I was hoping that Apple would reveal an Apple Movies subscription model like Apple Music at the forthcoming event when the 4K ATV is released.
Do consumers really want to own movies anymore?
Surely music subscription services like Spotify and Apple Music have reduced the amount of music piracy significantly because the subscription is reasonably priced.
The same model for movies would surely help reduce movie piracy.
If Netflix can only make this work with older titles then I wouldn't expect that same all-you-can-eat model from Apple as their content mostly follows the disc releases of TV shows and movie titles.
There's likely a price where this becomes feasible for the content owner, but is that price feasible for the customer? Would $50 per month satisfy content owners? How would that be broken up? I don't think I'd pay that much unless downloads were still possible and I'd use it on the rare occasion where I planned ahead for some occurrence that kept me from having access to streaming content for awhile. I recently purchased MoviePass which is only $10 per month, but there are restrictions that I don't think are possible for streaming content.
Agree that I don't see a pure subscription, all-you-can-eat, recently released movie streaming service. Studios are very conservative and would never risk the DVD/BlueRay/4K purchase market.
What I think is a possible solution, that would benefit Apple and the studios, is an iTunes subscription ($10/month) which includes a free rental per month, and a reduced fee for other rentals ($1-2 off), and extend the rental period to something more reasonable like min 72 hours. A real enticement would be getting some good reductions for seasons passes for older content. iTunes has the largest inventory of TV programs available (any streaming service is hit & miss and only has a portion), but I bet the actual sales for that content (since you can't rent) is going down a lot. A subscription model that improves the monetization of that would be beneficial to the studios and of course Apple as they get a cut.
This also provides Apple another channel (besides Apple Music) to bring the rumoured Apple original content to market.
I was hoping that Apple would reveal an Apple Movies subscription model like Apple Music at the forthcoming event when the 4K ATV is released.
Do consumers really want to own movies anymore?
Surely music subscription services like Spotify and Apple Music have reduced the amount of music piracy significantly because the subscription is reasonably priced.
The same model for movies would surely help reduce movie piracy.
Yes, believe or or not, people do like to own moviesz I only purchases movies. Never rent or watch on Amazon/Netflix. Usually but from iTunes or physical copies if it includes iTunes as a option for the bundled digital copy.
I own movies from iTunes purchases and rips from Blu-Rays purchases, but as the years roll by your movie collection value grows and the cost of storing / backing them up so you don't lose them increases. All a bit of a headache for watching a movie.
It seems to me the logical approach given all professional creators will already have switched to 4K for future proofing, is to retain the same price for 4K and lower the price of HD. This will eventually happen just as SD was reduced in price in the face of HD so why not start now and encourage the adoption of 4K..
But I don’t think they did that with HD and SD — HD shows and movies had a premium price attached. I don’t think that price premium ever went away, seems the norm itunes rental is now $6-7.
I was hoping that Apple would reveal an Apple Movies subscription model like Apple Music at the forthcoming event when the 4K ATV is released.
Do consumers really want to own movies anymore?
Surely music subscription services like Spotify and Apple Music have reduced the amount of music piracy significantly because the subscription is reasonably priced.
The same model for movies would surely help reduce movie piracy.
If Netflix can only make this work with older titles then I wouldn't expect that same all-you-can-eat model from Apple as their content mostly follows the disc releases of TV shows and movie titles.
There's likely a price where this becomes feasible for the content owner, but is that price feasible for the customer? Would $50 per month satisfy content owners? How would that be broken up? I don't think I'd pay that much unless downloads were still possible and I'd use it on the rare occasion where I planned ahead for some occurrence that kept me from having access to streaming content for awhile. I recently purchased MoviePass which is only $10 per month, but there are restrictions that I don't think are possible for streaming content.
Agree that I don't see a pure subscription, all-you-can-eat, recently released movie streaming service. Studios are very conservative and would never risk the DVD/BlueRay/4K purchase market.
What I think is a possible solution, that would benefit Apple and the studios, is an iTunes subscription ($10/month) which includes a free rental per month, and a reduced fee for other rentals ($1-2 off), and extend the rental period to something more reasonable like min 72 hours. A real enticement would be getting some good reductions for seasons passes for older content. iTunes has the largest inventory of TV programs available (any streaming service is hit & miss and only has a portion), but I bet the actual sales for that content (since you can't rent) is going down a lot. A subscription model that improves the monetization of that would be beneficial to the studios and of course Apple as they get a cut.
This also provides Apple another channel (besides Apple Music) to bring the rumoured Apple original content to market.
That sounds like a good and fair middle-ground, to me (which is why the content owners will never go for it. )
Perhaps you could also have carryover of this free rental so that customers are also inclined to keep their subscriptions active even if they don't plan to watch a title that month. I know I go in spurts.
I was hoping that Apple would reveal an Apple Movies subscription model like Apple Music at the forthcoming event when the 4K ATV is released.
Do consumers really want to own movies anymore?
Surely music subscription services like Spotify and Apple Music have reduced the amount of music piracy significantly because the subscription is reasonably priced.
The same model for movies would surely help reduce movie piracy.
Something like that would cost a fortune.
Probably $50 a month. This is assuming this movie subscription has all the new releases.
This discussion always leads to insane extremes in what is considered affordable. If you live in any major city, you spend over $50 just to see one new release with another person so $50 is nothing, especially if you could cancel subscription at any time. I would gladly pay $100/month for new releases I could watch at home and I would still come out way ahead. The studios want all of us to pay $50 per movie so you can see all of our expectations are out of alignment.
This is a two-headed coin. While paying less for media content is nice for consumers (and Apple will profit more if iTunes is the go-to for movies) it may discourage content creators investment in quality films and music. It's already tough for music performers and writers to make a living from streaming songs, and studios may suffer from ever-cheaper movie streaming as well with big-budget productions making less and less financial sense, especially as theater visits are declining.
The problem they will have is with Apple having a least a two-prong approach to forcing their way, reduce old-line studios and production houses profits by demanding lower prices while trumpeting the benefit to consumers (!), and at the same time using some of the Apple $B's to start their own shows and movies to compete with and replace them. IMO bending now would seem to play into Apple's plans to be the major force in video too just as they were in music.
Big Budget does not equal great movie.
Some of my favorite movies have been small/middle budget.
this is more about Studio greed.
If the studio's focused more on great stories and less on star power and sequels, the industry would be on much stronger footing.
How many film downloads are HD and how many SD? It will be down to the consumers to choose which video size and price. If the price is too higher then there will be few purchases of 4K.
I usually purchase SD videos as to my eyes they don't look much if any different to HD on an iPad or TV screen. A small file size is quicker to download to an iPad for later viewing. Also SD tends to be cheaper. Would l pay 3 times the price for 4K which probably is too big to download to my iPad or choose 3 SD films for the same price? Probably l will stick with the cheaper SD.
You must have really poor eyesight or a very small TV if you can't appreciate the difference between SD and HD on your TV. Heck, it's even pretty obvious on an iPad too.
Apple needs to make the movie industry understand what Steve made the music industry understand years ago: the price needs to reflect the reality that the competition is free (pirated). It's basically an example of the fact that if you're not willing to disrupt your business model as the world changes, someone else will.
As fewer and and fewer people "buy" movies, studios will have less incentive to refuse to license streaming rights to their newer and more popular titles, and they will probably just sell to the highest bidder. If we end up with fewer mediocre big-budget movies about superheroes saving the world from destruction, so be it.
I think the the music streaming model seems to be working out pretty well, all things considered. My friends who were making a living with music pre-streaming are still doing every bit as well, but like most recording artists, album sales were always a small part of their income--it's mostly live shows and licensing. And streaming services are probably at least as good as the average record store for helping lesser-known musicians to become recognized.
It's different for movies of course, but as streaming services grow, there will be more money to go around. If studios have to take a chance on an undiscovered talent rather than paying millions to an established star, that won't be so bad. And I'm with Sog on this one--if you have a good story, you don't need a ton of CGI.
huge difference between music and movie business.
Its very difficult to pirate 4k movies. Very difficult. Like 100x harder than music.
You can download a music file in 5 seconds. It takes days to download/upload a 4k movie.
Because of this pirating movies isn't mainstream like how music was.
All of you assumptions regarding pirating 4K are 100% wrong.
It seems to me the logical approach given all professional creators will already have switched to 4K for future proofing, is to retain the same price for 4K and lower the price of HD. This will eventually happen just as SD was reduced in price in the face of HD so why not start now and encourage the adoption of 4K..
That is the most logical however, there is nothing logical about an impulse purchase that someone makes because they just got their brand new 4k big screen TV. The studios and Apple are banking on this overlap period of a few years until the market is saturated with enough 4K TVs and appliances. Then the prices will adjust to their logical end.
It's a short-term attempt to maximize revenue. For newer releases, there really is no incremental costs for UHD vs. HD as all the work has already been done during initial production and remastering. HD titles are merely saved and distributed at 1080P. So, price erosion will eventually and naturally take place. However, there may be a premium for catalog titles that are remastered in UHD as there are direct costs with doing so.
I own over 200 HD movies on itunes and I can tell you I will not be buying those same movies again just because its 4k. I was expecting a free upgrade of those movies to 4k.
I think 4k should not cost more.... Its the same content, just a different resolution. Hollywood wants to pull the same trick they did when we went from dvd's to blue-rays. Well guess what, nobody is buying physical media anymore, it wont work this time.
Apple needs to make the movie industry understand what Steve made the music industry understand years ago: the price needs to reflect the reality that the competition is free (pirated). It's basically an example of the fact that if you're not willing to disrupt your business model as the world changes, someone else will.
huge difference between music and movie business.
Its very difficult to pirate 4k movies. Very difficult. Like 100x harder than music.
You can download a music file in 5 seconds. It takes days to download/upload a 4k movie.
Because of this pirating movies isn't mainstream like how music was.
given the number of folks with fire sticks that provide access to pirated movies still in theaters it appears to me to be trivial and pretty mainstream. This isn't being done by tech savvy folks but normal people.
Image quality isn't all that important if you can watch for free.
It bothers me when my kids go to others houses and watch pirated movies but its not my house so I don't make an issue of it. However, if the choice was between $9.99 for a HD/4K title vs a poor Korean screen cap I think the studios would see more legal sales. Whether that translates into more revenue depends I guess.
$50 to rent a movie still in the theaters is for me a non-starter. I can afford it, I just think its a poor value and I have a 100" HT setup to watch it on.
I own over 200 HD movies on itunes and I can tell you I will not be buying those same movies again just because its 4k. I was expecting a free upgrade of those movies to 4k.
I think 4k should not cost more.... Its the same content, just a different resolution. Hollywood wants to pull the same trick they did when we went from dvd's to blue-rays. Well guess what, nobody is buying physical media anymore, it wont work this time.
1) You had to pay the difference to upgrade your iTunes music but you think the you should get new content for free?
2) It's not just a different resolution, it's other costs that affect price, like larger files and a costly codec, and other features that make for a better visual and audio experience. You may not see more channels of audio or HDR as benefits but that doesn't mean they don't have associated costs. But the costs to Apple and content owners is irrelevant to what the market dictates. Your comments here sound like the people that claim Apple's products are a rip off because Apple makes a profit, so they go with crappy devices from poorly managed companies. You should only ever buy a product if there's a benefit to you, not because of what it costs the seller.
I own over 200 HD movies on itunes and I can tell you I will not be buying those same movies again just because its 4k. I was expecting a free upgrade of those movies to 4k.
I think 4k should not cost more.... Its the same content, just a different resolution. Hollywood wants to pull the same trick they did when we went from dvd's to blue-rays. Well guess what, nobody is buying physical media anymore, it wont work this time.
Make your movies costly and people will just pirate instead and then you get NOTHING!!!! Something is better then nothing. Charging more for 4K is silly, just like it's been silly to charge more for HD then SD content. How about just giving people what you already filmed. Not paying for downgrading video quality like in the past.
Pirating even 1080p movies is risky these days as studios monitor torrent sites much more vigorously than music labels. Also incredibly risky without VPN.
Still, I'd never rent from iTunes and Netflix/Streaming isn't dependable (too much coming and going, streaming sucks, catalog isn't as deep as their hard media library). One's local city library is also a good source of free movie titles.
$50 to rent a movie still in the theaters is for me a non-starter. I can afford it, I just think its a poor value and I have a 100" HT setup to watch it on.
Remember that the business models for a movie theater and home stream/download are different. In the theater you're paying for a seat but at home you're paying for a personal use license for a given timeframe (which may unending).
If it's no more than 3 people watching a new movie then perhaps going to the theater at, say, $12 a person would make sense, but if you're a family of 5 or more then paying $50 to watch at home would offer a financial benefit than going to the theater.
For Apple and content owners they need to find a happy medium because if you're always watching these titles along then you're likely not their target if $50 is too high, but if the average home user invites their neighbors over so that they're losing theater revenue (especially if they can have multiple showings at home with a flat fee) then the content owners and distributors lose again. There may never be a happy balance for new, blockbuster content to come to the home.
How about just giving people what you already filmed.
Why do you think they should give away their content? I'm guessing you don't think this way for anything else. Should musicians just give away all their songs since they've already recorded them? Should authors give away all their copyrights since they've already written it?
You should only ever buy a product if there's a benefit to you, not because of what it costs the seller.
Having just purchased and installed my first 4k tv (a "smart" roku/TCL device) I'm having a bit of an epiphany on the 4k discussion I've seen recently:
If you watch a lot of movies on a big screen, this is for you. If not, it seems a bit overhyped. IMO, it isn't worth the mark-up.
My 4k tv cost about $50 more (over the 1080p version.) I've compared the picture, and the difference is noticeable. However, I personally watch only 6-8 movies/year. (I go to the theater perhaps 2-3 times a decade. I *can* see springing for the 4k upgrade if it is something I really want to see (the 2-3 times a decade ones.) YMMV, and this is just me. I am likely an outliers on this, and certainly not the kind of customer Apple is seeking.
I watch a lot of ota sports. The HDR upscale on this unit looks nice.I *might* be interested in 4k sports feeds, but I doubt that is coming any time soon. I'd pay maybe $.99 for a NFL or NHL game.
I can see others willing to pay for the upgrade, just as Apple Music or pay for streaming music appeals to some. It just isn't for me. My $.02.
Comments
Agree that I don't see a pure subscription, all-you-can-eat, recently released movie streaming service. Studios are very conservative and would never risk the DVD/BlueRay/4K purchase market.
What I think is a possible solution, that would benefit Apple and the studios, is an iTunes subscription ($10/month) which includes a free rental per month, and a reduced fee for other rentals ($1-2 off), and extend the rental period to something more reasonable like min 72 hours. A real enticement would be getting some good reductions for seasons passes for older content. iTunes has the largest inventory of TV programs available (any streaming service is hit & miss and only has a portion), but I bet the actual sales for that content (since you can't rent) is going down a lot. A subscription model that improves the monetization of that would be beneficial to the studios and of course Apple as they get a cut.
This also provides Apple another channel (besides Apple Music) to bring the rumoured Apple original content to market.
Perhaps you could also have carryover of this free rental so that customers are also inclined to keep their subscriptions active even if they don't plan to watch a title that month. I know I go in spurts.
This discussion always leads to insane extremes in what is considered affordable. If you live in any major city, you spend over $50 just to see one new release with another person so $50 is nothing, especially if you could cancel subscription at any time. I would gladly pay $100/month for new releases I could watch at home and I would still come out way ahead. The studios want all of us to pay $50 per movie so you can see all of our expectations are out of alignment.
All art requires 3 things: artists to make, audience to experience and money to prescribe value.
I think 4k should not cost more.... Its the same content, just a different resolution. Hollywood wants to pull the same trick they did when we went from dvd's to blue-rays. Well guess what, nobody is buying physical media anymore, it wont work this time.
Image quality isn't all that important if you can watch for free.
It bothers me when my kids go to others houses and watch pirated movies but its not my house so I don't make an issue of it. However, if the choice was between $9.99 for a HD/4K title vs a poor Korean screen cap I think the studios would see more legal sales. Whether that translates into more revenue depends I guess.
$50 to rent a movie still in the theaters is for me a non-starter. I can afford it, I just think its a poor value and I have a 100" HT setup to watch it on.
2) It's not just a different resolution, it's other costs that affect price, like larger files and a costly codec, and other features that make for a better visual and audio experience. You may not see more channels of audio or HDR as benefits but that doesn't mean they don't have associated costs. But the costs to Apple and content owners is irrelevant to what the market dictates. Your comments here sound like the people that claim Apple's products are a rip off because Apple makes a profit, so they go with crappy devices from poorly managed companies. You should only ever buy a product if there's a benefit to you, not because of what it costs the seller.
Also incredibly risky without VPN.
Still, I'd never rent from iTunes and Netflix/Streaming isn't dependable (too much coming and going, streaming sucks, catalog isn't as deep as their hard media library).
One's local city library is also a good source of free movie titles.
Remember that the business models for a movie theater and home stream/download are different. In the theater you're paying for a seat but at home you're paying for a personal use license for a given timeframe (which may unending).
If it's no more than 3 people watching a new movie then perhaps going to the theater at, say, $12 a person would make sense, but if you're a family of 5 or more then paying $50 to watch at home would offer a financial benefit than going to the theater.
For Apple and content owners they need to find a happy medium because if you're always watching these titles along then you're likely not their target if $50 is too high, but if the average home user invites their neighbors over so that they're losing theater revenue (especially if they can have multiple showings at home with a flat fee) then the content owners and distributors lose again. There may never be a happy balance for new, blockbuster content to come to the home.
Having just purchased and installed my first 4k tv (a "smart" roku/TCL device) I'm having a bit of an epiphany on the 4k discussion I've seen recently:
If you watch a lot of movies on a big screen, this is for you. If not, it seems a bit overhyped. IMO, it isn't worth the mark-up.
My 4k tv cost about $50 more (over the 1080p version.) I've compared the picture, and the difference is noticeable. However, I personally watch only 6-8 movies/year. (I go to the theater perhaps 2-3 times a decade. I *can* see springing for the 4k upgrade if it is something I really want to see (the 2-3 times a decade ones.) YMMV, and this is just me. I am likely an outliers on this, and certainly not the kind of customer Apple is seeking.
I watch a lot of ota sports. The HDR upscale on this unit looks nice.I *might* be interested in 4k sports feeds, but I doubt that is coming any time soon. I'd pay maybe $.99 for a NFL or NHL game.
I can see others willing to pay for the upgrade, just as Apple Music or pay for streaming music appeals to some. It just isn't for me. My $.02.
Edit: Added Soli's comment.