Slashdot Mirror
Apple Movie Store Only Serving Disney Films?
Alex Romanelli, Variety writes "Variety has the scoop on Apple and Amazon's forthcoming movie download services. Apple's will launch with only Disney as a partner. Amazon will have most, and possibly all, of the major studios on board. The reason comes down to price, insiders said.
Amazon.com will launch its movie download service later this week, numerous sources confirmed, while Apple will start selling films on Tuesday as part of iTunes."
First of all, the Vareity article (which doesn't necessarily know anything for certain) says:
"The only studio that will definitely [emphasis added] be part of Apple's movie store at launch is Disney.
So that still doesn't preclude other studios being on board at the time of launch. Even so, it still goes on to say:
"Other studios will likely join iTunes in the next year."
Further:
"The reason Amazon will have content from most major studios, while Apple may have only one, comes down to price, insiders said. Because it also sells DVDs, Amazon has agreed to studio demands that digital wholesale prices not undercut those of DVDs. [emphasis added] As a result, Amazon.com's digital download prices are expected to range from $9.99 to $19.99 -- about the same as those for other online retailers such as CinemaNow, Movielink and AOL.
Initially, Apple was pushing to sell all films for $9.99, just as it sells songs for a flat price of 99 and all TV shows for $1.99. But due to studio pressure, it will launch with two price points: $9.99 for library titles, $14.99 for new pics in the DVD window."
Not only is this the same type of behavior we saw to a certain extent with iTunes in the context of music, and moreso with television programming, I'm quite glad that Apple is pressuring the industry on the price issue, similar to the way they took a significant part in pressuring MPEG LA for reasonable licensing terms, which made the MPEG-4 family of protocols, including H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10, actually usable by normal people for content creation, broadcasting, and playback without the encumbrances of royalties and per-use/per-time fees that would have all but killed MPEG-4 and H.264 on anything but OEM devices and commercial broadcast services.
Then there's the question of usability: the same thing that has made the iTunes universe so attractive to users is still there as it has transitioned to video. It's not just a simple "download a media file and do with it what you will" service (though it can be treated as such; note I'm not talking about this in the context of DRM, I'm speaking in terms of the process via which you download something and play it) - it's a completely integrated system that normal people can actually use that has a pleasant user experience. With things like Front Row now shipping on all of Apple's systems, they've created an end-to-end solution that actually makes viewing, using, or listening to the content a tightly integrated experience that "just works". The turnkey nature of iTunes/iPod/Front Row has been one of the key reasons for its continuing success.
DVDs are pretty cheap these days. If this service is not cheaper than a DVD, I wouldn't use it. This is why I think Amazon's service might not be all that popular. Can I burn it to a DVD? No, I'm probably just buying lower quality, DRM files that take forever to download - and its MORE than a DVD. No way.
I'll probably try Apple's service. Wiht their TV shows on iTunes, the problem has been lack of variety. That will apparently continue to be a problem with films on this service.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Steve's on the Disney Board! This isn't a real surprise, give the stories about Hollywood's unhappiness over Apple's insistance on a single price for all movies, according to recent stories all over the Mac press.
Let Disney show 'em it works, then they'll fall all over themselves to join in, just like the music folks did...
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
Full price of DVD, except you don't get the box nor the DVD (and most likely none of the DVD extra features), and you can't even burn the DVD from the DRM-infected file you spent ages to download.
Sure, this is going to be a HUGE hit.
Not.
To be fair, I don't think Apple's pricing is going to work either.
Just switch the "M" from music to media. Problem solved. Same catchy acronym and everything :-)
Buy a movie download from a DRMed service, then download that same movie from the Pirate Bay. That way you get the enjoyment only Solaris/SPARC can deliver while still rewarding movie studios for putting out a product that you like.
A typical movie, if compressed by half, will fit on a standard 4.5 GB DVD (unit cost $.10 without case). Immediately we see that the cost is greater than purchasing the real thing and the quality is much less, not only in terms of picture quality, but also in terms of packaging etc.
So far, this is not much different from music right? True. However! Many ISP's cap the downloads to 100 GB's/month if not less. Few spots in the US and Canada don't have capped downloads, where the iTunes store will first be releasing the movies. This means, that for those that want to buy a good amount DVD's they will have to pay a premium once they surpass their download limit. My ISP charges $1/GB over my 100 GB limit..or I can opt to get throttled down to dial-up speeds. Convenient...
Regardless, the cost of entry is simply not on par with downloading music wherein one does not have to wait hours for the download (usually) one has near immediate gratification. As well, with the plethora of DAP products, folks don't necessarily require (or rather desire) the jewel case, cover art, liner notes etc. Yet, with DVD's the vast majority WILL be ripping to a DVD and playing in their home unit watching on their TV, not on some tiny screen on a DAP.
With prices in the $10-20 range, only the diehards will go for this, or those with massive uncapped pipes (like sysadmins at a corp or university). Drop the cost to $5 and people will be far more eager to wait for the downloads, take their chances with their ISP quirks because $5 for the new Pirate of the Carribean movie is going to be far cheaper than the 15-20 they'll pay at Best Buy for the first month of its release.
There is absolutely no way that I would pay as much for a digital download of a movie as I would for a DVD. Common sense tells you that the pricing is wrong as there are no box or physical media costs. Nor is there the shipping costs to get the finished product to retailers. Then there is the format. Do I really want to pay full price to watch a movie on a screen the size of an ipod with video. No way! This thing is primed for failure. Consumers can be stupid at times, but they're not this stupid.
This could be very very bad. If this method of delivery becomes the norm, perhaps diminishing hard copy mediums to the niche market, movie studios might play "Never Ending Editor" and continue to edit the films as they see fit to the detriment of us, the fans. If Lucas has his way, Greedo would shoot first, not simulataneously and certainly not getting burned without a hint of one off. No, Han would shoot second, and not be considered a murdering space pirate. But I like my space priates to be a murdering lot! So do many others.
What happens when everything is streamed? We the customers lose any control. At least once we own a hard copy of a film, we have it for life. This is one of the reasons vinyl is still very successful (outselling both SACD and DVD-A combined for the last 5 years). Right now, downloads are rippable to CD's or DVD's. If they catch on to a great extent, DRM will be included that will prohibit this and only the geek will find the work arounds. Yet, if the music and movie industry were to offer a flat rate for total access to their catalogue, most would not go through the hassle of ripping. Imagine $50/month for all music and movies streamed when you want wherever you are! The deal? Streaming only. Today Han shoots first, tomorrow he shoots second, the next week he shoots simultaneously until Han is no longer even in the scene. An extremem perspective maybe but not something I would put past either of the cartels.
The best option for me is the local public library. They offer DVDs for free. Hard to beat free. I can reserve them on-line then walk in and the DVD is tagged with my name on it and setting on a self up by the checkout counter.
'Rewarding' a movie studio by paying ten or twenty bucks for a DRM'd video file is like 'rewarding' a mugger by getting raped too.
This is a grossly offensive and inappropriate analogy. Almost nobody likes DRM, but the fact is that most studios wouldn't allow Apple or others to sell them as downloads without it. $14.99 is still cheaper than the cost of 2 people to see a movie at the theater (in most areas), and often times less expensive than the retail DVD. Simply because you don't like DRM doesn't give you the excuse to compare it to two violent and often times negatively life altering experiences.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
At the moment, Apple is only selling TV shows at 320x240. Great for iPods, but if I'm buying a movie, I demand DVD resolution minimum. Give me 480p, Apple.
I imagine this will cause some difficulties- at the moment, iTunes can simply transfer TV shows on to iPods, but if you downloaded a 480p movie, the iPod wouldn't be able to play it- imagine iTunes having to convert multiple 2-hour video files from 480p to 320x240 every time it syncs with the PC...that could take quite a while, especially on older machines.
Hopefully they'll let you choose your resolution on download, or iTunes will resize the videos if you have an iPod.
"This is a grossly offensive and inappropriate analogy"
Perhaps a better analogy would be "get raped, and then pay your rapist"? I didn't know being mugged was such a touchy subject.
"Almost nobody likes DRM"
I understand that many people don't care about DRM, most end-users don't know or care what it is. But I'd never think that anyone actually likes having their rights restricted.
"but the fact is that most studios wouldn't allow Apple or others to sell them as downloads without it"
I sorry, I missed the part where I said the movie studios weren't raping you too. I missed the part of my post where I said "Apple sucks for the DRM, Disney just wants its videos to be seen". I realise that the studios are pushing for DRM, I never said otherwise. It still doesn't make it acceptable, and still doesn't make it right.
"$14.99 is still cheaper than the cost of 2 people to see a movie at the theater (in most areas)"
Again, you're acting like I've said that the theatre doesn't rape you too. I've hated the theatre ('movie' theatres, not real theatre) for years. "Eight bucks for me, but four bucks for the kids to watch the same damn movie? Bullshit!"
Furthermore, theatres get away with such high prices because the movies they show are new - iTunes isn't going to be showing movies that are still in theatres.
"and often times less expensive than the retail DVD"
True. That DRM'd movie file that I have to download off of iTunes, and can only play with iTunes, is a few dollars less than getting the movie in a physical format, with a protective case, perhaps a little booklet (or a really nice booklet, in many cases), probably some 'extra features' too (which might suck, but often are really interesting).
So, I'm still not impressed that I'm getting a severely inferior product for almost the same price.
"Simply because you don't like DRM doesn't give you the excuse to compare it to two violent and often times negatively life altering experiences."
"Often"? Did you just say that rape "often" affects you negatively? "Often"?
Rape takes away the victim's ability to choose for themselves. It's something forced upon them - they don't want it but they cannot do anything about it. Their rights are being quashed by another. Restricting another's rights is always violent. No one gives up their rights easily - everyone fights for it.
Well, except for children, and the mentally handicapped. They often are seduced into agreeing to such acts - but because they aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves.
So, I guess you're right. It's unfair to say that DRM is "digital rape". It's only rape if you know enough to fight back - most people don't know enough to resist the slick marketing campaigns that seduce them into using these 'services'. These people really aren't qualified to make such decisions for themselves. So, for most people, DRM is "digital seduction of the innocent, then rape".
PS- No, I'm not trying to make fun of the mentally handicapped, and I'm not trying to diminish the sociological impact of rape. They're accurate analogies, not flamebait.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
Right, because DVDs have no DRM on them. We'll just ignore CSS, macrovision, and region coding.
This is hardly news. When you're testing something, you have to use whatever's to hand. There are already existing associations between Dinsey, Pixar and Apple, so it was most probably a formality to get the relevant permission to use Disney material for the testing phase. Apple wouldn't dare risk embarrassment by offering movies for download without the blessing of the copyright holders.
By the time the movie store is up and running for real, I would expect at least some of the major studios to be wanting to get on board. The Apple brand is just too strong to ignore.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
While we're comparing price points here, let's not forget that a visit to the local movie theatre costs nine bucks. Hordes of people are willing to pay that much to see a film once, on a big screen with their peers. No ownership rights at all; and afterwards they will probably never see the movie again. Plus they have to leave the house, and will probably add a four dollar soda to the bill.
Clearly there is some flexibility in prices, mostly dependent on the interest level that a potential purchaser has. The less interested they are in seeing a movie, the more affordable and convenient you have to make it before they will open their wallets.
The only reason big business is pursuing internet-based distribution AT ALL is because they perceive a demand for the additional measure of convenience that the model could POTENTIALLY deliver, and they expect to derive an acceptable profit from constructing that model.
So the big question is: Is internet-based distribution a new niche of consumers - a third category beyond theatre-goers and DVD renters - who will be convinced to watch a movie via the internet? Or are these people just a subset of that second, established category of DVD renters? In other words, do they need a lower price to bring them on board ... or do they just need the same price they're already used to paying for a movie on DVD?
Personally, I think it's a subset of DVD renters. A small subset. People who own computers, and who watch movies primarily on their computers, yet are not particularly concerned with owning a physical copy of their data, and are just a bit too impatient to order a DVD in the mail. That's not a very big demographic, really. Maybe it covers a lot of college students who move too often for a NetFlix account, but at the same time, college students are rampant pirates, to whom most music and movies are contemptuously disposable.
Remember that Disney isn't just Disney as they pretty much own what AOL doesn't.
Starting out with Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Miramax Films, Hollywood Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, and Walt Disney Feature Animation wouldn't be half bad!
They could have everything from Pulp Fiction, to Cars, to Snow White, to The Sixth Sense, to Starship Troopers and much more.
Apple has the best segment to make money in:
Customers that watch a movie 100's of times: Kids
Customers that don't need 5.1 sound: Kids
Customers that don't notice compression aritfacts: Kids
Customers that can't don't care the DVD is cheaper: Kids
Customers that can influence a purchase NOW!: Kids
The biggest single source of kids movies: Disney