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. "

11 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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

  2. 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]
  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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...