backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 48 comment(s) - last by jpichichi.. on Sep 8 at 12:11 PM
New releases will cost $14.99, older movies $9.99

With the lion's share of the market in digital music downloads and a portable video player that has become so recognizable even your grandmother knows what an "iPod" is, Apple officially threw its hat into the movie arena with the announcement of movie downloads from the iTunes store in mid-September - and retail juggernaut Wal-Mart couldn't be unhappier about the news.

BusinessWeek's Robert Grover reports that Apple plans to begin offering full-length movie downloads via iTunes beginning in September. New releases will be sold for $14.99, and older films for $9.99 - an increase from Job's initial hope of a flat-rate $9.99 per film. Movies will be protected under a similar FairPlay-style agreement, where users are permitted to play the content on a limited number of devices. The ability to record to DVD will likely be provided as well.

Recently, Walt Disney Studios signed on to distribute their movies digitally with iTunes Movie Studio - not a surprise given Steve Job's shareholder status after the Pixar purchase. Fox Entertainment may join at a later date, as may Lion's Gate Entertainment, but only if other studios come along for the ride.  Part of the studio's reluctance to hop on the iTunes bandwagon might be related to Wal-Mart's massive share of DVD sales, approximately 40% of a $17-billion-per-year market. Judging by history, Wal-Mart isn't afraid to play hardball with Hollywood - earlier in 2006, they threatened not to sell Disney's High School Musical after the studio released it initially as an iTunes exclusive.

In exchange for "playing nice," Wal-Mart executive David Porter is asking for a reduction of the wholesale DVD price - currently $17 - to compete with Apple's lower costs. In addition, they want marketing help when they launch their own movie download site in the future to supplement their existing music download site.


Of course iTunes isn't the final word in movie distribution either.  Disney already has its own in-house distribution method set up for online purchases.  GUBA has also done its fair share of getting people excited for $0.99 online movie rentals. However, being first to market is only a slight advantage when competing with the ubiquitous iTunes -- including Microsoft's Zune distribution system.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Resolution/Quality?
By R Nilla on 8/31/2006 4:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the resolution of these iMovies will be... If it's less than DVD quality (which I would think it would have to be, since a 3-4GB download would be quite hefty) then the $14.99 price tag doesn't seem worth it...

I guess we'll have to wait and see how good Apple's next video iPod is, since right now the Creative Vision (and others) are far superior for video playback.




RE: Resolution/Quality?
By hughlle on 8/31/2006 4:37:18 PM , Rating: 4
hmmmm, a low quality download, now what to do, i can pay $9.99 or i can pay $0.00, oh the choices XD


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By ojingoh on 8/31/2006 5:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
this is why there's drm tough guy :^(


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By Burning Bridges on 8/31/2006 7:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
AFAIK there is only DRM on stuff you pay for, not stuff that *ahem* happens to fall into your bit torrent app.


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By xsilver on 8/31/2006 8:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
oh my,
guess you didnt get the post.
the OP was talking about why there is a need for drm in the first place and if in the future EVERYTHING is drm'ed then what good is BT?

yes laugh it off that everything will never be drm'ed


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By jtesoro on 8/31/2006 10:58:38 PM , Rating: 3
I think Burning Bridges is saying that even if everything is DRM'd, it'll be cracked so you'll be able to download a DRM-free version from BT quite soon after release.


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By rushfan2006 on 9/1/2006 9:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
I was just thinking isn't it kind of funny, not in a funny ha ha way, but in a funny strange way -- that something that is illegal to do and if you get caught you can suffer very stiff fines and even serve prison time is taken so lightly these days as if to say "dude...to save X dollars on a song or movie - I'll take that risk"....

I guess folks look at it like the speed limit laws in the states -- we all know right well its illegal but who can honestly say with a straight face they NEVER go above the speed limit?

Of course I've never heard of fines upto six figures or five years in jail for just speeding either.

Oh well....the really funny thing would be folks with the pirate what I want attitude...getting caught and then instantly they are a "victim" crying foul!

;)



RE: Resolution/Quality?
By ToeCutter on 9/1/2006 9:24:40 AM , Rating: 2
There's one little issue with your analogy: Speed limits are put place to protect the public from raging idiots that don't know how to drive.

DRM is put into place to protect studios' profits, even on movies that are freely available on OTA television, satellite and cable.





RE: Resolution/Quality?
By h0kiez on 9/1/2006 10:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
These just aren't going to sell...period. Nobody in their right mind thinks that a 320 x 240 (or whatever) movie is worth the same price as a DVD. Also, it makes no sense to have people downloading one file that is suitable both as a burnable DVD replacement and also as a movie to be watched on a low-res iPod screen. Plus, even if there are lossless and burnable files, people have a collector's mentality about movies. People want their proper case with art, etc...especially if there's no huge cost advantage to not having it.

They should stick with trying to rent these. Plenty of people would pay $4 or $5 to download it for rent and watch it.


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By rushfan2006 on 9/1/2006 12:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
And there is one little issue with your reply.....I wasn't mentioning DRM at all so how did I make analogy to DRM? If anything the analogy is they are both ILLEGAL acts.

So again, one little problem with your reply -- its still illegal. ;)

Not trying to be Johnny Good Guy here....just trying to be factual and making an observation from the FACTS....you pirate music/videos/whatever get caught and go before a judge with one of the ridiculous excuses that you see fly around these boards...and see what the court says......

just remember...don't drop the soap.


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By bob661 on 9/1/2006 3:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not trying to be Johnny Good Guy here
How are you NOT trying to be "Johnny Good Guy" here?


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By rushfan2006 on 9/1/2006 3:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How are you NOT trying to be "Johnny Good Guy" here?


Get touchy when someone explains that something is illegal and just makes a point about how its interesting so many do it and make all kinds of excuses for it huh? Or get defensive..you know like your reply just now did? :)

...... but seriously, what I was saying was essentially not saying I'm not a wrong doer myself from time to time...my point was originally just something I thought is interesting how we so easily forgive some illegal acts merely because they are 1) easy to get away with and 2) to our direct benefit.



RE: Resolution/Quality?
By bob661 on 9/1/2006 3:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or get defensive..you know like your reply just now did? :)
Not defensive here. I just find it amusing when people make comments such as,
quote:
So again, one little problem with your reply -- its still illegal. ;)

then turn around and say,
quote:
You guys amuse me. Now we are doing "hey man I'm right and your not" posts over grammar and spelling on a free form internet forum.....

Wrong is wrong. What's the difference?


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By Scabies on 8/31/2006 4:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Anything more would be a waste of space right? If you cant show all the pixels, you dont need em. 320x240 forever! (I think, I forget the pod rez)
Now, if the sound was phenomenal...


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By R Nilla on 8/31/2006 5:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
not if you want to watch it on your high-res LCD monitor or burn it to DVD.

I think the video iPod is 420xsomething, but Creative's Vision is 640x480, not that Creative users would use iTunes to get their movies...


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By slashbinslashbash on 8/31/2006 5:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you have to consider that DVDs use a decade-old codec, MPEG-2 (finalized in 1993/94). h.264 (2003) is a lot better at preserving detail at substantially lower bitrates (less than half of MPEG-2). I bet that Apple can do 1GB (average) movies with close to DVD quality.

My biggest concern is over sound. I hope they are including Dolby Digital and/or DTS audio. If not, no iTunes movies for me.


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By Jedi2155 on 8/31/2006 8:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on this point. My main motivation for buying movies is enjoy the 5.1 surround sound.


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By ChugokuOtaku on 9/1/2006 9:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
that being the case, then burning off to a standard DVD video disk means re-encoding the whole thing from H.264 to mpeg2? or wait... oh boy... even if the download was at 480p, then we have to downscale the video to watch on iPod = wasted space since the native video resolution is higher? unless it's gonna re-encode/downscale on the fly as it transfers to the iPod?
and is the iPod video even widescreen? cuz no way in hell will I ever pay for a cropped movie, even if it was 1080p

I honestly don't see how this will sell...


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By jtdwab on 9/1/2006 2:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think the studio's are doing this is that believe they can get back to the grand days when they could put anything on a DVD and people would buy it. Now people have large collecitons and don't want to buy or are looking for a new media (optical or other).

They think that movies will sell like songs on Itunes and people will just fork over cash to get all their movies again in a new format. The deal is they are making huge money because they don't have to produce a thing. Figure .50 goes to Itunes, another 1.50 goes to all the people for roalties leaving the studios making 7.99 on a 9.99 movie. Not a bad take considering they think they can sell a 300 million movies in a couple years.


RE: Resolution/Quality?
By jpichichi on 9/8/2006 12:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
The thing to keep in mind about "will it sell" is this:

Unlike UMD movies which take up valuable shelf space, movies on iTunes require no hard shelf space. Because of the nature of the integrated Apple solution, meaning the full merge of iPod, iTunes, and so on there are intangible benefits to offering these things.

It's a win/win for Apple and a strong move (get your Apple stocks people, this company is far better than AOL in its heyday). If it sells 3% more iPods, they've won, they WILL sell movies, the one thing to keep in mind is that people are bussy.

"People are bussy" should be Apple's slogan. They undertand that people just want it to work the first time and all of the time and that convenience sells (as it should... we're all running out of time here!).


No thanks
By Soviet Robot on 8/31/2006 10:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the same with movies as I do with buying music off of itunes.
Why pay for a low bitrate DRM'd audio file when you can buy the CD and have a physical copy, unlimited digital copy, etc.
Why pay $15 for a low resolution DRM'd movie when you can buy the full DVD, have a digital copy at a higher resolution, etc.

The ipod video is even more of a worse. The zen vision m's video output is twice the resolution and 10 times the color output as the ipod, and can play many more codecs.




RE: No thanks
By tmp8000 on 9/1/2006 5:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
That's not the real video ipod, the real video ipod isn't out yet. Also to answer the rest of your questions I think it comes down a lot to laziness/convenience. It's easier to just click on itunes and order something than it is to run down to the store. For me it's usually the timing that I want to listen to or watch a movie late at night and nowhere around where I live is open late enough. While I do think 14.99 is too expensive (don't blame Apple for that blame the film industry) if they can offer something compelling in the future I'll look into it. But for now I do tend to hold a wait and see opinion, however I won't automatically say no just because it is Apple and has DRM. In 5-10 years everything will have DRM trust me.


RE: No thanks
By MikeO on 9/1/2006 6:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
"It's easier to just click on itunes and order something than it is to run down to the store."

You do know it's possible to just click and buy DVD's online and get them delivered to your house, right? Also, it's usually cheaper.


RE: No thanks
By PrinceGaz on 9/1/2006 8:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In 5-10 years everything will have DRM trust me.

Most media that is sold legally may well have DRM, but you can guarantee that DRM-free versions of it will also be available because the demand is there for it. Whether the DRM-free versions are sold legally as well as being distributed illegally (they will be distributed illegally in any case) will depend on whether the music- and video-companies respect their customers or treat us as potential criminals.


RE: No thanks
By Jellodyne on 9/1/2006 9:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
DRM is like a jail where they give everyone a copy of their cell key in case they need to use the restroom. No matter how hard they try to control the keys eventually someone's going to sneak one out. TPI or no.


RE: No thanks
By marvdmartian on 9/1/2006 9:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, come on.....they might be part of the .0000001% of the people in this country that haven't yet heard of Deep Discount DVD, right? ;)

Let's see.......digital download, versus actually buying the movie on disk. DRM be damned, anything they make to copyright protect a disk will be unmade shortly thereafter, at which time anyone can rip the movie from their legally purchased dvd, and put it on anything they want.

Besides, it make ye feel like a pirate!


RE: No thanks
By mino on 9/1/2006 9:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Pirate! Where's your ship?

LOL

The more they try, the more I'm becoming antagonist to buy a CD/DVD. I even had to fodbid parents to buy CD's cause last time they bought 3 of them with copy-protection and our MCE(CD-player free home :) could not play them!
So I had to rip them... This is plain stupid.

Even so, only audio stuff I would buy is 192kHz/24bit binary or flac, anything lower is stealing of money from my pockets. Does not matter what media it is on.


RE: No thanks
By Phynaz on 9/1/2006 10:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even so, only audio stuff I would buy is 192kHz/24bit binary


You realize cd's are only 16 bit right?


RE: No thanks
By mino on 9/1/2006 11:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I do.

That's the reason I never bought one. DVD-A only.


RE: No thanks
By mino on 9/1/2006 11:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
And one more point, 44kHz is far worse limitation than that 16bit resolution...


Come on Wal-Mart
By INeedCache on 8/31/2006 4:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Wal-Mart should just buy Apple and be done with it.




RE: Come on Wal-Mart
By shadowzz on 8/31/2006 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 3
Oh god, I wouldn't be able to deal with Walmart zealots.


RE: Come on Wal-Mart
By Scabies on 8/31/2006 4:42:55 PM , Rating: 5
"Wal Mart is for the creative and the elite. I pity you weak Target shoppers."


RE: Come on Wal-Mart
By mendocinosummit on 8/31/2006 5:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like shopping at either. Ever heard of Bi-mart?


RE: Come on Wal-Mart
By mryoder on 8/31/2006 4:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if the only place to buy a MAC was Walmart. That would be special!


RE: Come on Wal-Mart
By quiksilv3r on 8/31/2006 5:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
They'd never sell. 90% of people that walk into Walmart can't afford a stick of ram, much less a computer.


RE: Come on Wal-Mart
By retrospooty on 8/31/2006 5:55:52 PM , Rating: 3
True... Walmart tends to sell cheap stuff at a cheap price. Mac doesnt fit that mold (medium grade stuff at a high price)


Typo
By MDE on 8/31/2006 6:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
The possessive form of Jobs is Jobs's, not Job's. Sounds and looks clumsy but it's correct (Jobs' is probably also acceptable).




RE: Typo
By dilz on 8/31/2006 9:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(Jobs' is probably also acceptable).


Yes, you're correct in assuming that.


RE: Typo
By koyaanisqatsi on 9/1/2006 5:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
Jobs's means Jobs is...

Jobs' is the only possessive form of Jobs


RE: Typo
By SocrPlyr on 9/1/2006 9:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect, either form is acceptable when the original word is singular but ends in s. The rules are actually quite ambiguous about this. Also, I believe the only nouns that the contraction rule "'s" meaning "is" only apply to pronouns. I could be wrong on that. However, I challenge you to find a single use of "'s" used in at least semiformal context that means "is."

oh and whoever wrote the wikipedia page on contractions seems to agree for the most part. however, they do state that it is not always. It does not give an example of "'s" with the meaning you indicate however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_%28gramma...

I will gladly concede the point if you can give me at least a semiformal example.
Josh


RE: Typo
By rushfan2006 on 9/1/2006 2:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
You guys amuse me. Now we are doing "hey man I'm right and your not" posts over grammar and spelling on a free form internet forum.....

wow you guys get really bored huh?


RE: Typo
By PrinceGaz on 9/1/2006 9:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
When you are communicating in written-form, correct grammar and punctuation is important to making yourself clearly understood. I know it's picking nits to debate apostrophe usage especially in a place like this, but getting it right does make a difference.

Apostrophes (like all punctuation-marks) were created for a reason, not just as an excuse to add another character to your keyboard. When the correct use of them is understood, it becomes a lot easier to read a well-written article; any incorrect apostrophes (either extra, missing, or misplaced) disrupt the flow and divert your attention slightly.

It only takes a bit googling (yeah I'm guilty of genericiding them) and about ten or twenty minutes to learn the essentials of apostrophe usage. In the time you've spent on DT reading rubbish like this, you could instead have enlightened yourself and gained a few levels in good grammar :)


RE: Typo
By Ardan on 9/1/2006 3:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, I was thinking the same thing when I saw the attempts to correct everyone's grammar.


RE: Typo
By INeedCache on 9/2/2006 9:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the singular possessive form of a proper noun that ends in "s" is achieved by merely adding an apostrophe. There are different rules for possessive forms of common nouns. This can be found in any decent grammar text, or website. By the way, this is at least as exciting as this iTunes news.


OR
By feraltoad on 8/31/2006 6:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
Shop smart, shop S-Mart.




Music Sells, Movies Will Not
By aliasfox on 9/1/2006 11:38:44 AM , Rating: 2
Think about it - if you want two songs off of an album, you can either go to FYE and buy the album for an ass-ripping $18, or just buy the two songs off of iTunes for $1.98. You cut out the filler, which you don't really care about anyway. If you want the entire album, most people still end up buying in-store given that you get a physical copy.

TV shows? Same. You don't want to have to wait for the reruns to come on or for the entire season to come out on DVD, just grab the couple you missed and it's fine. No fuss, and it's cheaper than the DVD and easier than waiting for the rerun or trying to find it on BT or whatever.

Movies? By the time they're available on iTunes, they're also available in Blockbuster, Target, Wal-Mart... at the same price (no effective discounts like for TV shows and music). In fact, people watch movies much less often than they listen to music - $14.99 is three rentals at Blockbuster - enough to satisfy most people.

This also won't satisfy people trying to build libraries, as there's no box with cover art, not to mention no "special features."

I have little doubt that the "Movie iPod" will have higher resolution (maybe 720 x 480), and I've agreed with Apple's media model (for the most part) until now, but making people pay $15 for a movie they might watch twice (without giving them a hard copy or any benefit over a DVD) is pointless.




Why does everyone assume?
By jpichichi on 9/8/2006 11:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
I am just floored by how much people think I want to pirate. I don't want most of the stuff out there if it were free. If I wanted it, you'll already find it on my shelf. Most of us already have a few days worth of music that we actually like and "own"... so what's the biggy?

I use my DVD-burner for 3 things: burning Linux install disks, backing up my files, and remix CDs. I think that's closer to what most people do than the notion that we are all running blackmarket shops.

It is a delusional to think that most people would go radically out of their way to obtain the latest round of low-quality stuff.

I forsee an entertaintment crisis comming right up. TV's are much better now, HD-DVD's are coming in and so on. We all know that an amazing video iPod is just around the corner. In a couple of years talented actors, musicians, etc. will have a heyday.

All I'm trying to say is that at some point (really soon) the pixel count will be irrelevant and at some point we'll all go back to wanting some quality content. Something new to see, and not just a new way to see it.

The very idea that I need 30 gigabytes of music in my pocket is almost offensive. I can only listen to one thing at a time, and that ONE THING is going to be what I perceive to be the very best thing at that time. So am I going to buy an iPod, nope sorry that gimmick didn't work on me. But I am almost certain I will buy a new RadioHead CD if one were ever to come out again. I will also make it out to the movie theater to watch a mind-blowing movie.

PS. Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 is awesome.




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki