backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by boobot.. on Jan 15 at 3:25 PM
Apple to announce movie rental download program weeks after Wal-Mart cancels similar service for lack of consumer interest

Movie fans know going to the movie store isn’t always convenient and late fees are a pain.  So why haven't downloadable movie rentals caught on yet?  Even the infamous Enron had plans to produce infrastructure for video-on-demand libraries as early as 2000.

With the recent demise of Wal-mart's downloadable services, the time might be ripe for new blood. According to the Associated Press Apple will announce the new movie rental service next month that will work on top of its iTunes infrastructure.

The new service is not to be confused with existing movie and TV downloads on iTunes.  The new service would increase content several times over, with titles from several different studios.

Apple has a much stronger user base for its iTunes service, which allowed Apple to attract its first major movie studio for the rental deal -- Twentieth Century Fox. Apple also agreed to license Fox its copy-protection scheme FairPlay, already built into Fox movie releases. This will allow Fox DVD films to be transferred to computers and iPods for playback.

For many movie fans the real viability for download services like this comes in the price per movie. If Apple can provide fast downloads of first run movies at a price within a few dollars of what the same film rents for in stores, the service should be a hit. However, if Apple and Fox price the download rentals too high the vast majority of movie fans will continue to make the trek to the movie store.

Rumors that Apple was considering a movie rental service surfaced in June of 2007. At that time the rumored price was $2.99 for a 30-day rental of a movie via digital download. If Apple offers new releases at that price the program would likely be very successful.
 
Wal-Mart recently nixed plans for its download movie program after it failed to meet expectations. This cancellation left those who had bought digital movies from Wal-Mart’s service hanging. The flicks can be viewed after the service was shut down on December 21, 2007, but they cannot be transferred to another PC.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Several reasons this will fail.
By Mitch101 on 12/28/2007 6:10:55 PM , Rating: 4
I dont watch movies on a PC. Come on kids crowd around the computer doesn't work.

I cant imagine video output with the Apple Ipod will do a movie justice. I don't think I could sit through a movie on an iPod.

Its seems like a step back to the black and white era. We take movies from the big screen and now think that watching them on a 2.5-3.5" screen does any justice to the movie? No thanks.

I would much rather get an X-Box 360 or PS3 for downloadable movies that can do HD output and is made for my HDTV.

Even if the comparison were of a movie in DVD quality the 360 and PS3 were made for the living room. I'm not sure enough Apple TV units were even sold to make any difference to standard definition.

I hope Fox is smart enough to make deals with other video download distributors.




RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By Some1ne on 12/28/2007 6:29:38 PM , Rating: 3
Much as I hope this will fail (or at least, Apple's version of it, as I don't see any reason why the concept of downloadable movie rentals itself should fail), I don't think it will be for any of the reasons you list. First off, as the article states:

quote:
This will allow Fox DVD films to be transferred to computers and ipods for playback.


...Apple isn't trying to force users to watch movies on tiny little ipod screens. Second, while people may not gather around a PC to watch a movie, getting a PC to play movies on a standard TV is typically about as simple as hooking up the S-video cable that came with your video card. Just because the movie is played on the PC, it doesn't mean that the PC can't render it on a more "conventional" movie-watching device.

Despite that, I do hope Apple's service flops, if only because I can't stand Apple due to their tendency to put sexy wrappers around proprietary platforms and then sell them (at a premium, no less) to people who aren't educated enough to understand exactly what the implications of that proprietary platform would be if it were ever to achieve a dominant position in the marketplace. Some real reasons why it might fail could be DRM restrictions being too strict (which was the problem with Walmart's system), or that it seems to be following a defunct pricing model ($3 per movie to rent a title for a month).

I think the first successful movie-download service will be the one that follows a more Netflix-like pricing model, where users pay something like $15/month and can download as many movies as they like, provided that they only have no more than 3 (or however many their specific plan allows) on their PC at the same time.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By MADAOO7 on 12/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By Some1ne on 12/28/2007 7:02:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think that's a pretty ignorant and narrow minded view of what Apple does.


Yes, because you cut my statement off in mid-sentence when you quoted it.

quote:
To say that people are dumb for purchasing an Apple because the sum of it's parts isn't priced the same as a Dell is just ridiculous.


Yes, it is, but I never said that. I said/implied that people who purchase Apple products (and I'm not talking just about their PC's) generally:

1. Do not know or care about the potential implications for the industry if a proprietary platform ever achieves a dominant market position.
2. Purchase the product as much for image/status/sexiness as anything else.

...and that Apple:

1. Deliberately puts attractive wrappers around proprietary junk to create an image to sell to people because they wouldn't otherwise bother to buy Apple's proprietary junk (and I'm not saying that it's not a good busniess tactic...it obviously is working quite well for Apple).
2. Charges what is essentially a "sexiness markup" on their products, because they know people will pay it anyways.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By MADAOO7 on 12/28/2007 7:27:39 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, I got you now. It's a valid point.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By ebakke on 12/28/2007 11:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
I still feel as though your frustration is directed at the wrong people. It seems you are (or maybe, should be) irritated with the consumers, and not the company. After all, the company is just doing what the (majority of) consumers want.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By doctat on 12/29/2007 1:57:23 AM , Rating: 1
while i'm no apple fanboy (i dislike macs for purely technical reasons), i don't think your arguments hold much water, and are a guise for covering up some sort of fanboyism of your own.

quote:
1. Do not know or care about the potential implications for the industry if a proprietary platform ever achieves a dominant market position.


what, like ms windows, sun solaris, hp hpux, ibm aix, etc. etc? apple is pretty much just operating a business like the rest of the planet, but doing a much better job of it.

apple coming up with the ipod/itunes combo is what i would call innovation. you can call it 'proprietary', but it's no different than anything else that ms, sony, hp, sun, or a thousand other companies are doing. are we truely worse off now as a species, than we were 20 years ago before apple released these major industry changing products to the world somehow?

quote:
2. Purchase the product as much for image/status/sexiness as anything else.


i suspect most people (rabid mac fanatics aside) buy apple stuff because it actually is better, vs. just because it has an apple sticker on it.

i think most of the planet would agree that apple has the best portable music player platform out there. apple hardware is generally top notch, their OS is OK (some people will argue that it's better than anything out there, and for them, it probably is), and apple has led the market in getting music, tv and now movies into people's hands at completely reasonable prices.

quote:
Deliberately puts attractive wrappers around proprietary junk to create an image to sell to people because they wouldn't otherwise bother to buy Apple's proprietary junk


what, like sony, microsoft, sun, ferarri, virgin, or any of the other million 'premium' vendors do? i'm curious who you think the other 'non-proprietary' businesses are that are out there, coming up with the same quality product, that people should be buying from?

quote:
2. Charges what is essentially a "sexiness markup" on their products, because they know people will pay it anyways.


i'd argue that apple charges a markup, in order to actually -put- some sexiness into their products, and to advance the status quo, and develop new markets. they're no different than any other company that vends premium quality products.

some people are hip to buying no-name white box stuff from wal-mart, and others would prefer a more advanced, shinier, premium quality product, and don't mind paying a couple extra bucks for it.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By Some1ne on 12/29/2007 2:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i don't think your arguments hold much water, and are a guise for covering up some sort of fanboyism of your own.


Depends on what you consider to be "fanboyism". I don't support any specific team or side, I just very much dislike Apple, though I make no attempts to cover up that personal bias.

quote:
what, like ms windows, sun solaris, hp hpux, ibm aix, etc. etc? apple is pretty much just operating a business like the rest of the planet, but doing a much better job of it.


The difference I see with Apple is that not only is the software proprietary (which I agree is par for the course, and not something to worry about), but so is the hardware on which it runs. You cannot go out and buy a copy of MacOS and then run it on any system you choose (from an "official" point of view anyways, I know that third parties have released hacked versions of MacOS that can run on any platform, but they are far from being sanctioned by Apple)...you *have* to run MacOS on hardware that is purchased from Apple. It's like if Microsoft were to say "you can only run Windows on PC's that are purchased from Microsoft", and in my opinion this is a dangerous approach (from the perspective of the industry) if it ever gains too much traction (can you imagine how awful it would be if Microsoft *did* only allow Windows to run on PC's purchased through MS, and charged an extra premium for said PC's? People would either be forced to pay MS's inflated prices, or to undertake potentially even more costly migrations to alternative platforms).

quote:
apple coming up with the ipod/itunes combo is what i would call innovation.


I wouldn't. An effective way to grow and maintain a userbase for iTunes, sure, and perhaps an "innovation" from an Apple marketing standpoint, but it's certainly not the good kind of innovation (which benefits the public at least as much as it benefits Apple). Many users (myself included) would prefer to have filesystem-style drag and drop support for managing an ipod playlist, and while there are third-party apps that enable this, there's no official support for it from Apple. I'm sure they could easily provide it, while at the same time maintaining the exact same compatibility with iTunes, but they don't because doing so could weaken their userbase, and obviously (at Apple at least) giving consumers what they want takes a backseat to maximizing the software userbase. Again, it's the same pattern of trying to tie a hardware and software platform together, even when there's no technical need to do so. I just think the potential implications are dangerous over the long-term.

quote:
what, like sony, microsoft, sun, ferarri, virgin, or any of the other million 'premium' vendors do?


I think my point was more that Apple puts so much focus into the image associated with their products specifically to appeal to people who will buy something solely/primarily for the image that comes with it, and in order to sidestep people with concerns about their tendency of trying to lock together hardware and software platforms in a highly exclusive way like they do.

There's nothing wrong with making a sexy product, but when you're making a product sexy on the outside specifically to conceal the rotten platform underneath, it smacks at least a little bit of dishonesty/deception, at least to me.


By retrospooty on 12/29/2007 12:43:30 PM , Rating: 5
"quote:
tendency to put sexy wrappers around proprietary platforms and then sell them (at a premium, no less) to people who aren't educated enough

I think that's a pretty ignorant and narrow minded view of what Apple does"

Thats pretty much exactly what Apple does.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By herrdoktor330 on 12/28/2007 11:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to add a note to this conversation; Apple does have the AppleTV appliance which streams content from whatever you have in iTunes. I don't know how many of those they sold. But if they have a good installed base of them, they could put content on a person's tv with no problem.

Anyone out there know how well the AppleTV sold? That should give us a clue as to how well this could do based on the installed base of that appliance (that didn't hack it and put linux or whotnot on it).


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By Doormat on 12/29/2007 12:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not very well at all.

I think Apple will take a two pronged approach to this problem of movie rentals on your TV - one is the AppleTV and the second is to let you load movies onto your iPod Touch and then use the component TV out cable plus a dock to play it on your TV. The AppleTV model is good for people who are going to watch a lot of rented movies. The iPod Touch model will be good for those who want to occasionally watch movies on their TV.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By othercents on 12/28/2007 6:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont watch movies on a PC. Come on kids crowd around the computer doesn't work.

Really I'm sure kids crowded around my computer which is connected to a 52" plasma TV would be just fine. I actually watch all TV using the computer TV Tuner and utilize the TV recording features of Media Center. I welcome downloads which will be closer to instant gratification without having to drive to the Movie Rental place.

Granted you can always get them for free, but wouldn't that be unethical?

Other


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By Chaser on 12/28/2007 6:52:53 PM , Rating: 3
And how many mass consumers, enough to make downloadable movies succeed are using Media Center connected to a 52 inch Plasma?


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By bigboxes on 12/28/2007 7:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And how many mass consumers, enough to make downloadable movies succeed are using Media Center connected to a 52 inch Plasma?


One.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By anotherdude on 12/28/2007 9:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto.

I got fabulous output from my Nvidia 8800 to my HDTV and surround sound too, but I know I'm one in a million. Not even my other geek friends are doing this. Too many steps, too many parts, for your average Joe who can't even hook up his HDTV to a cable box. And families are not going to gather round the PC, not even with a 32" High Def monitor

I see a much better chance for the xbox 360 model here.I'd love to see it too, being an xbox owner.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By Shlong on 12/29/2007 1:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
It's not really that difficult, all you need is a dual DVI video card (most are these days). A DVI to HDMI cable (cheap on monoprice). And a Stereo to RCA Audio cable (cheap on monoprice). You just go to control panel and either use clone or dualview & your set. For surround sound it varies depending on how you want to set it up.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By bigboxes on 12/29/2007 5:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's really not too difficult... for the geeks on here. For the everyday consumer has problems setting his VCR clock let alone set up a HDTV or HTPC. I built my own HTPC this last year, hard wired it to a gigabit network (internet and file server), added a RF keyboard and arcade quality joystick, DVI out to tv, and digital audio out to my Denon. Now, this obviously doesn't phase many on here, but 95% of the public would get a headache just reading the above.


RE: Several reasons this will fail.
By bangmal on 12/29/07, Rating: 0