This is risky for the studios, as once the rental is available, a high quality digital file is available for anyone to download illegally for free. That could seriously cut into theater ticket sales.
I never subscribed to the predictions Apple was going to make an actual TV screen (and not a set top box). However, if they DID make a TV then they could cut a deal to make this work. With an external set top box (Apple TV) you have a signal that can be intercepted and recorded. With an all-in-one Apple TV/monitor everything is internal making duplication extremely difficult.
We are still in the age of digital rights management. The version streamed and possibly stored locally is encrypted. For most movies, the information going between the set top box and the screen is encrypted and won't be viewable without the monitor running HDCP. HDCP is tough to crack and no devices are currently on the market that can do so. Most cracks are going to be through the "analog hole."
This is risky for the studios, as once the rental is available, a high quality digital file is available for anyone to download illegally for free. That could seriously cut into theater ticket sales.
That's why this will never happen. Studios will be putting the final nail in their coffin if they allow home viewing of movies that are in theaters.
Once a digital file is out there it will be everywhere. People will be watching the movie for free on Kodi & no one will be going to the movies anymore.
They can protect it to an extent. Because the purchases would be individual rather than shared like in a theater, they could encode account information into the video stream invisible to the eye like a QR code in the pixels every number of frames so that if it was recorded by a camera or captured some other way and uploaded, they'd know who was responsible and revoke their streaming rights. The box can do this composite in real-time or it can be done server-side.
It has the potential to lose the studios money but it also has the potential to increase the initial reach to the audience. A movie could have a billion-dollar premiere, which isn't really possible in theaters. Opening weekend is half way there:
1.32 billion tickets sold in the US for $11b revenue so average ticket price was just over $8. If all 152,000 screens were packed worldwide at 300 seats each and $8 per ticket, that would make ~$365m. They couldn't all be running the same movies and they wouldn't all be filled up.
If the movies went direct to TV boxes, which is more convenient for people, the Apple TV alone has an audience of over 30 million. Apple on its own rivals the seating capacity of every movie theater in the world. Roku has a similar amount. It's over 40 million units per year total for all the boxes:
To make a $1b premiere, each person would pay $25. That's not counting the TVs that can have the functionality built-in, which increases the potential audience.
The piracy aspect is a big risk. Even with protections, there would be tens of millions of possible recording locations with no supervision vs the 152,000 supervised ones. The movie studios probably want to experiment with things like this but are too concerned about the risks. They pretty much just have to make the call on when it happens. The infrastructure is in place to do it. Maybe this is where the box companies step in instead. Apple could commission an exclusive run of a major movie for say $200m and then recoup the money from the sales ($20 per sale x 10 million viewers) then split the profit after it's repaid. That way if there's piracy that affects the sales, the box manufacturer takes the hit and they decide whether to commission more movies in future.
Can't imagine ever paying so much for a rental, but choice never hurt anyone I suppose.
How does $30 compare to the cost of going to the cinema in the U.S.? Obv it's slightly different as the rental could be seen by many people, but it seems to be terrible value for money for one or two people, especially if they enjoy going into a proper theatre.
Tickets are $12-$15 Plus you gotta drive there $4 Popcorn, soda $30
So for 2 people you are looking at $60 easy.
Then time costs. To get good seats will take a hour. Plus another hour for travel.
I'd rather just pay $$$ and watch it at home on my 120 inch projector
2x$15 is $30. Definitely not $4 to get there, but babysitter = $15x2h, so $60 (minimum).
But $50 for a movie on my tiny (relatively) TV screen vs. a $60 on big screen? And guaranteed private time vs. having kids wake up for home viewing?
Yeah, I think I'll take the movie theater. Or Netflix / Amazon Prime for $0 and several year old movies. Or $2 on VidAngel.
But I don't really care for hte "new latest" - I just watch stuff a couple years old and it's either super cheap or free.
I don't want to go to the theatre, period. For reasons cited. Beyond that, I generally don't have time to go to a theatre either. Beyond that, I have below zero interest in going to a movie by myself, if it is something my wife/kids have no interest in seeing.
Then why desire to pay so much for something about which you care so little?
You're just twisting my words around, and you know it. I have desire to see the film. I have no desire to see it at a public movie theatre.
Haha $50 is that a joke.seriously that’s mental,I wouldn’t pay that much to keep a movie if it had days worth of extras.why would anyone pay MORE than the cinema price.the whole point of cinema is seeing it on a big screen,surround sound etc,having a fun day out with family or friends.ive been to the cinema a few times to see re releases of films I already own or have already seen.the cinema is the experience itself.i thought the standard rental price was crazy considering purchase price often isn’t much more and then you can watch again and again.no one will EVER pay more than a cinema price just to watch it on an iPad or even a tv for those with Apple TV.why not just pay less and go see it on a huge screen with surround sound,big comfy seats rather than a shabby old armchair or sofa at home.considering I thought paying extra for the cinema was the privilege and digital content is an after thought for convenience or something on top of the cinema.ive never paid to rent anything ,it’s either cinema or full purchase,anything else makes no sense.
This is risky for the studios, as once the rental is available, a high quality digital file is available for anyone to download illegally for free. That could seriously cut into theater ticket sales.
That's why this will never happen. Studios will be putting the final nail in their coffin if they allow home viewing of movies that are in theaters.
Once a digital file is out there it will be everywhere. People will be watching the movie for free on Kodi & no one will be going to the movies anymore.
They can protect it to an extent. Because the purchases would be individual rather than shared like in a theater, they could encode account information into the video stream invisible to the eye like a QR code in the pixels every number of frames so that if it was recorded by a camera or captured some other way and uploaded, they'd know who was responsible and revoke their streaming rights. The box can do this composite in real-time or it can be done server-side.
It has the potential to lose the studios money but it also has the potential to increase the initial reach to the audience. A movie could have a billion-dollar premiere, which isn't really possible in theaters. Opening weekend is half way there:
1.32 billion tickets sold in the US for $11b revenue so average ticket price was just over $8. If all 152,000 screens were packed worldwide at 300 seats each and $8 per ticket, that would make ~$365m. They couldn't all be running the same movies and they wouldn't all be filled up.
If the movies went direct to TV boxes, which is more convenient for people, the Apple TV alone has an audience of over 30 million. Apple on its own rivals the seating capacity of every movie theater in the world. Roku has a similar amount. It's over 40 million units per year total for all the boxes:
To make a $1b premiere, each person would pay $25. That's not counting the TVs that can have the functionality built-in, which increases the potential audience.
The piracy aspect is a big risk. Even with protections, there would be tens of millions of possible recording locations with no supervision vs the 152,000 supervised ones. The movie studios probably want to experiment with things like this but are too concerned about the risks. They pretty much just have to make the call on when it happens. The infrastructure is in place to do it. Maybe this is where the box companies step in instead. Apple could commission an exclusive run of a major movie for say $200m and then recoup the money from the sales ($20 per sale x 10 million viewers) then split the profit after it's repaid. That way if there's piracy that affects the sales, the box manufacturer takes the hit and they decide whether to commission more movies in future.
A lot of piracy occurs within the entertainment industry itself. Screeners get digitally copied, same at the post-production houses and the same thing occurs at the theater level as well.
Comments
It has the potential to lose the studios money but it also has the potential to increase the initial reach to the audience. A movie could have a billion-dollar premiere, which isn't really possible in theaters. Opening weekend is half way there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_openings_for_films
The following says there were 152,000 cinema screens worldwide in 2015:
http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2015_Final.pdf
1.32 billion tickets sold in the US for $11b revenue so average ticket price was just over $8. If all 152,000 screens were packed worldwide at 300 seats each and $8 per ticket, that would make ~$365m. They couldn't all be running the same movies and they wouldn't all be filled up.
If the movies went direct to TV boxes, which is more convenient for people, the Apple TV alone has an audience of over 30 million. Apple on its own rivals the seating capacity of every movie theater in the world. Roku has a similar amount. It's over 40 million units per year total for all the boxes:
http://www.investors.com/news/technology/click/google-chromecast-tops-apple-tv-in-streamer-market/
To make a $1b premiere, each person would pay $25. That's not counting the TVs that can have the functionality built-in, which increases the potential audience.
The piracy aspect is a big risk. Even with protections, there would be tens of millions of possible recording locations with no supervision vs the 152,000 supervised ones. The movie studios probably want to experiment with things like this but are too concerned about the risks. They pretty much just have to make the call on when it happens. The infrastructure is in place to do it. Maybe this is where the box companies step in instead. Apple could commission an exclusive run of a major movie for say $200m and then recoup the money from the sales ($20 per sale x 10 million viewers) then split the profit after it's repaid. That way if there's piracy that affects the sales, the box manufacturer takes the hit and they decide whether to commission more movies in future.