Hollywood Against Jobs' Movie Pricing Plan

Alex Romanelli, Variety writes "Hollywood insiders tell Variety why/how Hollywood is in stalemate with Jobs over movie downloads on iTunes. Jobs wants a flat $9.99 per film download, studios are refusing, insisting upon tiered pricing. On the other side there's a different, longer, analytical story looking at how H'wood executives are still unsure if Jobs should be considered a friend or foe."

Comments

typo

[hector_uk]

Jobs is the guys name, it's not "job is"

Re:typo

[amaiman]

Should be "Jobs' Movie Pricing Plan".

Re:typo

[Marcos Eliziario]

Well, I am a Brazilian, English is a second language for me, so I may be wrong, but.... Jobs' Movie Plan = Movie Plan of/from Steven Jobs, right? Where's the typo?

Re:typo

[boxless]

Nope. Should be Jobs's.

The whole 'leave the last S off if the last letter in the name is S' is not correct. The extra S should always be there.

Re:typo

[hector_uk]

Fixed, anyway the only way i'd buy films through itunes is if dvd burning was built in like cd burning is and they were £6.99, it's always bugged me that in the UK tracks at 79p ($1.46).

Re:typo

[hector_uk]

"Nope. Should be Jobs's. The whole 'leave the last S off if the last letter in the name is S' is not correct. The extra S should always be there." whoops yes, should have the extra s as it's possessive.

Re:typo

[lowrydr310]

Does that include VAT?

I bought some records online from a UK store and got a big price break because VAT wasn't charged to US residents. Even with the shipping cost for heavy vinyl I still saved a lot.

Re:typo

[cloak42]

I've always been taught that the extra S should be there only if the word has two or fewer syllables. And I've been taught that historical names should not have the extra S added (I'm not sure why this is the case), such as with "Jesus' teachings," for example.

Re:typo

[Ricwot]

It's (or at least I am reliably advised by University Professors) that the use of the xs' form is preferable for archaic names or people, i.e. Jesus', however for a modern name (or person) then it is better as xs's, i.e. Jobs's.

Re:typo

[Yocto Yotta]

Excuse me good sir, this is a discusion regarding the correct display of posessive singular nouns in modern English. Please reserve your thoughts about Apple and the movie industry for the proper forum. Perhaps you were looking for this article?

Hollywood Against Jobs' Movie Pricing Plan

Wait a second . . . . what just happended. I'm so confused.

Re:typo

[hector_uk]

FYI pointing out typo's is a bad idea, you get modded up at first if your lucky, then when the typo is fixed you get modded -20 offtopic and your karma takes a nose dive, heck you probably wont even see this as all my comments now start at 0 :(

Re:typo

[Swift2001]

Not entirely true. Look up Moses and Jesus in the Chicago Manual of Style. Jesus' and Moses' followers. But there it has to do with two "s" sounds in a row. They figured three was overload.

Screw that.

[SatanicPuppy]

I can hit Best Buy and get stuff for $7.00 now.

Of course, it occurs to me that the MPAA is whining because they want to charge MORE than that. Oy vey. The problem with ITunes is that there's no damn tail...A dollar (or ten) is too much for 80% of the stuff that could be sold.

Re:Screw that.

[IAmTheDave]

A dollar (or ten) is too much for 80% of the stuff that could be sold.

Which is why it amazes me that they still question whether or not to look at Jobs as friend or foe. Jobs single handedly creates a system that sells over 1B tracks of music, at least a good percentage of which is of a questionably quality. He single-handedly forces everyone into the digital generation, where the studio contracts actually pay the artists LESS per track, while having almost zero overhead cost for the production of raw goods because there are no raw goods.

Yes... with such success... how DOES one reconcile Jobs as anything BUT the enemy?

Bunch of ass-wads, the **AA.

Re:Screw that.

[grasshoppa]

He single-handedly forces everyone into the digital generation,

Uh, no. There were a variety of motivators, not the least of which was napster.

It can be argued that his company single handedly made the industry legitimate, but we were well on our way to forcing everyone into the "digital generation", as you call it.

Re:Screw that.

[MrSquirrel]

I agree -- Apple and the MPAA/RIAA just want to grab the most money they can. There are bargain bins where you can get 2 movies for 10 bucks... so why should I pay 10 dollars a PIECE for those two movies just because I downloaded them? If I bought them, it would be cheaper, I would get a physical DVD, and I would get a cool DVD case to add to my collection (of 10...). Tiered cost system would help fix that!... but wait... wouldn't they make up for the money they "lost" there by jacking up rates elsewhere?!... probably, yes. Lets say for some movies they raised the price from $10 to $20... this caused half the potential customers to be turned away, so only half as many downloads are made of the movie... well they were sold at twice the price -- do the math, Apple makes just as much money, BUT doesn't have to pay for as much bandwidth (which can rack up if you've got big-big movie files). If Apple didn't stiff people and initiated a tiered system, it would cause people to download more movies than they usually would (i.e. "Who wants to pay 10 bucks for a Pauly Shore movie... oh, what's that? it's only $5? Count me in!").
Tiering would also be a worthwhile venture for iTunes. iTunes has a good idea in that it lets people bypass the $10 cost of a cd (okay okay, $10 is ridiculously cheap... maybe it's on sale or something) just to hear that one song they want. What's my problem with it? Well, I have good taste in music (IMOO) so I don't listen to garbage music where only one song on a cd is worth listening to. If I'm going to buy a whole album off iTunes at a dollar a song, an average of 12 songs would cost me $12 bucks... I pretty much only buy music that's not on the radio, so the cd's I usually look at are between $10-$12... so, for the same price of downloading an album I could have it in physical form (adding the ability to use it in a CD player and to look at pretty album art)... definitely not worth it for me to use iTunes to download all the music I want.
Furthermore, it doesn't help that I don't own and iPod (go Creative Zen, woo!) so iTunes songs are useless to me.

Re:Screw that.

[Ryan Amos]

Jobs is the enemy because he is removing distribution control from the record labels. They seem to care about this as much as they do about profit. Now he wants to do it to the movie industry. They don't understand that one of the reasons iTMS is so popular is that the pricing scheme is so simple. No needing to worry about what price the thing you want to buy is, just $1 a song. They don't realize that whatever hamstrung service they try to use to sell low quality downloads for the same price as the DVD won't catch on.

Or, I'll put it this way for the MPAA, so they might understand: The alternative for most people is NetFlix and a DVD burner.

Re:Screw that.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Of course, it occurs to me that the MPAA is whining because they want to charge MORE than that. Oy vey. The problem with ITunes is that there's no damn tail...A dollar (or ten) is too much for 80% of the stuff that could be sold.

Retail CDs stores are at the mercy of the RIAA. They charge what they are told or they die. The RIAA has been convicted numerous times of price fixing. Thus when Apple started the ITMS they included a flat rate in the contracts. This eliminated the possibility of price fixing and, incidentally showed the promise of removing some of the RIAA's leverage over artists. If they can't threaten jack up the prices to make your album tank, then they lose a lot of sway.

It worked and despite the high prices, iTunes offered more granularity and convenience and is a success. Now the RIAA is scared. They see the possibility that the distribution chain will shift significantly to online, thus making them more useless weight than ever.

Enter the recording industry. Looking at this same possibility, they demand tiered pricing so that should the store become successful (which they don't want) then they can still fine tune sales with higher prices and effectively kill it.

Re:Screw that.

[antdude]

7 bucks? Where do you see the DVD movies for that much? I see like 15-20 bucks.

Re:Screw that.

[v1]

What it all comes down to is, "if the customer is willing to pay more for it, we want to charge them more for it".

From a strictly business perspective, this makes good sense for maximizing proffit. You find the "price point" where (sales volume x price) is the maximum value. You cannot do this with a flat rate price. Of course this assumes you have correctly calculated your price point, and have factored in all the market effects at work.

The flat rate is (correctly) perceived by the consumer as a value over tiered pricing, and that's what the consumer will like more. Jobs realizes this will attract hoards to his new iTunes Video Store as it has with the ITMS, and he will make up the loss from flat rate in volume. I doubt the MPAA is factoring in the scope of how many people will go with the ITVS if it's flat rate, and what that will do to their price point model.

The MPAA is just despirately afraid of not managing to wring every last possible dime out of the consumer. They're just being money-grubbing scum. You can't expect any more than that from them.

Re:Screw that.

[BewireNomali]

i think it's a bit further than that. downloading illegally is primarily a male bastion, whereas music purchasing skews towards girls and women. Females are less likely to download and more likely to buy music and less likely to be tech savvy. Women in general are also paranoid of breaking the law. I have female friends who are horrified at the notion that I might have ever downloaded something, under the notion that it's horribly illegal and wrong. So ITUNES fits a perfect sweet spot for the average consumer.

I'll get flamed to death for this, but only on slashdot do I hear males admit to actually buying music. I don't know any other male who does.

Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free. The perfect price for film is also free. Money will be made through product placement and advertising. For example, Microsoft is now exec producing and overseeing the Halo film from a script that they commissioned independently from Alex Garland. Corporations will commission film to drive the next generation of their products and will release them in theaters (for those who crave the theatrical experience; one will be paying for the experience, not for exclusivity of product) and a high quality download for $x, and a low quality download for free.

This takes care of everything: hollywood becomes a contractor business, hired by corporations for their expertise in making films. They will charge the corporations a flat 20% fee on top of the production budget. This ensure a profit on EVERY PICTURE for the hollywood firm. The corporation is creating a product comparable in cost to a high end advertising campaign, and they won't worry that the cash is wasted, as you can't TIVO out the product placements etc. Then downloading becomes a good thing, as you more the film gets around, the more people are seeing your product. You can even cut the film in to trailers designed to promote your product further. It eliminates the blockbusters (i.e. something like Titanic has a reduced likelihood of ever happening again) but it makes hollywood cash positive business.

ITUNES is a stop gap measure - because there is NO COMPELLING REASON for anyone ot actually buy music. In film, the best films supposedly give us a sense of inevitability - the guy does the thing he does because he was backed into a corner and can't do anything else - it's be a hero or die. What I think about ITUNES is that it rings of a mediocre film. There is no compelling reason to buy music from them. If I wanted food right now - I can grow some and wait the weeks until something sprouts, but then i'd be dead. I could drive up to a farm (i live in NY) and steal off the farm, but it's not cost effective. I can steal from the store - but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I swallow it and go to a store and buy my food because it's the best available choice. It's the inevitable choice. I don't feel ITUNES is inevitable. Free Downloads are inevitable, so the industries have to make it work for them. Google is making free work, so it's possible.

Re:Screw that.

[MBGMorden]

You do realize that iTunes does indeed sell music by the album as well right? You can pay $0.99 per song, or $9.99 for a complete album (even if the album is more than 10 songs).

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason the companies that compose the RIAA exist is that they control the manufacturing and distribution channels for music. They control the ad space, the store space, the presses, and the people trucking the CDs to the stores. They can be the difference between selling CDs at your concert in a bar and being on MTV every day for six months. The difference between working your entire life with two jobs: artist and dishwasher. The RIAA itself only exists to protect the interests of the cartel in a larger, uniform context.

If the iTMS usurps their position, and Apple as the owner of the iTMS dictates its terms, then these companies have lost a large part of their power. Even if they make more money per unit now, they know that eventually they will simply be cut out of the equation because people don't drive to the mall to buy CDs from stores under the thumb of the recording industry. Their presses become less meaningful, and their control of the retail market becomes less meaningful, and eventually Apple can simply take their place. Then people will go to signing deals with Apple, because the iTMS means the difference between being a dishwasher and making piles of cash on music. And that's when it's all over for the RIAA. They sure don't want that, so they want to reign Apple in. They want to control the iTMS like they can control chains of CD stores and factories producing CDs.

The movie industry has a slightly easier time of it, but they too don't want to hand over the keys to the kingdom to Apple. The middle man eventually gets cut out of the equation. Plus all of this digital media means they can't ever expect to resell the same movies on a different format and expect people to pay full price for them. The ability to play MPEG formats isn't going to disappear in ten years. Or twenty years. Or thirty years. It'll exist for as long as there's still a library of media. It doesn't, unlike hardware-sensitive formats like CDs, tapes, and records, cost more to continuously support software that works.

Re:Screw that.

[kannibal_klown]

Usually that is the case. But there are some cheap movies in the bargain bins because they're old and/or unpopular. Maybe a 2-pack of similar movies that didn't do too well for the price of one, or an old movie that wasn't a major blockbuster hit is only a couple bucks.

The problem is, assuming iTunes would blanket these (normally) cheap movies with the same price as the popular ones. So you'd be stuck paying $10 for a movie you could pick up elsewhere for cheaper.

Re:Screw that.

[antdude]

Oh OK. I thought he was referring to popular ones and new releases. I rarely care about those unpopular ones.

Re:Screw that.

[MooUK]

The artists getting paid less is however not his fault at all. He didn't write, suggest, or sign the artists' contracts.

Re:Screw that.

['nother poster]

Well then, pick it up cheaper elsewhere, and buy your other movies for $9.99 at iTunes rather than $15.99 whereever else.

Re:Screw that.

[ronanbear]

Yes... with such success... how DOES one reconcile Jobs as anything BUT the enemy? Simple. Avarice. Jobs is putting market size (and share) ahead of gross margin. He could charge more for something and still have it sell almost as well. This would really improve income in segments of the market in the short term. DVD pricing varies incredibly in some retail environments. The distributors understand the market very well and price accordingly. They set huge prices (30 euro is not unusual) for a while on new and old material for the fan market. Eventually, when it stops selling and they have plenty of stock leftover (they deliberately make extra due to economies of scale) they reduce the prices to capture the market of people with little interest in the material but who want a bargain. Apple's businness plan competes with the DVD market in their eyes.

It makes them lots of money but it could make them even more.

Re:Screw that.

[Foobar of Borg]

Usually that is the case. But there are some cheap movies in the bargain bins because they're old and/or unpopular. Maybe a 2-pack of similar movies that didn't do too well for the price of one, or an old movie that wasn't a major blockbuster hit is only a couple bucks

I've even once bought a set of 9 movies on 3 DVDs in a set for $6. Sure, some of the movies on it were really stupid, but when you also get Metropolis, Things to Come, and Slipstream (Mark Hamill's "please don't type-cast me as Luke Skywalker!" movie), $6 is actually almost worth it. But, Jobs' plan would price even this movie at $9.99. (If you don't get it at first, read the reviews, which is the only reason I linked to Amazon rather than IMDB)

MPAA aside, this just doesn't seem like the best pricing plan to me.

Re:Screw that.

[no_barcode]

That's not always the case. I just paid $6.99 for 4 songs, because the one song I wanted, was only available by purchasing "the album". Apple/iTunes seems to be doing this more and more.

Turns out the song wasn't that good anyway.

Re:Screw that.

[soft_guy]

Anyone who even sets a foot into best buy is taking a dangerous chance.

Re:Screw that.

[cyngus]

You make an assumption here that music and videos have a value universal to everyone. Any given movie at $10 will be priced just right for some, too much for others, and by yet another group be considered a bargain. Two of these three groups will buy the movie, one of them won't. The same goes for music. Britney Spears tracks aren't worth $0.05 to me (except for maybe Toxic, because the video was well...if you've seen it, you know), but clearly they're worth it to many people. In a perfect market these prices would adjust perfectly to their consensus value. Jobs' argument with music that he is trying to extend to movies is that consumers just want a simple pricing system that is fairly inexpensive. There is definitely some value in this simplicity as well. If I'm thinking about buying a song/movie I don't even have to go on-line to decide whether I will, I know the price, if I"m willing to pay it I go to my computer and pay it, if not, I just stay on the couch. That being said, I think that a very simple tiered system might be reasonable for films, because I think there is a wider variability in things like quality and length (I'm definitely willing to pay more for a long period of entertainment like LOTR than I am for a short one).

Re:Screw that.

[squiggleslash]

I didn't see anything in TFA about the MPAA except maybe in passing. I don't see why the MPAA would care - it's the movie industry that's bothered about pricing issues, their representative doesn't actually sell movies and certainly isn't going to micromanage the pricing decisions of individual studios. (If you wrote MPAA as shorthand for "Movie industry" then learn to write "MI" instead or something. MPAA is an actual organization. You're just confusing things. It's almost as dumb as the "Teh RIAA" BS we read all the time on Slashbot, the RIAA doesn't even represent half the organizations that Slashbots hate so much.)

I'm going to take the industry at its word on this. I think they want to sell some movies for more, yes. I also think they want to sell a lot of movies for a great deal less than $10. Like most industries, they want to sell stuff for the going rate. If "Nine To Five" or "Overboard" is priced at $10, few will buy them (or so few that the revenues will be tiny); if they're priced at $5, it may be a movie a large number of people buy, certainly far more than suggested the ratio of revenues. If you make 50c profit at $1, and $9.50 profit at $10, and cashflow isn't a problem, then it's better to sell 100,000 copies at $1 than 1,000 at $10.

Let's be honest: flat rate pricing is a stupid idea, especially applied to movies. With songs it was semi-justifiable, but only because the rate was so low for all music that most people didn't care if, occasionally, they bought something they didn't consider a millionth of the value of the best song in their collection. When you're going up to DVD prices though, then it's just silly. I'm not about to spend $10 on some Goldie Hawn movie I can't back-up or play on equipment 20 years from now.

Re:Screw that.

[punkr0x]

Somehow I don't think their target market is people who dig through the bargin bin at Wal-Mart. When you go on iTunes, are you browsing around looking for old favorites like it was a used CD rack? I dunno about the rest of you, but I'm looking for mostly brand new material, stuff I would pay $13+ for in a store.

Re:Screw that.

[quadelirus]

I would gladly pay Apple $3 extra if only to save the time for pumping the $3 gallon of gas it would take to get to Best Buy and back through city traffic (ok, so slightly exaggerated). But seriously, how many old movies do you buy a week, or even a year? If I buy a DVD it's a new release-and $9.99 is way cheaper than the $17.00+ you'll spend at Best Buy. As for old movies or "classics": I either own them already, or would rather netflix them.

Re:Screw that.

[fribhey]

That's not always the case. I just paid $6.99 for 4 songs, because the one song I wanted, was only available by purchasing "the album". Apple/iTunes seems to be doing this more and more.

and you do know that the artists are the ones who structure it that way. the artists are the ones who decide if a song is only available by purchasing the entire album.

it's not itunes/apple doing it - but i guess it's a lot easier and cooler to just blame apple for everything.

Re:Screw that.

[maxpublic]

i think it's a bit further than that. downloading illegally is primarily a male bastion, whereas music purchasing skews towards girls and women.

Cites? Sources? A single shred of empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal?

Females are less likely to download and more likely to buy music and less likely to be tech savvy.

Cites? Sources? A single shred of empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal?

Y'know, the only thing your statement proves is that you don't get out much, and that your personal clique of friends is highly homogenous.

I'll get flamed to death for this, but only on slashdot do I hear males admit to actually buying music.

No, you'll get pitied. Do you honestly think that your anecdotal exposure amounts to anything like an actual prediction of behavior across the entire population? Although you seem to have completely missed it, iTunes tells us that tens of millions of males - apparently no one you know - are more than willing to pay for downloads of music, if they think the price is right.

Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free. The perfect price for film is also free.

The perfect price for YOU is free. Perhaps your friends as well. But again, there are a great many of us (iTunes once again providing us with STATISTICAL evidence proving the point) who think that the value of music and movies is non-zero. We might think that the price point set by the **AA's is too high, but unlike you and your freeloader buddies we don't believe that music and film are worth nothing.

ITUNES is a stop gap measure - because there is NO COMPELLING REASON for anyone ot actually buy music.

Economics 101: a thing is worth whatever the buyer thinks it's worth. iTunes has shown us that tens of millions of people think that the value of music is non-zero and will pay for music even when they could get the exact same songs for free. The "compelling reason" here is whatever the buyer says it is, and for that you'd have to sample the buyers to find out why they're paying when they could get it for free. But I seriously doubt those tens of millions of people are all pansy-asses afraid that the Big Bad Lawman is going to find them and haul them off to jail. Most of those folks aren't spineless little college twats, after all.

Google is making free work, so it's possible.

What a crock. Somebody always pays - nothing is for free. In Google's case the people paying are advertisers. Just because YOU aren't forking over cash doesn't mean it's 'free'.

Max

Re:Screw that.

[dwandy]

and have factored in all the market effects at work.

Happily the major market force pushing prices down (for most businesses) is competition, which the monopolies (aka RIAA / MPAA) don't have to worry about.
The End Result? They can charge way more than a business that faces market pressure. And this is, of course, part of the definition of a monopoly: Less product at a higher unit price.

Re:Screw that.

[nelsonal]

Talk about gems I'm pretty sure I got metropolis on a 3 movie collection for around $5.

Re:Screw that.

[JohnsonWax]

Actually, you have it backward. iTMS is what makes access to the tail possible.

You say $1 is too much for 80% of the store, but other buyers would say that your 20% isn't worth the buck but some other 20% is. The problem with the tail is that retail stores can't afford to stock the tail because the volume is so low, that you'd need to charge $20-$30 to handle the inventory costs, etc. You're arguing that 80% of the store is too expensive, when really you should be recognizing that 80% of the store quite simply exists at all. Back catalogues are something that most consumers can't get access to anymore other than iTMS - and paying normal rates for that music is pretty sweet.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

bypass the $10 cost of a cd (okay okay, $10 is ridiculously cheap... maybe it's on sale or something) just to hear that one song they want

I can't remember the last time I bought (other than as a gift for one of my daughters) a CD that cost more than $10.

But I'm not buying RIAA dreck (except occasionally when a daughter demands it for b-day or xmas), I'm buying CDs from local indie bands. I get (usually) a full hour of good songs, no DRM (often the jacket will say "please be kind, burn a copy for a friend), and instead of getting a dime for the $20 (or more) CD, the band gets most of the ten bucks.

Deal, deal, and deal; a good deal for everyone from band to listener. If you're buying the CD from the band, you've heard the songs - all of them, not just one you heard on the radio.

The only losers here are the RIAA labels and their scumbag lawyers.

However, I'd like to hear even more good, new music from bands that don't play here. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all& q=rock+filetype%3Amp3&btnG=Search fails me. Rather than returning the million legal songs that the indie artists would dearly love for you to download, Google gives you a list of dotcoms. Damn it Google, that isn't what I asked you for!
<tinfoil hat>
"Do no evil" indeed. Methinks Google caved to the RIAA, whose real reason for wanting P2P (and the internet) dead is so you won't find the indies, who you won't hear on the radio. I wonder what threat or payment the RIAA made to Google to make it break its "filetype" search for MP3s? Do the same search for the MP3 titled "Silky Smooth" and you will NOT find it. It is, however, on the internet for anyone who knows where to look and has been for a couple of years now. Google is not the place to look! (You might find it with a myspace search)
</tinfoil hat>
Anyone know of a search engine that I can actually find legal, indie MP3s with? I'd also like a P2P client that doesn't automatically drop downloads into a shared folder, as the downloader has no way in hell of knowing whether a file is legit or not.

(MRC? ="loophole")

Re:Screw that.

[Have Blue]

He found a compromise between customer-unfriendly label domination and artist-unfriendly massive disregard for copyright and compensation, personally went to the table to convince the RIAA to give his scheme a try, and maneuvered to cement his compromise as the standard by which competitors, both existing and future, are judged, to the benefit of pretty much everyone. "Singlehandedly" may be an exaggeration, but the field of online distribution would not be where it is today without Steve.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

you're an idiot:

re: women and popular culture. google it asshole. women overconsume all media. in fact women are now equally likely to be playing games now than men (games like boggle and shit - social games). re: a source - get off your fucking ass and google it you old fart.

only assholes and losers pay for something they can get for free. you probably don't jaywalk either. you probably do everythig you're told to do. just like those accredited peer review journals you love - it's easy not to think wen everyone else has done it for you. loser.

re: itunes and the price of music: what does peer traffic and bit torrent have to say about the price of music and film. that traffic kills itunes traffic by several orders of magnitude you fucking homo. it's because no one wants to pay for the shit asshole. exception makes the rule, you fucking prick. show me anywhere that itunes traffic even comes close to free traffic - to peer trading. it doesn't, because gp is right, you lame fuck. only windbags like you and your ilk would pay for something you can readily get for free. loser.

the irony is that you're probably an RIAA hater. ITUNES and shit like that keeps them alive longer - it's welfare for decrepit dinosaurs. peer downloading is the quickest way to change - yet on the one hand you'll support them - then with the same fetid breath complain about them. you probably can't walk and talk at the same time. you can't think and drink, lol.

Re:Screw that.

[RsG]

Gotta disagree with you here, anecdotes aren't valid evidence. Anecdotally, the one women whose opinion on the matter I know has no problem with illegal downloads. She has as low an opinion on the record labels as I do.

As far as that goes, my younger brother was introduced to kazza by his (now ex) girlfriend.

And the two people I've met who were on the music industry's side were respectively a 40+ male and a 50+ female. My observation is that age is a major factor and gender is not. I've yet to meet someone below 30, male or female, who was anti-piracy, and the women seem just as OK with it as the men.

All this goes to show is that anecdotes are meaningless. I can cite people I know who think one way, you can cite people you know who think the opposite, and all we'll have proved is that we don't know the same people.

only on slashdot do I hear males admit to actually buying music

Might that possibly be slashdot's majority male demographic? There are flamewars fought here as to whether illegal downloading is morally OK, and the vast majority of posters on both sides are male. There are very few women here, and I don't see them clustering on the anti-piracy side.

Re:Screw that.

[milkman_matt]

7 bucks? Where do you see the DVD movies for that much? I see like 15-20 bucks.

I've seen them for 4.99 as well. Generally the newer stuff is 14, generally -most- stuff is 14, which makes this move a bit confusing to me.. Why do they want tiered pricing online when their pricing is pretty much set around 15 bucks for anything in the stores? (ok MSRP is more like 20, and some movies sell for that, but still, I usually see most of the movies on the rack for 14.)

Re:Screw that.

[marmoset]

there is NO COMPELLING REASON for anyone ot actually buy music

Other than to provide the musicians making with a bit of income, that is.

I am perfectly aware that the average major-label artist actually receives a pitiful pittance, if that, from any recording I might buy, thanks to severely unbalanced record company contracts and shady accounting.

I am also aware that many of my favorite artists record for smaller independent labels with which they've signed much more equitable recording deals, and who actually receive appreciable royalties when I purchase their music. I prefer not to screw them, when I can help it.

Re:Screw that.

[Fozzyuw]

where the studio contracts actually pay the artists LESS per track, while having almost zero overhead cost for the production of raw goods because there are no raw goods.

I was just reading the "Weird Al" Q/A on his website about from fans where he talks about his contract on his smaller profit from (legally)downloaded music. I think this is an issue with Al having signed a contact without fully understanding that he would get less per download. Basically, it seems like a contact problem, not a "the big bad music industry won't pay artists as much for downloads". It's more "the big bad record label out smarted someone on their contract rates for downloads".

Also, "no overhead" is a HUGE mis-understatement. Where does most of the cost of producing a record go? It goes into the pockets of the people who produce it... not the cost of paper, plastic, and compact disks. CD's cost like 1 cent to produce, if not less now-a-days. Art can be expensive, sure, but that art is going to be created with/without a download. You need to still advertise your new record and that record has to 'visual' look different to distingish it from the other records. Even if it's a .JPEG on a website, that image was professionaly created by someone. Of course, I'm sure if the CEO's took an 80% paycut and only got paid like $1 million dollars a year, I think the cost of purcashing albums would be less. =D

But I degress... Albums cost money for recording time, studio time, paying the people master the tracks, back-up musicians (if any), advertising/promotion, etc, etc. This "no overhead" is a big mis-statement. Sure, they don't have to produce CD's, but that's probably the cheapest part of the whole process! I already covered the fact that they still will need to create artwork, etc. The big saves from downloading comes from cutting out the 'middle man'. You're no longer paying "Mega"-marts fee, their distributers fee's, etc. Just some bandwidth "overhead", which is comparatively cheaper (given gas prices these days).

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Inside the downloader population, men are 50% more likely to have downloaded songs compared to women. And 38% of those ages 18-29 say they download songs.

As of 2004. SOURCE: http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=461

Re:Screw that.

[milkman_matt]

Anyone who even sets a foot into best buy is taking a dangerous chance.

I know some people have, but after thousands of dollars in purchases (big and small) most of my DVDs are from there, same with CDs, most Games, Cameras, computer parts, some appliances, and part of my entertainment center, I have -never- had even one problem with the store.. I've taken things back opened and had them credited..

Commenting on the incident, Baltimore County police spokesman Bill Toohey told the Sun: "It's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world."

And what the hell does -that- have to do with -anything- at all? A guy tries to pay with $2 bills and it makes them 'a little nervous in the post-9/11 world'!? That's the most ridiculous statement I've heard all morning..

Re:Screw that.

[DeonFaustus]

He called you a sissy for buying iTunes.

In most of the world being a sissy is still a bad thing.

Re:Screw that.

[Fozzyuw]

Females are less likely to download and more likely to buy music and less likely to be tech savvy. ... Women in general are also paranoid of breaking the law.

Tell that to my French girlfriend...

...Ok, she's not tech savvy, but she's a download lover.

Re:Screw that.

[russellh]

It's about control. studios don't know whether apple will destroy them or not. They can't stand losing control over their stuff. they had enormous power over distribution in the old days, stores and radio. everything that happens online is a loss of control.

Re:Screw that.

[grasshoppa]

"Singlehandedly" may be an exaggeration, but the field of online distribution would not be where it is today without Steve.No, but then it wouldn't be where it is today with out napster, or any of the p2p technologies.

The digital movement was in progress. I will grant you he managed to change the momentum from pirating music to legal music purchases, but then there was this huge void already waiting for someone with reasonable DRM to make a try.

He succeded by default. And in all likelyhood, he knows this.

So let's not build this man up to be something of a god, his ego is large enough as it is.

Re:Screw that.

[SQLGuru]

"He single-handedly forces everyone into the digital generation"

That was Al Gore. He invented the Internet.....just ask him. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore#Creation_of_ Internet_speech, http://www.sethf.com/gore/)

Layne

Re:Screw that.

[ultranova]

It eliminates the blockbusters (i.e. something like Titanic has a reduced likelihood of ever happening again) but it makes hollywood cash positive business.

Of course it doesn't eliminate blockbusters. Nothing stops Joe Producer from making a film outside the scope of this system; of course he has to make real quality to compete, but that's hardly a bad thing. A good film will draw theaters full, and even with today's connection speed it's still easier to go and get the DVD from the neighborhood shop than download gigabytes of data, especially if you add good extras to the DVD version (see Star Wars 3 - no matter what you think of the movie, you have to admit that the DVD version had neat extras; I especially liked the documentary about filming the lightsabre battle between Anakin and Obi-Wan, lots of usefull details there if I ever decide to make movies myself).

Re:Screw that.

[shaneh0]

Someone else has already explained in detail why you're wrong. I will do it briefly:

"Free Music" (aka pirated music) isn't really free. It's actually a pain in the ass. My unscientific guess is that it takes me 5 minutes more to download a "Free" version of a song then it does to download the iTunes version.

So by my advanced calculations, if a person makes more then $12 an hour--and a majority of Americans do--it becomes economical for them to BUY the music.

It's my personal belief that in addition to technical savvy and copius amounts of free time, this is a factor that contributes to teenagers pirating music far more then adults.

Re:Screw that.

[cuantar]

"Reasonable DRM?" What's that?

More seriously, I wonder what sort of restrictions Hollywood will talk him into placing on movies. You're allowed to watch it once, and you can only burn it as a VCD (to plug the "analog hole" they keep whining about)?

Re:Screw that.

[maxpublic]

you're an idiot:

At least I'm not a coward. One up on you already.

women and popular culture. google it asshole. women overconsume all media.

I have no idea what you mean by "overconsume" in this context. Perhaps you explain it to me - after you give me a cite to a single empirical study, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal backing up your claim. Go ahead, I'll wait. If you need help, I suggest that scholar.google.com might be a better bet than plain ol' Google.

only assholes and losers pay for something they can get for free.

I see. So if you can screw someone else over you're more than willing to do so, so long as you think you can get away with it. Morality doesn't even enter into the picture.

Not only a coward, but a thief as well. And a thief who can't stand the idea that he might be in the tiny minority of the human race that we call 'scum'.

that traffic kills itunes traffic by several orders of magnitude you fucking homo

Cites? Sources? Oh, but wait - you're not only a coward and a thief, but a bigot as well. Yep, 'scum' really fits the bill here.

it's because no one wants to pay for the shit asshole

It's because fucktards like you can't admit that you're the filth on the bottom of humanity's shoe and feel the need to justify your actions, primarily by insisting that everyone else is just as much a fucktard as you are - even when the actual evidence seems to indicate that most of the rest of us aren't morally bankrupt.

exception makes the rule, you fucking prick.

That one didn't even make sense. So, coward, thief, bigot - and either loon or idiot, the jury's still out. Perhaps both.

only windbags like you and your ilk would pay for something you can readily get for free

The 'windbags' here being the folks who think that something of value should actually be paid for. Us 'windbags' call that 'ethical behavior', but I'm willing to bet you wouldn't know what that was if it up and bit you in the ass.

you probably can't walk and talk at the same time. you can't think and drink, lol.

Get back to me after you grow up, move out of your parents basement, and get a real job in the real world. Then perhaps you'll learn that work has value, which is why we pay for products and services, and why we think we should be payed for what we produce and provide. Although I seriously doubt it since you seem like nothing more than a garden-variety sociopath, and not a very bright one at at.

The best I can probably hope for is that no girl will ever be stupid enough to breed with you. The gene pools is in bad enough shape as it is without the likes of you passing on your own sub-standard contribution.

Max

Re:Screw that.

[Overly Critical Guy]

In fact, guess who did? The artists. So I don't cry too much when I hear about how much they're supposedly getting shafted by their record labels. Nobody's forcing them to sign up with them.

Re:Screw that.

[Mister Whirly]

"I will grant you he managed to change the momentum from pirating music to legal music purchases"

When did this happen exactly???? As far as I can tell, most people still download their music the old fashioned way - illegal and free (as in beer, and also as in "no DRM")

I believe that Jobs made some great advances in the digital delivery system, but I don't think he single handedly killed illegal music downloads....

Re:Screw that.

[fz00]

> Yeah but new DVDs cost about $15 - 20 a pop. Considering there's no packaging or distribution, I'd say $9.99 for a new movie is quite fair. They don't get that without the packaging, it is viewed as getting something less no matter how you try to spin it. And it does cost less for them to distribute. We're not too stupid to figure that out. What's surprising to me is that they still think they can afford the luxury to pick their own pricing. If I could buy a reasonably priced digital version of a movie, I'd do it but since that's not available it's worth it to search torrents and get what I want. If these studios wait to long, torrenting or some other form of piracy is going to be the accepted norm, if it isn't already.

Re:Screw that.

[bytemap]

I can steal from the store - but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I swallow it and go to a store and buy my food because it's the best available choice.

So what you are saying is that the criteria you use in deciding whether or not to steal something is what the punishment is if you get caught?

Interesting philosophy you have there. If I lose my wallet, I hope you aren't the one who finds it.

Re:Screw that.

[nelziq]

Economics 101: a thing is worth whatever the buyer thinks it's worth

You got the 'demand' part down, but I think you forgot about that other thing called 'supply'. Oxygen is extremely valuable to me but you won't find me paying for it.

Re:Screw that.

[Omestes]

First, as a male, I do buy music. Actually right now I'm trying to figure how to reget my music I bought on iTMS after a HD crash. I like buying music, it supports artists. (Music won't be free, product placement only works for Gansta rap and crap like it, more on that later). Yes, I have stolen music, like when the new Mike Patton CD came out (Peeping Tom) I did use pirate bay to grab it, but bought it less than a week later when I got money. Why? Because I like the artist enough to want him to make more albums and projects. (The fact that the label isn't part of an **AA helps, too). With services such as iTMS most juvenile arguments for piracy died, reguardless of gender. (Yes, some of you hate DRM, I am a /. rarity for not minding it too much, it seems a necessity for technology leading us in the right direction).

Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free.

No, downloaders are like everyone else, they want something for free. Its easier, its cheaper, its immediately gratifying, its a nice Western character flaw. Petty theives know the prerfect price for a candy bar too, it also is free. Yes, now you will give me a half baked argument against the analogy, such as these people wouldn't have bought it anyway, or that 90% of modern (pop) music is not worth buying, or no one deprived of any goods in the digital sense. Please, getting something that costed someone something to produce for nothing, against the producers will is theft, especially when there are cheap ways to actually pay. Yes, this system might have some flaws ideologically, but it is the best we have right now, and far better than your product placement idea. And if your going to make this point from an ideological stance of protest, at least show how adamant you are by abstaining, and not just doing a half-assed boycott (in effect telling them how desirable their product still is).

That was a tangent, sorry. Ignore at will, since it is not the thrust of my post.

Basically with your product placement point you are saying that we should degrade the general quality of cinema so you do not have to pay for it. Product placement generally detracts from the quality of movies (plase remember Taco Bell and Judge Dredd from the 90's, or even the startlingly obvious placements in I, Robot), and generally doesn't nearly enough cash input to fund a large release. Also this idea would crush the indie market, since they have dubious appeal for wide audiences, documentaries will also be hurt in a massive way (imagine the makers of Supersize This going before corporate sponsors, what should they do emphasize Burger King?).

Your linkage between Hollywood and music is weak. Do you really want to listen to people extoll the virtues of Diet Coke next time you listen to music?

Re:Screw that.

[Mister Whirly]

I think the Anonymous Coward is falling prey to the "If I agree with a statement it can't possibly be wrong" mentality. I admit that occasionally I do download a song I haven't purchased, but I don't use any bullshit to "trick" myself into justification. I know it may not be legal, but still choose to do it. Be honest with yourselves people - downloading songs you didn't pay for doesn't make you a hero or a martyr for any great cause... On the other hand, I don't believe it automatically makes you a thief either. The world we live in is mostly grey - but most people seem to like to pretend it is mostly black and white...


P. S. Max way to go on the smackdown! Dumbass knew his points were stupid/invalid or else wouldn't have posted as AC

Re:Screw that.

[MooUK]

I don't the the exact truth first-hand, but I can easily imagine the record labels writing what appears to be a nice simple contract that treats the artists well, but actually contains loads of legalese that shafts them.

In other words, if the record labels weren't offering the contractual shaftings, the artists wouldn't be signing them.

Neither side is blameless, but I personally place more blame on the labels.

Re:Screw that.

[BewireNomali]

Peer networks and BitTorrent show far greater numbers downloading music for free. This obscures your notion of the price that is actually being set by the market. In actuality, it's much lower than anything you derive from ITUNES statistics and approaches zero. Do you still disagree? Your economics post and your perfect price arguments are now refuted.

Much of your post is fuzzy, and filed with personal insults no less. Let's start here though.

What else: oh, free. In free, I mean free to the end user. downloading music is free to the end user in as much as they are not paying the producer/distributor to acquire it. So thus it is not a crock. You "nothing is for free" argument belongs somewhere, just not here. Producers are not being compensated for their work by the consumer of the good. If I steal a loaf of bread, I got it for free. We're not taking into account the cost of the calories expended in my energy expenditure during the actual theft. I guess we could take that into acount... if you wish.

Re: getting out much, homogenous friends, etc? I'll let it ride. Personal attacks appear often in inferior arguments.

Paying for something that can be gotten for free: that's a sticky one. Let's toss out the moral arguments (as they are variable and difficult to universally agree upon). Downloading gets me little trouble if I'm not sharing. No uploading, and I get what I want when I want, at a price I like. ITUNES can never beat that price, that selection, that availability. In the long term, that model will WIN, unless businesses figure out how to make that work for them.

Re: women overcomsuming media? It's axiomatic. Women overconsume all media. Google it.

Re: women less likely to download? This isn't peer knowledge. This is the industry standard. Google it as well. It's free!

Men of a certain age are far more likely to download. Before the internet, men of a certain age were far more likely to burn CDs. Before that, men of a certain age were far more likely to make mix tapes, or dub from the radio. Consequently, popular music focuses primarily on young women as the primary demographic to market and sell to instead of making drastic changes to the business plan. Google it if you disagree. Again, it's free.

Re: my buddies being freeloaders. Yup, that's probably true. But we're hell of a good time. *shrugs*

Your argument has holes, but you hold well to the company line, hence your moderation. I was actually hoping for some discourse - maybe the tossing about of ideas about the future of media delivery. Alas.

Re:Screw that.

[Mister Whirly]

"So by my advanced calculations, if a person makes more then $12 an hour--and a majority of Americans do--it becomes economical for them to BUY the music."

By my non-advanced calculations, people are at work less hours of the day than they are not. If you know how to use a proper search engine for torrents - http://torrents.to/ -, it should take you far less time than tracking the same song down on a legitimate site (obscure songs nonwithstanding). Most people I know, even the busy ones who make a good salary, seem to have more time than money anyways...

Re:Screw that.

[BewireNomali]

Your linkage between Hollywood and music is weak. Do you really want to listen to people extoll the virtues of Diet Coke next time you listen to music?

You speak of wants and needs. The truth is that product placement is already happening with your music. Firms pay for mentions in pop songs. Advertising companies are hiring pop stars to sing jungles so you subconsciously associate the voice of the star with the product. They are evn going so far as licensing the whole song to make the tie more tangible. And corporations are already taking larger stakes in film development and production. I wasn't even making a point per se, so much as point out what is ALREADY happening.

It's interesting, because most slashdotters are so anti-RIAA/MPAA, but are unwilling to see the truth about the only viable long term solution that doesn't see a wholesale erosion of the existing system.

Re:Screw that.

[Henk Postma]

"Lets say for some movies they raised the price from $10 to $20... this caused half the potential customers to be turned away, so only half as many downloads are made of the movie... "

It's probably closer to exponential, I don't believe that if you raise the price by a factor n, the amount of sales drops by the same factor n. Once you hit the exponential tail of the normal distribution of price people are willing to pay, your profit vaporizes. I'm sure there is a pareto-optimal curve lying somewhere on the desk of some hollywood types that has it all worked out.

Re:Screw that.

[shark72]

"ITUNES is a stop gap measure - because there is NO COMPELLING REASON for anyone ot actually buy music."

A common Slashdot fallacy: "me and my cheap friends have no moral issues with pirating music and can't think of a reason for compensating the labels and musicians for the work they've done. Thus, everybody must think this way."

You'll certainly find many people around here who are with you 100% (particularly the people who've modded your post "insightful"), but don't make the mistake of thinking that everybody has the same moral compass.

When I was 19 I was writing for Phrack and had absolutely no moral issues with hacking, piracy, and the like. As I got older, and I learned more about how society works and how money is a pervasive motivator, my outlook changed. And my generation has a lot of disposable income.

It may very wll be the case that the iTMS is not aimed at the "entertainment wants to be free" crowd; I'm sure that's OK with Steve Jobs if it's OK with you. But it doesn't mean that the concept of paying for music is doomed.

Re:Screw that.

[soft_guy]

I agree that it is idiocy. However, I won't set foot in a Best Buy. They are too eager to take things to the next level and have people arrested. So, no, I will buy nothing there.

Re:Screw that.

[the_B0fh]

Unless you're in Japan, where even 7-11 is now selling fresh oxygen, mint scented and so on, and there are many "oxygen bars" much like a starbucks in .us.

Re:Screw that.

[JudgeFurious]

True, Napster did force everyone into the digital generation. They went there to haul out as much free shit as they could carry like looters in a storm but why split hairs right?

Re:Screw that.

[grasshoppa]

True, Napster did force everyone into the digital generation. They went there to haul out as much free shit as they could carry like looters in a storm but why split hairs right?

I'm sorry, were we arguing the legality of it? Because that's a whole different subject than what I was talking about.

Re:Screw that.

[Omestes]

What about non-pop music? Music such as jazz, electronic, and experimental generally are very very light on vocals, and thus not the best medium for product placement, and product placement would generally not do anything to enrich the music as art. The previous is an important point, some artists view what their doing (creating music) as ART, one of my favorite experimental jazz bands come to mind, Tortoise. I don't think profit is first and foremost in their eyes, or everyone would sound like Britanny Spears, or some other talentless music-by-formula hip-hop crap. I can just picture this release; "Drink Coke Because it is Good For You String Quatet in E-Minor". Also I'm sure there are many band out there that might be ethically opposed to MORE advertisment, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist either. Product placement is great for pop or "gangsta" rap, but I don't think many mature music listeners would really go for it.

Perhaps (please insert sarcasm) thats the goal, brainwash them earlier, and they will have no taste later in life, and thus think that constantly being nothing more than mindshare is acceptable taste or talent be damned.

People, thankfully, are already getting sick of the constant barrage of advertisment. I know many people like me who eschew them at all costs (even if it means no TV, or MLB ballgames, or local radio). They have come to become intrusive and ubiquitous in all areas, from mens rooms to school buses, the world is becoming a spam ridden e-mail inbox, and people are developing psychological means to block out all the superfluous attempts at brainwashing (what is most advertisment but attempted brainwashing?). Look at the success of Google for this, you were already looking for something, and thus advertisments can be helpful, but ONLY if targetted, and ONLY if helpful and non-obtrusive. And fallacious reasoning aside, listing to Gansta White-Boy 5000 does not imply that I want to drink Bud Light, or drive a Hummer. Though perhaps listening to Britanny Spears should imply that I should wear a Trojan.

Perhaps the future we are trying to bring about should be on that is ad free, where word of mouth (as spured by actual merit) is the preference.

Perhaps DRM isn't as bad as the alternative, and spending money on things you like isn't that bad of an idea (it has worked for most of civilized history after all).

Being anti-**AA doesn't imply that someone is against selling an artistic product, or supporting artists with you pocket book. I don't see the connection. The technology exists for artists to eschew the **AA and distribute via services like iTMS for a small cost, most of which would go to them. Sadly because egotistical wanks supported by weak ad hoc rationals DRM is necissary as a step. Just because there is no trade associations, does not make product placement a necessity, there are plenty of ways to pay for music (and support artists) without the **AAs.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to me after you grow up, move out of your parents basement, and get a real job in the real world. Then perhaps you'll learn that work has value, which is why we pay for products and services, and why we think we should be payed for what we produce and provide. Although I seriously doubt it since you seem like nothing more than a garden-variety sociopath, and not a very bright one at at.

Asshole, that's where you're wrong. Instead of wanting to be paid for a service you provide, you want to be in the position to provide services and products that are difficult to find elsewhere. Then there is no choice but to pay you, loser. The reason why you'll end up back in your parent's basement after you're downsized, is because you want the world to give you what you think you deserve, instead of going out and taking what you WANT. fucking loser. I don't think... I do. I don't have a job in the real world, I run my own firm in the real world. I don't work for anyone; sad fucks like you work for me. Interesting you bring up the gene pool and then go and do something so unfit as to pay for something freely available. You talk about fitness then admit to being a theta male. My only ethos is that I thrive by all means necessary, and that those who partner with me benefit richly for doing so. Give me the opportunity to take advantage of you, and I will. In my world view, I don't support weak people (you), weak firms, weak business principles. So keep buying music you can get for free, oh thou who laments the shortcomings of the modern day gene pool. Keep doing what you're told to do, loser. You'll remember me the day you return from lunch and find your computer logged out, a security guard waiting to escort you to human resources, with your star wars action figures tossed haphazardly into a cardboard box. It's a wrap buddy. All because you did what you were told! lol... loser. I'm pretty fit. I'm an animal. Oh, and my dong's 9.5 inches long. So you have very little on me, other than what appears to be a slashdot fan club. It's just win/win for me. lol.

Re:Screw that.

[UserGoogol]

REALITY forced them to sign up. People only have a limited number of options in front of them at any given time, and the fact of the matter is that due to the way the system is set up (due in part to the actions of record companies) signing up with restrictive contracts is the best option available to them at the time, so that's what they do. Currently, the tide is slowly starting to change such that self-distribution is becoming a more plausible option, but for very long, artists have been under the cruel yoke of an oppressive reality.

People acting in their own interests can very often lead to extremely suboptimal results. Prisoner's dillema, local maxima, and so on.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The iTMS really just shaved off the music downloaders who can't be bothered to do it the hard way and picked up the crowd who had never done it at all. This alone is a huge market but it pales against the vast scope of the illegal downloading.

When someone puts up a business that sells me mainstream tracks at a reasonable price (not to exceed 50 US cents) with zero DRM on them in reasonable quality I'll sign up. And I don't mean AllOfMP3--they do it, but it's not officially endorsed. I want the record labels to do it. Until they do I'll stick with 'piracy' for my music.

It may be illegal but at least it's honest.

Re:Screw that.

[UserGoogol]

Does it occur to you that decisions such as those in the stories you linked are made by the managers of the respective stores and are probably not nationwide policy?

Re:Screw that.

[IAmTheDave]

So by my advanced calculations, if a person makes more then $12 an hour--and a majority of Americans do--it becomes economical for them to BUY the music.

You're assuming that a person sits and stares at the download as it proceeds, during work hours. In fact, both downloads more than likely happen in the background, having no true economical impact.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Y'know, the only thing your statement proves is that you don't get out much, and that your personal clique of friends is highly homogenous.

Unlike say, Slashdot, which is... ummm.... not homogenous.

Re:Screw that.

[LunaticTippy]

You'll pay for oxygen if you develop certain diseases or undergo certain procedures in a hospital.
Welders pay for oxygen, as do many manufacturing plants.

Re:Screw that.

[neurojab]

Cites? Sources? A single shred of empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal?

Can I have some of what you're smoking? This is Slashdot, not an AMA meeting. Around here, almost nothing is ever substantiated. If you want make a strong argument by citing some sources, knock yourself out... you'll probably get mod points for it, but asking someone else for sources on their conjecture is a bit ridiculous. I, for one, read the comments in Slashdot not for accurate information, but for what the community is thinking. Sometimes it's enlightening, sometimes it's crap. Welcome to the digital, collaborative age.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am perfectly aware that the average major-label artist actually receives a pitiful pittance, if that, from any recording I might buy, thanks to severely unbalanced record company contracts and shady accounting.

Buy indie. Go to live shows. Most musicians (at least the ones I know) are dirt poor; everybody wants to screw the musician, especially the bar owners.

Even if you don't drink, go see live local shows, you can drink soda or coffee. Buy their CDs, if they have them for sale. You can usually get them for $5 to $10, and the content is usually head and shoulders above the utter crap the majors are putting out these days.

Re:Screw that.

[mrbongo]

re all of the females do this/ males do that comments.. Since I have remained in the world of gainfull employment I now purchase all of my pc games and software. When I was a broke ass student it was .... the other way around. However since my wife and sister have discovered bit torrent, it's bye bye to best buy and 0 bandwith for me (and brother in law) as they rabidly devour battle star galactica episodes and veronica mars.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Best Buy Clerk: That'll be $x00
Customer: OK here are (x/2) hundred $2 bills
Clerk: We don't accept payment in all $2s sir
Customer: That's all I have
Clerk: We don't accept payment in all $2s sir
Customer: That's all I will pay you with
Clerk: Then you cannot pay us and you must leave
Customer: No I will not leave
Clerk: Excuse me
(Clerk calls manager; manager calls police to have man removed)
Customer: YOU HAVENT HERD THE LAST FROM ME I WILL BE TELLING THE INTERNET!!!!

Re:Screw that.

[LunaticTippy]

Metropolis is public domain. It's sad nothing new is entering public domain anymore.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are worth less than nothing. When you die, the world will become a better place.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually worth a considerable bit.

As for when I die, let's cross that bridge when we get there. As for you, as a loser, you've already died a little bit inside. Let society castrate you and bide your time to your own demise. Good luck with that.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

un burrito me trampeó.

No era burrito, cariño.

Re:Screw that.

[mattyoclock]

yes, it's very clear that noone could possibly have anything on you. It is after all, completely unreasonable to purchase anything that could be obtained freely. So I can safely assume that you regularly steal all your groceries, as well as any furniture and appliances you have? After all, it only takes a skimask and a van. Only losers worry about supporting the system that provides them with things that they need or like, allowing the creators of it to continue producing. Everything comes freely. If everyone would simply realize this, and simply take what they wanted, why, we could be part of a Mad Max type scenario in no time. You know what else? you're right! No one but a theta male (a classification that to my knowledge doesn't even exist, last i checked it was Alpha, Beta, Omega) would ever read slashdot, or think that points in an arguement should have any kind of basis in fact. Also, The alpha, Beta, Omega male theory assumes a pack, how you interact with a social group, and what your standing in it will be. It's fairly clear that you are in no way accepted by society, or any normaly functioning social group. Taking advantage of any percieved weakness in anyone all the time isn't strength, it's a complete and total lack of foresight. "He who hesitates is lost". When the right action presents itself, those with strength don't hesitate to take it, but mindlessly consuming and only living off of others is nothing but a sure way to end your career prematurely, and likely get knocked around in a backroom sometime. Also, as any woman can tell you (not that I think you could get one to talk to you without a knife) guys who walk around claiming how large there dicks are, are those who most likely are lacking in that department.

Re:Screw that.

[Em Adespoton]

Funny... the attitudes you espouse remind me of those held by SCO.

It seems to me, you want to make other people pay for what you get, and you think that makes you great. Meanwhile, all you're doing is concentrating wealth.

If you had argued that the transfer of information does not transfer wealth, you might have had something going... but as it is, you look like either a) an anymous troll trying to stir up the mud, or b) someone who has truely lost touch with society, and is out to "make it" with no regard to the welfare of others.

Just remember: if everyone shared your attitude, there would be no intellectual property to hoard for free... those who had it would hold onto it for dear life, and those who didn't would become impoverished very quickly.

When the bottom feeders run out of bottom to feed on, what happens next?

It seems to me that everyone who has responded to your trolling has come from a different viewpoint, but arrived at the same conclusion. This ought to tell you something, even if it's that we're all ripe for the plucking by great entrepreneurs such as yourself.

Re:Screw that.

[RedWizzard]

i think it's a bit further than that. downloading illegally is primarily a male bastion, whereas music purchasing skews towards girls and women. Females are less likely to download and more likely to buy music and less likely to be tech savvy.

Cites? Sources? A single shred of empirical evidence published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal?

According to the MPAA, at least, the OP is correct - more males than females do illegal downloading, copying, and bootlegging. You can ask the MPAA to email you the report from this page (it's the last report in the list).

Specifically the MPAA's studies shows:

• People who download: 66% male
• People who make copies: 67% male
• People who receive copies: 57% male
• People who bootleg: 57% male
• People who are "non-pirates": 49% male
• Movie watching population: 49% male

Re:Screw that.

[soft_guy]

What makes you think it isn't nationwide policy? What if they try to do something to screw me, and I say something to the effect that I don't like what they are doing, so they have me arrested?

Better not to take the chance.

Re:Screw that.

[aberrantvirtue]

Hear hear!

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got you beat. I can buy most DVD's off of Amazon for $5.00 or less and rip them to my pod
with no drm.
So apples going to be selling DRM'ed videos with a max rez of 320 x 200.
thats only view able on the pod. The studios are bitching about $9.99.
I dont think a drm'ed file is even worth that.

zbeats

Re:Screw that.

[nimms]

god who cares,
if you don't like apple's prices, don't pay them...if you can find said pauly shore album elsewhere for $5, no one is stopping you from buying it.

Re:Screw that.

[Mister Whirly]

Riiiiiggggggghhhhhttttttt...... Easy there Francis, I think mommy's got your hot cocoa ready... And even had to throw in dick size at the end... Why didn't you just bring up Nazis and get it over with??

Re:Screw that.

[BewireNomali]

lol. this is why I'm wrong? are you serious?

do you sit there, do nothing and wait for your download? during work hours? in your workplace as if incapable of running another process simultaneously?

I'm sorry, I just want to understand!

Teenagers download more because teenagers buy the most music. Teenager download more because they are proficient with cutting edge technology. Teenagers download more because tight budgets instigate the search for cost effective methods of acquiring what they want.

Re:Screw that.

[TheoMurpse]

Then people will go to signing deals with Apple"

I'm pretty sure that would be a breach of the agreement between Apple Corps and Apple Computer; from what I understand (I cannot find a copy of their agreement, only snippets of it: most likely it is private), Apple Computer has the rights to distribution of digital media (which got them off the hook in this last round of lawsuits), but Apple Corps has the exclusive right to use the trademark Apple in conjunction with creative works of principally musical content[1]. I know for a fact that the agreement includes the statement that Apple Computer is expressly forbidden from distributing CDs or other physically recorded media[1], and I'm sure there are very few artists on the planet that are ready to completely abandon physical media.

[1]

Re:Screw that.

[shaneh0]

Yes, that is precicely why you are wrong.

You seem to think that only pecuniary costs really matter. The time that I wrote-- 5 minutes -- is not download time. That is the time it takes to search for a song--including the multiple query variations that are usually tried--quickly sort the results on your screen and filter out the matches you don't want, queue the download of one or more copies of the song, review the file(s) for quality. And, often of the time, delete the "riaa bait" song(s) and repeat the process.

In economics time is computed as cost whether or not you're actually at work. A common economics test case is whether to pack a lunch vs. buying a lunch. You can often pack food for 1/2 of the price of eating out every day. But if an attorney who bills $250 an hour takes 5 minutes to pack a good lunch, you have to add $21 to the price of that sandwich. This clearly shows that eating out is more economical. Again, there is a "salary threshold" in this example as well.

If you had any clue about basic economic principles you'd have known this to begin with.

Re:Screw that.

[BewireNomali]

By your example, computing time as cost, I'd have to ascribe that $21 to the cost of those five minutes regardless of whether or not I did anything other than bill hours, is that correct?

Re:Screw that.

[no_barcode]

Right. The artists are very involved with the pricing structure, and Apple is completely powerless.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't responded to his post. His logic is sound; you assume a lost of $21 during that 5 minute span. That loss is incurred in every 5 minute increment regardless what the attorney is doing, if he is engaged in activity other than billing hours. Attributing the loss to downloading or another activity is rather arbitrary, since no billing would occur during that time. So the downloader still seems to be saving money, even if it's just the one dollar difference from free song to itunes download.

It's ironic, because you made a pointed reference to OP not being aware of the fundamentals of economics, but your argument is very flawed. Ironic.

Re:Screw that.

[shaneh0]

This post is so inane that I'm not even going to try to explain to you why you're wrong. But you *are* wrong. If you want to spend your time learning why, then google "Opportunity Cost."

Opportunity Costing is a very mature--and fundamental--discipline in Economics. .....And while you're at it, google "Irony."

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Opportunity cost is a term used in economics to mean the cost of something in terms of an opportunity forgone (and the benefits that could be received from that opportunity), or the most valuable forgone alternative. For example, if a city decides to build a hospital on vacant land that it owns, the opportunity cost is some other thing that might have been done with the land and construction funds instead. In building the hospital, the city has forgone the opportunity to build a sporting center on that land, or a parking lot, or the ability to sell the land to reduce the city's debt, and so on.

This is your argument?!?!?! Opportunity cost? This is no different than what I posted, which is that the opportunity cost is no greater than doing NOTHING during that time, assuming no billing would be taking place, assuming downloading during off hours.

Place the word "are" in between a pair of asterisks doesn't make you right. Lol... in fact, it's kinda gay. lol.

I ceded the possibility that I might have been wrong and gave you every opportunity to prove me wrong. Yet you still haven't. Using the words "mature" and "fundamental" also don't make you any less wrong. LOL.

Irony: A contrast or an incongruity between what is stated and what is really meant, or between what is expected to happen and what actually does happen.

Lol, you meant to hurl an insult presupposing OP's lack of knowledge of fundamental economics, when it is in fact your grasp of fundamental economics that is dodgy. LOL. THAT'S IRONIC. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. kthnx.

Re:Screw that.

[shaneh0]

Did you even read what you pasted into the webpage? If you did, then you *OBVIOUSLY* didn't understand it.

In fact, the *proof* that you didn't understand a basic wikipedia entry, is that you later remarked on the except and said: " [the cost of pirating music is] no greater than doing NOTHING..." Essentially, you're saying "You have to do SOMETHING during that five minutes, so what's the diff?"

Now, go back and re-read the text that YOU CUT AND PASTED. You'll find an explanation that opportunity cost is equal to the *MOST VALUABLE* alternative. Not any old alternative. But the MOST VALUABLE.

If you understood the most basic tenents of economics, you'd understand that there is a difference between accounting cost and economic cost. You'd also have a meaningful understanding of time-poverty. The majority of Americans that make more then the median annual income (around $40k annum) consider themselves to be more time-poor then money-poor. An allegory of this is the classic example that started this thread: Spending $1+1-Minute to download at iTunes, versus $0+6 minutes on a P2P network. You want a proof? Here you go:

5-Minutes > $1 ...Now...I have now explained to you in 3 posts what usually takes a Freshmen Econ student 5 minutes to read and understand in Section One, Chapter One. I'm certain that you will reply with some additional *moronic* remarks, but sadly the lesson is over for the evening. My advice to you: Cut your losses. Arguing with me about this is like arguing with me about algebra. I didn't invent it, and I can't change it. It's just the way it is.

I have complete confidence in your ignorance and unfailing ability to avoid actually learning anything in this post. So please, don't surprise me.

Re:Screw that.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where you are the idiot. Let's assume your argument of 5 minutes, which is inaccurate at best.

On peer networks, I can get software (with value of say $20-$300 - retail), I can get whole albums (I don't use itunes so that's what $10 on itunes - $15 retail?) and I can get whole films ($8 for average movie ticket - ~ $15 for a DVD), ebooks, textbooks, manuals, all with actual value greater than $1. But I guess that's a whole other argument.

So your entire argument stands on this additional 5 minute thing - which is fundamentally flawed. OK, so that means that if I can find and queue the same song you can find on ITUNES in the same time it takes for you to buy one - I win? LOL - then I win!!!!!!!! I still win. Oh, and I guess in examples like it - I should clarify because you like to nitpick.

So your fundamental argument was that piracy is more costly in general than buying? Inaccurate, except for your example where it takes 5 minutes to download a free song vs. $1 and 1 minute to buy a song. ONLY IN YOUR EXAMPLE, assuming it takes me that amount of time to find and cue a song - is your assertion valid.

In fact, I can find and cue songs you can't find on ITUNES in under a minute. I can find and queue whole albums in under a minute. You're right... I did misunderstand - your initial terms were flawed. Even with your grandstanding and googled terms - you still lose because you chose a manufactured instance where you are right - whereas I'm right in general wtihout having to manufacture an instance.

Re: not getting econ 101 - it's all good. I don't hit uni until the fall so I guess I'm right on schedule. LOL. What's your excuse for inaccurately applying textbook knowledge in the real world? Nothing - guess you're just a wanker.

We can go at this for a while. It's summer break!!!!!!!

Re:Screw that.

[shaneh0]

You have shown so little basic comprihension that I'm genuinely surprised that you're as old as you claim. From what you've shown here in both mental capacity and chosen vernacular I estimated 15, tops.

I'm terribly sorry for not writing 3 pages in footnotes for my original post. And I apologize for going so obviously above your head, but I don't usually craft my slashdot posts for the least common denominator. This might come as a disservice to the under-educated and uninitiated--like yourself, for example--but you can be sure I won't be losing any sleep over the matter.

I hope you've had as much fun here as I have. It can be very enjoyable to see the neon of my intellect shine so brightly against such a profound ignorance. Cheers.

$9.99 Still Too High

[gasmonso]

Why would anyone pay $10 for a movie that will be available only digitally? I can go to Walmart and get an actual DVD for $5-$15. I think Jobs and the MPAA are nuts.

http://psychicfreaks.com/

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[10Ghz]

Yeah, but you need to get up from your chair, go to a frigging Wal-Mart, stand in line and then drive back home in order to get that movie. And when you watch that movie, you get FBI warning, RIAA warning and studio-warning that copying the movie is bad.

And I haven't seen new movies available for under 9.99. Older movies yes, but not new.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[fistfullast33l]

If they let me rip the thing to DVD, then we can talk. Even better would be able to move the file from one machine to another for playing. Of course, iTunes doesn't let you do that easily, but it is possible. I think if they do it right, then I'd consider the $9.99 price because that's what I buy most of my DVD's at now. The only difference is that it's a hard copy that I can kind of illegally without conscience rip when I want to. However, I bet the best they'll let you rip to is HD-DVD or BluRay because the copy protection can be enforced better.

The best online distribution so far is Steam (ducks). I was really impressed when I could install it both on my desktop and my laptop with the same username/password and it just updated both properly. I can install as many copies of HL2 as I want, but I can only play one at once. That's totally fine by me. As long as they know what I own and make it available to me whenever I want, I'm willing to put up with their system. AFAIK, iTunes doesn't give you your music back if you buy the songs and lose the original copy.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

I live in boston, we dont have walmarts here. Heck, I've never even seen one before. Can you really get new release DVDs for $5? I think there is the added advantage of the following which would make it better than a DVD:
1. you get it instantly
2. you can actually put it on your ipod
3. you can put several on your ipod

while 2 and 3 are sort of nice to have, 1 is a killer app. Imagine being able to download instantly from a huge selection of movies which you can browse by reading descriptions and watching trailers.

Now, if they could make it like netflix (cap it to 2 movies a week and remove the ability to put it on your ipod), they would make even more money.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Firethorn]

Yeah, but you need to get up from your chair, go to a frigging Wal-Mart, stand in line and then drive back home in order to get that movie. And when you watch that movie, you get FBI warning, RIAA warning and studio-warning that copying the movie is bad.

Don't forget that you have to hope that the local walmart/best buy has it in stock. Even if you already own it, you might have to sort through hundreds of DVD's to find the movie you want to watch, unless you have the skills and discipline of a librarian and actually sort your movies. 1 DVD/week for 10 years leads to 500 DVDs in your library.

And when you watch that movie, you get FBI warning, RIAA warning and studio-warning that copying the movie is bad.

Well, you might still get this. Or have it come up every time the propriatary locked down player required to play the encrypted movies is started.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[db32]

I think you need to define instantly. I am pretty sure I can drive to the local store, buy the DVD, get home, and start watching it before a DVD download from iTunes completes. Unless of coarse the quality of said iTunes download is so low that the download isn't a terribly large DVD sized download. In which case I would still rather pay the $15 for full quality hard copy disc, instead of $10 (why do companies insist on this $9.99 crap, marketing gimickry), and have half or less of the quality of a DVD, DRM encumbered nonsense, and no physical disc.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

what if it is 10pm on a Friday and you have chick over. Would you rather borwse movies from the sofa and click download, wait a few minutes then click play or get in a car, find an open store, find your movie, pay for it , drive home, open packaging , insert DVD then finally click play movie?

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[GweeDo]

Or imagine you are me. You live in Plainville, KS (town of 2100 people). I want to buy a new DVD...okay. I have to drive 23 miles south to the closest Walmart or Hastings. So, my ride gets about 24mpg on the highway. So two gallons of gas + cost of movie = $5-15 + nearly $6. Looks like $9.99 just got more attractive...

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

I live in boston, we dont have walmarts here. Heck, I've never even seen one before.

You've never seen a Walmart? Come on, there are Walmarts all over. Either you've lived a really sheltered existence (I'm pretty sure you can see a Walmart driving west on the masspike) or you're lying. Which is it? And there are lots of Walmarts around Boston. Walmarts in the greater Boston area

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

it will use the same tech as the ipod and itunes already use for TV which do not have any warnings like that.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[shotfeel]

You can't go to Walmart and get new releases for that price.

I'm seeing the start of a new movie selling scheme -start selling the (lower quality) online version, but not the DVD, the day the movie is released to theatres. That adds another level of purchase to those who have to see it in the theatre, buy the DVD as soon as it comes out, buy the Director's Version, then the "Special Edition" followed by the specially packaged "Ultimate Edition". Then cry about having to buy it in HD...

Personally, its too high for me, I'll wait and pay more for a DVD. This isn't like music where I may only want a single track from an album instead of the whole album or a TV series where I missed that one episode.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Twanfox]

AFAIK, iTunes doesn't give you your music back if you buy the songs and lose the original copy.

You are incorrect in this. I have a coworker that wound up having his hard drive go belly-up and trashed his collection of music. After getting that recovered and fixed, he went back to iTunes and (through some process that wasn't explained) managed to regain copies of his music.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

look at that map again. None of those stores are in boston or even in the greater boston area. none are accessable on the T. So , yes, I have never seen a walmart since there are none in my area at all. Secondly, to drive west on the mass pike one must own a car. Have you tried driving or parking in boston? the traffic sucks and in order to have a guranteed spot you have to pay something like $100 a month. Some places like brookline have no overnight parking on the street.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[mrchaotica]

The best online distribution so far is Steam (ducks).

No, the best online distribution so far is BitTorrent. Steam is merely the best legal one (notwithstanding the fact that BitTorrent can be used legally). But that's not saying much, seeing as how Steam sucks hairy goat balls anyway!

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[BootNinja]

you can download an entire movie in a few minutes? WOW! Can I come over and borrow your OC3?

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"look at that map again. None of those stores are in boston or even in the greater boston area. none are accessable on the T. So , yes, I have never seen a walmart since there are none in my area at all. Secondly, to drive west on the mass pike one must own a car. Have you tried driving or parking in boston? the traffic sucks and in order to have a guranteed spot you have to pay something like $100 a month. Some places like brookline have no overnight parking on the street."

Are you saying that in your entire life you've never left Boston? When was the last time you left the state of Massachusetts?

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[MyNameIsEarl]

You've never seen a Walmart? Come on, there are Walmarts all over. Either you've lived a really sheltered existence (I'm pretty sure you can see a Walmart driving west on the masspike) or you're lying. Which is it? And there are lots of Walmarts around Boston. Walmarts in the greater Boston area


You won't find a Walmart in NYC either, this is a union town and we won't let em set up shop. I have, however, seen a Walmart on out Long Island. So if this poster doesn't leave Boston, us big city folk don't have much reason to leave the city much, then I could see how he/she has never seen a Walmart.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[db32]

You forgot the part where you wait hours for the download to complete. Then burn the DVD if allowed and place it in your entertainment system to play. Unless you are using a media setup where you are running TV out from your iTunes computer to your TV, but I have yet to see that work out at a comparable clarity to the dvd player itself. And Walmart is 24/7 in most places.

Of coarse...this is slashdot..."what if it is 10pm on a Friday night and you have a chick over." is an entirely hypothetical situation.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"So if this poster doesn't leave Boston, us big city folk don't have much reason to leave the city much, then I could see how he/she has never seen a Walmart."

Come on - do you really believe that he's telling the truth about never having seen a Walmart? I live in NYC. I do not believe I have an unusually active travel schedule and I have seen plenty of Walmarts. We aren't living in colonial America - people travel. I think he lied about never having seen a Walmart. I'm just trying to figure out why.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[jocknerd]

If the songs are already on your iPod, you can get them back at any time. If you run a Mac, check out Senuti at http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/ 23390/.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[lowrydr310]

When a chick is over, I don't go anywhere NEAR the computer...

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[MBGMorden]

Do you work in town? Do you buy groceries there? If so, you're going to be there for something anyways. I'm in the same boat (I live in Huger, SC, which has a single mom-n-pop gas station. anything else is 20 miles away). I do work in a nearby town though, so it's much more likely that I'll just buy a DVD on the way home.

For me, the simple convenience of buying online is not enough. A file-only copy of a movie (ESPECIALLY one crippled by DRM) is to me an inferior product to purchased media containing the same movie. It's "good enough" yes, but it's kinda like comparing a plastic fork to a metal one. Sure they both work, and the plastic one has some advantages, but it's not on the same level as a "real" fork. If they want me to buy a movie online, they're going to have to pull me in on the price (basically, make the deal good enough that I'm willing to suffer a downloaded copy). $1 per
song isn't bad. I'd buy a lot more for $0.50 per song, but $1 isn't bad. $2 per TV-show is still pushing it. These should be $1-$1.50 per ep. For a movie, I'm not paying more than $5 to download it, and then it better be of a very good bitrate, not something that looks like it's streaming off of a Realplayer site from 10 years ago.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered why television shows depict the people that live in large cities as if they existed in an isolated country all their own. Apparently that's really what you people are. People being born, living, and dying all within one city. That is pretty fucked up.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

The math really isn't that hard, 1 DVD/Week*52 weeks/year*10 years * 520 dvd/10 years, where did this "500" come from?

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[MyNameIsEarl]

I'm just trying to figure out why.

Exactly, why would he lie. So I will assume he has never seen a Walmart. I had not seen a Steinmart until earlier this month when one opened near my home even though I had to sit through endless commercials for the store on cable television. Same for Sonic drive ins I always see commercials for it but I have never heard of one in this area, man I wish they had those around here the food looks good.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[arrrrg]

AFAIK, iTunes doesn't give you your music back if you buy the songs and lose the original copy.

I believe Apple will allow you to re-download all of your iTunes purchases for free at most once (in a lifetime). You get one mistake, and if you don't learn your lesson and make backups after that, you're on your own. Seems fair enough.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Exactly, why would he lie. So I will assume he has never seen a Walmart. I had not seen a Steinmart until earlier this month when one opened near my home even though I had to sit through endless commercials for the store on cable television. Same for Sonic drive ins I always see commercials for it but I have never heard of one in this area, man I wish they had those around here the food looks good."

Those examples aren't the same. Those are regional entities, not national as Walmart is. A much more apt example is someone claiming to have never seen a McDonalds.

And I think I know why he's pushing this lie. It is the same reason that people go out of their way to tell you they don't own a television or haven't heard of Britney Spears. Present yourself as an intellectual by being ignorant of what you perceive to be for the commoners.

It's a sad ploy for those who aren't intellectual.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Don853]

Why? More than likely hyperbole, to make his point seem stronger. But of course, you probably already knew that, and I just answered a hypothetical question.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[soft_guy]

First, No you can't buy a new release at Wal-Mart for $5. Wal-Mart pays the movie studio $5. They sell it to you for $25 or more.

Second, the killer reason for movie downloads is a wide library. iTMS is convienient and has a pretty wide selection. If they also had a wide selection of movies, then this could prove popular.

It will also require very large disk drives. So, I guess we need to buy stock in seagate or something.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[muyuubyou]

You do realize that those "real DVDs" you buy are DRMed , right?

You are not getting a better product. Probably a prettier case sometimes, but nothing else. You have been using the plastic fork all this time.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Tweekster]

$25 or more?

Lies

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Jherek Carnelian]

How is that fair? The cost of bandwidth for the occasional re-download is negligble, they are already tracking what you bought. What is so difficult about letting you redownload the same files as often as you want like emusic does?

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that RIAA get everywhere! They're now putting warnings on movies? Wow.

Dumbass.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in boston, we dont have walmarts here. Heck, I've never even seen one before.

Are you kidding me? You've never seen one? How insular are you? Do you never go more than a few miles from your house in any direction? Ever? They're everywhere.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[nelsonal]

It's possible, Wal-Mart is pretty lacking in the I-95 corridor from NYC to Boston (I think they have all of 1 supercenter in that whole region. Keep in mind that as a corporation Wal-Mart did 2 things
expand spacially
Check out this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGzHBtoVvpc (flash)

and focus on rural areas over urban. Its interesting if you split wal-mart into two pieces you have one that looks exactly like Target with about 1300 stores and one that has 600 or so stores that are unlike almost all national retailers in terms of demographics and a host of other issues. It's these stores that result in most of the reason Wal-Mart gets blasted because they skew the national averages for the company (rural markets are very, very different than urban). Both of those strategies minimized their presence in the most dense region in the US from Boston to NY along the east coast.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Thwomp]

I've heard people claiming they've recovered their music more than once from Apple. I would hope it's just a warning to prevent loads of people relying on Apple for their backups.

Anyway it's never happened to me but I do know someone who has lost their music once and got it back by sending an e-mail to Apple.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[maxpublic]

what if it is 10pm on a Friday and you have chick over.

It's 10:00 p.m., you have a chick over, and the burning question in your mind is what movie you're going to watch? Time to come out of the closet, bub.

Max

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[hackstraw]

Why would anyone pay $10 for a movie that will be available only digitally? I can go to Walmart and get an actual DVD for $5-$15. I think Jobs and the MPAA are nuts.

Where have you been?

I typically get, watch, and delete (because they suck) movies before they get released to the theaters for free. Or at least, well before they are released on DVD.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

You live in Plaineville? Damn... I thought I was the only person living in Ellis/Rookes County who reads the Slashdot comments. I'm from Ellis.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[arrrrg]

When you lose a physical CD, do you go whining to Best Buy for a replacement? Apple is certainly under no obligation to offer this service; although it costs them little to nothing, it also carries significant potential for abuse and they are already walking a tightrope with the record companies. (playing Devil's advocate here)

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Lussarn]

DVDs aren't DRMed at all, they are encrypted. But once you buy it you can play it on every DVD player out there without reporting to big brother like you have to with DRMed content ala iTMS.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[generic-man]

I can put the same disc in any DVD player in the US and Canada and it'll play. Your iTunes video file can't be burned to anything but CD/DVD-R, and you can only play it on a few hand-selected computers that run iTunes and QuickTime.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[milkman_matt]

Yeah, but you need to get up from your chair, go to a frigging Wal-Mart, stand in line and then drive back home in order to get that movie. And when you watch that movie, you get FBI warning, RIAA warning and studio-warning that copying the movie is bad.

And by the time you get back, your download should almost be finished, maybe... And you'll probably still get all of the standard warnings.

Also I hope these videos aren't at the same resolution as the TV shows..

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[MBGMorden]

I never said DVD's weren't DRM'd. But DVD's are a physical backup copy (with the prettier package that you mention) that has a DRM that is absolutely trivial to crack, allowing me to quite easily make a digital only copy on my computer if I want it in that format. They also have (currently anyways) a bitrate and picture quality far superior to any downloadable media I've seen, save for a few 3 or 4 minute trailers that Apple offers on Quicktime.com. I'd be willing to bet you won't get the standard extras with a download as well.

Basically, a downloaded file from something like iTunes is a very barebones version of the movie on the DVD. With only artificial obstacles in the way, far superior digital copies can be grabbed off of Bittorrent. As I said before, they're going to have to lower the price enough for me to put up with a crappy copy of the movie. Just "letting me download it" isn't going to cut it.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Firethorn]

The math really isn't that hard, 1 DVD/Week*52 weeks/year*10 years * 520 dvd/10 years, where did this "500" come from?

A: Rounding
B: Breakage/Throwing away/losing
C: Lending(and not having returned)/Giving away

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Pink Tinkletini]

Because by all indications, Apple is obligated (by its contract with the labels) to pay the labels again every time you download a track. If anything's unfair here, it's you being unfair to Apple by demanding they shell out again because you were too lazy to back up.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

"When you lose a physical CD, do you go whining to Best Buy for a replacement?"

One of the local CD stores used to offer a free lifetime warranty on all new CDs - I think you could probably get a replacement for a lost disc if you still had the case and a receipt. I'm not sure how well it was honored, since I never tried to collect on it (despite having a few cds badly damaged from mishandling). But given the absurd prices they were charging, it was a nice idea.

"Apple is certainly under no obligation to offer this service..."

They're not under any obligation to do _anything_, I suppose, including giving you an error-free copy, the song you asked for, or for that matter, anything at all. They can stuff just about anything in the EULA that they want to. They could decide they're not under any obligation to support AAC & (un)Fairplay in the next version of iTunes, so you'd have to go out and buy everything over again if you want to upgrade.

But saying that the consumer should be satisfied with whatever they get, because they don't deserve any better, is the wrong mindset. There should be a constant pressure on the seller to provide the best deal possible at the lowest cost. You shouldn't be satisfied with mediocre service just because you're too timid to demand anything better.

"although it costs them little to nothing,..."

Sure...4 MB of bandwidth is a very small fraction of a cent.

"...it also carries significant potential for abuse..."

How? everything is still based on the DRM scheme that limits you to computers you have authorized with your account. I can't really see any way that this could abuse the DRM in a way you couldn't already. And there are other systems out there, like eMusic, that not only let you re-download any songs you've already bought, but also let you download good old DRM-free MP3s.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

He takes 2 weeks off per year.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[krakelohm]

You make no sence. In this example Encryption is a form of DRM. You can only play your DVD in a limited amount of DVD players... ones that support your region. Try popping that sucker in a DVD player with a region code other then 1. Also I am seriously doubting that when I burn/play a music cd from iTunes that it is phoning home back to big brother.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Jherek Carnelian]

When you lose a physical CD, do you go whining to Best Buy for a replacement?

When you eat a piece of cake and want more do you go whining to the baker for a replacement? You are comparing apples and oranges.

Apple is certainly under no obligation to offer this service;

"Fair" and "obligation" are two different things. I'm talking about fairness.

carries significant potential for abuse

How so? I have never and will never purchase defective recorded media, but it seems to me that the whole point of DRM is to control the copying. If the copying enforcement mechanism is vulnerable to "replay" attacks, then the DRM can't be very effective to begin with - else you could just backup the files on the computer before you make any 'authorized' copies, and then restore them back and make more 'authorized' copies.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[rts008]

"...man I wish they had those around here the food looks good."

I'm a lucky dog! Living here in Stillwater, OK, home of the first ever Sonic (see history here if interested: http://www.sonicdrivein.com/history/index.jsp), I can attest that the food is as good as the commercials portray it to be. Most of the Sonics I have tried in other parts of the USA have also been good.
If you ever travel to the mid/southwest, give it a try- they are one of the better fast food joints IMHO.
If you imbibe alcohal, then one of Sonic's "Route 44 Cherry Limeaides" with tequila makes for a tasty field expedient margarita substitute! :)

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Redwin]

So what would you say to Steam run using BitTorrent? With a central server registering and validating and seeding data, and peers sharing the distribution at a reduced cost for whatever you want to download? You don't even need to apply a fair upload/download ratio. Would you be prepared to giveup say 1KBps upload for a 10% discount in whatever you downloaded for the time you spend downloading it? Mock Steam all you want, it is still in my opinion a vast improvement on "You can download this only once and anything you redownload it do you have to pay for again" model.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Jherek Carnelian]

Lol! Because by all indications (i.e. you're just making stuff up) Apple signed an unfair contract, it somehow becomes fair when Apple does it to their own customers?

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

none are accessable on the T.

The Quincy WalMart is accesible via the red line.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Pink Tinkletini]

All else aside, Apple doesn't do it to its own customers. As has been mentioned repeatedly, if you call them and explain your situation, they'll send you your purchased library again--this despite the warnings that you should be backing up on your own. I don't understand what you're not understanding here.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Lussarn]

By your logic every kind of copy protection involving encryption is DRM, it isn't. Altough I have never used iTMS it is my understanding that as long as you keep the DRM on the music you have to report computers playing the music to Apple. For the record I think my argument make perfect sence.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Isaac-Lew]

Wal-mart didn't have a national presence until recently. I had never seen one in my area until about 4-5 years ago (Washington DC metropolitan area). It was my understanding that they tended to avoid cities when opening a store, instead concentrating on suburban & rural areas.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Hatta]

The best online distribution so far is Steam (ducks).

Interesting, where do you get these steamed ducks?

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[mrchaotica]

Mock Steam all you want, it is still in my opinion a vast improvement on "You can download this only once and anything you redownload it do you have to pay for again" model.

Yes, and we should all worship Stalin because he wasn't as bad as Hitler (whether he actually was or not is not the point, by the way -- it's just an analogy).

I'll tolerate Steam when two things happen: first, when there's a written guarantee that if Valve goes out of business or something the games will still be playable in perpetuity, and second, when it's not a hassle to just play (online or offline) without having to validate with Valve's servers and/or spend half an hour downloading a patch. (I almost said "be happy about" instead of "tolerate," but I'd only be happy about it if it supported Linux and/or Mac OS.)

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"Wal-mart didn't have a national presence until recently. I had never seen one in my area until about 4-5 years ago (Washington DC metropolitan area). It was my understanding that they tended to avoid cities when opening a store, instead concentrating on suburban & rural areas."

I guess, based on the responses I am seeing, a lot of people travel very rarely. These things are everywhere. I see them all the time.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

I leave Boston all the time. The other cities i frequent are DC and NYC. I usually fly there. I have not seen a walmart in either city (though i cant say there arent any). I am sure walmarts are big outside the cites in the boonies, but if you dont own a car and live in Boston, you arent eve going to see a walmart.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

Actually, i asked because having never been to a walmart, i didnt know they had DVDs for $5.
look at what i wrote :

"I live in boston, we dont have walmarts here. Heck, I've never even seen one before. Can you really get new release DVDs for $5?"

I dont see the reason for insults. If you really think i am a north east liberal faux intellectual, look at my signature.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

sigh. look at that map again. They are all in small towns outside of the greater boston area. Apparently one of them is accessable on the southmost end of one of the T lines (I've never seen it and who's going to go looking) but thats about it.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[timeOday]

think you need to define instantly. I am pretty sure I can drive to the local store, buy the DVD, get home, and start watching it before a DVD download from iTunes completes.

Well, cable TV takes two hours down download a two hour movie to your TV, and it seems to be doing OK. Of course you'll want some amount of buffering to overcome bandwidth limitations and jitter, but downloading the whole thing beforehand would just be silly.

A store-bought DVD is about 6 mb/s, which is coming within reach of many cable internet connections. No doubt the download movies will have a significantly lower bitrate to begin with (though hopefully higher than iPod TV downloads). But even at 3 mb/s, with a better codec than DVD uses, you can get good quality.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[timeOday]

I think the real problem is that people still don't have players for a service like this in their livingrooms. I believe TiVo has now just recently dipped a toe into the Internet content download market, but until more people have broadband-attached PVRs in their livingroom, it can't replace DVDs.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"I dont see the reason for insults. If you really think i am a north east liberal faux intellectual, look at my signature."

The reason for the insult is that I believe you are a liar. I do not view signatures and I am not going to change my settings to view whatever it is you think proves that you're not what I think you are.

Your response did nothing to make me believe you're not lying about never having seen a Walmart. Say "look at what I wrote" all you like; I'll still come to the same conclusion.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Have Blue]

I hope they don't make it exactly like Netflix. I'm not buying any files that expire, especially since everything else on the story is yours to keep.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Have Blue]

It does not take "the skills and discipline of a librarian" to keep DVDs organized. Unless you store them by tossing them in a crate next to the TV, it takes maybe an extra two seconds per movie to keep them alphabetized when you finish one and put it back.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[minus_273]

well, good for you then. your logic that "everyone" has seen a walmart therefore if someone says they have not seen a walmart, they are a liar is really quite remarkable.

You saw the map yourself. There are ZERO walmarts in the greater boston area. Appreantly one of them is accesable at the end of one T lines. Beyond that, AFIK you need a car to get to them. If you are like me and do not own a car, its not going to happen.

I get the distinct impression I've been trolled. But let me end this thread with one of your own comments:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188596&cid=155 47582

"I'd like you to take a look at your comment. It is rude and does not promote conversation. I stated that there was a community impact caused by the behavior. You obviously don't think there is a community impact. But rather than say something like, "I don't see any community impact." you assume you know everything and tell me I am wrong - clearly without knowing what impact I believe it has.

It's shameful that this is how you've chosen to communicate."

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Jherek Carnelian]

I don't understand what you're not understanding here.

What I don't understand here is arrrrg's assertion of fairness.

Apple doesn't do it to its own customers.

Lol! Thanks for admitting that indeed you really did just make that bit up.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You could only play video tapes in your region as well unless you owned a multisystem VCR -- the only difference was one of hardware vs. software limitations. The intent is the same.

2. iTunes doesn't let you burn video files to DVD-R for playback on a DVD player, so your "you can burn to CD" argument is moot.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[7Prime]

Hours? Try a few minutes. I downloaded a bunch of LOST episodes a few months back. Each is approximately 45mins, a little under half the length of a feature film. Now, I have a fairly slow DSL connection (as DSL goes), it's the most basic service my ISP provides, anyway, and on top of that, I usually don't bother hooking my computer up to eithernet, and just use my 802.11g wireless card. And on top of that, I'm way up here in Alaska, and connection speeds up here aren't what they are in the "lower 48". Now, that said, I was able to download an episode in about 5-7 minutes. So let's say it takes 15-20 minutes to download a movie. During that time I could be doing other things: cooking dinner before the movie, jerking it, checking my email, CHECKING SLASHDOT, etc. Now, can I do those things while driving to Wallmart (which, btw, I refuse to shop at)? Plus, many people live quite a ways from their usual commercial center (and many shop at smaller, more local chains when doing normal grocery runs).

Not to mention, try this situation: you have a bunch of buddies sitting around, drinking beer, having a party, and one of them comes up with the great idea of watching "The Big Lebowski", which you unfortunately do not own. Do you really want to break up the party by waiting to sober up, driving to retailer/rental house, getting the movie, and driving back? OR, get on computer for 3 minutes, start download, drink more beer, play more music, get on GameCube and play SmashBros with friends, and by that time, have your download ready to watch? Hell, I'd be willing to pay the extra $7 to switch from "Rental" to "Buy" in this circumstance. Remember that watching a movie is, very commonly, a spontaneous decision during some gathering of friends/family, and many times, of which, fails because someone has to go get a movie, or reverts to having to rewatch one of the movies you've already bought.

The moment ANY internet movie distrobution opens up, no matter if it's $25 a pop, people will flock to it, and not just Wallmart will lose out on sales, but Blockbuster, as well. It will make the online success of music distrobution look like a failour, in comparison.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[db32]

I suppose it depends on where you are and what speed your connection is. I know I can't download that fast on my DSL, but the DSL in this area is neutered anyways. We aren't talking about downloading being a good or bad idea, we are talking about $10 for a download being too much. I think $10 to download a movie that is probably going to be a DRM encumbered mess that will be a headache at best to watch on a TV (so all your beer drinkin budies, or your 10pm girlfriend can huddle up close to your monitor, unless you shelled out for a larger monitor too) is a waste of time and money. I wouldn't buy a download movie until its price is close to rental price.

Incidentally, I was pretty sure there were 1 or 2 internet movie distros that aren't flying so high and they are less than $25 a pop. Oh, and while probably most of slashdot is on DSL/Cable...a hefty chunk of the non geek world is not, many have modems, or no internet at all.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Only you will know whether you've ever seen a Walmart before. I find it highly unlikely. I think you lied. That's all there is to it.

If you are telling the truth, try getting out a little more.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[GweeDo]

Sorry man...I know a few people here in Plainville/Hays that read /. :P I have lived here for like four years.

Re:$9.99 Still Too High

[greeen]

wow, i can't believe how most people, nowadays, don't ever want to get up or leave their house. it's funny to hear. no wonder most americans are too fat.

listen?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I last heard the music industry is making more money than evar on these downloads...not the artists maybe. Possibly Hollywood should LISTEN and give it a try? Just maybe?

Re:listen?

[GundamFan]

They could... but I think they would rather slowly die, producing less and less relivant content and charging more and more for it rather than adapt to a new busness model.

Re:listen?

[punkr0x]

From what I've read, actors have been rewording their contracts so they don't get screwed the way the musicians did.

Tiered Pricing

[MBCook]

insisting upon tiered pricing

This is a lie, just like the RIAA saying they want tiered pricing. I'm sure Jobs would agree if the tiers were $2, $4, $6, $8, and $10. But what the industry REALLY means is something more like $10 (just a handful of stuff), $12 (older stuff), $15 (a few years ago), and $20 (anything recent or popular).

Tiered pricing is fine when the tiers are reasonable. THAT is the problem with the industry's proposal.

He forced the RIAA to stick to $1 a song, he has enough clout that if a few small studios would agree he could force the rest of 'em to agree (or lose tons of business).

Re:Tiered Pricing

[Heavyporker]

So you're saying that Uwe Boll's movies would actually earn a profit now?

Re:Tiered Pricing

[J-1000]

Both parties are correct in making their case. The industry relies on Jobs because he is a major distributor of their goods. Jobs relies on the industry for a good selection of music in his store. If the industry wants to charge more for their material that's actually okay (free market, remember?). But apparently they need Jobs more than he needs them, if the argument over music pricing is any indication.

It's not about greed versus good. Jobs wants your money every bit as much as the other guys do. From a traditional business standpoint, it rarely makes sense to used a fixed price for all merchandise, but in this particular case the flat rates are a big part of Jobs' marketing scheme, and breaking that may eliminate one of Apple's perceived advantages over other music services (people identify iTunes with simplicity). So it's a question of who has the better business plan, not who's out to protect your interests.

Re:Tiered Pricing

[shotfeel]

Uhgg! Just got around to renting Bloodrayne.

Were those "Special" effects trying to be funny (they weren't), or was he going for the "Let's impress the 8 year olds" look? Not that any sane person would let an 8 year old watch this (or anyone for that matter).

And, is there something about a vampire's fangs that prevents them from drinking out of a cup without dribbling/spilling large quantities of their "drink"? Seems to be a common theme in every vampire movie I've seen in the last few years.

Re:Tiered Pricing

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I honestly don't see their problem. With iTunes, you might get "package art" but unless Apple changes things, you get VCD resolution video with a single stereo audio track and no extras, with no package costs, no shipping, warehousing, no distributor markup, as well as a video DRM that hasn't been cracked yet. I'd say that 9.99 is a pretty good price if I had a video to sell. The market is too young with too small of an installed base to try to force higher price points when you can get the full DVD with multiple audio tracks, multiple languages, commentaries, outtakes and such. They tried to sell UMDs for $15-$20 but that was rejected by the market, and those were higher resolution than what iTunes sells.

Re:Tiered Pricing

[Dun Malg]

And, is there something about a vampire's fangs that prevents them from drinking out of a cup without dribbling/spilling large quantities of their "drink"?

Well, you see, the script said "KAGAN quaffs the foul red liquid from his cup", and Uwe Boll, not having his english-german dictionary handy, made a wild guess and figured that quaffing is like drinking, only you spill more.

Re:Tiered Pricing

[LnxAddct]

Eh actually the tides have turned a bit. Jobs is on the board of Disney now, and has a ton of pull. If he can get Disney to release their shitload of movies at whatever price he wants (Disney or child companies are responsible for a lot more movies than most probably realize), than the other studios will have little choice but to fall in line. Jobs probably saw this coming a year ago and realized by joining forces with Disney, he could get just about any studio to do whatever he wants. The man is a goddamn genius.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Tiered Pricing

[punkr0x]

I don't think Steve would be happy with tiers regardless of where they were placed. He wants to keep things simple, with one easy to remember price. That's his vision for iTunes, and it's worked VERY well so far. But you're certainly right that the *AA wants to use tiers to max out their pricing.

Re:Tiered Pricing

[rainman_bc]

Actually, I'm a big fan of demand based pricing more so than tiered pricing. I'm all for the most popular music costing the most.

It's only fair really. That way older music and indie music still gets purchased. The present system of a flat rate for every song isn't fair to many artists out there. Both current Top 40 artists suffer because they could make more money given that some might wish to pay $1.50 for the song instead of 99 cents, and older artists suffer because one might be able to buy the whole CD for $7.99 out of a bargain bin (bands like CCR for example, which still kick ass today).

Same goes for movies. Why should LOTR, Spider-Man, and X-Men be the same price as Glitter, From Justin To Kelly, and Crossroads? The latter three should really be borderline free because they were so crappy, and were made on the cheap side compard to the first three.

Betcha more people would have enjoyed Glitter if it was only $1... Expectations would have been MUCH lower.

I like how Ticketmaster is doing demand based pricing on some events (well an auction for them, but it's the same idea - they are maximizing the amount going to the artist instead of scalpers doing the same). I'm all for art being paid its worth. I recall listening to a sports radio show, and some people would phone in and bitch about the price of hocket tickets. The market doesn't owe the consumer any favours. If the sports franchise loses too many fans, that's the lesson they'll have to learn for over pricing their tickets.

Re:Tiered Pricing

[sowth]

$20? The movie studios think they should get $50, just like video games. The only problem is no one wants to pay that for movies because they: don't take as much effort to produce, are noninteractive, not addictive, don't last as long (insert jokes about movie execs being impotent--haha) and are not really that interesting.

Re:Tiered Pricing

[thatguywhoiam]

With iTunes, you might get "package art" but unless Apple changes things, you get VCD resolution video with a single stereo audio track and no extras, with no package costs, no shipping, warehousing, no distributor markup, as well as a video DRM that hasn't been cracked yet.

That's not quite accurate, on two points. One, the 'distribution cost' is certainly not zero, it takes bandwidth to send thousands of video files over those pipes, and that bandwidth costs money. Two, the files are anything but 'VCD resolution'; H.264 is a pretty stunning codec and destroys VCD/SVCD in image quality, even at 320x240. I agree with your larger point about the price.

$9.99 Works for me

[neoform]

If i can burn it, play it on my dvd player, move it to any of my computers easily, and is on par with current dvd quality.. I'm down for $9.99.

Re:$9.99 Works for me

[IflyRC]

That just sounds too easy to me. MPAA would have a cow :)

Re:$9.99 Works for me

[Rob T Firefly]

If it's something I can burn to disc and watch forever after buying once, I'd be into it as well for $9.99. If nothing else, it's worth it to get rid of the hassle of renaming "X.-Men_-_3_-_.ws.cam.dvdrip.xvid.mp3.divx.vcd.tmd .rsvp.cod.0u812.turk182.subs.dubs.tubs.releazed.by .fr0d0.da.man.[downloaded.form.somefreakingtorrent site.net].(1.of.1).pls.seed.omg.kthx.avi" to "X-Men 3.avi".

Re:$9.99 Works for me

[houghi]

You are a customer, so nobody realy cares what you desire.

Re:$9.99 Works for me

[shotfeel]

I'm guessing it would be similar to the television shows. You can burn it as a data file to CD or DVD for backup or transfer. But not as a normal video DVD that can be played in a stand-alone player.

Re:$9.99 Works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't seriously think that these downloads are going to be DVD-quality and burnable, do you? These will be little postage-stamp sized iPod-quality movies with DRM that will not let them be burned to video DVDs.

Re:$9.99 Works for me

[0racle]

What about using the iTunes set top box that will read your iTunes music and video library and operate as if it was just another componant to your home theater?

I know it doesn't exist yet.

$9.99 sounds good...

[mitchell_pgh]

...but the real question will be... what is the quality like? If it's not better than DVD quality, I'm not sure how it's going to be accepted. 4 movies ($39.96) will buy a few months of Netflix.

Re:$9.99 sounds good...

[sesshomaru]

Probably the quality will be lower. I have two copies of the Lost episode "Dave." One is the iTunes version, one was gotten through... other means. The iTunes version is of notably inferior quality to the other version.

However, iTunes has an advantage, I didn't have to wait weeks for the download.

My guess? The film companies will only allow you to buy inferior versions of film downloads so you buy the DVD anyway. Currently, the only reason to buy downloads is if you must watch it right now, otherwise DVDs are the superior format. (Weaker DRM, better quality.)

Re:$9.99 sounds good...

[a_nonamiss]

I didn't have to wait weeks for the download.

Where the hell are you downloading from? Most torrents can be had in under an hour...

Re:$9.99 sounds good...

[kannibal_klown]

That's assuming you find a popular one. If you want an episode of Lost the week it first aired, you'll get it really quick. Heck, even some episodes are seeded pretty well long after it airs.

But if you want something more obscure or old, you may be out of luck.

Re:$9.99 sounds good...

[BVis]

Where the hell are you downloading from? Most torrents can be had in under an hour...

Not everyone has broadband internet available to them. Where I live there are several options, but I live in a major metropolitan area. I have my choice from 6Mbit/s cable down to 128k/s DSL. Many people aren't so lucky, and some of them can still only get dialup. Ever tried downloding a 4GB file over dialup? Weeks is conservative.

This might be another fly in the ointment for the ITVS.. Downloading an .aac file from iTunes isn't too onerous right now for those on dialup; it might take a while, but not weeks. Apple will probably need to be ready for hordes of angry customers who are too unsophisticated (read: stupid) to understand file size issues. They're used to buying a music track, starting the download, and having it in a reasonable amount of time. When they go to buy a movie and it takes for-fucking-ever, they'll either not do it again or scream bloody murder at Apple's customer service drones (quite possibly both.) The first hurts sales, the second increases Apple's expenses.

I think Apple is going to have a challenge setting people's expectations here. Many of their customers can't understand Netflix; they're too used to the Blockbuster model, and anything different is too complicated. Getting those customers to understand how a multible gigabyte file takes longer than a multiple megabyte file is in a lot of cases going to be like teaching a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Re:$9.99 sounds good...

[The-Bus]

That's an unfair comparison. A fair comparison would be to compare the DVD that has been released with what's available on iTunes.

What you have is more than likely a torrent of a HD rip. That, by its nature, will be superior to DVD because HD broadcasts have higher resolution. Because of file size, I don't see HD downloads being commonplace for a few years, and not de rigueur for 5-7 years, if not more. Yes, Comcast in the US has HD on-demand but the selection is paltry and limited and the quality is questionable (since it depends on available bandwidth).

Now, on to pricing...

The problem is that $9.99 per movie, across the board, is a terrible idea. When was the last time Steve Jobs shopped for a DVD? At the very low-end (not counting public domain titles), we have Wal-Mart sales for movies for under $4 each. And these are for movies which are well-known and popular and put out by the big studios. At the other end, we have publishers/distributors that sell single movies for $20-$50 regularly. (Terry Gilliam's Brazil for example, is a big box set for $59.95).

Movie prices, especially since the advent of the DVD, have been dropping steadily. For bigger movies now (say, Munich, Chronicles of Narnia, King Kong, Walk the Line), you have at least two different products on release day: one for the budget minded (MSRP $20-30), one for the collectors (MSRP $30-$40) -- some markets, especially Japan, get insanely expensive editions in the $100+ range. The less expensive version gradually keeps dropping in price, with many movies ending with a final price of $7-$15, when they were $20 or more before. (For a recent example, see The Constant Gardener). These aren't sales --- the studio is dropping the actual price.

You generally don't see that with albums. Not only is most music from $10 to $16 new, but you don't see it drop in price as time passes. Amazon has Hotel Rwanda (the movie) for $7.88, but the soundtrack is still $14.98. A year ago the movie was more expensive than the soundtrack, whose price has not dropped.

I'd say the studios have the pricing thing a bit more figured out than Apple. Now it's just a matter of time to see if Steve will use his Disney ownership to pull some weight in re: their movies. I frankly don't see Disney EVER selling every animated movie of theirs for $9.99.

Re:$9.99 sounds good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone has broadband internet available to them.

This is becoming statistically less relevant every day. There will always be "some" people that cannot get broadband. According to this study (PDF warning), the number is pretty low, even in rural areas. In rural households 24% have broadband and 29% have dialup (the rest either do not have access or didn't know). But of those who have dialup, 58% of them reported that broadband was available. And this is just rural areas. Urban saturation is much, much higher.

Re:$9.99 sounds good...

[a_nonamiss]

There are some people that still don't have power and running water. I don't think those people are much consideration by the marketing folks at Apple...

Cue Long Tail Argument

[thatguywhoiam]

I work for a DSP, and we deal with this all the time. The problem is that the idea is actually sound, IF the major labels wanted to implement it properly... and they don't.

Tiered pricing makes sense as a way of dealing with demand and maximizing profit. New singles should cost more, especially if they are popular, for a short time. The problem is that the labels don't want to price things in the back catalog down, which is where this argument is really useful. They only want to go up from the base 99/$9.99 model that Apple has established.

There are songs in catalog that actually have a value approaching zero. You try telling a record exec that fact, and they will spin on one heel and exit the room before you finish your sentence.

I'd like to see a system whereby the price is directly tied to short-term popularity as measured by downloads. So your new Christina Aguilera single comes out at a base price of 99; it shortly becomes very popular and creeps up over the course of a few days to $1.99 (there should be a ceiling, obviously). If you really want that "hot new track" (gag) right now, you pay the premium (or go elsewhere; different story there). Conversely if you really want to buy old Fleetwood Mac tracks from Rumors, which has paid for itself several times over already, you should only need to pony up 19-29 per track to cover bandwidth and processing.

If labels wanted to really invest in the long tail argument they would probably find themselves with a lot of new cash and not only that, from basically no promotion! But they are too stuck in the old sticks and bricks mindset, which is to promote a lucky few lottery-winner bands and maximize profit from those acts, at the expense of literally everything else.

(eMusic gets it, by the way.)

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[ironwill96]

But doesn't the higher pricing for short-term demand imply that a digital delivery system is somehow tied to the economics of supply and demand, when it isn't? Supply is unlimited, everyone can have a copy downloaded to their machine in the entire world if they so chose as iTunes would just keep copying it over and over. If a similar system were implemented at say, Wal-Mart when they started selling out of a certain CD, they jack the price up to $20 a CD instead of $13.99, wouldn't the FTC cry foul and consumers issue claims of price gouging? How is doing that in the digital sense any different?

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[Lave]

They typically don't do this. In your typical HMV or Virgin all the new singles and albums are much cheaper, as people who've heard it will pick it up on a whim. Then in a few months when it's left the common conscience the price rises.

If someone is looking for a Fleetwood Mac song - they know that by now that isn't an impulse buy - so they can get away with a higher price.

The Record Companies want this so they can price old material much higher in price - not lower. As they know if you want it you will pay. That and there is more music in their vaults than you could ever listen too - and they need to keep you interested in their new acts.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[thatguywhoiam]

But doesn't the higher pricing for short-term demand imply that a digital delivery system is somehow tied to the economics of supply and demand, when it isn't? Supply is unlimited, everyone can have a copy downloaded to their machine in the entire world if they so chose as iTunes would just keep copying it over and over. If a similar system were implemented at say, Wal-Mart when they started selling out of a certain CD, they jack the price up to $20 a CD instead of $13.99, wouldn't the FTC cry foul and consumers issue claims of price gouging? How is doing that in the digital sense any different?

Its not completely unlimited, there are still costs associated with producing, hosting and transferring the data of those songs. Forgetting for a second the actual album production, which has to occur either way, you do need to rip the file, process it, store it, etc. But if its an old album that has made back its costs severalfold, there's no reason to be greedy about it - you charge a nominal fee for bandwidth and the like, and a tiny fraction for your trouble. Lower price = more sales.

There is also an argument to be made for educating consumers (ugh, hate that word) about bandwidth costs, as they will not necessarily understand why a film is so much bigger than a song, bytewise.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[LWATCDR]

"course of a few days to $1.99 (there should be a ceiling, obviously)"
Why? There will be a ceiling by nature. When it gets to a certain point people will not buy it. The problem is that in the digital age many of the classic economic models just totally fail. Think about good old supply and demand. In the digital music world there is almost an infinite supply! Okay so you could claim that there is a limited number of new artists. Then you run into the a new problem, that old back catalog. There is a lot of very good old music I don't own. Why would I spend much money on new stuff when I can finally get all of the old, Pink Floyd, Beatles, Rush, Jimmy Hendrix,... file in you favorite or classic artists here. Welcome to the new world, good music doesn't wear out any more than good art does. The music and movie industry is scared to death. If no new movies or music where made for say the next 5 years but you had easy access to all the old material would you run out of movies to watch or music to listen too?
Sure we will all go to see then next big movie for the for see able future. And yes every 15 year old will want the new CD from the hottest new band because they think they speak for them however the Music and Movie industry both know that they are totally expendable and they are right now digging in.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[thatguywhoiam]

They typically don't do this. In your typical HMV or Virgin all the new singles and albums are much cheaper, as people who've heard it will pick it up on a whim. Then in a few months when it's left the common conscience the price rises.

Sure, but that whole method is tied to the fact that they must physically ship, warehouse, display and merchansise these physical music discs. If they don't sell new stuff, and that new stuff becomes old stuff taking up shelf space, they are potentially in a loss and need to get rid of it just to reclaim the space (ergo the Bargain Bin). There is no Bargain Bin on iTunes because there is no shelf space and therefore the whole argument goes out the window.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[Lave]

Whilst I agree with you - they don't. They see world of people rushing from the latest thing to the next latest thing - with niche fans really getting into old stuff. Hence they want to charge those people who want old things (and so must really want them) through the nose. As a Pixies fan they know I would pay through the nose to complete my collection. And they screw me because of it.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[pedestrian crossing]

As a Pixies fan they know I would pay through the nose to complete my collection.

sigh... Maybe you should look here

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[bigpat]

Problem with varying prices is that it might theoretically maximise revenues for the distributor, but it is a nightmare at the retail level to manage and it destroys consumer confidence.

Imagine if the price of a movie ticket varied with the length of the line in front of the ticket booth? There would be serious disincentive to getting in line in addition to the wait. Imagine going to the movie theatre and having to check not only the times but the prices? Imagine setting a date on Monday only to find out by Friday that you can't afford dinner and a movie.

Pricing flexibility based on short term demand works in some product areas, but it doesn't work when you are trying to establish a mass market. People need price stability in order to make plans for purchasing something, especially when it is as discretionary as a movie. Jobs realized this with itunes. Now tiered pricing may be possible based on some objective criteria such as new release or something, but if you have arbitrary tiers based on some industry formulation that isn't simple, then customers will be put off by it.

This isn't like gasoline for the car, where the station can piss off its customers all they want because we need to get to work. If prices vary in seemingly arbitrary ways in a discretionary mass market, then you will lose not just market share, but you will risk losing the market.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[Frodo Crockett]

There are songs in catalog that actually have a value approaching zero. You try telling a record exec that fact, and they will spin on one heel and exit the room before you finish your sentence.

Songs with a value approaching zero? Where have you been for the past few decades? Most of that shit has a negative value. They would have to pay me to get me to listen to it.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[just_forget_it]

Wouldn't this scheme hurt the artist though? Raising the price of a song download will naturally slow sales and people will wait until the price is lower.

Using dynamic pricing like this opens up a whole can of worms. Music is not gasoline, and people will be pissed that they have to pay more than their buddy down the street, simply because he got it yesterday. Also, raising prices based on demand only works for a physical product. Supply and demand works on the premise that you need to raise the price on something with a finite supply to stop it from being sold out. The more expensive it is, the more rare and one-of-a-kind. In the case of music downloads, the supply is infinite since they are merely electronic copies. Raising the price of something for no other reason than it is popular does not sit well with consumers. To draw on my original illustration, look how up-in-arms people get over gas prices, and that's even with a FINITE supply! Imagine if we had an infinite supply of oil, and the OPEC countries inflated prices simply because more people are using it, even though the supply is infinite and there is no danger of running out. This is exactly what the **AA is trying to do with entertainment!

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[Henk Postma]

Problem with varying prices is that it might theoretically maximise revenues for the distributor, but it is a nightmare at the retail level to manage and it destroys consumer confidence.

No that hard ... this is being done in the airline industry on a regular basis. The amount of online inquiries in particular flights raises its price slowly. All automated, not quite hard to manage. Of course tickets cost a lot more than dvds or songs, but the model is there.

Re:Cue Long Tail Argument

[GWBasic]

They really need to follow the pricing schemes of computer parts. When a new CPU comes out, it is very expensive. Over time, the price drops. The same pricing scheme needs to apply to music and movies.

An Interesting Possibility

[Lave]

Well let's see what we can do it with. I don't care how little it is - or how much Apple think their computers are a media hub - If I can't burn a full DVD quality disk for use in my DVD player stuck under my TV I won't be paying $10 (inevitably £10 in the UK). Especially considering how long it will take to download (and thus hog my use of the web).

I wouldn't be suprised if Sony etc are trying to cripple it as if they give you an iPod version, and a DVD version in one download then we may see this be the "next gen" video player over Blu-Ray or HD-DVD- in the same way that "inferior" mp3's are the next gen over CDA or whatever that high-def stuff was called.

Re:An Interesting Possibility

[thatguywhoiam]

Well let's see what we can do it with. I don't care how little it is - or how much Apple think their computers are a media hub - If I can't burn a full DVD quality disk for use in my DVD player stuck under my TV I won't be paying $10 (inevitably £10 in the UK). Especially considering how long it will take to download (and thus hog my use of the web).

Out of curiosity, what if you can burn the actual episode you bought to DVD just fine, but it has no extras and is only 320x240 (albeit with an admittedly excellent codec)? How much are the 'extras' worth to you?

Re:An Interesting Possibility

[I_LV_MSFT]

I don't think we should compare CDs with DVD. When you buy a CD you listen to the music over and over again. I listen to my old CDs from time to time and enjoy the fond memories of the "old times".

DVDs are a bit different in the sense that you watch most movies once. Rarely I watch a movie 3-4 times and then I'm so sick of it I never watch it again. Most people buy movies as collectors. This is why Blockbuster and Netflix are so popular.

For your next-gen argument I would disagree, that while I and probably most people can not hear the difference batween a CD and MP3 or AAC track. The difference between iPod/Divx quality video and a DVD is substantial as well as the difference between a DVD and an HD-DVD (I have not seen Blu-ray yet, but should be goot as well).

I'd have to *GASP* side with the industry...

[Pirogoeth]

I can see a flat fee for new releases, but I can't see myself paying $9.99 for an older movie that I can find in the discount bin at Best Buy for the same price or cheaper. Just like music albums, given the choice of a digital download or a CD for the same price or even a couple of bucks more, I'd much rather have the CD and be able to rip it the way I want.

Ditto with movies; I rather have the DVD, plus all the extras, (*looks around*) and the ability to rip it to a laptop ot iPod appropriately-sized video file.

Re:I'd have to *GASP* side with the industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth makes you think that "tiered pricing" means "cheap"? Good money says that the prices the movie industry would charge would start with 10 bucks for the bargin bin crap and scale up from there.

Also, given the industry's stance on fair use, I don't think they want you to be able to rip a DVD for your own purposes. Their prefered model is making you buy the DVD, then pay extra for the download version. Look at the crap that gets pulled with copy protection schemes.

Re:I'd have to *GASP* side with the industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm .. the 9.99 is the BASE price .. noting LOWER then 9.99

Re:I'd have to *GASP* side with the industry...

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

It doesn't have to be older material. With music CD's, I am finding that most places like Best Buy or Walmart sells brand new CD's for $9.99 or even less compared to iTunes full albums that seem to be topping $12.99 (because they all seem to include some "free" video version of the CD). I don't find iTunes at all competitive with big box stores, and the same will be true with movies.

I know that the iTMS has been a huge success for Apple, but when are people going to realize that if they get off their butts and go for a walk or take a drive, they can get the same music in a physical form factor for the same price, or even cheaper, and most still come without DRM protection. I bought the recent Tool CD and it comes in a case that features stereoscopic glasses and images and it cost $9.99. You can't get that at the iTMS. Heck, Apple doesn't even offer the ability to send a blank CD and case anymore as they used to do when the store first opened up. I used to remember seeing special edition LOTR blank CD's that you could get with your soundtrack purchase.

Apple and the iTMS is in a bubble, and like most tech bubbles, it will burst. While I am sure they will enjoy success for at least a few more years, people are beginning to wake up and realize that the iTMS isn't all that great, your often getting far less for more money.

When it comes to movies, its the same thing. While new releases are still well over $15 in most cases, I am finding a decent selection of movies at around $9.99, and I usually buy my DVD's used for around the same. I can't see any compelling reason to buy a movie from the iTMS except if your lazy or don't know how to use DVD ripping software (although, technically, DVD ripping is still illegal).

Re:I'd have to *GASP* side with the industry...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't honestly think the MPAA is upset with the flat fee because they feel that they'd be ripping off consumers by charging $10 for older stuff, do you?

I'm sure they're fine with charging $10 for a download of Howard the Duck; the issue is that they want to charge MORE (my guess is $20) for the more popular stuff.

Re:I'd have to *GASP* side with the industry...

[ajlitt]

Funny, I can't see myself paying $0.99 for a track from an old album I could get at the used CD store for $5. Just because Apple releases a product doesn't mean you have to buy it.

Re:I'd have to *GASP* side with the industry...

[91degrees]

There would be a gap in the market for another cheaper download service. Since the movies aren't going to be tied to a player, (there is the video iPod, but my guess is most people would prefer to watch movies at home), there is going to be less of a tendency towards a monopoly. The MPAA may well be able to use the competition as leverage.

Although, given this, I'm not sure why they think they need iTunes.

DRM?

[jdhutchins]

I hope the MPAA doesn't make Apple put DRM on the movies. Not long after any DVD comes out, it's already on a torrent site being downloaded away. The movie being available from iTunes isn't going to change that. And most people who dowload the movie probably would like to watch it on their TV, not computer, so they'll need to be able to easily burn a dvd. And $10 isn't that much less than a DVD anyways.

Re:DRM?

[stubear]

Already taken care of with download and burn to DVD movies. I believe CinemaNow.com is doing this or plans to (it's being tested with an online porn site too). Users can download the movie and watch it on their computer or burn a copy to DVD and have full menu capabilities, etc. of the regular DVD. Not sure what they're doing about DVD title covers or DVD labels (presumably you can download and print those yourself through the service). However, like anything els, some jackass will come along and crack the DRM of these, post them to bit-torrent and we start the whole cycle of bullshit arguments about things being too expensive, DRM sucks, it's too restrictive, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Re:DRM?

[punkr0x]

LOL. Yeah, I'm sure they'll just say, "DRM? No, that's not necessary. We trust people not to illegally share our movies." DVDs have always been (in my experience) harder to pirate than CDs, why would they suddenly give up? On the plus side, Apple's DRM is extremely user friendly (let's hope the MPAA doesn't realize that, or this deal is toast!)

It's a start

[Pliep]

At least Jobs is trying. I'm happy to pay $10 to own a movie as long as they're new releases and not old crap. Oh, and better than iPod-quality.

The problem though with movie downloads is lack of instant-satisfaction. A movie download of, say 700 MB, will take a while to be finished. If Apple can fix that (play-while-downloading), I'm game.

Re:It's a start

[MrP-(at work)]

stream it? ive used MovieLink and you can start watching the movie you're downloading within like a minute after it starts

Re:It's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got it backwards. In most cases the "old stuff" is worth $9.99 and the new releases are crap.

Re:It's a start

[nexcomlink]

If anything I think they will encode it in H264 480p and since what's considered "broadband" in the U.S is 1.5mbps it can be a stream of similar proportions.

Insightful/Interesting? How?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hit Best Buy and get stuff for $7.00 now.

You don't get it, Jobs wants $9.99 FLAT for EVERYTHING, just like iTMS. You can't get "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" for $7 right now, or most any recent release. Just like iTMS, you end up saving a bit for newer stuff, but pay more for older stuff, they're just cost averaging to have a simple (and marketing friendly, just like $.99 music downloads) pricing scheme.

The DVD

[hsmith]

Will they mail you a hard copy at $9 a film? that would be the *only* way i'd consider it, at all. $9.99 for something I have to store on my drive. ha.

Re:The DVD

[holdenholden]

NetFlix will. For $17.99 a month.

Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime?

[hal2814]

I don't really care about the DRM angle. I'm ok with that to an extent. What I have a problem with is that I run my current videos off a PIII 450 with 256 MB RAM and a Radeon video card with TV Out. Now I can comfortably run your average quality Divx encoded movie and play a DVD just fine without dropping frames and without the sound skipping on me. Running a worse quality Quicktime file from iTunes will completely bog the system and make playback unwatchable. If they're not going to offer an alternative format, can we at least get a Quicktime that only consumes as much processing power as its peers?

Hanging in obsolete business model

[gutu]

Movie industry is just desperately hanging in the old "Blockbuster" business model where popular, highly advertised movies bring high revenue for a while before going into DVD and finally to oblivion of bargain bin.

Bargaining Power

[Patersmith]

It was my understanding that, since the Disney/Pixar deal, Jobs is the largest single shareholder in the Disney corporation. If his influence extends to the other Disney brands such as Miramax, ABC, Buena Vista, Caravan, and Touchstone, I would say he commands a lot of power.

Regardless, we should all be keeping an eye on Jobs. It's only a matter of time before he consolidates his power base into the single largest converged media empire on the planet.

JMHO :)

Matt

Re:Bargaining Power

[Red Flayer]

Regardless, we should all be keeping an eye on Jobs. It's only a matter of time before he consolidates his power base into the single largest converged media empire on the planet.

Ted Turner 2010? Rupert Murdoch 2020? I'd welcome Gates to the party, since there is little enough major competition in media currently.

I'd look instead for Gates to get involved in politics -- not in an elected capacity, but instead in an advisory or diplomatic capacity. Hosting dinner with Hu Jintao recently just foresahdows deeper involvement, as I see it.

I don't think Gates is looking towards further empire-building (though I bet he won't be upset if the directors of his various business interests are very successful). I think he's focusing on philanthropy and politics -- a modern-day Morgan, but with a focus on technology instead of banking.

Re:Bargaining Power

[punkr0x]

But what's he planning to do with all this power? Force us all to use a secure, stable OS? Blue jeans and turtle necks for everyone? Bastard!!!

Beyond simplicity

[mgabrys_sf]

You also have to consider the cost of bandwidth downloading these monsters.

A 10 year old clunker is going to cost the same in bandwidth as a first-tier release.
The simplicity of average cost goes beyond marketing I suspect.

Re:Beyond simplicity

[shotfeel]

That's why I'd like to see a breakdown of the pricing. For example, IIRC Apple gets ~30 cents for every 99 cent song sold. And that hardly does more than cover their costs. So any decrease in price for "oldies" would have to come out of the music industy's share.

So if a movie is $10, how much of that goes to just cover the costs to Apple? That would at least give some indication of how low the prices could get.

But then we're speculating on rumors anyway...

Re:Beyond simplicity

[mgabrys_sf]

re:"But then we're speculating on rumors anyway..."

Slashdot BLASHPHEMER!

Of COURSE we are - what the hell else are we supposed to do - WORK?

Re:Beyond simplicity

[kannibal_klown]

Yeh, bandwith is going to be a multi-headed problem affecting Apple, ISPs, and the users. That is going to be a major hurdle for them and is why I doubt the resolution will be that great and people aren't going to see "near-DVD" quality res/bit-rate like they're hoping.

iTunes is popular, super popular. If/when they start selling movies they're going to need a LOT more bandwith. Now, if they do what offer near-DVD then you're talking over a GB per movie (depending on codec, actual quality, etc). Between the huge files and number of customers their bandwith would go through the roof. They'd need a better infrastructure than what they're using for that. It's one thing to offer 3MB songs because people will finish downloading quickly opening up a spot for another customer. But with movies, the number of concurrent connections will explode!

To top that off, ISPs will be in for it. Especially once iTunes movies go live, a lot of people are going to start downloading. If they keep the file sizes high the ISPs networks are going to get hit hard. People are going to experience slowdowns and outages. If you think a lot of people use P2P, imagine adding iTunes on top of that. It's going to be a nightmare once their customers are legally allowed to download movies from such a popular service.

Lastly, the lowly users. ISPs have been enforicing their hidden "bandwith caps" for a while now and my guess is they will continue to do so. Again, if they have the movie sizes large, then users will find their connections cut or severly throttled because they went past some magic number.

Yeah Right!

[dafz1]

First of all, when's the last time "the x industry"(x equals music or movies) was right about iTMS pricing? "We think they're going to go to tiered pricing...", WRONG! Apple has the music companies, who also happen to be the movie companies, over a barrel. It's not going to change for movies. The fact that Jobs sits on Disney's board, as well as being the single largest stock holder, helps Apple dictate terms.

Secondly, as a previous poster noted, I can go to Target and buy a DVD for $5.50(just bought Trading Places). I'd rather have the physical media, if the movie is going to be in 320x240. Once it's in 480P, I'll buy from iTMS.

Finally, is a new version of iTunes coming? Is there one coming that will allow you to rip DVDs? It's only a matter of time until the entire HTPC system using Front Row, to rip the DVD in the background while it's playing, is on your Mac. Next up, TV tuner and DVR?

Re:Yeah Right!

[guet]

Next up, TV tuner and DVR?

These two items are rendered obsolete by iTMS/FrontRow, there is no need for broadcast content if it can all be sold on-demand.

I too am waiting for iTMS to serve content at a higher resolution, and to start to serve video to the rest of the world too, not just the US.

Perhaps in 1955...

[Elemenope]

But both styles are now generally recognized as correct. Since english doesn't have the equivalent of an Academie Francaise (yes I know, no accents. Well, screw, high school French teachers of the world), thank goodness, it is possible for local variations in common usage to add to to the lexical and syntactic richness and flexibility of the language. For quite a while now, both the xs' and xs's forms have been taught in beginner and college english, and both are in widespread use.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[MBGMorden]

Only in any place that has written language. Take a look at something written in Old English sometime and notice that we don't write that way anymore. Those changes were not things that came about through some group of academics sitting around and deciding to change some official "English language spec" just for the heck of it. Over time people simply started to write things differently.

The same is true of modern times. If enough people decide that something sounds better written in style B, even if A is considered correct and B not, then legitimately B becomes a correct way to write something (and after a transitional phase, A will most likely eventually become incorrect). Language is living and is defined by the people who speak/write it, not a set of rules set in stone.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

['nother poster]

Dude, read Fox News and CNN. They have killed the irregular tense verbs. About the only one they still use is ran, otherwise they just put "ed" on the end of every verb. English, at least in the U.S., is simply convention. After a while even the pedants give up the fight and the new "rules" take over.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Agelmar]

While it's true that we don't have a direct equivalent to L'Académie française, we do have the Modern Language Association, which also has a style guide that is generally considered authoritative in many communities. (Granted, there are a few other style guides, but I think MLA is the most prevalent.) According to the MLA:

"to form the possessive of any singular proper noun, add an apostrophe and an s"
( 3.4.7.e).

Therefore, as odd as it might look to you, Jobs's is the correct form. (Chicago manual of style also concurs on this issue. There are examples, as well as a few exceptions, at CMS 7.17-23.)

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[ben there...]

And according to APA style guidelines, you don't add an S after the apostrophe.

So we're back where we started: both forms are acceptable.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[mdielmann]

And now to fuck up everyone who just got that, if you were talking about the possession of Steve Jobs's whole family, you would say "It belongs to the Jobs'." It's all about context.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Elemenope]

I agree. Languages evolve despite any attempt to prevent or guide their evolution. What I do find interesting about the xs' vs. xs's style argument is that I see the first much more often in print, but the second is how nearly everyone pronounces it, leading to a curious divergence between written and spoken English. This is particularly curious since in most cases, the written language usually comforms to a more formal style than the spoken.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[JeTmAn81]

Actually, wouldn't that be "It belongs to the Jobses."? Kind of like the old saying, "Keeping up with the Joneses." And then if you were to say that in a different way, I think you could say "It's the Jobses'." This whole thing reminds me of Homer Simpson's difficulties referring to the Flanders family. "Flanderseseses"

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Agelmar]

That's correct, in that we would say "We're going over to the Jobs' house". The difference here is that "Jobs" in that context refers to the family, which is plural. In that case, it's not a singular proper noun, and there should not be an extra 's' added. The MLA covers this case, and there is no contradiction with what I posted earlier.

Disclaimer: I'm not a grammar nazi, I don't correct others, and I myself am not always correct. I was just trying to provide information, not go off on people about grammar.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[jab3]

For quite a while now, both the xs' and xs's forms have been taught in beginner and college english, and both are in widespread use.

My understanding is that it depends on the plurality of the word. Jobs is singular, so you add the apostrophe and the s, e.g., Jobs's ire. However, take developers. That is plural, so you drop the s, e.g., developers' ire.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[JeTmAn81]

Actually the APA examples only list words ending with s which are also plural, in which case of course they would use the lone apostrophe at the end. There's nothing in the APA guidelines to counteract the known standard that you add an apostrophe and an s after a singular possessive noun.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Obyron]

MLA is the most prevalent in high school English classes. It's nowhere near "full-featured" enough (if a style manual can be such a thing) to be used in universities for anything beyond a basic composition course. Even as an undergrad my university required all papers to conform to CMS (Chicago Manual of Style) rules. If any of you out there have never seen the full Chicago Manual of Style, go to a bookstore and find an unabridged hardback copy of Stephen King's "The Stand." They're about the same size.

(The above paragraph is addressing nothing but the statement that MLA is authoritative.)

As for the apostrophe-S, the answer I always got on it was that if the word ends on a Z sound ("Jones," "Evans"), then it's not incorrect to omit the s after the apostrophe, because it sounds cumbersome. For words ending on a s/long S sound ("Ness," "Morris") it sounds fine, and so you leave it.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[duffbeer703]

You be correct. You gotta be real.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Agelmar]

It depends. If you are actually saying "It belongs to...", you do not need to form the posessive with an apostrophe, and the simplest thing would be to say "It belongs to the Jobs family." If you are actually forming the posessive as in my example in another post, e.g. "We're going over to the Jobs' house", then you do use the apostrophe, but not the extra 's', because in this case it's plural.

In short:
"The dog belongs to the Jobses."
"The Jobses' dog ran away."

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[stunt_penguin]

Now if we could only try and get people to learn how to use the currently accepted standard we'd be laughing.

*Looks across road to grocery stall selling carrot's and potatoe's*

*Breathes a deep sigh of indignation*

*Resumes work*

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Agelmar]

I should note that I misread the parent post. You would not say "It belongs to the Jobs'", but rather "It belongs to the Jobses." You could still say "The Jobs' house" if you are refering to the Jobs family, or you could also say "The Jobses' dog". (In neither of these cases is there an extra 's' added, since we're not using a singular proper noun, but rather a plural proper noun.)

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[demeteloaf]

According to wikipedia, the MLA handbook is one of the few that says that you always need the extra S. Most of the grammar guides i've seen say that either one is acceptible. (I remember looking it up a couple years ago when i had to write a paper on Jesus, and kept running into the same problem. I ended up using Jesus' and nobody commented.)

However, There are a bunch of rules in English grammar that either really are obsolete, or just nobody cares about the rules and whil you would probably find them in a grammar style guide, honestly, it doesn't matter in spoken or casual english. Some examples are:

The verb "to be" taking a direct object:

"Who is it?" "It's just me" (Should be "It is I")

Who/Whom:

"Is that the guy who you saw" (should be "whom you saw")

Use of "they" as a gender neutral singular pronoun

The entire subjunctive mood

Splitting Infinitives.

There are plenty more. Basically, what i'm saying is that English grammar and usage of words really only depends on whether it's acceptible in whatever community you're writing for to use whatever grammar you want. As far as I'm concerned. Using Jobs' is correct, and gets the meaning accross, so i don't have an issue with it.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Jherek Carnelian]

Therefore, as odd as it might look to you, Jobs's is the correct form. (Chicago manual of style also concurs on this issue. There are examples, as well as a few exceptions, at CMS 7.17-23.)

One of the exceptions is when discussing a diety. As another poster noted without realizing it, the correct possesive usage for Jesus is Jesus'.

Considering that Apple and Steve Jobs stories often get the most bizarro comment moderations, I think it is safe to say that some people here do indeed consider Steve Jobs to be a diety, maybe even their own personal Jesus. So for those people, it is technically correct to write it as Jobs'.

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh really? My how times have changed since I studied for a B.A. in English, 1990....

http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style2.html#1

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[cuantar]

I was waiting for someone to comment to that effect. Actually, I'm one of the few who says it "the wrong way": "Jobs company" instead of "Jobses company." Then again, I tend to always write "Jobs'."

Re:Perhaps in 1955...

[Zugok]

If you want something authoratative, then try Oxford University's Oxford guide to style or the United States Government Printing Office's Style Manual 2000. The USGPO Sylem Manual is available online in PDF fomat here. Look at Chapter 8, units 8.3 through to 8.22 on apostrophe usage.

What else you can do for $10

[maillemaker]

For that same $10 you can rent about 4 Netflix DVD's a month, burn them, play them on your DVD player, move them to any of your computers easily, and they are on par with current DVD quality.

Netflix is just sneakernet file sharing.

Steve

Re:What else you can do for $10

[alshithead]

But only playing them is legal...

Re:What else you can do for $10

[anaesthetica]

Netflix is just sneakernet file sharing.

Except it's centralized and turns a profit.

Re:What else you can do for $10

[Have Blue]

Why are you paying for the privilege of violating the license? Save some money and download the torrent.

Re:What else you can do for $10

[Anonymous Coward]

Chance of getting sued for ripping a netfix dvd: 0. Chance of getting sued for downloading a torrent: zomg who knoes!

One might also argue the ethics of timeshifting your rental versus the outright stealing of a torrent.

You do leave the house sometimes, right?

[everphilski]

Yeah, but you need to get up from your chair, go to a frigging Wal-Mart, stand in line and then drive back home in order to get that movie.

A lot of us still rely on food for sustinance (which requires leaving the house). We drive by WalMart / Best Buy / etc. I can wait a day to get my movie. I can wait a day to save a few bucks and get something of value.

Re:You do leave the house sometimes, right?

[shark72]

"A lot of us still rely on food for sustinance (which requires leaving the house). We drive by WalMart / Best Buy / etc. I can wait a day to get my movie. I can wait a day to save a few bucks and get something of value."

People can be roughly divided into "more time than money" and "more money than time" crowds. It sounds like you're in the former. That's perfectly fine, but billions of dollars are made each year off of the latter.

This is why Netflix has hurt Blockbuster et al, and why the iTMS has been a huge success. Blockbuster and traditional record stores still cater to an audience who appreciate the benefit of getting a real CD or a real DVD, but it's an established fact that a sizeable portion of the consumer market will give up a little value in exchange for convenience.

A flat price is bad for small movie makers

[MikeRT]

The problem with the flat pricing mechanism is that a $9.95 flat fee would work well for big movie studios whose products are known and in demand, but will be very bad for small film studios because many people won't pay that much for a movie that might suck "because it's not a big name movie." $4.95 for an independent movie would reduce the "risk" that people take when they buy it, and I think that Jobs knows that but doesn't care.

Another thing that is problematic is that flat rates are good only for movies that are middle of the road on cost to produce and popularity. High cost movies actually need to promote an economy of scale to make up their costs every bit as much as small ones do. What is the studio going to do if it actually realizes that the only way to push a big budget movie like King Kong that flopped at the theatres, is to cut the iTMS cost to say $7.95 for a promotional offer, but Apple won't let them?

Flat prices are great if all content is worth the same, but it isn't.

Re:A flat price is bad for small movie makers

[BlueStraggler]

The problem with the flat pricing mechanism is that a $9.95 flat fee would work well for big movie studios whose products are known and in demand,

Oh boy, I can't wait for the next Miramax Pictures release. Their producers are sooo hot!

but will be very bad for small film studios because many people won't pay that much for a movie that might suck "because it's not a big name movie."

Which is exactly why theatre chains only charge $5 admission for indie flicks.

No, wait, that's in Bizarro world.

Re:A flat price is bad for small movie makers

[Maximum Prophet]

What is the studio going to do if it actually realizes that the only way to push a big budget movie like King Kong that flopped at the theatres, is to cut the iTMS cost to say $7.95 for a promotional offer

Offer a rebate? Seriously, this belies the studio's position. A rebate program would promote their movie, and provide extremely valuable demographic data, but they aren't interested in tiering the prices *down*, they want to tier them *up*.

Right now, in America, there is almost no competition among movies at the box office. Hard to believe, given the Hollywood hype, but most Americans have enought disposable income to see *all* the good movies that are in the theaters at one time (within the genre that they like) The reason we don't spend all our extra money on movies is that most suck. The real competition is other forms of entertainment, like broadcast TV, DVDs, Video games, sports, board games, reading and others.
The studios are afraid that their back catalogs will be their undoing. They have tons of movies in the vaults, that *don't suck*. They want to make money off them, but are afraid that if they are cheap and convenient, people will stop going to the theaters and stop paying for the latest $150 million extravaganza. If everything on iTMS is the same price, many people will begin to think that the 1939 "Wizard of Oz" is just as good as the 2006 "Over the hedge". If they can charge more for OTH, then the perception is that it is better. (Sounds counter-intuative, but it's a real phenomenon, like buying a low-end Lexus vs. the same car labled a Toyota)

Re:A flat price is bad for small movie makers

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's anything like music, albums are no MORE than 9.99, but many are cheaper, even if they have more than 10 songs. Check out some of the older albums by Jay-Z as an example of this. So it seems possible that they could charge less, but not more. Which also lends power to the arguement that Movie studios want to use 9.99 as a base price, and not a ceiling price.

If this is right (IF!!), then apple is doing exactly the right thing. But it might not be, and they could be evil. Hard to know for sure at this point.

-JBH

Too much

[giorgiofr]

Looks like I'm a tight bastard :D I wouldn't spend 10 euros (I just know it's not going to cost 8, as it should) for a downloaded version of a movie even if it were DVD quality. Make it burnable with no trouble and ask me FIVE euros. I think that's the threshold for me.
Anyway I see this as kinda broken from the start. Movie downloads are only interesting to people who watch a lot of movies, and these are the ones who won't pony up 10$ every friggin time they feel like watching one. Make it more palatable for the bulk purchaser (bulk price maybe? hmmm that's an idea) and see this take off.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[drfishy]

You need QuickTime Alternative. My 3800+ X2 box couldn't playback 1080p mov trailers without chop using Quicktime 7 but using Alternative they play smooth as silk.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[bobdapunk]

The problem is that quicktime uses mpeg4 avc, a much more computationaly intensive codec PLUS quicktime is a resource hog. Use VLC or mplayer (I hope they release a good windows GUI soon) to play those quicktime files, you will have much better luck. My X2 3800 went from 80-90% to like 30% during highdef trailer playback when I switched from quicktime to VLC.

DTS, DD5.1, etc.

[Agelmar]

A lot of comments have been directed towards video quality and codec, but what about the audio? At least when I buy a DVD of anything filmed recently, I know I'm going to get a DD5.1 track, and hopefully also a DTS track of even higher quality (usually a much higher bitrate). Think about this: I want to download a two hour movie. Take 120 minutes * 60s/min * 1.5Mbit/sec (DTS) * 1 MByte / 8MBits, and you have about 1.35 gigabytes just for the audio track alone. Somehow, I don't see Apple giving me that. I'm much more worried that they will expect me to watch Lord of the Rings with a 128kbit 2-channel audio track, and there's no way in hell I'm doing that.

Re:DTS, DD5.1, etc.

[Shivetya]

worse is that they may expect you to watch at 320x200

Re:DTS, DD5.1, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, AC3 5.1 tracks usually clock in around 384Kbps, no?

Re:DTS, DD5.1, etc.

[Jherek Carnelian]

Almost all DTS tracks are "half-rate" at 768kbps - the studios found that including full-rate DTS often consumed so much disc-space that they were prevente from including other features like commentary tracks or had to make visible sacrifices in video quality.

In addition - AC3 (on DVD) is usually 448kbps nowadays and is often indistinguishable from an equivalent half-rate DTS track. One reason for that is that AC3 uses a shared "pool" of bitrate for all channels while DTS keeps them seperate. Thus when the encoding algorithm needs lots of bits for just a couple of channels - like front left & right - AC3 can "steal" them from the other channels like the rears which may not even have any sound at all during that period. DTS can't do that, each channel is limited to a set bitrate and so channels with "dead air" just waste their bits.

Then there are newer, more efficient, algorithms like AAC - for movie and tv soundtracks it is reasonable to expect to get roughly equivalent 5.1 audio fidelity out of say a 300kbps AAC track as one does from a 448kbps AC3 track.

Industry wants tiered pricing? Since when?

[myawn]

So, this is the same industry that charges me the same ticket price to see a movie whether it cost $280 million or $40 thousand to produce? Whether the top billed star was paid $20 million or scale?
First-run movies have never had tiered pricing before, why is it suddenly important to the studios?

Tierd Pricing Argument Flaw?

[Anonymous Coward]

From Article: " "We can't be put in a position where we lose the ability to price our most popular content higher than less popular stuff," said a studio exec close to the negotiations. "

Seems to work OK for you that way when you visit a movie theatre, Studio Exec!

Re:Ignore previous response, please

[Red Flayer]

And of course, never mind the fact that I totally misread your post -- please ignore my previous response, I dunno why I have Gates on the brain this morning.

I have come to believe that Industry wants

[unity100]

anything that is in expense of the general populace, as long as profitable.

Heck, i guess we might see bills that are offering establisment of 'an aristocracy' based on wealth sometime, when some big corp ceo comes up with the 'bright idea'.

emusic

[pedestrian crossing]

If I'm going to buy a whole album off iTunes at a dollar a song, an average of 12 songs would cost me $12 bucks... I pretty much only buy music that's not on the radio, so the cd's I usually look at are between $10-$12... so, for the same price of downloading an album I could have it in physical form (adding the ability to use it in a CD player and to look at pretty album art)... definitely not worth it for me to use iTunes to download all the music I want.
Furthermore, it doesn't help that I don't own and iPod (go Creative Zen, woo!) so iTunes songs are useless to me.

Given what you said, you really should consider emusic. $0.22 per track for mp3 (no drm) files, that's $2.64 for a 12-song album. Do yourself a favor, do the free trial, browse the collection, and see how you feel. It sounds like it might be good fit for you...

Re:emusic

[ohearn]

Personally I prefer allofmp3.com. The prices are roughly the same as emusic(depending on the quality of the file you select (I usually go for about 256K/s files) and for my tastes they had a much better catelog than emusic. Either site is a lot cheaper than $1 a track. I downloaded 2 complete albums plus about 15-20 individual tracks this weekend for less than about 5 bucks.

Re:emusic

[freedom_india]

Yup. me too. I too like allofmp3.com They offer music at reasonable prices and their quality is pretty good.

Re:emusic

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to get my movies from this sidewalk stand in Chinatown, they only cost $2 each.

Seriously, why are you deluding yourself into believing they're legit? They don't pay a dime in royalties.

Re:emusic

[freedom_india]

Royalties to whom? Artists or Merc buying RIAA?

Seriously can you show me that the WHOLE money i pay legitly goes to Artists who struggled to produce the music.

Show me one instance where artists get 90% of royalties, and then i will buy it from a legit source.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[Anonymous Coward]

have you tried mpui?
http://mpui.sourceforge.net/

On Demand

[IANAAC]

Would you rather borwse movies from the sofa and click download...

Thank's called "On Demand" with Comcast. It's included with the subscription price. Many, many movies are free. The premium ones cost $3.99. And if you have a DVR, you are able to record the movie to that.

$9.99 is way to high for what you're getting.

Re:On Demand

[minus_273]

on demand also has no selection thats why itunes movie store would be huge. Heck i have HBO and HBO on demand and there is still not much beyond your cookie cutter popular stuff. Good luck finding a kurosawa movie on Comcast on demand.

Re:On Demand

[IANAAC]

Actually, On demand is much more than just HBO. It also includes films from IFC, Sundance, as well as all the other movie channels. Maybe you don't get the full offering where you're located.

On a side note, Rashomom was on On Demand a couple of months ago. Aside from the couple of HBO and Showtime series, lesser known movies are mainly why I use On Demand - I'm exposed to a lot of movies I would never otherwise watch.

I'd prefer a subscription model

[Thrudheim]

For me, movies are fundamentally different than music. I'll listen to a great album dozens of times easily, but it's really rare that I want to watch a movie more than once. There's little chance I will buy any movies for myself at $9.99 a pop, especially lower-quality movies that can't be burned onto DVD media. If they would offer a subscription plan, however, I would probably bite. In short, I want to own music and rent movies. My kids, on the other hand, watch the same movies repeatedly. I might buy movies for them.

I realize that DVD sales have been huge for the movie industry, so there are plenty of people out there who do like to buy movies. Netflix has gotten pretty huge too, however. Apple should not just copy it's music model when adding movies to the ITMS. Unlike with music, people are quite used to the rental model for movies.

It's already tiered

[maggard]

Actually there is a "tiering" in effect, though you may not be aware of it.

Theater chains negotiate with studios for films. They promise n-number of screens, guaranteed showings, buy-in on promotions, and even limits on discounts (last night the cinema I was in advised that "Due to contractual obligations to the studio there are no discounts on The Davinci Code".)

Furthermore in many cities there are more & less expensive cinemas. For example in Montreal the Paramount Theatre downtown charges a premium (it's the busiest cinema in Canada), in Boston the Sony charges more per showing. Outside Montreal the Guzzo chain is always cheaper, for Boston suburbs that would be Flagship.

Beyond that there are first-run/second-run cinemas, where the first runs, paying a higher rate for their film lease, won't surrender it until they've wrung all of the profit they can out of it. Then the second tier, who don't do much advertising, tend not to have high-end sound-systems, vibrating seats, giant screens, stadium seating, etc., pick it up and carry it until it can't draw anyone more.

So if you want to see the latest "blockbuster" on opening weekend you'll likely have to pay $12 with no discounts at the hyperplex, however if you're willing to settle for a no-name comedy or last season's hit then it's showing for $9.50 in the strip mall and they'll accept coupons/bought-at-discount tickets.

That's tiering.

Re:when will jobs learn?

['nother poster]

He learned long ago, but he refuses to play the MPAA game. As long as the MPAA can buy legislation they will refuse to play Jobs game. The RIAA is coming around slowly by the looks of it, but they still occasionaly whine about wanting tiered pricing even though they are doing well with the existing pricing model.

Re:Apple Reality Check....

[Jerry Rivers]

"That is sad but true...."

Why is it sad? Is profit a dirty word?

When in doubt ...

[Super Dave Osbourne]

shout it out. I for one can't believe I would pay even 2.99 for an iPod resolutioned movie, let alone the "convenience" to squint and have substandard playback/quality of a movie on a small device. 9.99 USD, Steve-o must be in such a position of power now with 80% marketshare of downloaded music in the US, 50% in EU, that he wants to take it to the industry of movies. I suspect the Hollywood types want more than the 75% or so he is offering on the purchase price. And what tier system may the movie studios want? BTW, if I buy it for the iPod, I don't get it in HD for my home theatre system, I'm stuck with an 'upgrade' path (tier) for my home entertainment should I want to share it with my family or my friends at home on my iPod docking station? I somehow think that a movie via Jobs is going to cost the consumer much more than the flat rate in the end, and the studios know this. They want to get the aftermarket upgrade path money, and Jobs doesn't want to make the collection or purchase path complex. Once again, both are showing their greed, and the consumer is going to bite hard, paying 2-3 times what they would get from a visit to the local Cineplex, or even your local download site and BitTorrent-ville.

Urban Legends

[mattsucks]

FTFA:

Since Apple does not license its antipiracy software, other online retailers can't sell music or video that works on an iPod, and other manufacturers can't make players that work with iTunes content.

Gee, every music track I've ever bought from eMusic works just fine on an iPod.

We need a snopes entry to send to idiots like the one that wrote this story, pointing out that the "Nobody can sell music that plays on an iPod except Apple!!!111" line is just another urban myth.

Re:Urban Legends

[Anonymous Coward]

minor nit, somewhat off-topic (or maybe not): you forgot magnatune and, I think, audiolunchbox (sp?). Come to think of it, there are *others*, too, but I can't remember their name.

ac

All digital data has a value approaching zero...

[maillemaker]

>There are songs in catalog that actually have a value approaching zero.

All digital data has a value approaching zero.

It can be infinitely reproduced for virtually no cost.

Steve

Nobody gets it anymore. Not Jobs or the **AA

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pay $10 for a download when I can head to the local Target and pick up a copy of a DVD, with packaging even, for the same price? Or even less? I see movies less than 2 years old on the shelves for $6.98 or thereabouts. Nobody seems to really get it anymore. There is -no- reason things like packaging, distribution costs should be factored into the price of a freaking DOWNLOAD when.... there is no packaging or distribution cost to consider. Only bandwith. (Yes, which can be argued as distribution but it's far cheaper than say... UPS, Employee time to unpackage, shelf the item and price it.)

Re:Nobody gets it anymore. Not Jobs or the **AA

[robertjw]

pick up a copy of a DVD, with packaging even, for the same price

Maybe I don't want the stupid packaging. I'm tired of little plastic boxes taking up space in my house.

Extras

[TheBiGW]

Why would you buy just the movie for this price when you can get the retail DVD with a load of extras for about the same cost? Are they going to provide the Extras as an addon that you can download separate to the movie itself?

Friend or Foe is a valid question

[SmallFurryCreature]

Steve Jobs seems to have really understood the meaning of "the lesser of two evils" and "divide and conquer".

He also understands that most people do believe that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" no matter how often it is proven wrong.

Put another way it is a good thing Steve Jobs is an american and not say in charge of China or Russia or america would be in deep shit indeed.

Look at the current story. "We", the consumer, want to pay as little as possible for our entertainment for what I presume are obvious reasons. Steve Jobs offer us movies for $9.99 the movie industry wants a tiered system where they can charge more for "better" movies. We, the consumer, ain't complete idiots and know that this probably means the movie industry sees $9.99 as the absolute minimum and everything that even got 1 star in the grocers gazette is going to be more expensive.

So Steve Jobs is the lesser of two evils, he has divided the consumer and the industry and because the movie industry doesn't like him and we don't like the movie industry Steve jobs must be our friend.

Put it simpler. For extra work I help at a convention stand with building and breaking. Sometimes they have a stand open during those times but they charge about 3 euro for a can. So instead I usually stop at the trainstation little supermarket and buy a bottle of water for 0.75 euro. A great deal. Well no, the real supermarket only charges 0.45 cent but compared to what is charged at the convention hall it is a good deal.

But you can explain that the little supermarket at the station has higher operating costs, stays open far longer and that warrants the extra price. This is true.

But now look at what Steve Jobs offer us. He actually has fewer operating costs. He never overstocks, distribution costs over the net are trivial, wages are a pittance compared to a chain of music shops and yet he charges prices that in the case of music are the same and with movies are actually HIGHER!

It is the VHS to DVD screw allover again. In europe we got different languages so different subtitles. This is was a real problem in the days of VHS when you could have only 1 subtitle. This meant that not only did you need a different product for each language region but also a subset of products wich were labelled imports and had no subtitle. For belgium (dual language) this meant a store had to stock 3 different versions of the same movie. Get it wrong and a customer coming to the store would just not buy it.

DVD changed this. Most big productions for instance are now dutch/french with dual language text on the box and you can choose the french dub, the original english and various subtitles.

Bam, in one fell swoop you elimated a whole logistics nightmare, forgetting for the moment that tapes are more expensive to produce and stock (size/weight) and how is the consumer rewarded, DVD is more expensive then VHS.

The entertainment industry is the only industry were cost savings result in higher prices. Imagine if Henry ford had done that. A T-ford would have cost more then a Spyker and the japanese would have charged a million dollars for a car while McClarens were given away with breakfast cereal.

But when it comes to entertainment/computers normal rules don't apply and Steve Jobs knows it.

$9.99 for a movie is bloody expensive when you realize most DVD's sell for less and Steve Jobs saves a fortune on not having to deal with a physical product.

But at least he charges less then the industry wants so he does us a favor right? No, not really. It is thanks to Steve Jobs that most people now accept that a non-physical product should cost the same as a physical product. Yes he has allowed us to buy a portion of the physical product but depending on the album CD price and the number ofsongs often times the portion price ($0.99 per track) is more expensive per track then if you bought the whole CD. It is like that snack store that sells you a single candybar, cheaper then the package of ten BUT more expen

Re:Friend or Foe is a valid question

[Anonymous Coward]

There aren't enough mod points in the world to gives the parent the Insightful/Informative he deserves. Great great -great- post.

Re:Friend or Foe is a valid question

[SkyDude]

Bam, in one fell swoop you elimated a whole logistics nightmare, forgetting for the moment that tapes are more expensive to produce and stock (size/weight) and how is the consumer rewarded, DVD is more expensive then VHS.

This is not a new business model by any stretch. The banking industry embraced the ATM for two reasons: ATMs brought in more cash than they dispensed, and one ATM serves hundreds of transactions each day. The human teller, who wants vacations, sick time, etc, might serve 50 people all day. Yet, fees continue to go up at most US banks. And, even the convenience of a withdrawal from an ATM costs you.

It's just another industry picking up the same concept.

Why the hell should I pay $9.99 when I can pay

[Maxo-Texas]

$5.00, $5.50, and $7.50 for many fairly recent movies?

Why would I want a DRM encumbered version when I can get a hardcopy that I can easily make a backup copy to use when I travel. The last time I traveled, I had two disks destroyed. Both fortunately being backup copies.

I think Gates is a bit out of touch with fair pricing on movies. Pricing for movies is non-linear and has a wierd logic.

*Roughly*
1) If it is mega popular, it will be cheap the first few weeks only- then go up to about 17.99 to 19.99 and then drop to $14.99 on major holiday.
2) If it is reasonably popular, it will be cheap the first few weeks, then go up to a lower price (maybe 14.99) than the mega-popular movies. After six months it will drop to $10 at least once a month and $7.50 on major holidays.
3) If it is not that popular but a solid niche film- it's going to behave like #2.
4) If it is not that popular and not a niche film- it's going to drop to $9.99 and go on sale for $5.00 (or "two for $10.00").
5) Then there are some funky movies which have wierd prices for years before they suddenly collapse (Time Bandits was $25 to $34 forever. So I just didn't buy it. Finally it broke on a holiday down to $7.50 and I picked it up).

$9.99 is unreasonably low for a few movies and unreasonably high for most movies and it completely ignores the time value of movies.

The underlying problem with all entertainment is a growing glut and the fact that people only have about 21 hours a week to consume entertainment in. At 21 hours a week, I have about 500 *weeks* of entertainment to choose from right now plus 10 hours a week of new stuff piling in via cable (Mostly "Whose line is it Anyway" right now-- losing sleep so I can cram it in). And I havn't even bought the Superboy seasons on sale at fry's for $22 per *season* ($1 per hour) yet- which would be 3 more weeks of entertainment.

Then you have to subtract out time you spend on concerts, hanging out with friends playing board games, online computer games and if you think about it much at all, you begin to wonder why the price on this crap is so high.

Re:Why the hell should I pay $9.99 when I can pay

[klang]

+1 interesting!

The model you describe is why I don't and will never buy DRM encumbered content. I see movies marked as "bait" (I shit you not; actual sticker saying the word "bait", in Danish) and a DKR 10,- price tag ($1.50) ... ok, they were very old movies, but I can't even rent a movie for that little money. I wouldn't even bother to copy or download a movie. An empty DVD is about the same price!

Furthermore, notice how prices in iTMS does not go down? Yes, it's instant gratification and all that marketing bull .. but old U2, Madonna or other 'older' albums go for a lot less than the asking price on iTMS, without DRM, with implicit backup, any format you like .. and resale value!

All in all, pricing content for digital distribution is totally wrong; it has to be so cheap, that I woun't bother making backups, that I will tell friends and family to buy the content themselves instead of asking me to give them a copy.. But, it woun't happen any time soon.

Re:Why the hell should I pay $9.99 when I can pay

[Anonymous Coward]

The underlying problem with all entertainment is a growing glut and the fact that people only have about 21 hours a week to consume entertainment in. ...Then you have to subtract out time you spend on concerts, hanging out with friends playing board games, online computer games ...

I just did some simple math and it didn't add up. There are 168 hours in a week. Subtract 40 hours work and fifty six hours sleep (at a generous eight hours per night) and I wind up with 69 hours.

What are you doiong with that extra 39 hours, working? If so, you're a tool, sucker. Billy Joel said it in "movin out".

Anthony works in the grocery store
Savin his pennies for some day
Mama Leone left a note on the door
She said "Sonny move out to the country"
Ah but working too hard can give you
A heart attack, ack, ack, ack, ack, ack
You ought-a know by now
Who needs a house out in Hackensack?
Is that all you get for your money?

And it seems such a waste of time
If that's what it's all about
Mama if that's movin up then I'm movin out
Mm I' movin out, mm oo oo uh huh mm hm

You should never argue with a crazy mi mi mi mi mi mind
You ought-a know by now
You can pay Uncle Sam with the overtime
Is that all you get for your money
And if that's what you have in mind
Then that's what you're all about
Good luck movin up cause I'm movin out
Mm I'm movin out Mm oo oo uh huh mm hm

Sergeant O'Leary is walkin the beat
At night he becomes a bartender
He works at Mister Cacciatores
Down on Sullivan Street
Across from the medical center
And he's tradin in his Chevy for
A Cadillac ack ack ack ack ack
You ought-a know by now
If he can't drive with a broken back
At least he can polish the fender

("Eyeban?" is that even a word? Are you trying to dissuade humans or bots? OH eyeBALL. Ok, you're weeding out us geezers. OK, wouldn't want you kids to feel TOO stupid;)

Re:Why the hell should I pay $9.99 when I can pay

[Tim C]

Two things:

1. What's this got to do with Gates? It's *Jobs* who's said he wants a flat $9.99 per film pricing model.

2. I can only assume that when you speak of a non-DRM encumbered hardcopy, you're not talking about DVDs. Just because you can circumvent the DRM doesn't mean it isn't there.

Re:Why the hell should I pay $9.99 when I can pay

[Maxo-Texas]

Yea- corrected the Jobs thing already with a follow up post but slash doesn't let us fix things via editing.

DRM that is broken, is not DRM as far as I am concerned.

Re:Why the hell should I pay $9.99 when I can pay

[Scudsucker]

Why would I want a DRM encumbered version

In most countries, DVD's are DRM encumbered. CSS and region encoding and all that.

I can get a hardcopy that I can easily make a backup copy to use when I travel.

Which you can easily do with all iTMS media. You can burn as many copies of the media as you want; what you are limited to is the number of computers you can watch said media on.

Re:when will jobs learn?

[punkr0x]

The RIAA is already playing his game, and they're pissed off because he's winning, but they haven't quit yet. If he manages to get the movie industry to play along, I propose we send him to negotiate with OPEC next!

$9.99 is f'kin cheap

[Riquez]

Comments like "$9.99 Still Too High" ..it makes me think Americans are a bunch of cheap skates.
In the UK that's the equivalent price of a pack of cigarettes for gods sake.
A DVD movie in the UK is between $20-$40 depending on how new it is & similar pricing for CD's
OK, yeah I know - UK people pay insanity tax, but please ... $10? It's nothing.

Actually, I'm thinking a frisbee in the UK is more than $10 - Perhaps I should shop in Walmart before going to the park & save some cash?

Re:$9.99 is f'kin cheap

[Maxo-Texas]

Are you aware that *many* movies go to $5.00 in America and *most* go to 7.50?

That's for the brand new physical movie, with art, liner notes, and a storage case.

If you are paying $40, you are being ripped off something fierce. Hell you could buy them off Amazon.com, pay international shipping and *STILL* get it for less than the prices you are mentioning.

Re:$9.99 is f'kin cheap

[Riquez]

"If you are paying $40, you are being ripped off something fierce. Hell you could buy them off Amazon.com, pay international shipping and *STILL* get it for less than the prices you are mentioning."

Actually I think not - the UK postal service would charge $26 "admin fee" for an international delivery & then we would have to pay tax & customs on that too.
Not to mention the fact it would be a week delivery & the NTSC / Region 1 disc's wouldn't be ideal for the UK PAL / Region 2 system.
In the end you just give up on that & pay the $40 in HMV.

However, your quite right about us being ripped off in the UK, that's why we call it "Rip-off Britain" (TM)

AAarrggghh... rip != copy

[CptnHarlock]

IANAGN (I am not a grammar nazi), but you said(wrote) it _twice_!!... ( and once in a correct way :P )

You don't rip TO dvd.. You rip FROM.. You can then BURN to dvd. To "rip to dvd" is like saying "I'll rip your tounge IN". You know? RIP, as in ripping something AWAY from something else.. thank you..

*selfcombustion prevented*

Re:AAarrggghh... rip != copy

[fistfullast33l]

I don't know if you're a grammar nazi, maybe terminology nazi? Too much of a mouthful. Anyways, you are correct, burn != rip. Rip is so much funner to say though... /toungue in cheek

Re:AAarrggghh... rip != copy

[Sancho]

I got tired of correcting people for stuff like this long ago.

"I uploaded a song to my computer from iTunes."
"I downloaded my icons to Live Journal."

*sigh*

Similar to the Wal Mart/RIAA dispute.

[Hellboy0101]

There was an article talking about how Wal Mart wants to move the recording industry to sell them CD's cheap enough so they could retail them for no more than $9.99. Sounds like Apple is trying to do something along these lines as well, but can Apple move an industry like Wal Mart (which constitutes about 20% of all CD's sold) is trying?

So, please,

[hummassa]

ask him to explain the mysterious "process that wasn't explained". And post it here.

Re:So, please,

[Pink Tinkletini]

1. Call iTunes customer support and explain what happened.
2. Endure a finger-wagging.
3. Wait as iTunes automatically redownloads everything you've bought.

Apple will let you redownload everything you bought, free of charge, but the thing to remember is that when you do this, Apple's obligated to pay the labels again for every single track. It's pure generosity or pure PR--take your pick--so be grateful they'll take a hit on behalf of your failure to backup.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, assuming the DRM will allow you to play it on another player...

Steam and digital purchase life span

[dupont54]

"As long as they know what I own and make it available to me whenever I want"

That's the key problem with every digital distribution service : your rights the use the content you have "purchased" is controlled by a remote server you must periodically contact. So even if the terms of use seems pretty laxist for now, nothing is shielding you from a change of policy or your content provider going bust.

And EULA/Terms of Sevice/whatever legaleses that govern these services are so much in favor of the provider. Did you know that, according to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, Valve has every rights (and the means) to shut down all access to your games at any time, without needing any reason, and that in such a case you should expect no refund or a stand-alone version (see section 13) ?

The only way to be completly safe is to be able to make a complete stand-alone, offline, unDRMed copy. iTunes allow that with audio CDs (at least for now), but not Steam.

Re:Steam and digital purchase life span

[Zaplocked]

You can currently back up all your steam stuff with steam://backup; and with what I've seen with people currently hacking steam to be standalone/not reporting to valve and I believe even possibly retaining its multiplayer capabilities with other hacked clients, I doubt there will be a real problem with arbitrary disabling of your account in the future.

Re:Steam and digital purchase life span

[dupont54]

Yes you can backup stuff, but won't those backups required online activation again when installed on your new machine?
Now if you rely on the cracking community to defend your legitimate consumer rights... Well I don't think that's a very pragmatic, safe or moral solution.

ITMS pricing controversy?

[k33l0r]

Its not like this is the first time that big media hasn't agreed with iTunes pricing... And look what happened last time (multi-tier pricing for songs?)

I have a hunch that Jobs will win this one too...

Re:when will jobs learn?

[zakath]

"If he manages to get the movie industry to play along, I propose we send him to negotiate with OPEC next"

Great...so then we'll only have to pay $0.49 a litre for fuel but to get that price we'll all have to drive a white iWagon?

Attacked from both sides...

[Spy der Mann]

While Jobs is calling the french interoperability laws "a state sponsored piracy", he's getting attacked by the RIAA on his pricing model.

It would seem that Steve's trying to find a middle ground, but the truth is that with DRM, there is NO middle ground.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[punkr0x]

The new iTunes movie store will have the same hardware requirements as Windows Vista! Wouldn't that be ironic.

A bit of hipocracy..

[LordZardoz]

I can see why the Hollywood film studios want tired pricing. Some movies are just better than others, can they can command the higher price. Also, some movies are just more expensive to make than others.

Than again, if they want to use that arguement, why the hell does a ticket to a LotR or KingKong cost me the same amount of money to see in theaters as Gigli?

END COMMUNICATION

EasyCinema

[jacobw]

There was actually a theatre chain in the UK that introduced a variable-pricing model: Easy Cinema. They avoided having to make subjective choices about which tickets are worth more by a simple, objective pricing model.

Basically, for any given screening, the first ten tickets they sold cost 40 cents. The next ten cost 95 cents. The next ten cost $1.50. (I'm completely making the numbers up off the top of my head here, just to give you an idea of the pricing mechanism.) And so on up until it topped out at whatever the maximum ticket price is.

Of course, if they did this in person, it would be a recipe for madness at the ticket window. So all sales were online. You bought a ticket from your computer, print it out, and then when you got to the theatre, you scanned it into a bar code reader. The place was virtually unstaffed--they didn't even sell refreshments, and you are encouraged to bring your own popcorn.

You will notice that the above is entirely in the past tense. EasyCinema opened in May 2003 and closed in May 2006, although the website survives as a DVD rental site. Apparently they just couldn't make enough to justify the rent on the building.

You can read more in this article, written when the cinema first opened. (The article is, unnecessarily and somewhat annoyingly, spread across 6 pages, but it's worth clicking all the way through if you're interested in this subject.)

Re:EasyCinema

[jez9999]

I think punters just weren't very happy with their experience because by the time they got into the theater they had been blinded by the colour scheme. And the web doesn't really do it justice, you have to actually go and see the paint in these places to realise how f*cking awful it is. Good for jets high in the air you want to be very visible; awful for just about anything else.

Re:EasyCinema

[jacobw]

I can believe that. I also gather that, early on, they had some trouble getting first-run Hollywood movies, since the studios weren't keen on taking a share of a 50p admission price when other theatres were offering them a share of a £10 ticket price. It's not clear to me if they ever ironed that out.

Unfortunately, while I view the failure of easyCinema as a failure of just one particular implementation of an alternate pricing scheme, I fear it is going to taint the alternate pricing idea for at least a little while. People will just say, "Well, easyCinema tried it and it didn't work."

Flamebait

[kalirion]

Flamebait? Talk about biased moderators (yeah, I know I'll get modded down for that one). The guy brings up some good points.

AAarrggghh!!!...

[Anonymous Coward]

*selfcobustion initiated* ... ;P

Greedy

[agentdunken]

This really pisses me off! How greedy can these bastards get? They are angery at him because he wants to charge a cheap REASONABLE price of $9.99 a month? They want more money than that? My god. Fuck you Hollywood! Damn greedy bastards!

Re:Greedy

[/dev/trash]

So the studios should just take a loss then?

Re:when will jobs learn?

[punkr0x]

I'd buy one!

This would fail horribly in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

10$? Lets assume they'll make it 10 in Europe.
Thats way too much. In comparison with DVD you have
1) Worse quality (probably, to keep download times in a normal timeframe)
2) Lots of bandwidth usage
3) No physical media
4) No extras, maybe no subs, maybe just one audio track
5) No nice looking cover

What's the difference between that and a torrent I download? Even if I could burn it to DVD and even if they included all the DVD has it would be a very bad price. Heck you can get most DVDs for less than that here.

Maybe some people would buy the very popular new movies but I don't see anyone spending 10 on older movies. If they want to it succeed the price should be 5 or less.

Re:Screw that. (completely off topic)

[wiremind]

damb you! why did you have to post anonymous.

for a short moment i read something INTELLIGENT, and i was like 'wooo this guys going on friends list' only to realize finding more intelligent gems from this author will never happen ... :(

There's truth in them thar slips...

[argent]

I can see why the Hollywood film studios want tired pricing.

I know you meant tiered, but that slip is telling. DVD pricing is more like CD pricing than box-office pricing. Theatres have flexibility to sell tickets at the rate they want and they're competing with other theatres that are, largely, showing the same movies. So with string competition and fungible content the market acts much more strongly on movie prices than DVD prices, and as you say they've tended towards a flat rate for movies.

The market detests "tired" centrally controlled prices. You want a thriving industry, let the competition flow.

Re:Insightful/Interesting? How?

[generic-man]

Frankly, I'd rather pay $15 new / $10 used to have a movie in full DVD-grade quality, with extras, playable on any of the billions of DVD-playing devices out there. $10 sounds like a better deal (it's cheaper than Best Buy's prices) until you realize that you can't play the movie on other devices and you can't resell it. If the quality is the same as iTunes video's "it looks like my crappy digital cable so it's Good Enough For Me" resolution, forget about it.

Blockbuster Killer

[rabun_bike]

What if itunes offered 1 week movie rentals for the iPod for something like $1.99? Apple does not like a time limit licensing model for music. They have said that people want to own their music. But, a time limited licensing for movies may makes more sense. Blockbuster has been worrying for years that they will be irrelevant once sophisticated TV set top boxes were able to download movie rental content. Some areas already have this but you must have a specific service, cable provider, and box. All three together can be expensive. What if the set top box is really just the iPod? Now, I can rent the movie and take it with me for a week.

Business Model

[SomeOtherGuy]

Who is buying all of these movies?

The rental model (netflix, blockbusters, etc) seems perfect for movies - the ending does not change the 10th time through.

    Who wants to own all of these things? What kind of persona is sitting down right now putting in that Pauly Shore flix for the 14th time going, sure am glad I own this one, pass the popcorn.

I am actually surprised DVD's sell so well. Kids movies are one thing, those little rascals can sit down and watch the same thing a hundred times. But what is the drive for adults to actually own so many movies? Sure, if you did not see it in the theatre -- and it is cheaper to buy than rent, and you need to fill in all of those ugly empty storage spots in your entertainment center...I guess so.

Online movie purchases are even weirder -- for something to be DVD quality, I think would put it in the 2 or 3 GB range....I could watch 2 or 3 movies in the time it would take one of those to download on my connection. Let alone the time it would take me to burn it onto hard copy media. Sounds like a lot of work for something I can just have show up in the mail from Netflix and watch in my DVD player -- and then send back for another one that I have not seen, and do not know how it ends :)

Re:Business Model

[Anonymous Coward]

"the ending does not change the 10th time through."

Apparently you've never watched any of the Star Wars movies.

Re:Business Model

[SomeOtherGuy]

oops...I forgot about that one. And I guess it was worth an extra $39.95 to see that my hero Han Solo really did not kill poor Greedo in cold blood. I slept better at night.

Re:Business Model

[aafiske]

Some people just enjoy experiencing things multiple times. I'm one of them; I read books over and over, I listen to music all day long, and if I think a movie is worth watching once, it's worth watching repeatedly. It's probably not possible to really understand why, in the same way that I don't understand how you could just watch a movie/read a book once, discover the ending, and then never want to touch it again.

But that's okay, no one forces you to watch it repeatedly, nor breaks my dvds when I want to see them again. **AAs excepted.

Online movie purchasing I don't get either though, you got me there.

Re:Business Model

[pmiller396]

Why buy DVD's? It's a no-brainer for me.

I have 5 kids. We went to the matinee of Cars yesterday and spent over $40 for an hour and a half of entertainment. Wait a few months, pick up the DVD for $20, get the movie plus extras, and the kids'll watch it 3-4 times. We save >50% and get more, even for stinkers like the new Herbie movie.

Maybe Netflix is better, but this works for me.

Re:Business Model

[Saxerman]

Who is buying all of these movies? The rental model (netflix, blockbusters, etc) seems perfect for movies - the ending does not change the 10th time through.

The same group that buys the overpriced concert T-shirts. Your movie list is in the same social category as your song list or wardrobe. They define you as a commodity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hperson. Ownership of the icon is required for worship, and is considered an important part of assimilating new converts.

More seriously, it's all part of supporting our chosen Content Creators. And until we can directly buy subscriptions to Content Creator Clubs, we're stuck with these outdated economic support models.

Consistency

[moracity]

The studios need to retain consistency here. Obviously, all movies are the same price at the theater when they come out. There is no way to know which ones will do well. I can understand wanting a tiered download scheme. However, they have not done this with DVDs, so there is no precedent for this. A quick look at Best Buy shows all new-release DVDs of theatrical motion pictures to be 19.99, irrelevant of success.

I concede that 9.99 might be a little low for newly released DVDs if the current standard DVD price is 19.99. As long as downloads are kept below DVD retail price, I don't see a problem with new releases of successful movies being more than the new release of box-office bomb. It goes both ways, though. If they want tiered download pricing, they need to have tiered DVD box pricing as well. Otherwise they just come off as the greedy bastards that they are.

Re:when will jobs learn?

[Dachannien]

That's the difference. The RIAA didn't realize they wanted tiered pricing until they saw how much money Jobs was pulling in, but selling music through iTMS at zero cost is like crack to them, and now they just can't stop. The only reason the MPAA wants tiered pricing is because the RIAA keeps saying they do, but the MPAA doesn't yet know what they're really missing. Once the MPAA gets a taste of that sweet, sweet candy, they'll be singing the same tune.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[Jherek Carnelian]

I don't really care about the DRM angle.

You should. It is entirely possible that the overhead for DRM is the source of your playback problems.

The guys over on avsforum.com discovered a long time a go that, with MS WMV9 encoded video, the DRM'd version could easily consume 20% more cpu than the same video stripped of DRM. Similar testing of music with and with-out DRM on portable players shows battery life being significantly (in the 20-30% ballpark) for playback of DRM'd audio versus the same audio in the clear.

I would rather spend the $10 to go to the theater!

[plebeian]

ITMS is a rip off anyway you cut it. There are next to no costs involved in duplication or distribution yet I still have to pay the same amount to see a movie. Exactly how many movies have replay value in this day and age. The plots are getting shallower by the minute. Once you have seen the "latest and greatest" special effect or emotional gimmick the vast majority of movies loose all of their value to the average consumer. I would rather support the local theaters that play decent movies. At least then I know some high school kid gets a minimum wage job out of my wasted $10. The Internet is a tool, I just wish the average consumer would wake up and realize that the "latest technology"(that they have to buy!!) is almost always a rip off.

I'm All For Tiered Pricing

[Digital Vomit]

I'm all for a tiered pricing plan:

$9.99 for newly released, first rate movies. Price drops thereafter based on quality, popularity, and age.

Re:I'm All For Tiered Pricing

[adyus]

Sooo... how much do I get paid to watch Gigli then? :)

A variety of distribution & pricing models

[Infonaut]

Downloaders know what the perfect price for music is. It's free. The perfect price for film is also free. Money will be made through product placement and advertising.

I'm not so sure about that. If the user experience of watching a film is negatively affected by product placement and advertising, I may not even want to watch it. Free or not, if customers don't watch it, corporate sponsorship of the film won't provide the sponsors sufficient return on investment. A film made with eggregious product placement is not the same script filmed without product placements. For example, the magic of the second and third Matrix films was destroyed for me because of the annoying Cadillac, Ducati, and Samsung product placements.

Admittedly, I am probably more averse to over the top product placement than most moviegoers. However, if movies become essentially funded by brand corporations, their quality is bound to suffer. I suspect that there are quite a few consumers who are willing to spend money in order to avoid advertising. We already see this online, where companies offering services via the Web frequently have tiered pricing. Free with advertising or paid with no advertising? Take your pick.

If a content provider is able to deliver something that satisfies the consumer in a way that the free version does not, there is certainly a place for paid content. I can download the contents of The Wind in the Willows in PDF form, but I prefer to read books in the traditional dead tree format, so I'll probably buy it either at Amazon or at my local bookstore. Similarly, I can obtain the song "Still in Hollywood" by Concrete Blonde via a P2P network for free, but I'm not interested in opening up my computer to potential security problems, I don't like getting content from unreliable sources, and I know that even in the screwed-up RIAA-controlled world we live in, at least when I pay iTunes, the Concrete Blonde artists are at least getting something, however small the amount. iTunes also provides recommendations, staff picks, and other tools that provide value over a free service.

It seems to me that in the future there will be a wide variety of methods to access professional content, be it music, movies, games, or other forms of electronic entertainment. The RIAA/MPAA folks are used to having a stranglehold on distribution, but they're going to have to get used to a wide variety of forms of distribution, in order to accomodate a consumer market that is much less concentrated than it used to be. Some folks will still want to listen for free to the latest bubblegum pop via terrestrial radio. Some people will want high-bitrate downloads from an online music service, and will pay to get higher quality. Other consumers will put up with the vagaries of P2P networks and will get their music and movies that way. Your idea for advertiser-supported movies will likely catch on as well, and we may start to see differential pricing at the movie theater. Want to watch the latest Toyota-sponsored flick? Go to screen 1. Want to take in the latest Woody Allen movie? Screen 2 is for you.

$9.99 is too much for a small-screen version

[Animats]

That's way too much for a downsized version on a tiny handheld screen. If you get an HD version, sure, but sub-TV resolution movies aren't worth that much.

Re:Apple Reality Check....

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so nice of you to include the yet unfounded charge of "sweatshops for iPods".
Apple and Foxconn have denied the charge and Foxconn threatened lawsuit.

Foxconn sternly denies iPod sweatshop claims
The British newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, last week claimed that iPods were being made in Chinese factories by employees working in "slave" conditions. The paper alleged that one factory at Longhua -- a town just outside the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen -- employed 200,000 workers, each of whom had to work 15 hours a day for a monthly pay of US$50. The paper said the workers lived in rooms which housed 100 people each.

However, Ding pointed out that Foxconn has a workforce of only about 160,000 employees worldwide, excluding ones with its handset-making arm Foxconn International Holdings (FIH).

He maintained that Foxconn, as an international company, abides by the employment law in China, which stipulates that the minimum wage for a worker in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone is 810 yuan (US$101) a month, and 700 yuan outside the special economic zone, Ding added.

The company also has been actively making improvements to workers' living conditions, providing safe and well-equipped dormitories complete with free laundry service, sports facilities, libraries, and other facilities, the spokesman said.

He said Foxconn has been named by the local Shenzhen government as a role model among Taiwan-based investors in the southern Chinese city.

To you Apple-haters, Apple is always guilty before proven innocent, isn't it?

$ 3 - $ 7 used at Hollywood and Blockbuster!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Used DVDs are still as good as new DVDs, and as long as you don't have to be the first person on the street to see the latest flick, wait a year and Blockbuster or Hollywood video rental places sell DVDs out of clearance bins for way less that $ 9.99 each.

$4.99 for a download would be reasonable - the low quality video for the digital download just isn't worth as much as a used DVD.

Re:Industry wants tiered pricing? Since when?

[prockcore]

So, this is the same industry that charges me the same ticket price to see a movie whether it cost $280 million or $40 thousand to produce?

This is the same industry that has entire "direct to video" market. Several studios only do direct to video. Troma, Full Moon.. all the independent horror publishers.

I just bought a Pendulum Pictures boxset.. 42 movies for $50.

Well said, sir.

[FishWithAHammer]

I will admit to the occaisonal downloading in years past (can you say "fuck Metallica"?), but haven't in quite some time. The parent post (and great-grandparent post, with a fucking idiot in between) sums up my feelings on the matter quite nicely.

And the beating of the aforementioned fucking idiot is a Good Thing.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[Zaplocked]

Where you actually using the quicktime player, or an alternative one such as media player classic in the first case? I play .mov files fine with the official quicktime 7 standalone + mpc.

Losing the original

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

"iTunes doesn't give you your music back if you buy the songs and lose the original copy"

This is exactly why I won't participate. Just because a product is digital doesn't mean I'm willing to rent what I previously could own for less dough. mp3Tunes & eMusic are steps in the right direction, but both are still just a smidge short of my buy-in criteria.

I suppose iTunes is predominantly a Good Thing though. As was previously pointed out, it's managed to sever music distribution control from RIAA participating entities. That will prove to be a major factor in the RIAA's undoing. What's more, iTunes' success has proven that millions of people are willing to pay more than they did for physical CDs for the same amount of music, even in a DRM crippled version. It's also responsible for hoards of people getting accustomed to the digital media concept in the first place. When the medium matures enough for more users to have been burned by DRM, the demand for unencumbered media can only increase.

I feel morally obligated to keep as much cash as possible out of the RIAA & MPAA's hands. For now, the only way to meet that obligation any yet be legit with my digital media is to buy used CDs for any & all major label or major studio releases, and when possible, buy independent stuff direct from the artists. My fair use rights are preserved, and if enough people follow the practice, it provides a market benefit for artists who go independent. In the music market, I think more & more headline acts will eventually start considering independent distribution channels like mp3Tunes & eMusic labels as their existing contracts expire. These artists already have enough name recognition & following to ease their marketing requirements as compared to emerging artists, and that's one of the primary lures to signing on a major label to begin with.

I predict that music marketing will eventually become a service that acts pay for like any other service, rather than bait into extended crappy contracts like it so often is today.

I'm not sure how a similar transition could come about for movies though; the large amount of up-front financing they require makes studios a more integral part of the manufacturing and distribution chain. Indie films are less likely to be crap, but sadly, high-dollar major studio releases unfortunately still rake in significantly more dough.

Re:Losing the original

[Tim C]

The OP said:

"iTunes doesn't give you your music back if you buy the songs and lose the original copy"

You said:

This is exactly why I won't participate. Just because a product is digital doesn't mean I'm willing to rent what I previously could own for less dough.

I say:

Good luck getting a free replacement of a CD if you lose that, too.

Re:Losing the original

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Good point, though I don't think it's a music merchant's responsibility to provide me with one. It's plenty straightforward for me to exercise my own fair-use right to backup most CDs, without needing physical media as an intermediary, and without needing to circumvent any DRM and risk deportation to Turkey & life imprisonment in the process.

Newer CDs that implement some type of copy-prevention mechanism are dicey. They don't bind one to terms & conditions as restrictive as iTunes', but exercising one's fair-use rights with this (currently small) subset of discs could still qualify as criminal, I suppose. Yet some approaches to CD ripping & backup are quite accidentally immune to certain copy-protection methods used thereupon. Do fair-use rights apply to such discs or not? Does one need to check whether a disc carries copy-protection technology before exercising them? I'm open to advice on that.

Re:Losing the original

[SmittyTheBold]

It bears mentioning that the iTunes system (and any other digital-download-music DRM that I'm aware of) isn't copy protection; it's playback protection. You can back up your iTunes music more easily than you can back up your physical CDs. Set iTunes to burn a "Data DVD or CD" in the preferences, select your "Purchased" playlist, and click "Burn." There, you have a backup in case your hard drive takes a dive.

$10 is fair

[Ghost-in-the-shell]

I would be willing to pay $10 for my movies if I have two of the following rights! I can burn them to a DVD to play on my DVD player. Also I would want the FULL catalogue available, so I can get a copy of some MGM classic for $10 or get the latest and greatest blockbuster for $10. Either way once I download it, I own that copy.

being a little too hard on this pricing model

[agent42b]

c'mon guys... I find it hard to believe that paying $9.99 for a new release on iTunes is such a big deal. Some of you complain bitterly while you sit in front of your 21" flatscreen monitor with RAID 0 hard drive system that cost you hundreds of dollars ... now you say "10 dollars? wtf" I guess it's where ever your priorities are. For the average consumer who loves movies a $9.99 price tag won't be much of a burden. DRM? It doesn't matter too much, since you can take your iPOD anywhere - in a car, on a plane, hell even into a bathroom -- if they wanted to show the movie on a TV they would simply use the video-out port on the iPOD. If the lack of "port to DVD" option is such a big problem, then you obviously need to buy the DVD, not the iPOD edition. An iPOD is a portable device that compromises technical quality in exchange for ultimate convenience. A DVD is a first generation "home theater" media designed to be played on an expensive TV and sound system. iPOD downloads are not meant to replace DVDs or other media -- it's merely "another" format for a targeted group of users.

TANSTAAFL

[Arker]

Besides the unfortunately common abuse of the word 'free' ('free of charge' makes sense, but if you must shorten the phrase to a single word, I'd use 'gratis' not 'free' as 'free' without qualifiers means a lot more than just 'gratis' or 'free of charge'... anyhow) I think you've got it. Nothing is truly gratis. It's just paid for in a different way. With google, as with most things that claim to be 'free' these days it's paid for with advertising.

Frankly, I can't understand how advertising pays anything. Most advertising inspires me to boycott the sponsor, not buy from them. Unfortunately when every competitor is sponsoring idiotic advertisements and you really need the product, you can't boycott them all. But the net effect on *my* purchasing decisions, at least, is clearly negative. What kind of people buy stuff because of ads? The mind truly boggles.

The truth is, $1/song is, for many people, about what it's worth to them to avoid having to figure out a filesharing system and find what they want there. For some folks this is less trouble than others, and for some folks avoiding aggravation is worth less than others, but $1 is, I'd guess, just slightly above the mean. I have a feeling the main thing holding back sales at iTunes right now is the DRM, they might boost revenue around 10% or so (WAG) if they could drop that... dropping prices might raise sales too, but it's probably a toss up if it would raise it enough to offset the decreased revenue per sale and raise total revenue.

Get your terminology straight....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they want you to be able to rip a DVD for your own purposes.

Just to be pedantic for a moment... Quite a few people on here have posted about wanting to "rip" the download onto a DVD for viewing on their TV. The word you are looking for is "burn". "Ripping" is when you extract the digital content from the physical media. "Burning" is when you write the ripped content back onto physical media.

Re:All digital data has a value approaching zero..

[thatguywhoiam]

All digital data has a value approaching zero. It can be infinitely reproduced for virtually no cost.

Ok: define 'value'.

Film studios have nothing to worry about

[AriaStar]

It's not like iTunes downloads are the greatest quality. Certainly nothing to play on a regular TV. The quality can be a bit poor for a screen the size of the iPod screen (I have one, have tons on it, and sometimes shows aren't the greatest). People will not be buying movies to replace DVDs. Or very few will anyway. Try having a movie night with movies in such low quality.

Perhaps a middle grouns to this could be $9.99 for the quality of what is sold now, meant for iPods, or $14.99 for DVD-quality, prices going down depending on popularity and age (NO ONE will be stupid enough to pay $14.99 for a DVD-quality download of a movie that sells for $6.99 on DVD, or at least I hope).

But then again, if they'd like people to resort to piracy, I guess it's their financial loss. Their cut of $9.99 is better than nothing.

The revolution will not go better with Coke

[guet]

In the long term, that model will WIN, unless businesses figure out how to make that work for them.

Consider for a moment the choice which confronts media producers at the moment. If they can't make money from selling content, they need to do something about it, or they'll simply cease to exist. So, they could either

1> Make sure freeloading is punished (unlikely, requires more draconian laws and a lot of effort)
2> Tie all content up with DRM so that it's difficult to copy (requires more effort and a system like iTMS)
3> Make extensive and intrusive advertising so intermingled with their content that you can't separate the two (already happening)

In your best of all possible worlds where free downloading has 'won' the battle and DRM and sanctions prove ineffective, which option do you think they're going to choose? Personally I'd prefer to step up and pay for content that I believe in, and not have product placement, obnoxious 'interactive ads', and interstitial ads every few minutes, call me old-fashioned. That way I don't have to tolerate the crap that passes for advertising nowadays.

Yup, that's probably true. But we're hell of a good time. *shrugs*

You don't produce any content, but you expect it to land on your doorstep for free in perpetuity? *shrugs*. Hope you enjoy your brave new world of 'entertainment' tailor-made for those who think quality content can be produced for free.

Re: women overcomsuming media? It's axiomatic. Women overconsume all media. Google it.
Re: women less likely to download? This isn't peer knowledge. This is the industry standard. Google it as well. It's free!

Axiomatic - evidently not or it wouldn't have been questioned. Axioms are implicitly agreed, not unilateral.
Women overconsume media? - er, what? I can't be bothered to ask what this is supposed to mean.
Industry standard - this means an agreed manner of doing/making things, not an internet-fact you pulled out of thin air.
Hold well to the company line - which company?

Downloading gets me little trouble if I'm not sharing.

The inherent stupidity of your position is all contained in this one line.

There is potentially a revolution in content distribution and thus production coming, which could democratise content production (by opening distribution to all players) and weaken the domination of huge media conglomerates. As a self-proclaimed freeloader, you're making it easier for those companies to monopolise production and keep to an advertising-only model, though updated for the web (ie intrusive and pervasive). If no one pays, the content will keep coming, but will it be any sort of content you want ?

Re:The revolution will not go better with Coke

[BewireNomali]

again with the personal insults. wow.

anyway, let's begin.

Your first point only proves my assertion. You said that the intermingling of advertising and entertainment is already beginning. I merely asserted that the endgame is free content produced almost entirely with an advertising focus. The content would have pay options for various levels of quality, etc, but on a whole, free downloads of the content still serves the intent of the producer, which is procurement of eyeballs. So in other words you agree with me. You said something about feelings, old-fashioned, etc. I don't know what these things are. Fact is, in this post you agree that advertising and entertainment are converging; I assert that full convergence eliminates the need to make money off content. This will result in an initial recession in the entertainment industry - and mergers in the hollywood and madison avenue production lines.

Next: Re: not producing content. I actually DO produce content. I work in film and television. quality content was produced for free to the end user for decades - it was called broadcast television. SOUNDS CRAZY, right? This point is too debunked, first for making an inaccurate assumption, and second for not making a point at all.

Women overconsuming media: let me spell it out for you. The average American woman consumes more media than the average American man. Not including video games: women consume more television, more radio, more movies, than men. This is across race and age lines. In fact, the conundrum that television has had is how to draw young men back - as young men are watching less television, due in part to video games. This is why attempts at marketing in video games will become more pronounced. Do you understand now? Should I use monosyllabic words?

Re: company line: This is in reference to the Slashdot company line. I responded to a poster who was moderated well because his stance stood well with the company (read: slashdot) line.

Re: downloading: whether that statement is stupid or not is up for debate. However, uploading, if memory serves me correctly, has been the issue with peer networks. the leech has no issue - he logs on, takes wht he wants, and is fine.

Your assertion of a democratized content distribution system has already occurred. It's called Youtube. The resources required to create the kind of content people spend money on now will not come from some idealized digital revolution where there are a million content providers. There will still be big event pictures/projects, and thus a need for big money to produce them. Since downloading isn't going away, and will only become more pervasive with time and tech and badnwidth, content providers need to make FREE DOWNLOADS work for them. I'm repeating myself because you evidently didn't understand me the first time. Advertising is the model - it's already been embraced - and it will only become more ubiquitious with time. Once production budgets becomes streamlined and fall in line with the cost for major advertising campaigns, then the loss gain for corporations/hollywood firms - is solved.

Whether you LIKE (I love when smart people respond with LIKE and FEEL and HATE in their arguments - so rational) it or not, this is the direction content is going in. There will always be dinosaurs like you willing to pay for content, and somewhere, someone will be writing a pedantic, pretentious talkfest starring Sean Penn. And that will be awesome. But for the rest of the audience, the industry will be smart to serve them where THEY ALREADY ARE instead of where the industry wants them to be.

The question isn't about what sort of content I WANT (here are wants and needs again). For the most part, I don't watch television or film. So for the most part, it's irrevelant to me. I like producing content - not watching it.

Any other questions? Feel free to go light on personal insults - it just works out better that way. Thanks.

Gates??

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on apple.slashdot.org can someone question the wisdom of Steve Jobs--but then accidentally refer to him as "Gates", and have two replies where nobody notices. Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing.

Re: physical vs nonphysical product

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent brought up a really good point:

But at least he charges less then the industry wants so he does us a favor right? No, not really. It is thanks to Steve Jobs that most people now accept that a non-physical product should cost the same as a physical product.

However, I humbly submit that is analogous to the "rent vs buy" problem, except there are added benefits to having a nonphysical copy of a song or movie.

As an analogy, consider the housing market. If you rent an apartment or condo, you're actually paying for the bank note (+ property taxes + insurance + salary of the management + profit for the investors); however, when you leave the unit, you get NOTHING. Meanwhile, if you were to buy that condo and pay the same monthly rate, you could later sell it and (usually) retrieve the percentage of your payment that went towards equity. Note: I'm ignoring inflation/deflation and realtor commissions to make this simpler. So why are people willing to rent something at the same price as buying? The answer is usually a mixture of (a) not understanding the difference, and (b) placing a higher value on convenience than ownership.

In the music/movie business, this actually makes more sense than in the housing market. Even your favorite movie or song will get boring to you after a while, and you'll stop listening/watching it. If you had a physical copy, you could turn around and try to sell it for some pitiful fraction of the price you paid, or you could just throw it in the trash or keep it in storage. However, if you factor in the cost of placing a want ad and dealing with dozens of responses, or the cost of gas and your time for driving down to a 2nd hand store, or the cost of storage, it might actually be cheaper for you to just toss it in the trash! With a nonphysical copy, you don't need much (if any) extra storage space for songs/movies you don't use any more, so there's no cost to you to keep them around. Maybe someday you'll listen/watch again, and you'll get some marginal return on your original investment. Really it all boils down to the convenience of not having to deal with a physical copy. At this point an astute reader might ask, "what happens if your MP3 player dies?" My response: sounds like a perfect opportunity for "song renters insurance". ;-) I'm only partly kidding on that last part.

p.s. Disclaimer: I'm actually a proponent of the idea that you should only have to pay one time for unlimited permission to view a copyrighted work (that fee would not cover the distribution/presentation cost though). So for example if you saw a movie at the theater once, you'd pay the "hollywood tax" and get a digital receipt to confirm that you now have the right to view the work. So if you went back to see the movie again, you'd only have to pay for the theater employees, electricity, etc, but you wouldn't have to pay the producers, writers, directors, actors, cameramen, etc again. Likewise if you later wanted to buy the DVD, you'd show your digital receipt and only have to pay for the physical media.

Tier versus flat rate

[Enrique1218]

I think the advantages of flat rate is that it will generated momentum for the internet distribution of movies by giving vendors like Apple a competitive edge over DVD. Argueably, it is necessary because downloading a typical movie takes 4-5 hours with DSL which makes distribution not neccessarily convenient. Tier pricing is fine and more acceptable from movies studio in that production for a single movie can range in the hundreds of millions. I figure that a flat pricing may be granted temporarily to generate then move to a tier pricing afterwards

The end run is TV content

[SuperKendall]

The workaround for the studios not agreeing to sell video on ITMS is to build up TV and other video sales until the profit figures are too good to ignore. The movie studios are people that just cannot stand letting any money sit on the table...

And there already was one movie for sale - High School Musical. With Disney and Apple being pretty close you'd think you would see more Disney content appear on ITMS, including major features.

So who plays Magic Online?

[gatesvp]

Many posters have mentioned their hesitance towards digital goods and their intent to ignore purely digital content. Though I applaud your desire for continued use of hard goods, I do not believe that digital goods should simply be ignored as the potential value is far too great.

To wit, check out Magic: the Gathering Online.

As a quick background M:TG (AKA Magic) is a collectible card game. So it is a card game, with its own set of base rules, and each card has its own text indicating its "rules". In addition, it is collectible: cards come in randomized packs and and boxes.

New sets are produced quarterly, and the game is the ultimate cash cow, with a massive secondary market. With some cards going for over $1,000 dollars and others regularly trading for around $20, these pieces of cardboard have some serious value. So how do you bring that on-line?

Magic's makers (Wizards of the Coast) had many battles to fight (pricing, value of digital cards, premium cards, etc.) But in the end, the online is hugely successful. Many Magic players maintain both regular and online card collections. But the game has also opened up to other players. Players from small communities, remote locations, players with families and unusual work shifts, etc. The on-line community has its own timelines, some unique play formats and tournaments and its always accessible.

So how did they price it? Product costs the same online as their MSRP in stores. Online has its own secondary market, but the same basic price going in to the system. Indeed, people are paying the same price for digital goods!

The Point? Why would I pay money for digital product? B/c it's worth my money! I get lots of play time out of Magic Online. Tediums like card sorting and deck building are drastically reduced. Wizards actually used the digital medium to add value to their product.

When the media industries decide to use digital mediums to add value to our purchases they will secure more business. iTunes makes sales on the basis that they add the value of simplicity and selection: pick these songs, drop them on your iPod, play them on your computer, get new ones instantly, no CDs, no lines, no problem. Sure, some of this reasoning may be specious, but the people who feel this way are the people buying songs from iTunes.

These people make sacrifices in quality and hard media for all of these other perks, just like the Magic players eschew the real cards for the ability to play more with the cards they have online.

Once movies are better on my HDD than on a DVD, then I will move to that media. Many of the digital features of music do not carry the same weight for movies. Having an iTunes for movies would be "cool", but it's far less useful for movies than music. A reduced-quality audio recording is sufficient for most of the places we listen to music: in a car with stock speakers, on a bus with average headphones, in a room with a boom-box, etc. But a reduced-quality video is insufficient for my Home Theatre. Ease-of-use and sound/image quality is a major DVD feature, I don't see how low-quality digital is going to provide me with enough redeeming features to eschew my hard copy.

So until DVDs are better on my HDD, I plan to keep buying second-hand DVDs from the movie store.

Re:Screw that. (completely off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I can't log in where I am right now! Here's my user ID.

Can AAC 5.1 output digitally to 5.1 receivers?

[MojoStan]

Then there are newer, more efficient, algorithms like AAC - for movie and tv soundtracks it is reasonable to expect to get roughly equivalent 5.1 audio fidelity out of say a 300kbps AAC track as one does from a 448kbps AC3 track.

You obviously know a heck of a lot more about audio codecs than me, but I question AAC's appropriateness as the surround-sound codec for movie downloads. I assume most people that want a surround-sound audio track want to play it through their surround-sound audio receivers using digital audio out. Can AAC this?

Maybe Dolby Digital Plus (E-AC3) is the more appropriate codec. This codec is being used for HD DVD movies and is optional for Blu Ray movies. E-AC3 equipment is required to be able to convert to AC3, but I don't know if this is required or possible with home computer software.

Re:Can AAC 5.1 output digitally to 5.1 receivers?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Theoretically a receiver could decode AAC it is, after all, just another codec. Off hand, I am not aware of any home theater receivers with AAC decoders in the USA - but I haven't ever really looked for them either.

In Japan, their version of HDTV uses AAC instead of AC3, so any current japanese domestic market home theater receiver is going to support AAC. 4 or 5 years ago when I last purchased a receiver, at least some US models were identical to the JDM versions except for the lack of AAC decoder. I would expect the same is true today.

Perhaps the enormous popularity of itunes which is native AAC, will cause the manufacturers to start including AAC support in their US models too.

Hopefully Apple will end Residual Payments

[Matarick]

For one, I will welcome my $9.99 pricing overlord since Steve Jobs/Apple's views on value and pricing will change the culture of excess and decadence that is the Hollywood system of film production.

Since he is schooled in traditional business operations, he is aware about direct acountability, dealing with shareholders maintaing smooth operations, and foster profit by making smart business decisions.

I am tired of the whole idea Residual Payments dragging technology down because some guy apeared for 2 minutes of a TV show. I do not get paid for my work writing reviews/previews during my gig at PSXNation even though my stories has been used in various websites and I do not care if I even get paid at all.

It just does not make business sense to earn money for the physical labor you have performed previously. It is called working to earn a living. You stupid actors should realize this. If you had no say in owning the intelectual property in the development stage or front any money to support the production, you just deserve your wage while work.

Bring on the $9.99 era and just keep prices as what they are truly worth.

$10 a film is $5 dollars too much.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

$10 a film is $5 dollars too much.

Movie theater tickets are $10.

Re:$10 a film is $5 dollars too much.

[phil1984]

Ummm and your point is? Movie theater tickets allow you to watch the movie once whereas buying a film allows you to watch the movie as often as you like.

Why tiered pricing is GOOD!!!

[swordgeek]

This is how Tiered pricing SHOULD work. It's the model they use for selling videos, and it's remarkably successful there.

The companies have a captive audience. They get to set the prices. SOOooo, they crank the price UP on the popular movies to extract maximum profit from them. The movies that won't sell well at a high price, they move downwards. It's supply and demand, the way it should work.

Why do I like this? Because I could get all of the really good movies for next to nothing, and all of the CRAP would pass me by as $30/download.

Oh well. That's my fantasy and I'm sticking to it.

Re:Screw that. (completely off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha. You're taking credit for my post. I don't have an account, which is why I post anonymously.

Golf claps

[multimediavt]

[golf claps] and "Huzzah!"

Not sure what planet that other guy was from, nor the moderators that upped him, but you simply spanked that one!

But, now that you've done that I'd like to hear/see your comment on the actual FA, or at least your opinion of the $9.99 flat movie rate and/or the $0.99 flat per audio track rate. Clearly, the market has accepted one, even at the grumblings of the RIAA (asswads, as some so eloquently named them). The artists are getting the short end of the stick on this deal, but I don't blame iTMS for that. Actually, I can see ITMS driving the artists to tell the record studios to f**k off and go straight to iTMS from their own recordings (given how cheap gear and recording software is these days). Now the movie studios still have considerably more entanglement when it comes to films. The actors, directors, cinematographers, and the like can't just tell the studios to f**k off because they need their facilities (soundstages and the like), if nothing else. Sure, you can grass-roots a movie together, Kevin Smith did it, but you can't do every project that way. So the flat rate is harder to defend for iTMS, and easier to attack from a MPAA perspective. Making a record is more-or-less going to cost about the same every time. Promotional budgets and the like are different for each one based on the artist, but the actual product, the record (CD, album, whatever you want to call it) costs the same. Movies aren't like that, at all! So, to me, I can see the MPAA's point about the flat rate. It's not the same animal. Now, Jobs' animated features may have similar production budgets, but live action films rarely do.

As someone that aspires to filmmaking I have a certain amount of bias, but am being very objective as I watch this play out. I really don't see a flat rate charge for movies working the same way it does for audio tracks. I am a strong proponent of the fixed rate, $0.99 per track model for music. It works. I see that model hurting the consumer, the studio, the directors, the cinematographers, and the actors, Hell, the whole movie industry end-to-end! if applied to movies. I don't see it as a positive agent for change in the movie industry as much as it is in the music industry. I guess that's the bottom line, IMHO.

Re:Screw that. (completely off topic)

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha. You're taking credit for my post.

Almost. Just for kicks I was actually trying to pawn it off on that known troll. And if you look for Wiremind on his fans list, it worked. (Though now that I've fessed up he may undo that.) I didn't really think it would work, because if you look at the guy's posting history it's an ugly mess. I guess ol' Wiremind didn't bother to look.

Re:Can we get it in something that's NOT Quicktime

[Scudsucker]

PLUS quicktime is a resource hog

It's only a problem for me on Windows. Watching TV shows from the iTMS is laggy, escpecially when skipping around in the clip in full screen, and there are audio syncing issues on my 2.14 ghz AMD with 1.5 gigs of ram. On my three year old iBook G3 I don't have any problems.

Steve is not in the movie business

[Fengpost]

He is in it to sell iPod. He took the music industry on a wild ride and made money on iPod, he think can do the same thing with movies.

Only time will tell if it is going to work.....

Re: Simple math

[Maxo-Texas]

I just did some simple math and it didn't add up. There are 168 hours in a week. Subtract 40 hours work and fifty six hours sleep (at a generous eight hours per night) and I wind up with 69 hours.

I'm not sure what dream world you live in. Let me give you a break down of the real world.

8:00 Alarm goes off...
8:10 I get up on second alarm.
8:40 Leave house after having fed dogs, checked email, ate a quick snack and washed my hair maybe showered.
9:10 Pull into parking garage.
9:20 Actually sit down at my desk.
12:30 Go to lunch.
1:40 Back at desk from lunch
6:30 Head out.
6:40 Actually leave parking garage.
7:10 Pull in at the house.
8:10 my "entertainment day" begins after feeding dogs, feeding myself, checking daily mail.
11:30 Shower, clean teeth, final email. Part of entertainment invariably goes to a snack or phone call.
12:30 in bed-- lately after 30 bonus minutes of "Whose Line is it Anyway".

On the weekends... Add in more free time and entertainment time with the girlfriends but take out mowing, yardwork, shopping for food, shopping for stuff, "chores", and "man chores" done for girlfriend's.

If I had to pick the two biggest activities that you ignored I would say...
Driving TO and FROM work (and I have a *short* 30 minute commute).
Eating (including lunch) (not including "going out to a nice dinner" that I would say was entertainment).

Re: Simple math

[Maxo-Texas]

And i did leave out some things like "clean dishes", "take out trash", etc.

A lot of our lives are given up to small maintenance tasks that have nothing to do with entertainment.

No he did not.

[jotaeleemeese]

iTunes does not protect the rights of the artist because you can get a clean non DRMed file of the music by different means. Oh yes, and because the "rights" of the artists are an artificial construct that contradicts reality (for hundreds of years musicians were happy to make a living composing and performing, no copyrights were necessary or they were very lose).

And as for the labels backing of from their unfriendly practices, this is questionable, they have continued their ill adviced lawsuits since the inception and relative popularity of iTunes.

If you want an example of how things should be done go to emusic's website.