backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by RTMike.. on Feb 7 at 5:00 PM
Wal-Mart jumps into the downloadable movie market

Wal-Mart is joining the likes of Amazon, Apple and Microsoft by providing downloadable movie and TV show content for users. Wal-Mart’s entry into this market was rumored as far back as September of 2006. The company on Tuesday launched a new beta service from which users can choose from roughly 3,000 movies and television shows.

For its initial offering, Wal-Mart has signed on with only one of the four major television networks: Fox. The company is currently in talks to provide content from ABS, CBS and NBC. Wal-Mart's service does, however, feature content from MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central.

The company will offer movie downloads for as low as $7.50 for existing titles and as high as $19.88 for new titles. TV shows will be offered for $1.96 each.

Wal-Mart will also feature movie downloads from all of the major film studios. While Apple has only signed on Walt Disney Co. and Paramount Studios, Wal-Mart has backing from those two companies in addition to Sony, 20th Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros.

"Customers have a growing interest in downloading video content, but complementary and supplemental to buying content on DVD," said Kevin Swint, Wal-Mart's divisional manager for digital media.

According to Adams Media Research, the online movie market has an estimated 5-year forecast of $4 billion USD in revenue. This is compared to a $27 billion USD for DVD rentals and sales.

All downloadable content will be viewable on a PC or transferable to a Windows Media portable device. Not surprisingly, Apple's iPod and Mac computers will not be able to take advantage of the service.

"The real problem is people want to watch these movies on their television set. There already is an effective way to do that, which is to buy a DVD," said Josh Bernoff of Forrester Research.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Firefox
By SocrPlyr on 2/6/2007 2:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Check out walmart's download site using firefox.

interesting...




RE: Firefox
By wrdegler on 2/6/2007 3:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
Walmart is in trouble. If they can not make the site work in firefox, this indicates a huge failing on their behalf. What makes this so important is not the loss of customers as so few of us use firefox, but it shows a lack of thoroughness required to under take such a large project. for example if iTunes has even a small bug, the blogosphere and internet communities goes after Apple's throat. Walmart has a number of people that see them as a great evil, this failure will probably get some press.

Here is a prediction-
If they are going to last this will be have to be fixed within a day(really minutes or hours). If not they are only going to be in this for a short while. There will be other hidden problems that arise in this project that might really cause a loss of customers.


RE: Firefox
By h0kiez on 2/6/2007 4:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
What makes this so important is not the loss of customers as so few of us use firefox,

Wrong. Not only is FF's market share very significant, but the type of people that would tend to download movies are also the type of people who would tend to use firefox. I remember seeing an article on Digg about the breakdown of browser usage by digg users. FF had a huge majority (I think 60%-70%) with the rest split almost evenly b/w IE, Safari, and Opera among others.


RE: Firefox
By Gatt on 2/6/2007 4:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not to be rude,

But the majority of PC users are fairly lucky if they can find the power button, I'll guarantee you they're not installing an alternate web browser.

Nor would I say that Digg is at all a good reflection of that market at large.

If FF managed to have a double digit market share it'd be a pure miracle once you start looking into the real majority of computer users.


RE: Firefox
By Ringold on 2/6/2007 4:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Plus, to be honest, since IE7 has come out, given the number of sites I have to deal with that never bothered to properly support FF, I've moved everything to IE except for pr0n; FF can do that duty more safely, and IE7 can do everything I needed with FF except with wider compatibility (and imho looks better, but thats just me).

Besides, FF users shouldn't have a stick so far up their rear that they refuse to click their mouse a couple times to fire up IE. They'd be no better than the gay's complaining over the Snickers superbowl commercial... chill out, folks.

I'd almost give Linux users room to properly whine, but I think it's still pretty common knowledge that converting 100% to Linux at this point in the game means surrendering expectations of compatibility, so, no luck there either.


RE: Firefox
By Methusela on 2/6/2007 4:52:12 PM , Rating: 1
Welcome to miracles 101.

As of July 2006, here are the figures:
http://www.e-janco.com/browser.htm

As of the end of 2006, they were:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/safa...
(read for various market shares)

Hell, as of 2005 it had double digit market share:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,3923...

And, in Australia, here are the latest figures: http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21...

So, anyway, blah blah. Did I wow you enough?


RE: Firefox
By Crank the Planet on 2/6/2007 7:43:24 PM , Rating: 2
As I recall most of Firefox's success is due to alternative browsers like Opera and Avant. Opera had tabbed browsing like 2 years before Firefox even came out. Mouse gestures, keyboard shortcuts, and many features found in Firefox were part of several different browsers before they were incorporated. Opera also has the best proven track record of security (cross your fingers for future releases :) and you don't have to deal with extensions. All the features are built right in and work great together. Opera also seems to come out with new innovations and features before anyone else. There have been only a handful of sites that weren't complatible in the 4-5 years I've been using it. Hmmm, lite, strong, fast, secure (best proven track record so far), and innovative features? bittorrent built in? Completely customizable skin and buttons I can add/change/move about anywhere? Wow, I think if I weren't already an Opera user, I'd download it right now.

http://www.opera.com/




RE: Firefox
By hondaman on 2/7/2007 1:42:41 AM , Rating: 3
Firefox enjoys over a 30% market share. Some of you guys really need to step outside of your MS virtual reality once in a while.

Check the stats yourself, here: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a...

This is simply horrible on Walmarts behalf. Inexcusable.


RE: Firefox
By crimson117 on 2/7/2007 10:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
"Firefox enjoys over a 30% market share."

Wrong. W3Schools' web logs do not define the entire market.

quote:
W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.
Determining Firefox's market share by checking W3Schools' web logs is like determining Mac's market share by taking a survey at an Apple store.


RE: Firefox
By jonnybradley on 2/7/2007 5:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
Intresting statas there. Just on question, IE has 81% FF has 22% - now in my book that makes 103% ?? and other browsers??

Have to question the source if he can't even add up to 100.

Iam a FF user by the way!!


RE: Firefox
By NullSubroutine on 2/7/2007 8:46:57 AM , Rating: 2
I didnt read the article, but I will answer your question. When doing statistics, there is a figure, commonly referred to as margin of error. Typically +/- 3%, if it is a decent sample size. This could be the extra 3% you are seeing.


RE: Firefox
By h0kiez on 2/7/2007 9:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. You clearly didn't read what I wrote very carefully and your facts are wrong as well.

the majority of PC users are fairly lucky if they can find the power button

Um...my point was that this type of use that you speak of (probably the majority) DOES exist, and that they DO use IE...but they also couldn't download a movie from Wal Mart if their life depended on it.

Nor would I say that Digg is at all a good reflection of that market at large.

Of course it's not...but it is a good reflection of the young, tech-savvy type of person that might actually want to and have the wherewithall to download a movie from the internet.

If FF managed to have a double digit market share it'd be a pure miracle

As pointed out by those without their head up their bums, your miracle has come true. I've seen various estimates from credible sources pegging it at roughly 15%-20%. And that INCLUDES all the idiots that run IE exclusively and can't find the power button. Take them out, and I bet you'd be left with 40% or more of those wanting and able to download a movie using FF.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly have IE installed as well and I'm not afraid to use it, but FF has its advantages, and a hell of a lot of people use it.


RE: Firefox
By mydogfarted on 2/6/2007 4:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
I bet Sony and Apple are to blame.


RE: Firefox
By walk2k on 2/6/07, Rating: -1
RE: Firefox
By tmp8000 on 2/6/2007 7:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
Or 14% of users, but don't let the facts bog you down.


RE: Firefox
By nangryo on 2/6/2007 10:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, just get an IE tab extension (about 300Kb)and you are done for. It loaded smooth and ready.


RE: Firefox
By RTMike on 2/7/2007 4:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
I work at a company that does online video, and our users run about half Firefox, and about half everybody else, according to our server logs.


Too Expensive, Piracy Too Easy
By Flunk on 2/6/2007 2:10:25 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think that the media companies fully understand the concept of the internet as a content delivery medium. The combination of unreasonably high prices for content and readily available pirated content really makes it hard for many people (including myself) to pay for DRM-crippled copies of TV Shows and Movies when we can get full-quality pirated copies just as easily.

I can see value in a physical format such as DVD or Blue-ray because I am getting a high-quality product that doesn't unfairly restrict my usage. But for what you get with paid downloads the value is just not there. I can watch shows on TV for $40 a month for as many as I like. If I could download TV shows at a similar rate perhaps I would cancel my cable service and go for that instead.




RE: Too Expensive, Piracy Too Easy
By Whedonic on 2/6/2007 2:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
If some company would just provide cheap, high quality downloads, and they'd blow the rest out of the water.


RE: Too Expensive, Piracy Too Easy
By h0kiez on 2/6/2007 3:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but they can't. For what you and I would consider "reasonably cheap", no service could make a deal with any of the major studios. I'll just keep torrenting for now I guess.