'video' iPod? Jobs had mentioned that it doesn't make sense to him to release a video iPod without movie content on the iTunes store.
What do you think?
i think that's correct. the true video iPod should only hit the stores when either:
a) apple has an itunes movie store (ridiculous name btw) all set up
b) apple ships an application that makes ripping commercial dvds in iPod format as easy as itunes rips cds in mp3/aac/whatever
apple ships an application that makes ripping commercial dvds in iPod format as easy as itunes rips cds in mp3/aac/whatever
When I first read that, I thought "yeah right," but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. The key is that iTunes (or some other app) could put fairplay-like DRM on the DVD content to make sure you couldn't copy it over to someone else's iPod or computer. Basically you could replace DVD copy-protection with Apple's copy protection.
When I first read that, I thought "yeah right," but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. The key is that iTunes (or some other app) could put fairplay-like DRM on the DVD content to make sure you couldn't copy it over to someone else's iPod or computer. Basically you could replace DVD copy-protection with Apple's copy protection.
They would have to have DRM agreements with all the studios before they could legally do that. Some may not want their content ripped and Apple's DRM placed on it.
I agree - flex prices may be in order, given that movies cost more than CD's (on average), but everyone knows those oldies aren't worth that much. I'll bet Steve will bend on this one.
The thing is that movie pricing changes a lot more often than CDs. A first release might be $20-$30, less than a year later, $15-$20, wait another year $10-15 and eventually they get to the $5-$10 bracket. With CDs, they are sold for maybe $15 and that's pretty much it except for the occasional sale.
I'm not interested in an iTunes movie though. I won't watch on a tiny screen for that long. I don't know if they plan to improve the quality, but I'm not paying for VCD resolution video for watching on my TV or my notebook.
Do you think that one has to exclude the other? I think rental and purchases can easily coexist. There are a lot of people that only do one or the other, and there are a lot that do both, depending on the title in question. There are a lot of movies that I want to see and won't pay $10 for the priviledge for many of them, but will pay $2 for an old movie, maybe $4 for a newer one, if the quality and bonus items are equivalent to the DVD version.
It is valid to say that a rental is less profitable than a sale, because for both, the download size is likely the same unless you have value added stuff in the for-sale version only, but I think it would be foolhardy to not offer a rental or time- or play-limited version.
No way Apple will introduce "dvd like" quality videos to download...
The standard ( yes, there is already an unofficial standard) they will use is the average P2P download quality.. if the illegal downloaders find this resolution/quality OK, then it will be OK for the market Apple targets.
If you want HD dvd quality, then get the actual DVD.. just like with Mp3 and CD's...
They would have to have DRM agreements with all the studios before they could legally do that. Some may not want their content ripped and Apple's DRM placed on it.
In reality, Apple doesn't need to copy-protect or DRM the DVD discs/DVD content that will be ripped by this purported piece of software.
All they have to do is add a sticker on the video iPod plastic wrapping that says "Do not steal movies. Ne volez pas les films. No robar peliculas." etc.
Who's gonna pay 20 bucks to download a movie from iTunes, when you can spend just as much and get a DVD with features, AND the ability to rip it with HandBrake and get much higher quality?
Maybe I'm the dissenter, but I'd buy a current run movie for $9.99, especially for a movie that I'd like to see but am not that enthused about going to the theater for. A movie ticket near where I live costs $9.50 and you have to put up with 20 minutes of ads and previews. If you try to miss the 20 minutes of crap by getting to the theater right before the movie starts, inevitably the theater is packed and you have to sit in the front row. I'd gladly trade that in for a $9.99 download.
However, I would add that by the time the DVD of said movie is released, I certainly wouldn't pay $9.99. I would just use Netflix.
The movie companies have to be careful here. The $19.99 price is ridiculous. They have to also realize downloads are impulse buys. I can totally imagine wanting to see a film, realizing it doesn't play at the theater until an hour from now, and thinking, I'll just download it. I hope it happens.
The movie download business sounds fishy to me. The more I think about it, the less I like it.
The problems are all things people have said on this thread: download times, quality, price, features. Add to that the possible end of net-neutrality (in which high-bandwidth-using entities will be charged extortion...i mean, a premium if they want anyone to be able to actually get their content...), and movie downloads becomes a really dicey proposition. Apple is not a company that would want to start something like that, and then pull out because the interested parties were too greedy; it sees little enough from those $0.99 songs as it is.
The real gold mine I think is in a film/video version of iTunes that rips content from the new BDs (and HD-DVDs). While this is not legal for DVDs, it is perfectly legal for the new generation of hi-def disks, thanks to MMC.
This is where Apple should contentrate. Just as it did with iTunes (iTMS only came online after iTunes was around for a while). Video storing and cataloging should be removed from iTunes, and a new app needs to join the iLife family: This app should be able to rip legal copies of these HD movies at whatever rez users want (presets=1080HD, 720HD, DVD, TV, iPod/PSP; and an advanced tab that lets the user customize all the various resolution, bitrate, keyframe, etc. settings). They should be able to rip or omit whatever audio tracks they want. The app should also have the ability to organize a video by a wide variety of tags: type, genre, sub-genre, directors, actors, producers, etc. It should obviously support home movies as well as content from DVRs. And it should support video playlists as well as allow you to burn "mix disks" via iDVD ("iBurner" ...pun intended...or whatever its name is going to be changed to after HD burners come online).
If Apple intros this app along with its media center (featuring a roomy 750GB drive or two ) and a video iPod (with a roomy 80GB drive), and maybe a steroid injected Airport Express with mini-DVI video output, this would actually be an event worth inviting the press to.
But they'll probably already be there, since all this is likely to come at MWSF.
Then let the studios stew in their own juices for a while. They can hardly grumble, since Apple will be encouraging users to buy new HD movies. But Apple will also be putting the media&analyst-driven movie download speculation off until the actual fundamentals are in place (namely broadband speed and saturation).
Hell, maybe a movie DL business will never happen. Apple can still have its media center and video iPod and a content source without all the variables and value-subtraction (more expensive for lower quality and fewer features) of a movie download system with all its interested parties, any one of which could throw a wrench in the system and leave Apple with egg on its face. If Apple decides to go through with it, it will have more leverage, given that any system would have to give value greater than or equal to what users could do on their own.
what if they would only offer streaming of movies.. maybe not o nice for the iPod (well for the moment.. but buying directly from the iPod is the next step Is suppose)
what if they would only offer streaming of movies.. maybe not o nice for the iPod (well for the moment.. but buying directly from the iPod is the next step Is suppose)
But would be very nice for Frontrow.
Not sure that Apple are convinced about streaming. The internet has the fundamental inability to get info from a to b on time which is why they are so keen on the local playback option (though I understand there have even been problems playing back HD-DVDs on PCs at the moment). In the absence of genuine realtime systems, download is still the way to go.
Comments
Besides, $9.99 for a DOWNLOAD? Forget that. DVDs are still cheaper to buy and to store than a backed-up version off of iTunes (if that will even be allowed is anyone's guess)... Count me unconvinced.
Originally posted by Dazabrit
I could cope with 'Sell to Own' over 'Rental/Subscription if they weren't charging crazy prices! $4.99 (or even $5.99) as mentioned earlier is a more appropriate price. But it still depends on Quality/Features.
I'd rent for $1.99... maybe. But I get a whole lot of rentals off of Netflix right now, so I wouldn't be their customer.
Steve should wash the whole thing out of his hair and move on... to the iPhone.
Originally posted by palegolas
I hope we'll see rental rather than purchase to own when it comes to feature films. Unlike with music, renting movies is a great business. I just want to rent a movie for a week or so for say $1-4, see it and then trash it. That would really compete with illegal torrent activity.
I'm a little surprised that Apple has been so adamant about a $9.99 per movie model. A monthly access charge is a potential jackpot recurring revenue model for Apple, and the bandwidth can be notched the same way Netflix does it: charge for a certain number of concurrent movies.
Netflix seems like a good price model. Apple customers would be able to to "return" movies and get another one faster because they're not waiting on the mail, but Apple's overhead would be lower than Nexflix because of cheaper distribution.
(For that matter, Apple could BUY Netflix for $1.5B to $2B and get an asset with great brand equity and a devoted, cinefile customer base.)
The other model is PPV: $4 for 24 hours.
Either way, the rental model makes a lot more sense for consumers than the single-purchase model.
What do you think?
Originally posted by NOFEER
so what's the drm on those things, i can dowload, and burn my copy to keep, or do i have to play it on my 14" screen? it's got to make sense to the consumer in the way consumers are used to their dvd's. are they offering first run in the theaters now option, it might pay for a family of four even at 20$ i'd save 20 on popcorn and drinks and therefore get more to "see" the movie. hmmmmm the theater houses will get mad. but the studios want the bucks before they can get pirated.
I think the idea is that we all buy cute Mac Minis & plug 'em into those lovely LCD TVs (or even buy VGA/s-video adaptors for out existing kit). Works really well, definitely the way forward if only iTMS provided content in HiDef. I'd pre-order a Mac Mini BD for $999 today.
McD
Originally posted by hobBIT
If the iTunes movie store is not happening before next year, do you think this will also delay the 'video' iPod? Jobs had mentioned that it doesn't make sense to him to release a video iPod without movie content on the iTunes store.
What do you think?
i think that's correct. the true video iPod should only hit the stores when either:
a) apple has an itunes movie store (ridiculous name btw) all set up
b) apple ships an application that makes ripping commercial dvds in iPod format as easy as itunes rips cds in mp3/aac/whatever
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
apple ships an application that makes ripping commercial dvds in iPod format as easy as itunes rips cds in mp3/aac/whatever
When I first read that, I thought "yeah right," but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. The key is that iTunes (or some other app) could put fairplay-like DRM on the DVD content to make sure you couldn't copy it over to someone else's iPod or computer. Basically you could replace DVD copy-protection with Apple's copy protection.
Originally posted by BRussell
When I first read that, I thought "yeah right," but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. The key is that iTunes (or some other app) could put fairplay-like DRM on the DVD content to make sure you couldn't copy it over to someone else's iPod or computer. Basically you could replace DVD copy-protection with Apple's copy protection.
They would have to have DRM agreements with all the studios before they could legally do that. Some may not want their content ripped and Apple's DRM placed on it.
Originally posted by jamezog
I agree - flex prices may be in order, given that movies cost more than CD's (on average), but everyone knows those oldies aren't worth that much. I'll bet Steve will bend on this one.
The thing is that movie pricing changes a lot more often than CDs. A first release might be $20-$30, less than a year later, $15-$20, wait another year $10-15 and eventually they get to the $5-$10 bracket. With CDs, they are sold for maybe $15 and that's pretty much it except for the occasional sale.
I'm not interested in an iTunes movie though. I won't watch on a tiny screen for that long. I don't know if they plan to improve the quality, but I'm not paying for VCD resolution video for watching on my TV or my notebook.
Originally posted by McHuman
To anyone who thinks rentals are better:
Do you think that one has to exclude the other? I think rental and purchases can easily coexist. There are a lot of people that only do one or the other, and there are a lot that do both, depending on the title in question. There are a lot of movies that I want to see and won't pay $10 for the priviledge for many of them, but will pay $2 for an old movie, maybe $4 for a newer one, if the quality and bonus items are equivalent to the DVD version.
It is valid to say that a rental is less profitable than a sale, because for both, the download size is likely the same unless you have value added stuff in the for-sale version only, but I think it would be foolhardy to not offer a rental or time- or play-limited version.
The standard ( yes, there is already an unofficial standard) they will use is the average P2P download quality.. if the illegal downloaders find this resolution/quality OK, then it will be OK for the market Apple targets.
If you want HD dvd quality, then get the actual DVD.. just like with Mp3 and CD's...
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
They would have to have DRM agreements with all the studios before they could legally do that. Some may not want their content ripped and Apple's DRM placed on it.
In reality, Apple doesn't need to copy-protect or DRM the DVD discs/DVD content that will be ripped by this purported piece of software.
All they have to do is add a sticker on the video iPod plastic wrapping that says "Do not steal movies. Ne volez pas les films. No robar peliculas." etc.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Who's gonna pay 20 bucks to download a movie from iTunes, when you can spend just as much and get a DVD with features, AND the ability to rip it with HandBrake and get much higher quality?
Someone whose time is more valuable than yours.
Originally posted by wilco
Someone whose time is more valuable than yours.
Ouch. So President Bush is going to sit around on his arse for 3 hours while his precious Michael Moore movie downloads to his computer? Yeah...
Amazon.com can have me a DVD to my door tomorrow for the DVD cost + next day air saver $3.99
Originally posted by wilco
Someone whose time is more valuable than yours.
Which part, the time to download or the time to rip & encode to iPod?
However, I would add that by the time the DVD of said movie is released, I certainly wouldn't pay $9.99. I would just use Netflix.
The movie companies have to be careful here. The $19.99 price is ridiculous. They have to also realize downloads are impulse buys. I can totally imagine wanting to see a film, realizing it doesn't play at the theater until an hour from now, and thinking, I'll just download it. I hope it happens.
The problems are all things people have said on this thread: download times, quality, price, features. Add to that the possible end of net-neutrality (in which high-bandwidth-using entities will be charged extortion...i mean, a premium if they want anyone to be able to actually get their content...), and movie downloads becomes a really dicey proposition. Apple is not a company that would want to start something like that, and then pull out because the interested parties were too greedy; it sees little enough from those $0.99 songs as it is.
The real gold mine I think is in a film/video version of iTunes that rips content from the new BDs (and HD-DVDs). While this is not legal for DVDs, it is perfectly legal for the new generation of hi-def disks, thanks to MMC.
This is where Apple should contentrate. Just as it did with iTunes (iTMS only came online after iTunes was around for a while). Video storing and cataloging should be removed from iTunes, and a new app needs to join the iLife family: This app should be able to rip legal copies of these HD movies at whatever rez users want (presets=1080HD, 720HD, DVD, TV, iPod/PSP; and an advanced tab that lets the user customize all the various resolution, bitrate, keyframe, etc. settings). They should be able to rip or omit whatever audio tracks they want. The app should also have the ability to organize a video by a wide variety of tags: type, genre, sub-genre, directors, actors, producers, etc. It should obviously support home movies as well as content from DVRs. And it should support video playlists as well as allow you to burn "mix disks" via iDVD ("iBurner" ...pun intended...or whatever its name is going to be changed to after HD burners come online).
If Apple intros this app along with its media center (featuring a roomy 750GB drive or two
But they'll probably already be there, since all this is likely to come at MWSF.
Then let the studios stew in their own juices for a while. They can hardly grumble, since Apple will be encouraging users to buy new HD movies. But Apple will also be putting the media&analyst-driven movie download speculation off until the actual fundamentals are in place (namely broadband speed and saturation).
Hell, maybe a movie DL business will never happen. Apple can still have its media center and video iPod and a content source without all the variables and value-subtraction (more expensive for lower quality and fewer features) of a movie download system with all its interested parties, any one of which could throw a wrench in the system and leave Apple with egg on its face. If Apple decides to go through with it, it will have more leverage, given that any system would have to give value greater than or equal to what users could do on their own.
So whadaya think?
But would be very nice for Frontrow.
Originally posted by S10
what if they would only offer streaming of movies.. maybe not o nice for the iPod (well for the moment.. but buying directly from the iPod is the next step Is suppose)
But would be very nice for Frontrow.
Not sure that Apple are convinced about streaming. The internet has the fundamental inability to get info from a to b on time which is why they are so keen on the local playback option (though I understand there have even been problems playing back HD-DVDs on PCs at the moment). In the absence of genuine realtime systems, download is still the way to go.
McD