First Walmart and then Target. Panic is setting in. Instead of whining about new technology making hardcopies of DVDs obsolete, they should talk to movie studios and equipment manufacturers about how to make HD content available at media and equipment cost comparable to DVDs. The broadband infrastructure has to go through another round of major upgrades before volume online delivery of HD content becomes practical and this may take more than five years to complete.
Don't whine Walmart/Target corporate dudes, focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
Instead of whining about new technology making hardcopies of DVDs obsolete, they should talk to movie studios and equipment manufacturers about how to make HD content available at media and equipment cost comparable to DVDs. The broadband infrastructure has to go through another round of major upgrades before volume online delivery of HD content becomes practical and this may take more than five years to complete.
Don't whine Walmart/Target corporate dudes, focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
It is interesting how you assume that if Target are persuasive*, the likely outcome is that DVDs get cheaper. What about the downloads getting more expensive and DVDs staying the same price?
* And that's one big assumption. Who is this "Gregg Steinhafel" moron anyway? How did he get to be president of a huge company like Target? To re-iterate what's already been said, what about the fact DVDs are higher quality? What about the cost of the media, packaging and shipping? It would be interesting to see the actual letter. Part of the article implies that Target appreciates these facts but believe the delta is too high ("He went on to say that if Target didn't receive what it considers to be equitable pricing"; "equitable" doesn't mean "equal"), I wonder what they think the delta should be?
This is true, DVD download prices *could* go up... which wouldn't really bother me because it wouldn't affect my decision whether to buy or download. What I pay for packaging and shipping, you pay for HD space & high-speed internet. If the Studios say "no," Target's prices won't go up (because they'll want to stay as competitive as possible). If Studios say "okay" and raise Download prices (as you suggest might happen), Target's prices still won't go up and I still won't pay another dime. If Studios say "okay" and lower physical content price, Target's prices will go down (in order to stay competitive). All three of the situations are good for me and are good for anyone who buys physical content.
Secondly, I'm not stupid. I know "Equitable" doesn't mean "Equal." Assumably it means that licensing the content for resale would cost the same. This may or may not already be the case. We have no way of knowing. Regardless, studios will lnow what is and isn't a good deal for them. They know what prices will sell DVDs... that is their business afterall.
Alright, so if paragraph one sounds self-centered, so be it. I've made a choice to by physical media. You also have that choice so don't come crying to me that it's not fair that your prices get raised because you prefer digital content. If you have a DVD player, you too can buy physical content for cheap.
It's all about choice, and Apple's may or may not be more cost-effective in the long-run. That's just part of the free-market society.
BTW,
Quote:
Originally Posted by macshark
Instead of whining about new technology making hardcopies of DVDs obsolete, they should talk to movie studios and equipment manufacturers about how to make HD content available at media and equipment cost comparable to DVDs. [...] ...focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
I don't disagree that this is important. Long-term startegies are always smarter options (not to mention healthier for our own growth and development).
Actually, the movie downloads are not that far off of dvd quality. A widescreen dvd is 720x304. Apple is selling full screen version with a resolution of 640x480. I doubt you could tell much difference in the quality when played on a standard TV.
Glor
It's not just the resolution but also the compression ratio used in the encoding. DVD compression is bad enough on some DVDs to fit on a 4.3GB disk but it's even worse in more highly compressed downloadable files such as those from iTunes.
Not that I can compare though as Apple don't sell movies here in the UK yet. On a side note, TV here is 720x576 so 640x480 is significantly worse than normal non-HD TV even without the crappy digital compression.
Secondly, I'm not stupid. I know "Equitable" doesn't mean "Equal."
I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else is stupid. That part of my post was not directed at you, but was meant as a general comment. I was pointing out that at the moment, we don't actually know what Target considers to be an equitable price.
DVD compression is bad enough on some DVDs to fit on a 4.3GB disk.
I'm not sure I've ever come across a commercial single-layer DVD for a film. They are always (in my experience) dual-layer disks with a capacity of 7.92 GiB.
First Walmart and then Target. Panic is setting in. Instead of whining about new technology making hardcopies of DVDs obsolete, they should talk to movie studios and equipment manufacturers about how to make HD content available at media and equipment cost comparable to DVDs. The broadband infrastructure has to go through another round of major upgrades before volume online delivery of HD content becomes practical and this may take more than five years to complete.
Don't whine Walmart/Target corporate dudes, focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
DVD's obsolete, no! Please whine, then whine some more, and whine a lot!!! And definitely panic! I don't want my DVD obsolete.
This is so lame. Obviously they should pay a lower wholesale price, given the huge savings, on physical media, packaging, shipping, etc (plus the fact that they're getting a product of MUCH lower quality and value). I hope retail stores will just recognize that they need to move with technology rather than against it, so this doesn't have to come down to a bunch of expensive lawsuits.
Cutting back on shelf space, promotional programs, signage and other aspects of marketing discs sounds like they are getting with technology - they would be moving away from low tech DVD's.
Every movie sold via download is one less DVD sold, so if dowload is successful, Target and Walmart should be getting out of the the DVD business anyway. They too have to bear cost of physical media too - lighting, labor to put DVD on the shelves, cleaning the area, etc.
Cutting back on shelf space, promotional programs, signage and other aspects of marketing discs sounds like they are getting with technology - they would be moving away from low tech DVD's.
Every movie sold via download is one less DVD sold, so if dowload is successful, Target and Walmart should be getting out of the the DVD business anyway. They too have to bear cost of physical media too - lighting, labor to put DVD on the shelves, cleaning the area, etc.
And if it were just about movie sales, I think they'd be less anxious about giving it up. However, Target and Walmart can't get the same effect by moving to digitial downloads (even though there should be larger profit margins and less waste there), since they make a lot of extra money from people coming in the store to get DVD's at the lowest prices, then buying more while they're in the store.
Unfortunately, this makes for a situation where the interests of retailers and consumer are not at all in line.
I'm not sure I've ever come across a commercial single-layer DVD for a film. They are always (in my experience) dual-layer disks with a capacity of 7.92 GiB.
Eh? I have several hundred, and I'd say almost half - definitely more than 1/3 - are single layer. I suppose it depends on what you get. New Hollywood releases are almost all dual layer. Older ones or more off-beat ones are usually single layer.
Anyway, here's something I don't get:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Retailers like Target and Wal-Mart typically pay $17 or $18 wholesale for new-release DVDs. But under Apple's recent deal with Disney, electronic copies of new Disney movies cost consumers as little as $12.99 if preordered or purchased in the first week of release, or $14.99 after the first week of release.
"People familiar with the matter say Apple pays Disney a wholesale price of about $14.50 per movie," the Journal said.
Someone explain that to me. So Apple subsidizes pre-ordered movies? And they only make 50¢ per movie after that? That doesn't sound right.
And most DVDs, even new releases, at Target and Wal-mart are less than $17 or $18, aren't they?
DVD's obsolete, no! Please whine, then whine some more, and whine a lot!!! And definitely panic! I don't want my DVD obsolete.
Yep, seems like everybody's forgetting how the whole movie and retail industry already sold many of us the same content twice (VHS first, then DVD) and now have the chance to sell it once more in HD-quality. Who the *&^% they think should start complaining here?
Eh? I have several hundred, and I'd say almost half - definitely more than 1/3 - are single layer. I suppose it depends on what you get. New Hollywood releases are almost all dual layer. Older ones or more off-beat ones are usually single layer.
Anyway, here's something I don't get: Someone explain that to me. So Apple subsidizes pre-ordered movies? And they only make 50¢ per movie after that? That doesn't sound right.
And most DVDs, even new releases, at Target and Wal-mart are less than $17 or $18, aren't they?
Don't forget, Apple is in the business of selling hardware. Just breaking even, or even taking a loss on content sales is made up for because they are increasing the value of iPods and soon the "iTV" with each bit of content they add.
Don't forget, Apple is in the business of selling hardware. Just breaking even, or even taking a loss on content sales is made up for because they are increasing the value of iPods and soon the "iTV" with each bit of content they add.
It'd be naïve to believe that's anything but a very short term position though. iTunes doesn't have the profit margin of hardware but once they've paid for their infrastructure and staff, there isn't a much leaner model for selling stuff than pure digital content. The profits will creep up the more they sell.
Anyway, here's something I don't get: Someone explain that to me. So Apple subsidizes pre-ordered movies? And they only make 50¢ per movie after that? That doesn't sound right.
And most DVDs, even new releases, at Target and Wal-mart are less than $17 or $18, aren't they?
That's what's called "Loss Leaders". Target & Wal-Mart are willing to sell somethings for less than what they purchase them for to get customers in their stores. Once you are in there you (most likely) buy other things that they actually do make money off of.
This is a standard practice in most big box stores for Books, CDs and DVDs.
As far as the Apple pricing plan...I'm not sure...I think the prices that the downloads are at are based on market research for what consumers are willing to pay for downloaded movies at the quality they are offering.
I, myself have not downloaded any full-length movie but I have downloaded a bunch of the short films.
Yep, seems like everybody's forgetting how the whole movie and retail industry already sold many of us the same content twice (VHS first, then DVD) and now have the chance to sell it once more in HD-quality. Who the *&^% they think should start complaining here?
Not sure who buys the same content twice, but for those who must go for it. This is a forum so complaining, whining is what it is about.
Comments
Don't whine Walmart/Target corporate dudes, focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
Instead of whining about new technology making hardcopies of DVDs obsolete, they should talk to movie studios and equipment manufacturers about how to make HD content available at media and equipment cost comparable to DVDs. The broadband infrastructure has to go through another round of major upgrades before volume online delivery of HD content becomes practical and this may take more than five years to complete.
Don't whine Walmart/Target corporate dudes, focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
Well said.
It is interesting how you assume that if Target are persuasive*, the likely outcome is that DVDs get cheaper. What about the downloads getting more expensive and DVDs staying the same price?
* And that's one big assumption. Who is this "Gregg Steinhafel" moron anyway? How did he get to be president of a huge company like Target? To re-iterate what's already been said, what about the fact DVDs are higher quality? What about the cost of the media, packaging and shipping? It would be interesting to see the actual letter. Part of the article implies that Target appreciates these facts but believe the delta is too high ("He went on to say that if Target didn't receive what it considers to be equitable pricing"; "equitable" doesn't mean "equal"), I wonder what they think the delta should be?
This is true, DVD download prices *could* go up... which wouldn't really bother me because it wouldn't affect my decision whether to buy or download. What I pay for packaging and shipping, you pay for HD space & high-speed internet. If the Studios say "no," Target's prices won't go up (because they'll want to stay as competitive as possible). If Studios say "okay" and raise Download prices (as you suggest might happen), Target's prices still won't go up and I still won't pay another dime. If Studios say "okay" and lower physical content price, Target's prices will go down (in order to stay competitive). All three of the situations are good for me and are good for anyone who buys physical content.
Secondly, I'm not stupid. I know "Equitable" doesn't mean "Equal." Assumably it means that licensing the content for resale would cost the same. This may or may not already be the case. We have no way of knowing. Regardless, studios will lnow what is and isn't a good deal for them. They know what prices will sell DVDs... that is their business afterall.
Alright, so if paragraph one sounds self-centered, so be it. I've made a choice to by physical media. You also have that choice so don't come crying to me that it's not fair that your prices get raised because you prefer digital content. If you have a DVD player, you too can buy physical content for cheap.
It's all about choice, and Apple's may or may not be more cost-effective in the long-run. That's just part of the free-market society.
BTW,
Instead of whining about new technology making hardcopies of DVDs obsolete, they should talk to movie studios and equipment manufacturers about how to make HD content available at media and equipment cost comparable to DVDs. [...] ...focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
I don't disagree that this is important. Long-term startegies are always smarter options (not to mention healthier for our own growth and development).
-Clive
Actually, the movie downloads are not that far off of dvd quality. A widescreen dvd is 720x304. Apple is selling full screen version with a resolution of 640x480. I doubt you could tell much difference in the quality when played on a standard TV.
Glor
It's not just the resolution but also the compression ratio used in the encoding. DVD compression is bad enough on some DVDs to fit on a 4.3GB disk but it's even worse in more highly compressed downloadable files such as those from iTunes.
Not that I can compare though as Apple don't sell movies here in the UK yet. On a side note, TV here is 720x576 so 640x480 is significantly worse than normal non-HD TV even without the crappy digital compression.
Secondly, I'm not stupid. I know "Equitable" doesn't mean "Equal."
I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else is stupid. That part of my post was not directed at you, but was meant as a general comment. I was pointing out that at the moment, we don't actually know what Target considers to be an equitable price.
On a side note, TV here is 720x576
Actually, broadcast PAL is even better than you think. It is 768x576. (PAL DVDs are 720x576)
This is so lame. Obviously they should pay a lower wholesale price, given the huge savings, on physical media, packaging, shipping, etc
You're talking about less than a dollar per DVD here.
(plus the fact that they're getting a product of MUCH lower quality and value).
That's the key IMHO. No extras, lower quality A/V, more restrictive DRM with the current downloads.
DVD compression is bad enough on some DVDs to fit on a 4.3GB disk.
I'm not sure I've ever come across a commercial single-layer DVD for a film. They are always (in my experience) dual-layer disks with a capacity of 7.92 GiB.
Actually, PAL is even better than you think. It is 768x576
PAL is 720x576 on a DVD though.
D-1 PAL Square Pix is 768x576 but you won't see that on a TV so DVD's use the 720x576 standard.
First Walmart and then Target. Panic is setting in. Instead of whining about new technology making hardcopies of DVDs obsolete, they should talk to movie studios and equipment manufacturers about how to make HD content available at media and equipment cost comparable to DVDs. The broadband infrastructure has to go through another round of major upgrades before volume online delivery of HD content becomes practical and this may take more than five years to complete.
Don't whine Walmart/Target corporate dudes, focus on more constructive measures to save your revenue!
DVD's obsolete, no! Please whine, then whine some more, and whine a lot!!! And definitely panic! I don't want my DVD obsolete.
This is so lame. Obviously they should pay a lower wholesale price, given the huge savings, on physical media, packaging, shipping, etc (plus the fact that they're getting a product of MUCH lower quality and value). I hope retail stores will just recognize that they need to move with technology rather than against it, so this doesn't have to come down to a bunch of expensive lawsuits.
Cutting back on shelf space, promotional programs, signage and other aspects of marketing discs sounds like they are getting with technology - they would be moving away from low tech DVD's.
Every movie sold via download is one less DVD sold, so if dowload is successful, Target and Walmart should be getting out of the the DVD business anyway. They too have to bear cost of physical media too - lighting, labor to put DVD on the shelves, cleaning the area, etc.
Cutting back on shelf space, promotional programs, signage and other aspects of marketing discs sounds like they are getting with technology - they would be moving away from low tech DVD's.
Every movie sold via download is one less DVD sold, so if dowload is successful, Target and Walmart should be getting out of the the DVD business anyway. They too have to bear cost of physical media too - lighting, labor to put DVD on the shelves, cleaning the area, etc.
And if it were just about movie sales, I think they'd be less anxious about giving it up. However, Target and Walmart can't get the same effect by moving to digitial downloads (even though there should be larger profit margins and less waste there), since they make a lot of extra money from people coming in the store to get DVD's at the lowest prices, then buying more while they're in the store.
Unfortunately, this makes for a situation where the interests of retailers and consumer are not at all in line.
I'm not sure I've ever come across a commercial single-layer DVD for a film. They are always (in my experience) dual-layer disks with a capacity of 7.92 GiB.
Eh? I have several hundred, and I'd say almost half - definitely more than 1/3 - are single layer. I suppose it depends on what you get. New Hollywood releases are almost all dual layer. Older ones or more off-beat ones are usually single layer.
Anyway, here's something I don't get:
Retailers like Target and Wal-Mart typically pay $17 or $18 wholesale for new-release DVDs. But under Apple's recent deal with Disney, electronic copies of new Disney movies cost consumers as little as $12.99 if preordered or purchased in the first week of release, or $14.99 after the first week of release.
"People familiar with the matter say Apple pays Disney a wholesale price of about $14.50 per movie," the Journal said.
Someone explain that to me. So Apple subsidizes pre-ordered movies? And they only make 50¢ per movie after that? That doesn't sound right.
And most DVDs, even new releases, at Target and Wal-mart are less than $17 or $18, aren't they?
DVD's obsolete, no! Please whine, then whine some more, and whine a lot!!! And definitely panic! I don't want my DVD obsolete.
Yep, seems like everybody's forgetting how the whole movie and retail industry already sold many of us the same content twice (VHS first, then DVD) and now have the chance to sell it once more in HD-quality. Who the *&^% they think should start complaining here?
Eh? I have several hundred, and I'd say almost half - definitely more than 1/3 - are single layer. I suppose it depends on what you get. New Hollywood releases are almost all dual layer. Older ones or more off-beat ones are usually single layer.
Anyway, here's something I don't get: Someone explain that to me. So Apple subsidizes pre-ordered movies? And they only make 50¢ per movie after that? That doesn't sound right.
And most DVDs, even new releases, at Target and Wal-mart are less than $17 or $18, aren't they?
Don't forget, Apple is in the business of selling hardware. Just breaking even, or even taking a loss on content sales is made up for because they are increasing the value of iPods and soon the "iTV" with each bit of content they add.
Don't forget, Apple is in the business of selling hardware. Just breaking even, or even taking a loss on content sales is made up for because they are increasing the value of iPods and soon the "iTV" with each bit of content they add.
It'd be naïve to believe that's anything but a very short term position though. iTunes doesn't have the profit margin of hardware but once they've paid for their infrastructure and staff, there isn't a much leaner model for selling stuff than pure digital content. The profits will creep up the more they sell.
Anyway, here's something I don't get: Someone explain that to me. So Apple subsidizes pre-ordered movies? And they only make 50¢ per movie after that? That doesn't sound right.
And most DVDs, even new releases, at Target and Wal-mart are less than $17 or $18, aren't they?
That's what's called "Loss Leaders". Target & Wal-Mart are willing to sell somethings for less than what they purchase them for to get customers in their stores. Once you are in there you (most likely) buy other things that they actually do make money off of.
This is a standard practice in most big box stores for Books, CDs and DVDs.
As far as the Apple pricing plan...I'm not sure...I think the prices that the downloads are at are based on market research for what consumers are willing to pay for downloaded movies at the quality they are offering.
I, myself have not downloaded any full-length movie but I have downloaded a bunch of the short films.
Yep, seems like everybody's forgetting how the whole movie and retail industry already sold many of us the same content twice (VHS first, then DVD) and now have the chance to sell it once more in HD-quality. Who the *&^% they think should start complaining here?
Not sure who buys the same content twice, but for those who must go for it. This is a forum so complaining, whining is what it is about.