Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon's Online Movie Service

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the friday's-right-for-fighting dept.

ebresie writes "According to the NYT, it looks as though Amazon is going to start competing with iTunes movie downloads." From the article: "So far, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Brothers are engaged in the talks, said one person close to the talks who, like the others, asked not to be identified because the negotiations are continuing. Although it is not clear when it might begin, an Amazon downloading service would be sure to send waves through both the media and retail worlds. Players in both industries are racing to offer new ways to give technology-savvy audiences instant access to their favorite shows and songs, in a field crowded with potential rivals using Internet and on-demand technologies. "

79 comments

  1. And some people express surpise... by zubinjdalal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... when box office sales keep declining!

    Others are realizing that it's just not worth the effort to rush, pay more and stand in line to watch a movie when they can just download it online or buy it on PPV and watch it in the comfort of their homes a couple of months later.

    1. Re:And some people express surpise... by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Others are realizing that it's just not worth the effort to rush, pay more and stand in line to watch a movie when they can just download it online or buy it on PPV and watch it in the comfort of their homes a couple of months later.

      The problem is that to download at anything like cinema quality for home viewing, you're talking about files of many gigabytes. Even discounting bandwidth limits, that's still a lot of hours worth of downloading to grab all of that. And it's not just a problem for the consumer - Amazon or whoever would have to have the hardware to be pushing out tens of thousands of movies in parallel AND still make some money from the service after the studios have taken a cut. You hear the RIAA whinging about iTMS selling 4Mb tracks for .99. Now imagine trying to make money pushing 150x the data for for (say) $6.

      That's a tough proposition.

      So tough in fact that the first casuality of online movies is quality. Broadcast quality takes too much bandwidth. You'd be lucky to get something which was remotely comparable to a DVD or even satellite. You'd be lucky to get something that compares to your average DIVX encoded movie. And of course whatever you bought would also be DRM'd up the ass, ensuring that unless you had WMP with the proper rights, that your movie is as useful as a CD snapped in half.

    2. Re:And some people express surpise... by skarphace · · Score: 1

      The problem is that to download at anything like cinema quality for home viewing, you're talking about files of many gigabytes. Even discounting bandwidth limits, that's still a lot of hours worth of downloading to grab all of that.

      So what?

      Anyone with a decent broadband connection could download a few movies per night when they are asleep. Who's going to watch more then a couple movies per day? And if you really need them quick, you can download TV quality(320x240ish). Poor resolution on my 25" TV at home looks perfectly fine.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    3. Re:And some people express surpise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true.

      My cable company offers Pay Per View, but they also offer Video On Demand through their digital service. It's the same price as a rental for a movie, and I have it for 24 hours, I can pause it, rewind it, fast forward and rewatch as many times as I want.

      Furthermore, you can order some previously-aired shows for free. For example, if I missed an even during the last Olympics, I could order it a week later and see it when it was convenient for me. Seeing as I don't have a PVR, this service is pretty good.

      But I digress. My point is that the simplicity of the VOD system is amazing. It doesn't require a special player (just my digital cable receiver), I don't need any special software and it's available NOW, not when it finishes downloading. Unless Amazon or any of these online movie services can offer the same simplicity, cable will always be king.

    4. Re:And some people express surpise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You'd be lucky to get something that compares to your average DIVX encoded movie.
      Actually, your "average DIVX encoded movie" is as close to DVD quality as makes no difference. I don't know what you've been watching, but a straight DVD to divx/xvid rip is almost identical, when done right. Your average CAM/TC/TS rip is obviously worse but you would expect that to be the case.

      As for file size, well that is directly related to final quality of course, but I get Battlestar Galactica (45 minutes) in excellent quality at around 350 MB. On a busy torrent, that takes sometimes less than 30 minutes to download. On a fast link, you could almost stream it ! I can rip a 2 hour movie DVD to xvid at a filesize of 1200MB and keep the ac3 sound and get excellent quality to boot.

      DRM is always an issue regardless of (legal form of) delivery.

    5. Re:And some people express surpise... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Actually, your "average DIVX encoded movie" is as close to DVD quality as makes no difference. I don't know what you've been watching, but a straight DVD to divx/xvid rip is almost identical, when done right. Your average CAM/TC/TS rip is obviously worse but you would expect that to be the case.

      I've done several DIVX rips and I don't think the quality is comparable to DVD. It's watchable but certainly not comparable.

    6. Re:And some people express surpise... by Ozymand+E.+Us · · Score: 1

      as useful as a CD snapped in half.

      Which is still more useful than Aquaman.

    7. Re:And some people express surpise... by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I get Battlestar Galactica (45 minutes) in excellent quality at around 350 MB.

      I've had occasional problems with the MPEG encoder boards in my MythTV box. There was one episode (Scar) that I've had consistent trouble grabbing from cable, so I pulled it from alt.binaries.tv. NewsHosting has a web interface to the binaries groups that saves bandwidth (vs. downloading uuencoded or yEnc'd posts and decoding them). I normally encode video to MPEG-2 at about 6 Mbps (but I usually record at an even higher bitrate for Battlestar Galactica). The downloaded file looked about as good as the captures my MythTV box makes. They're even cropped to widescreen format and inverse-telecined before encoding. (The latter is an indication that whoever is doing the encoding has a clue, as I was half-expecting/half-fearing that the video would've been mangled with some half-assed deinterlacing that would've left the video at 29.97 fps. With inverse telecine, the framerate is reduced to 23.976 fps and the video is not interlaced. It restores the video to what was on the source film.)

      The short version of all of the above is that the parent post isn't kidding about the quality of what's getting posted to Usenet/P2P/etc.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    8. Re:And some people express surpise... by blaksaga · · Score: 1

      your movie is as useful as a CD snapped in half.

      You mean I can "cut bitches" with it?

    9. Re:And some people express surpise... by Firehed · · Score: 1
      But it's not the grey area sources that are problematic. I personally rip all my movies to Xvid with lossless settings (whether they truly are, I have no idea, but the quality would certainly seem so; no artifacting or image dismemberment to speak of). I'll have files weigh in anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5GB in size, averaging around 2.2GB. While this is no large issue if I were to distribute them over or attain them through P2P, a P2P distribution for legitimate downloads isn't a viable solution for a great number of reasons, primarily CRAP (assuming, of course, that it's specific to your computer and not some Napster-esque subscription model).

      Assume, for a moment, that users of this service have something like a 4Mbit connection. Provided that it doesn't get interrupted, that should be enough to stream most full-res videos. The question becomes what sort of server setup they'd need to be able to distribute a huge selection of large files to a very large number of people. P2P is, of course, absolutely perfect for a situation like this. In reality, protection is a non-issue here - people that are going to pay to download the videos are not the type to go and share them again. People that are going to download illegally are going to do so anyways, and those that want the best quality will go for the DVD rips rather than the 700MB transcodes (or, if they're really anal about quality, rent the thing and burn a copy).

      If the movie industry would realize that concept, than the only theoretical problem becomes their legal ability to force you to download through P2P - that is to say, they hardly have the right to force you to waste (a lot of) your upload bandwidth for paid content. I don't think a two-tiered payment model would work for that, since most people that'd use this service aren't going to know much about the technical aspect. They'd go for the cheaper one (being a sharer, versus a leech only for the more expensive version) and then complain to their ISP when web pages start loading so slowly due to them not being able to send out any requests thanks to saturated bandwidth. And, of course, the ISPs wouldn't stand for that, since they'd rather not have the majority of their users saturating their allocated bandwidth (especially upload).

      So, in short, it's just a stupid idea bound to fail. Most people don't want to watch movies on their computer anyways when they can use their TV.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  2. Burnable DVDs? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the article they say that customers will be able to download the movies and burn them to DVD. I don't imagine they'll let us download full DVD5 or DVD9 ISOs of the movies. More likely, it will be some highly compressed MPEG-4 variant, along with some Amazon-branded "preparation/conversion" app that outputs a burnable DVD5 or 9 ISO image. Even this sounds like it'd be a bit much for the average computer user to get a handle on. They'd better make sure this whole process is fairly idiot-proof or it's doomed to failure.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:Burnable DVDs? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Almost certainly this will not be exactly what the NYT thinks it means.
      Possibilities include:
      1) Costs so high that people will decide that they'd rather just wait and buy the official DVD because it will have extras or else download it off a P2P network for free.
      2) Use of a lower resolution image that while technically DVD burnable, offers an inferior viewing experience for the consumer. One such option would be to make 352x240 NTSC or 352x286 PAL resolutions available, which are legal DVD resolutions. Such video, if a sufficiently low bitrate were used, would provide an inferior VCD-like viewing experience that would not really be able to compete with an official DVD release to stores later.
      3) They'll let you burn it to DVD, but not in DVD format. You'll have to burn it as a DVD data disc and it will have DRM that keep standalone DVD players from playing it and it will only be playable on a PC.

      I totally agree that if any burning process isn't fairly idiot-proof, it will definitely fail.

    2. Re:Burnable DVDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is an mpeg-4 compressed image, you will have to do it with an mpeg-4 codec with high penetration into the DVD CE market. I wonder what DivX is up to?

    3. Re:Burnable DVDs? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      In the article they say that customers will be able to download the movies and burn them to DVD. I don't imagine they'll let us download full DVD5 or DVD9 ISOs of the movies. More likely, it will be some highly compressed MPEG-4 variant, along with some Amazon-branded "preparation/conversion" app that outputs a burnable DVD5 or 9 ISO image. Even this sounds like it'd be a bit much for the average computer user to get a handle on. They'd better make sure this whole process is fairly idiot-proof or it's doomed to failure.

      It would be more simple to say "Buy this freaking $50 player". Seriously... this whole business of supporting DVD+/-R video would be a nightmare. On the best of days about 1/2 of consumer owned players play burnt media well, and of those half some prefer +R and others prefer -R. Even with an easy peasy application, it's not going to make a hill of beans difference when there are a slew of players that just won't play it.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  3. so the business by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    , and by 'the business' I mean the industry, is finally moving to embrace online services.
    I think they may have been watching the music industry moves and market responses very closly and relized that is not the way to go.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. This could benfit some of their services... by Slipgrid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA:
    If the advanced negotiations are successfully concluded, Amazon's service would position itself in the media world alongside rivals like Apple Computer's iTunes as a place where people go not just to order goods to be sent by mail, but to instantly enjoy digital wares as well.

    I think that Amazon competing with Apple iTunes or Google Video is a bad idea. It seems that Amazon's power is in it's large (physical, not digital) distribution system. But, I think they may be half way to something good. Maybe this would help them compete with the box stores. Say I want to buy a video from Amazon, because it's cheaper than Sprawlmart, but I want to watch the video that night, and not wait for the mail. That would be a great service and Amazon might be able to provide this. Let me stream it tonight, and get the dvd in the mail next week. Will Amazon move in this direction?

    1. Re:This could benfit some of their services... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      I had never thought of amazon doing something like that.. It would be great but i don't know if it is going to happen i would sure like for it to that is how http://www.magnatunes.com/ works if you order a cd from them .. it is almost as if the cd is the after thought as they are mainly a buy for download music service. I would love to see amazon do that - now if they could only get a site designer that has a clue.. the more links and things that flash at me makes me want to close the window..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:This could benfit some of their services... by clifyt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I think that Amazon competing with Apple iTunes or Google Video is a bad idea."

      Competing against Google Video is reason enough to get out of the business...if you have to even compare the service to Google's you've lost the game already. I've *NEVER* used a shittier interface and there was nothing that made me want to even think about putting a quarter in the snack machine because it looked like it'd just get stuck with the rest of the sugary items stuck behind the glass where no amount of shaking was going to get it out.

      iTMS is another story though -- I buy quite a bit of video through this site because I got rid of cable (well, I have 'sub-basic' -- the local channels + comedy central -- though if they knew that, they'd probably take that away too -- its around $10 a month and means I can get clear reception). The iTunes is great to buy from -- its actually far too easy. I've ended up buying a few things that I had been planning on getting physically because they've thrown a few goodies in that made the physical purchase less desirable -- and STILL went out and bought the physical purchase just to have it. What kinda crap is that!!! :-)

      To be honest, I could see Amazon having a better interface than Apple's solution -- the Video Store under iTMS is horrible -- its nothing like that of the music side. Ok, not horrible, but definitely needs to be rethought out. It seems like it was thrown together with the least amount of shoehorning they could do to get the items into the database and our interface. This MIGHT have to do with the fact Apple is rewarding their loyal content providers that served up the content first because its very studiocentric (then again, I wish the music store had a way to search via labels as there are a few independent labels that don't put out that much in the way of content, but what they do put out is consistent across the board -- for example, back in the 80s when I was a gothy industrial kid, I knew that almost anything I picked up from WaxTrax was going to be something that I'd at least listen to for a week or two before picking up the next purchase).

      Amazon's interface for their store is consistent -- its not the greatest, but I can find things without having to switch paradigms every time I want a different type of content. Between Apple and Amazon, this takes up 99% of my online purchases, so I'm pretty satisfied with both regardless.

      As for the suggestion of streamed video w/physical purchase -- I'd love to be able to do that. Amazon HAD been toying with the idea of selling elocker'd items where if you buy a physical book, you could get access to the digital one. I've gotten emails about this from them several times, but I've never found an item that this was possible with...probably the whole MP3.COM Streaming Jukebox thing where everyone sued the company even though they went out of their way to ensure that the listeners had physical access to the content they were streaming (even if you only had access for a few minutes to borrow your friends CDs to add them to your database, that same amount of time could have been spent ripping them and you are right back to where you started). But if they sold a 'rented' streaming video (rented in the terms on the subscription ideas based around online music stores vs. ownership ala iTunes) where the video could be viewed online X amount of times elapsing at time UPS / DHL / USPS tracking claim to have dropped the package off at your residence (or just an arbitrary time of maybe 2 weeks) -- I'd probably stop buying from iTunes and not even be pissed off about the lack of ownership / transferability of the file.

      But all in all, back to your main point -- I think regardless, Amazon could offer the best competition to Apple to date -- so long as they support OS X (and even Linux for the pasty faced kids -- though which variant and will they have to supply the source code along with the de-encryption keys because someone accidentally used GPL3 source!!!). I don't see Google doing anything d

    3. Re:This could benfit some of their services... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think it will support mac... good luck with that.. but don't hold your breath till it happens.

  5. This is just a future IP lawsuit. by Spazntwich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How long until Amazon decides to patent "an online movie distribution system" and sue Blockbuster and Netflix for infringing on their innovative business idea?

    Note: This post is half tongue in cheek, and half legitimate fear.

  6. What distribution tech? by rlp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Be interesting to see if they use BitTorrent or some other P2P swarming technology. If not, I doubt even Amazon has the bandwidth to handle large volumes of video downloads.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  7. iTunes movie downloads? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ITMS doesn't really do movies yet, funny Amazon will be there competing against them.

    Hopefully they do better than Google. I think they have a better shot at putting together something decent though.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. People say by endrue · · Score: 4, Informative

    that this is why box office sales are delining. I disagree beacuse unless you have a wicked awesome home entertainment setup you are not going to rival seeing a film in a theater.

    Box offie sales are declining because 90% of the films suck. No one wants to pay see that in the theater or pay to download it from Amazon. - Andrew

    --
    I meta-moderate because I care.
    1. Re:People say by XMilkProject · · Score: 1

      Eh, Probably people that think all the movies suck are just bad at picking movies. I understand everyone has different taste, but there have been some amazing movies in the past year.

      Your probably right that 90% of them suck, but theres an awful lot to choose from, and that 10% is great.

      "You me and everyone we know", "Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind", "Million Dollar Baby", "Sin City", "Kill Bill v2", "Transgender", "Crash", "Brokeback Mountain" all come to me off the top of my head... I think those are all within the last year, maybe not.

      I'm a bit of a film buff, and mostly into Indies, but there have been so many spectacular indies that make it into big success this last year.

      I suppose that your average movie goer may just go to the theater to see shitty pattern commercial flicks with huge budgets and lots of explosions, and there may have been less of those lately, but for those of us that enjoy quality films thats generally considered a good riddance.

      --
      Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
      Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
    2. Re:People say by HairyCanary · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I disagree beacuse unless you have a wicked awesome home entertainment setup you are not going to rival seeing a film in a theater.

      I agree. To rival the movie theater experience I would have to pop some nasty smelling popcorn, pour cocacola on my floor, install uncomfortable seats, and let the movie continue to play while I take a bathroom break. Oh, and I have to charge myself a ridiculous surcharge for anything I eat or drink during the movie. And lest I forget, I have to invite smelly, noisy, rude people to join me in my living room to watch the flick.

      Maybe... maybe my screen isn't quite as cool as the big theater screen. But at 47" and 16x9, it comes close enough. And my surround setup, while not perfect, will indeed rattle my ribcage during the lobby scene of the Matrix, so it's good enough as well. When I figure in the comfy recliner, lack of rude annoying smelly people, food at cost, ability to stop the movie while I pee... well, I think I do not want to rival the movie theater experience after all.

      If you guessed that I do not watch movies in theaters any more, you'd be right. Even without the aforementioned irritations, paying nearly half the cost of a DVD just to watch a movie one time is not worth it.

    3. Re:People say by osoroco · · Score: 1

      awesome, say the truth and get modded "Funny"

    4. Re:People say by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that theatre is a plus to everyone. I'm fine watching movies on my 15 inch laptop, with my Logitech USB headset, at least for some movies. With people talking or being loud and annoying, and the inconvienence of having to be at the theatre at a certain time and watch 30 minutes of commercials pre-movie, I'd say that a 27 inch TV, even at DVD quality, with even relatively inexpensive speakers beats the theater, because it's not with idiots, and it's not $9 a ticket.

    5. Re:People say by ejp1082 · · Score: 1

      Most people just want to see the movie, and don't care nearly as much about the quality as the industry assumes. Generally, convenience will trump quality when it comes to consumer behavior - watching it at home will always be more convenient.

      That said, its also worth noting that most people who'd dish out $50+ to take the family to the movies are probably the same people who could afford a wicked awesome home entertainment system anyway.

      The box office decline is multi-causal:
      - The movie theater experience has been ruined by cell phones and annoying advertisements.
      - It's simply too expensive at $10 a ticket + $10 for concessions (or more)
      - The movies suck; Hollywood has become incredibly risk averse, feeding us endless strings of sequels and remakes.
      - DVD + Home Theater offers a compelling, cheaper alternative.

  9. The winner will be: by Alex+P+Keaton+in+da · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whomever creates the service that aloows people to watch the downloads easily from the couch, in the living rrom. There is only so long I can watch movies/shows on my computer screen or my little 2 inch iPod screen...

    --
    And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
    1. Re:The winner will be: by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Actually, it will be Apple's support of playing on iPods that will ensure that iTunes wins out yet again here. With the Bonjour-enabled Front Row, watching those streaming videos on your TV with a Mac mini (or whatever other Front Row Mac you have hooked up) is a piece of cake.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    2. Re:The winner will be: by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Mac Mini now includes a remote control, is that a good enough hint?

    3. Re:The winner will be: by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      No, probably not good enough. Most people don't want to have their computers hooked up to their TVs. I actually think MS has the right idea with their MCE Windows and the XBox 360, but I'm sure they'll botch it somehow.

    4. Re:The winner will be: by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the case, and they'll have some sort of timer that you can only watch it for 24 hours then you have to pay again.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    5. Re:The winner will be: by generic-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      Comcast has an "on demand" feature that lets you stream movies and TV shows (some free, some for $) using just the cable box hooked up to the TV. Do they win?

      --
      For more information, click here.
    6. Re:The winner will be: by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      That's not a service, that's a _device_.

      And they are already available in a variety of forms.

    7. Re:The winner will be: by wanorris · · Score: 1

      So are people going to buy a Mac Mini (as well as a funky adapter) for every TV in the house, or settle for movies that they can only watch at one location, like TV used to be in the 1950s?

      I think you're overestimating the willingness of consumers to buy video that they don't really have control over -- in the sense it it will only play on a computer or iPod, neither of which is currently a primary outlet for watching movies or TV programming.

    8. Re:The winner will be: by loolgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Europe, ISP offer what they call quad-play boxes. It is a set-top box, which is basically a DSL modem, running linux. This box is also a WiFi router. DSL in Europe allows 20Mb/sec bandwith. So, ISP offer through such boxes Internet, but also TV (more 180 channels) and telephone (usually free and unlimited, even for international calls, for fix and mobile phone, I know it is crazy). And now they offer also network access through power line.

      This allows the user to put his set-top box close to the TV (the set-top box have TV outpout), and keeps provide Internet access through either wifi or power line in the house. It is really great. The set-top box is also a media center that can display movies or play music from computers online in your home network.

      The set-top box is free, and the subscription for the service (Internet/TV/telephone) is 30 euros/month (~$40). It is naked DSL, so you don't even need to pay for a phone line. Now, in addition of the 180 channels, they offer Pay-Per-View movies. And with 20Mb/sec you can have DVD quality streaming video. So, it is possible. It already exists for quite long time. But unfortunately not in US.

      Sometimes, I wish we could have such thing here in US (or at least in the bay area!). But I doubt that SBC-ATT-BellSouth-? is willing to provide such service, or let anybody else provides such service. So, we will stay with our 3Mb/sec DSL line... no naked DSL... no set-top box... no power line private network... and cry...

    9. Re:The winner will be: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Overheard in 1993:

      Person A: "So are people going to buy a DVD player for each TV in the house, or settle for movies that they can only watch at one location, like TV used to be in the 1950s?"

      Person B: "Uh, tard, you could have said the same thing about the technology they're replacing."

    10. Re:The winner will be: by wanorris · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but it's a weak analogy.

      A DVD player started out expensive -- heck HD-DVD players are starting out moderately expensive. But everyone knew they were going to get cheaper. I don't foresee $100 Mac Minis any time soon, and a $600 box for every TV seems to be unlikely to work.

      Much more practical and affordable is some kind of set top box like a MediaMVP. You can buy one today for $100, and it plays music, video, and photos nicely. Of course, Apple doesn't make set top boxes, and their DRM prevents you from using the existing solutions that are out there.

      But really, who would want an open solution that would work on their choice of hardware?

  10. Online video delivery a crowded field? by timeOday · · Score: 1
    I don't feel it's crowded until there's at least one I'm willing to use.

    It has to be at least 640x480 resolution for one thing.

    1. Re:Online video delivery a crowded field? by timster · · Score: 1

      I think that this sort of statement is a mistake that technical people are prone to. Most of the market seems to understand that visual quality is a matter that depends on the art in question.

      Few people would want to watch, say, "Lawrence of Arabia" on VHS. "2001: A Space Odyssey" reportedly suffers in the transition from the original 65mm film to 35mm. But who cares about the resolution of "The Daily Show"? To me, that's like complaining that an audiobook isn't presented in lossless stereo sound.

      Most TV shows are not exactly exercises in brilliant cinematography. That's why they are being sold at 320x200.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    2. Re:Online video delivery a crowded field? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I happen to have personal experience in the matter. My homebrew PVR captured at 320x240 for a couple years because I was using an 800 mhz computer to do software encoding. Then I got a faster PC and now capture at 640x480. I have to say it is an improvement, even on a TV from couch-viewing distance. If Apple offered 640x480 downloads, I doubt there would be any debate that it's significantly better.

  11. does anyone else notice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    that slashdot is becoming a place for covering brands and products and not technology in any real sense? what gives? google, amazon, apple, MS, dell, endlessly

    1. Re:does anyone else notice... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      you forgot AMD, Intel, IBM, Sun, Suse, Novell, Ubuntu, Mandriva, Nintendo, Sony, Blizzard...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:does anyone else notice... by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I'm waiting for years for comparisons on Hoover, Orec and Dyson! What gives?!

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    3. Re:does anyone else notice... by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Yes. I have never associated and never will associate any of those companies with technology at all. Take out those companies and you basically have a Linux news site which occasionally talks about books.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  12. It's about the media AND the hardware by chia_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will be interesting to see how this pans out. One of the reasons all the other music download services have failed to make a dent in iTMS' market share is because iTunes downloads load right into iTunes (duh) and load quite easily onto the iPods. Now since the iPods own the mp3 market by a landslide, it's no wonder people use iTunes to get their music. Add in the ease of use, simple interface, and decent (ie, acceptabel) DRM and you've got a winner.

    Amazon does a damn good job at selling "stuff". Can they distribute the digital media to the masses in the same way? Which hardware are they going to aim it all at? If Apple is able to get a foothold in the video market also, then why would anyone download video if it's a pain to load onto their iPod Videos? It's all about ease for most of the users out there. Amazon may have a bazillion videos and a decent model, but if the people find it a hassle to put on their favorite player, it's not gonna rock.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by zenwarrior · · Score: 1
      Yes, implicit [I think] in your comment is the notion of "artificial barriers to entry." I immediately get worried now whenever I see any specific companies negotiating [only] with any other specific companies. If the movie industry sits down at the table with Amazon, then it should be all but required they also sit down with any other legitimate potential partners.

      Apple successfully built a barrier to entry with iTunes and the iPod that is only now just barely being challenged. (Sorry folks, but it's not just the technology. If it were only "ease of use," then virtually every WinTel computer would not be bought by consumers with a choice to also buy Macintosh.) What could Amazon offer the movie industry or specific players within to insure placement of itself at the top of the food chain, and then remain there as competitors drown? I do not know, but I do know we all have our price -- especially big business.

      Given that, I cannot help but wonder if even our current anti-trust laws are up to speed enough for the internet. Although no one seemed to mind, I thought iTunes and the requisite iPod with which to play them were indeed artificial barriers to entry when I first saw them. And now, even after a couple of years or more, we see Apple still has 70% of that market's share. But, as competitors have been able to squeeze their way in, they have offered more competitive pricing (e.g., Yahoo at 79 cents).

      So again, just what is being said between Amazon and film companies during these [open to all?] negotiations? Are there backroom machinations to keep prices and profits up, and consumers down? I strongly suspect that is not entirely improbable.

      --
      /.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
    2. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by wanorris · · Score: 1
      If Apple is able to get a foothold in the video market also, then why would anyone download video if it's a pain to load onto their iPod Videos?

      It's far from settled that this is Apple's market to lose. My 4-year-old iPaq has a better screen for watching movies than Apple's current offering with the 2.5" screen. We'll see what the next generation player looks like.

      Also, it's not a lock that the point of these services is to download video to mini-players. Sure, if you take the bus a lot or have an hour-long commute by train, an iPod video may be a slice of heaven. But people take MP3 players with them in the car, jogging, all sorts of places where a video player will be an active hindrance.

      By allowing movies to be burned to DVD (unlike Apple's current offerings), Amazon is allowing you to watch movies:
      • in the living room -- though this is where the low quality is most likely to bite them
      • in the bedroom, where people generally have smaller TVs and lower quality expectations
      • in a car DVD player, perfect for grabbing a new movie to entertain the kids on that long car ride
      • on those little portable DVD players, which are a lot cheaper than iPods and come with bigger screens
      • on your computer, of course; there's a lot more cheap notebooks out there than iPod videos, and they have much bigger screens
      • presumably on portable players not made by Apple


      It's still way up in the air how all this plays out. In a couple of years, people may look back on iTunes video as Apple's biggest flop since the Newton.
    3. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by chia_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By allowing movies to be burned to DVD (unlike Apple's current offerings), Amazon is allowing you to watch movies:...

      You bring up a VERY good point about how this differs from Apple's iTunes offerings. The point of my comment was based on the original article of how "Amazon is going to start competing with iTunes movie downloads." You helped illustrate how Amazon's offering could potentially be a leader in downloads destined to be burned onto DVDs. Who knows if Apple will offer something similar. Right now, these two are vastly different offerings. Amazon's service should be compared to Netflix and Blockbuster instead. I wonder how they will react, and how (if) Apple will react.

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    4. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I think you have stuff backwards. The music companies want a situation where there are multiple vendors. Consumers have buy in large chosen the iPod/ITunes package even when aware of the alternatives. To prove an anti trust violation you would need to prove there is an artificial barrier to entry, that is what in your opinion is stopping people from going Zen Micro/Music Unlimited?

      For me personally there are a bunch of problems:
      1) Windows only software
      2) Yahoo does not have any real invested in this service and could turn it off fast, which could lock me out of the music I buy. It pays to go with vendors who have a core competency in an area all other things being equal.
      3) Zen Micro is a worse product than iPod but not much cheaper.
      4) iTunes is integrated with OSX, so it works well with things like free net downloads (speeches not music)

      For other people you have things like
      5) iTunes had a juke box 5-6 years ago. People may have already had their collection digitized

      etc...

      Now at this point you can argue that Apple is attempting to use their iPod monopoly to create a iTunes Music Store Monopoly but current anti trust covers that.

    5. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by zenwarrior · · Score: 1

      But we are talking about movies. The motion picture industry has a long history of using very narrow distribution channels, and imposing strict conditions. That is why independent films often are not seen on the "BIG" screens.

      --
      /.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
    6. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Well sure but we can't meaningfully talk about the motion picture internet technology since it doesn't exist yet.

    7. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by zenwarrior · · Score: 1

      Are we not talking about the possibility of "Amazon's Online Movie Service?" Were not Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. (of the motion picture industry) specifically mentioned? How then are we not talking about the internet, movies and their distribution (via Amazon) over the internet? Granted, as someone pointed out earlier, this is a lot of chat about a mere possibility, if not almost only a rumor. :)

      --
      /.'s Psychic-in-Residence: Psychic to the Geeks
    8. Re:It's about the media AND the hardware by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I was responding to your points regarding Apple and the failure of anti trust. Its pretty clear Amazon couldn't possibly have engaged in an anti trust violation since they haven't done anything yet at all.

  13. I thought videos and movies by 1336.5 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Were meant to be watched on tv?

    Who wants to watch them on the 3 inch screen of an iPod?

    1. Re:I thought videos and movies by g-san · · Score: 1

      > Were meant to be watched on tv?

      You have the choice. If you are on a plane, train or bus, watch it on your iPod.

      If you are at home or in a hotel, get an AV cable and connect the iPod to the TV. You don't need the dock, just a $19 cable that plugs into the headphone jack. It's a 1/8" pin on one side (with 4 "rings") and Right, Left and Video RCA on the other end. And if you already have a 1/8" to RCA video cable, you just have to swap a few RCA jacks for it to work correctly because Apple changed the pin outs. The connections are:
      iPod Red -> TV Yellow
      iPod Yellow -> TV White
      iPod White -> TV Red

      You know how you can put your whole CD collection in your pocket with an iPod? Imagine being able to put your whole DVD collection in your pocket. Bring the cable and the iPod to a friends house and you have all your movies right there...

    2. Re:I thought videos and movies by 1336.5 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You f'in retard. If I am at home why the freggin hell would I use my iPod as a video player. Why dont I just use my PVR/DVR or my DVD player?

      Spare me the lecture on RCA connections. Things have changed since the 90's.

      Also spare me the sales pitch on the iPod. I work for Apple, and have had an iPod for over a year.

      If I want to watch a DVD at a friends house then Ill take the damn DVD over there. I dont regularly plan to spend enough time at a friends house to watch more than one movie.

      Sorry but your rebuttle is lame at the most.

    3. Re:I thought videos and movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You f'in retard. If I am at home why the freggin hell would I use my iPod as a video player.
      [...]
      Sorry but your rebuttle is lame at the most.
      Sorry, but calling people names is lame at the most. Sober up.

  14. Cool Amazon digital delivery by jaysones · · Score: 5, Informative

    I ordered a cd 2 weeks ago that was released this past Tuesday. After I pre-ordered it, Amazon let me stream it from my "digital locker" a full week before the physical cd was available. I thought that was really cool and would encourage me to pre-order from them again. I don't know of any service that has a comparable pre-release listening policy.

    1. Re:Cool Amazon digital delivery by Windsinger · · Score: 1

      That's pretty damn cool, I did not know they did that!
      Wait till the RIAA finds out, it'll be killed!

  15. Y99 Dates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Very offtopic i know, but why does slashdot still use Y99 Dates?

    http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/03/10/1842241.s html

    06/03/10 instead of 2006/03/10

    No, using 2006 in the url does not work.

    Are they saving 2 charactors in the database or in the url?
    Perhaps the assuption is that everything here (especially this comment) is worthless in the year 2100?

  16. in the right direction... by hotani · · Score: 1

    Make it an all-you-can-eat monthly subscription, with files that'll play on OS X and I'll dump Netflix for it.

    Netflix/TiVo were going to offer 'on demand' downloads but it didn't work because the movie corps wouldn't grant the licensing (what a shock!), not sure that it will be any different in this case, but I'm hopeful.

    1. Re:in the right direction... by wanorris · · Score: 1

      I love the idea of unlimited on-demand downloads, but I can't imagine that the MPAA is dying to allow you to watch hundreds of movies for a flat fee, even though most people would only watch a few.

      CinemaNow has a subscription service already, except that they can't get a license for any Hollywood movies. So they offer Hollywood movies as on-demand 24-hour rentals instead.

      Not that CinemaNow is of any use to you -- it's Windows-only.

  17. Apple? by tktk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So why is article this under the Apple section? It's interesting the Apple's "Movie Store" is the one to beat considering that it doesn't yet have one open.

    Amazon shows up enough on /. on its own merits without needing to tied into Apple.

  18. Sensationalism by generic-man · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. iTunes doesn't sell movies.
    2. The New York Times headline: "Amazon Considering Downloads" (emphasis added)

    So according to Slashdot's Apple section, Amazon.com is considering starting a service that would compete with a service Apple doesn't offer. All we need is some Google speculation ("Google's Online Movie Service in JavaScript") and we've got a trifecta!

    --
    For more information, click here.
  19. And the winner is... by Warg!+The+Orcs!! · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first one to offer Jenna Jameson films

    ;o)

    --
    Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
  20. Competing, as in, competition? Easy! by babbling · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's a simple way for Amazon to win this battle.

    - 640x480 videos
    - xvid/MPEG-4 files that DON'T have DRM
    - Reasonable prices (matching iTunes will do - I'd buy from iTunes if it weren't for the DRM)

    1. Re:Competing, as in, competition? Easy! by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      How can they match iTunes if iTunes doesn't even sell movies?

      Oh, and you forgot to ask for a pony.

  21. Different file sizes!!! by maccalvin5 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm curious as to why Apple hasn't come out with two different file sizes for their movie store - one for the iPod and one for tv. Perhaps they're waiting for front row to really move into the living room. With their emphasis on HD in iMovie, and H.264, to expect consumers to be satisfied buying shows at what, 320x240, is ridiculous. If they offered the option to buy both file sizes at once for the same price as buying one, it would make a lot more sense. It wouldn't make sense to offer the higher-resolution files for a premium, because consumers wouldn't be using the same file on their ipod anyway. Apple ought to simply keep the smaller size format for people who actually want to carry their movies around with them while offering the option of a larger one for home viewing.

  22. The Rest of the World by SteveX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to be able to subscribe to TV shows through any service, in Canada. Why is it so difficult to bring content available digitally in the US to other countries?

    1. Re:The Rest of the World by filterban · · Score: 1
      Because Apple hasn't been able to release iTunes for hockey sticks yet.

      Seriously, though, it's primarily because of the content providers. In the tape / CD era, geography mattered. So the content providers have distribution agreements with their artists based on the geography - e.g. "We charge $5 US per copy in the US but $6 Canadian in Canada". They also have neat exclusivity clauses like "NBC gets the exclusive rights to air the Olympics in the United States." That means that the BBC can't allow people from .US to access their Olympic feeds.

      So, your reseller (e.g. Apple) needs to work out licensing deals with the appropriate content providers in the appropriate countries.

      There are some governmental regulations as well but usually they aren't nearly as difficult of a hurdle to cross if you are doing something new (e.g. Skype).

      Isn't it amazing how much of a pain going through existing channels that are no longer truly relevant is?

      --
      rm -rf /
    2. Re:The Rest of the World by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      It's the local licensing laws. You don't think Apple would love to open their net to sell to as wide an audience as possible through iTMS?

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
  23. "Good Enough" resolution by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
    You're right.

    I've watched some xvid files of shows that look good enough on my modest rig, only 300mb/hour

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  24. FINALLY? Real's been doing this w/Starz 2+ years by EtherAlchemist · · Score: 1


    ...I mean the industry, is finally moving to embrace online services.

    What do you mean finally? Starz and Real have offered this service for years. MovieLink, too.

    It's not a matter of the film houses waiting for anything so much as it is content providers waiting for the market to grow.

    Movies encoded at decent viewing resolutions are on average 350MB which is totally unreasonable to dowload if you're on anything less than a high speed connection.

    Only about half of the Americans who own computers at home have access to highspeed services, but somewhere around 34% actually take advantage of it. When those numbers were much lower, there wasn't really a market that could take advantage of this. Now, there's a little more and everyone else is trying to get their foot in the door.

    The second part of this problem is making the movies portable (more than a laptop anyway). In order to do that the movie has to be secured to keep people from (easily) reditributing it, so you've got to have some kind of DRM on there. Ah, but since every content provider wants to use their own DRM, now device manufacturers have to be courted as well and convinced to put the distributor's codec and locks on the device. Unless you're Apple or Sony and build your own devices that work with your own DRM.

    That brings us to problem 3- too many devices running too many DRMs that cost too much. As a consumer, this is what pisses me off more than anything about content. Why should I have to spend $300 or more for a device and be locked into buying content only from them? I should be able to buy any PMP or PMD of my choice, go to any content provider of my choice and buy and download any content of my choice.

    Till then I'll keep renting and buying DVDs.

    --
    R(k)
  25. Brutal aren't we!?! by zubinjdalal · · Score: 1

    So much for botering to corect a tyo!

    OOPS!

  26. 2006: "NetFlix" transfers movies via Mail carrier by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's quite sad that DRM and "fear of the consumer" has put us in a place that the best way to buy video information uses the postal service as a transport.

    There is a large industry waiting to happen. Waiting for the media industry to loosen its grip and allow consumers to download unencumbered media from official sources at reasonable prices/advertisement. The vast majority of people would not bother with saving a couple cents to avoid paying for audio and video, especially if it's hard/slow to find. Just let the consumer loose a little.

  27. Not gonna work by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

    I don't care if the Lord Himself does it, what they want to do is bring the Blockbuster to your computer, and then you'll be in a mad scramble to watch it before witching hour, at which time it vanishes into thin air. Anybody going to pay $3.00 for that, at inferior quality? Sure seems like Amazon is going to do Movielink, or some such: crappy, melt-in-your-mouth Windows DRM. (Oh, and by the way, nothing for Macs anyway. None of those services work on a Mac. Instead, the best idea is Netflix. Real live DVD arrives at your home for $3.00. You watch it. If you really want to keep a copy, rip, decode, burn. In what way is that not a 100% better experience than any of the crap rent-a-download services? You even get MPEG 2! Say you invest in dual layers. You get the whole thing, including the extras, and you put it in your library. Send back the rental. You've paid. make part of the blank DVD price go to the studio and it really should be legal. Downloads of movies are for Internet 2, when you're downloading a DVD's worth every hour or so. And then, sane people want to keep them. If not, TiVo 'em and let the scroll off along with all the '80s teen sex comedies and the 47th airing of Footloose.