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.
Does the name iTunes Music Store still really apply? If they are now selling movies and music, you would think a name change would come about. Just a thought.
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
Im sure both will be DRM-encumbered, and while the apple one will probably be quicktime-centric in some way I'm sure the amazon offering will be windows bases and require WMP in some form.
No thanks. Until they sell me a non-drm'ed movie download I can watch with xine/mplayer on my Solaris/Sparc desktop, I'll stick to the pirate bay...
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.
It's a store of music
A store of tunes
It's a store of lyrics
And a store of videos
There's so much that we share
On Peer-to-Peer, we swear
It's a small store after all
There is just one Apple
And one golden iTunes
And a smile means
Profits for ev'ryone
Though the Disney divides
And their pockets are wide
It's a small store after all
It's a small store after all
It's a small store after all
It's a small store after all
It's a small, small store
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
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.
FTFA: "Because it also sells DVDs, Amazon has agreed to studio demands that digital wholesale prices not undercut those of DVDs. As a result, Amazon.com's digital download prices are expected to range from $9.99 to $19.99..."
"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."
Neither of these companies will get my business. Why the hell would I pay retail for a download when I can have it in a day or two on physical media with a case and an insert? $4.99, maybe - after all that would compete with "buying" a new release on DirecTV which I can save on my Tivo. This one I really don't get.
I still don't purchase (complete) CD's online - I'll take the packaging. Individual songs make sense since I might only care for a couple tracks on a disc. I've never had the desire to download specific chapters of a DVD. Music downloads are a whole different thing than video. Oh well, I hope the market takes care of this.
Although I wouldn't consider a DRM'ed movie on its own, I'd consider a packaged deal where I get the DVD in the mail, but in the mean time can download the DRM protected movie immediately (and obviously I'd be willing to pay slightly more than the typical DVD). This would benefit Amazon because I'd be willing to pay more to be able to view the movie sooner. This will benefit the studios because in addition to the higher price, I'm less likely to rip the DVD into a DRM free file since I already have a soft copy on my PC. This would benefit me because I'm an American and like instant gratification. The band Pearl Jam basically did this for live shows on their 2003 tour. You could buy MP3's of the show roughly within 24 hours, and they would mail you an audio CD (acutally most shows were two CD's, some three) of the show in a couple weeks. For fans this was great, and although I don't foresee the movie studio's allowing a non-DRM format for video, I'd still be a heck of a lot more motivated to buy a downloadable movie if I knew I'd be eventually receiving a full DVD copy.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
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.
Forget the lot of them, they are all useless.
Why should I pay as much or more than a DVD for a download copy that it riddled with DRM and much lower in quality?
For any download I expect them playable on anything I might use. At the moment I have 3 machines I regularly use. A Windows XP Box, a Mac Mini and a Kubuntu box. I also expect to be able to stream whatever it is from my Kubuntu box as I use that as a file server. Also playing on my pda and laptop and hey even on my real dvd player are also pretty important things.
This stinks of the current trend of charginf ridiculour prices for something just because it is downloadable.
Hey companies downloadable saves you loads of money pass this on to me instead of expecting me to quadruple your profit on things.
I'll stick to DVD thanks, at least the problems with that have been overcome.
+----------------- | What is the question!
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. $14.99 is still cheaper than the cost of 2 people to see a movie at the theater (in most areas), and often times less expensive than the retail DVD. Simply because you don't like DRM doesn't give you the excuse to compare it to two violent and often times negatively life altering experiences.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
At the moment, Apple is only selling TV shows at 320x240. Great for iPods, but if I'm buying a movie, I demand DVD resolution minimum. Give me 480p, Apple.
I imagine this will cause some difficulties- at the moment, iTunes can simply transfer TV shows on to iPods, but if you downloaded a 480p movie, the iPod wouldn't be able to play it- imagine iTunes having to convert multiple 2-hour video files from 480p to 320x240 every time it syncs with the PC...that could take quite a while, especially on older machines.
Hopefully they'll let you choose your resolution on download, or iTunes will resize the videos if you have an iPod.
I don't get why people never get this. To manufacture a cd costs very little. I can make cds of me singing and sell them. But my singing is really really bad (It hurts my own ears).
/10$ = 1 million copies. Thats a lot of DVDs.
Content is more than the cost of the media. If I make a movie that costs 10 million dollars, and sell it on DVD. How many movies do I have to sell before I make my first dollar. (say I make 10 dollars per dvd sold).
10,000,000$
Everyone who does your thinking thinks of "blockbusters", movies that are so popular the cost per dvd sold is a very very small percentage of the cost of the disk. For less popular movies a good chunk of the cost of the DVD has already been spent on production.
Your right about the elasticity of demand though, cheaper means more buyers.
LionsGate announced in August that they'd be part of the new movie store. So, why does Variety appear to be reporting otherwise?
For those that want to buy a good amount DVDs they will have to pay a premium once they surpass their download limit. My ISP charges $1/GB over my 100 GB limit
Even if these stores will go for the rather arbitrary upper limit of 4.5GB per film, you'd still need to buy 22 films in a one month period to reach that 100GB limit. If you have that kind of money to spend, you probably won't even notice your ISP's extra charge.
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!
I'm on the band-wagon with the "Special Features required". I won't pay for a downloaded movie w/o the Special Features. But I don't think that we are without hope here.
DivX 6, released a full year ago, has the features required to effectively make a video file into a DVD (subtitles, menus, etc.). Apple has the benefit of closed formats, so what's to stop them from providing an "enhanced video" file that implements the DVD features. I'd like to believe that they'd have the foresight to handle the Special Features issue.
If they don't then I suspect they may be hindering their sales. Of course, they could just come out with an external backup drive / media server and pitch the whole kit as a "cool new idea". This may get the fish biting. Of course, us slashdotters will just rip our DVDs like we always have :)
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.
When anyone uses words like "DRM-encumbered" when describing iTunes, it's proof they've never, ever tried buying anything from iTunes or had any personal experience with its extremely liberal DRM--so liberal you never notice it's there.
I'm sure the artists will just love that you're making such a defiant stand with Pirate Bay by not compensating them. It amuses me that you attempt a moral stance against DRM in one breath, then advocate piracy in the next. Ah, Slashdot.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The big advantage of digital distribution is that the costs are so much lower for the studios than manufacturing disks and selling them. What this means is that something like the iTunes Media Store is the perfect place for the studios to sell all that content that is not cost effective to release on DVD.
What will be interesting is to see if the policies of "limited run" (like what Disney does with their films) carries over to the digital world or if we finally see an end to those stupid practices.
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.