Apple pushes for iTunes rentals of movies still on big screen

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    I'd pay that just for the options of pause and rewind. You know you always miss something good when you go for a pee
    cali
  • Reply 22 of 31
    mike1 said:

    The comment "Apple hasn't done much to stand out in the online video market, in spite of iTunes being baked into multiple platforms including iOS devices and the Apple TV." is pretty lame. iTunes still offers the easiest way to rent movies that are unavailable on Prime or Netflix. (Which is almost every recent release.) With rental costs between $.99 and $5.99, it's not too bad.
    This is not true. All the major cable providers offer an even easier way (i.e., not have to turn on AppleTV, switch inputs depending on whether you have @TV 4 or not, put in password, etc. as needed), with their on-demand services.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 23 of 31
    I would pay 50 bucks to not have to sit in some of these kids movies so....
  • Reply 24 of 31
    sog35 said:
    I go to movie theaters only once or twice a year.

    And its only for massive films like Star Wars. And I only go to one theater: one of the best IMAX theaters on the planet.


    The rest of the time I rent iTunes and watch it on my 120 inch projector with 7.1 surround sound. IMO, it blows away all those crappy theater screens.
    And let's not forget that there's some absolutely phenomenal stuff on television now, stuff that the pap we get from Hollywood doesn't even come close to.

    Just finished up with Westworld, for example. Absolutely stunning. Nothing in the cinema this year has come close for me.
    You can say that again. Westworld is a great show, but my favorite is the underrated Black Sails. The final season starts next month. I hardly even pay attention to what movies are coming out. Westworld, Game of Thrones, Black Sails, The Last Ship, plus a few others keeps me entertained throughout the year. 
    spliff monkey
  • Reply 25 of 31
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,635member
    Unless you're a mogul with a $million home theatre room (and possibly designed to look like a 1920's movie palace), you cannot replicate the experience of a quality theater at home.   There's nothing like going to a Dolby Vision theater with large screen, incredible contrast ratios, ultra blacks with double-laser projection and Dolby Atmos sound.   It's as close as we're ever going to get to the days of roadshow 70mm 6-track (and some would argue that it's even better).  

    I recognize that some people don't care about that stuff.   Personally, I find it impossible to watch even 'small' films on a small screen and even my 55" TV doesn't come close to replicating the big screen experience.   After seeing a number of films in Dolby Vision and the best of IMAX, I'm not even happy in a regular 5.1 or 7.1 theatre.  

    I don't think offering films at home at the same as they appear in theaters for $25 to $50 will be successful, but if it is, it will kill off the theaters.   And if it kills off the theaters, then every movie will be nothing more than a "direct to video" movie, like a lot of the junk that appears on Netflix and other streaming services.   

    Some studios want this because they think it improves cash flow and reduces marketing expenses.   But it will kill the business in the long run and it will make movies even more disposable than they have become already.   And for those who think that media businesses can't be killed, just look at the music industry, which adjusted for inflation, is now one-third its former peak size.   With all the competition for leisure time and all the ways one can watch, rent or own movies today, the theatrical business is already under severe pressure.   In NYC, which used to be the #1 movie-going market in the country, we've lost almost 31% of the theatre count and 17% of the screen count since 2001, in spite of some recent new builds.   And there has been an enormous decline in the number of seats (down 20% since July 2012) due to both closings and due to theatres installing lounge seating and greatly reducing the seat count, since they can't fill the seats for most shows anyway.  
    cali
  • Reply 26 of 31
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    sog35 said:
    macxpress said:
    Now all they need is an AppleTV that supports 4K...still boggles my mind why the current one doesn't. Everyone is buying these 4K TV's yet Apple decides to put out an AppleTV that only supports 1080p. I'd hope they'd release an updated one with something like the A10X in it. I'm sure that will support 4K content. 
    Isnt' nuts? really nuts.

    I mean how cool would it be to watch your 4k video's from your 4k iPhone on your 4k Apple TV?

    Just blows my mind. And to think it would probably only cost Apple $2 to add 4k
    It's probably time for Apple to deliver 4K, but 4K content is just hitting the streets. A little patience would be to your benefit. The fact that the current ATV doesn't support 4K isn't exactly "mind blowing" or at least it's not for those of us grounded in reality. 
    I am pretty sure the H.265 patent / licensing issues are not fully resolved. 4K commercial services will only go mainstream when a broadly supported next gen codec is unencumbered by patent risk. 
  • Reply 27 of 31
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    $25 may seem high to rent a current in theaters movie but if you have a few friends over it's a bargain. I'm a movie fan and go out to theaters whenever something of quality is released. I tend to hit matinees since I work for myself and have a lot of freedom. I usually grab a sandwich from a nearby cafe and sneak it and a bottle of water in. Why would anyone eat any of that processed concession junk food or pay for it? These are still rumors but it is encouraging especially if the movies included would also be indie movies which even in New York sometimes play for only one week then disappear. Several years ago I rent the Lars Von Trier movie "Melancholia" from iTunes for $7 while it was still in local theaters. 
  • Reply 28 of 31
    xamaxxamax Posts: 135member
    I finally realized what 's game plan is and why they didn't buy Time Warner Inc out - they're doing the waiting game!

    Long ago they've learned not to be the Guinea pig to only have their ways copied by the SameThings and MacroShafts of this world.

    They know the movie theaters are dead but just don't know it. They're waiting for that arrogant inefficient industry to come to their knees.

    Still I believe they would do good to jump ahead and buy Time Warner Inc, reorganize the business to make it digital centric, spin off what's of no interest, so they would have commanding power of what the future can bring to the masses.

    They have learned the waiting game,  has matured, hence the 4K wait, hence the no TV Set business, hence the massive profits streamlined business they have.

    Having said this, there is also a great deal of risk in waiting - and I mean not from competition but the masses, brand appeal, loyalty.

    If they had their own movie studio they'd just set the rules and innovate in business model terms which is what the industry needs.

    man, is this user interface buggy or what, what a nuisance!
  • Reply 29 of 31
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    apple ][ said:
    This is the kind of theatre that I would choose to go to, so as to avoid kids, large families, poor people and rude people.


    Because poor people are to be shunned...
  • Reply 30 of 31
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member

    zoetmb said:
    Unless you're a mogul with a $million home theatre room (and possibly designed to look like a 1920's movie palace), you cannot replicate the experience of a quality theater at home.   There's nothing like going to a Dolby Vision theater with large screen, incredible contrast ratios, ultra blacks with double-laser projection and Dolby Atmos sound.   It's as close as we're ever going to get to the days of roadshow 70mm 6-track (and some would argue that it's even better).  

    I recognize that some people don't care about that stuff.   Personally, I find it impossible to watch even 'small' films on a small screen and even my 55" TV doesn't come close to replicating the big screen experience.   After seeing a number of films in Dolby Vision and the best of IMAX, I'm not even happy in a regular 5.1 or 7.1 theatre.  

    I don't think offering films at home at the same as they appear in theaters for $25 to $50 will be successful, but if it is, it will kill off the theaters.   And if it kills off the theaters, then every movie will be nothing more than a "direct to video" movie, like a lot of the junk that appears on Netflix and other streaming services.   

    Some studios want this because they think it improves cash flow and reduces marketing expenses.   But it will kill the business in the long run and it will make movies even more disposable than they have become already.   And for those who think that media businesses can't be killed, just look at the music industry, which adjusted for inflation, is now one-third its former peak size.   With all the competition for leisure time and all the ways one can watch, rent or own movies today, the theatrical business is already under severe pressure.   In NYC, which used to be the #1 movie-going market in the country, we've lost almost 31% of the theatre count and 17% of the screen count since 2001, in spite of some recent new builds.   And there has been an enormous decline in the number of seats (down 20% since July 2012) due to both closings and due to theatres installing lounge seating and greatly reducing the seat count, since they can't fill the seats for most shows anyway.  
    Yeah, theatres can be cool. But... You know what luxuries I like? Things like being able to turn down the freaking volume (theatres are way too damn loud), and pause the thing so I can get up and go pee. Things I can't get at the theatre.
Sign In or Register to comment.