Unbox Too Restricted and Too Expensive?

abb_road writes "Businessweek takes a first look at Amazon's new video service and walks away unimpressed. Between the high cost of downloads, the sometimes-poor video quality and the restrictions required by movie studios, they're not predicting a huge hit. From the article: 'Amazon finally launched its long-awaited online video service on Sept. 7. But it's no sure thing that it will catch on with the masses. The service, called Amazon Unbox, offers downloads of movies and television shows, as well as digital movie rentals. But like all its rivals, it's shackled by a raft of viewing limitations imposed by movie studios.'"

Comments

And...?

[Rendo]

What do you expect? The movie industry is full of greedy suits that will try and squeeze as much out of the consumer as possible before the consumer just flat out says no. It worked for the music industry, but I seriously doubt this will ever take off with the movie industry. It's far easier, and cheaper, to just torrent movies and get better quality videos from cams. That's right, I said it, cams.

Re:And...?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The movie industry is full of greedy suits...

Every industry is full of greedy suits, shit floats everywhere.

Re:And...?

[hpavc]

At the price they want its not providing me a unique or value added service to warrant it. The roll out sucks, they still lack a delivery mechanism that makes it gee-wiz as well. I basically want my money back from the one purchase I made.

If they had an itunes-like client I already used which could download at bittorrent or even segmented multi-part speeds. I would be all over it.

Re:And...?

[iamhassi]

"If they had an itunes-like client I already used which could download at bittorrent or even segmented multi-part speeds. I would be all over it"

Exactly. This sounds like iTunes all over again. For years there were sketchy mp3 downloading services charging outrageous prices for songs or free p2p programs battling with MPAA.

Then Apple came along and changed everything. They found a way to sell mp3s at a price people were willing to pay and with the power of the iPod became the 800-lbs gorilla of the whole internet music provider service.

I predict Apple will do the same thing again. It'd take very little effort for them to come out with a iTunes enabled DVD media player with hard drive for ~$199 that connects directly to your TV and has built-in wifi to connect to your existing broadband router that enables the downloading of full movies for a few bucks, or at least less than what Netflix and competitors charge (cheapest plan = $5.99/mo, 1 dvd at a time, limit of 2 a month). You can also transfer them to your iPod and watch them on the go.

Might even be DVR capable, or that could be the $299 model ;) and recorded TV or movies could be torrented to other such players so you could download shows from other iTunes DVRs saving Apple bandwidth.

This would be huge and carry Apple far beyond just a music provider, now they'd be in control of viewable media too, a new content provider, and with a direct broadband connection they could insert their own commericals at the beginning before playing movies, etc.

Apple would be unstoppable.

Re:And...?

[Firehed]

I'd say that Apple would absolutely love to do that. But at the end of the day, they still need to deal with whatever contracts the studios want, or else they have no content. Apple would love a flat $9.99 per movie with fairly liberal DRM (that's to say, unobtrustive, but still locks you into Apple hardware and software, as Fairplay does now). But the latest word is that the MPAA absolutely refuses to do a pay-to-own model, and won't take less than $14.99 for the newest films, or so was my impression of the soon-to-come iTunes Movie Store. As much as I hate iTunes for the DRM (well, moreso the DMCA for making it a worse offense than assaulting an officer or possessing child porn to break it), it's really managed to handle the entire digital music distribution thing extremely well. Sure, I prefer AllOfMP3 for a number of reasons, but if I'm going to pay for my music, I want all of the profits to go to the artist, at least within reason (Steve gets his distribtion costs back plus a couple cents, everything else to the artist and not a dime to the f'ing RIAA).

In effect, my concern about mine and others' online rights as completely stopped me from getting my music legally. And, by and large, movies as well (and that's only because a 1080p projector and 50.1 surround is a bit out of my price range, not to mention how it's not too compatible with a college dorm). My father used Rhapsody some time ago (I think, one of those WMA ones), and the DRM made his player useless. He's not stupid when it comes to computers - he eventually found out that burning and reripping his songs would strip off the restrictions. And it was a massive pain in the ass. Guess what - he buys NO music online anymore. Mind you, this was before PlaysForSure, but everyone knows that device lock-in is bullshit, and the moment that you start to notice DRM, it's not working properly. I love my iPod and use it all the time for music, and almost always use iTunes when I'm at the computer. But I watched a 30-minute video on my iPod last night, and I came away with a sore wrist like never before.

At least with audio, I just need to have speakers nearby, and have a standard 3.5mm jack. iPod-quality video really looks crappy on any decent-sized screen, and the notion of being forced to use iTunes or my iPod for iTVS(?) content is insane, especially with the absolutely horrible video playback capabilities of iTunes (the windows are completely counter-intuitive, not to mention slow to respond). While I'm sure that a video store would bring about iTunes v7, that doesn't mean it'll handle video playback any better. I HAVE to use QuickTime to watch movies in my iTunes library, just because the playback is so messed up within iTunes. Then, just the limited resolution and audio quality, not to mention a possible rentals-only method. Only the MPAA could be dumb enough to think that we'd pay just as much for a time-limited rental (and no late fees, it'll just dissapear) that you have to spend quite a while downloading, with only stereo audio and resolution that's probably half of what DVD has to offer. It's almost as if they're trying to prove to themselves that people aren't interested in digital distribution. My DVD-quality files are generally 2-2.5GB in size, which will take an insane amount of time to download over most home broadband connections.

What's the point of all of this? Apple could easily pull off an extremely successful iTunes Video Store. They know how to do it, and have a pretty damn good idea of what people want. But they're being bound to restrictions forced upon them by the MPAA (no contract, no content, after all, so it's their way or the highway), which they probably know are going to really piss people off. Sure, Apple might strike a deal with Youtube that'll work with the parent's concept box (which wouldn't surprise me - Youtube has all rights over their content unless the uploader pulls it, and they of all companies know that people don't want to put up with stupid restrictions and just want cheap cont

Re:And...?

[3choTh1s]

They already have an iTunes enabled DVD media player with hard drive. It's called a Mac Mini. Maybe you've heard of it. Comes with FrontRow(tm). Small, little thing that looks like it was made by someone who hates buttons. Oh you know what I'm talking about.

Seriously. Why would Apple want to make a set top box when they already have a good enough machine to do the job? As far as I know Apple isn't in the business of making set top boxes. But they do put together a fairly good computer. So why would they want to put something else at a $200 or $300 price point when people are willing to shell out $500-$800. Doesn't sound like a good business idea to me.

Re:And...?

[notsoclever]

If that theoretical box also supported free video podcasts and HD content, I'd be SO all over it.

Of course, they already make something that does all that, though it's a bit pricier than $200 (and there's no built-in tuner, though you can get addon tuners for it pretty cheaply now, including a rather nice miniature ATSC/ClearQAM HD tuner for $250ish).

Re:And...?

[TheoMurpse]

Then Apple came along and changed everything. They found a way to sell mp3s

I know I'm being anal retentive, but Apple does not sell MP3s.

Re:And...?

[iamhassi]

"...they already have a good enough machine to do the job?"

Because it's just "good enough". And that's marketed as a computer, this would be marketed as a tivo/dvd player, sitting next to the other tivo/dvd players at Walmart, a completely different marketing direction.

Walmart is the 800 lbs in the retail world. Walmart decides what games get made and which ones don't because if walmart doesn't carry your game you're losing millions of dollars and who wants to bother creating a game they know they're going to lose millions of dollars on? Walmart carries ipods. Walmart does not carry iMacs. However if Apple sold a dvd player it's likely that Walmart would sell it, just like they sell the iPod.

Besides, your arguement about "So why would they want to put something else at a $200 or $300 price point when people are willing to shell out $500-$800." doesn't pan out. Look at Tivos, they're basically little computers that do one thing and do it very well, record TV shows for later playback

Or the Xbox. Despite having games on PCs already Microsoft still made the Xbox using relatively standard PC components and although it's reported they were losing money on each Xbox sold when they first came out Xbox is now the second most popular gaming console.

Step 2, 3?

[Apocalypse111]

Looks like they have failed to successfully fill in the blank in Step 2, and will be unable to proceed to Step 3.

So is this what YouTube would be like if they decided to play along with the MPAA and charge subscription fees?

Bears repeating...

[Prometheus Bob]

More expensive than other legal methods (just buying the dvd used), with more limitations (can't backup, can't play in normal dvd players). I can't understand why it won't do well!?

Re:Bears repeating...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy the movie, then they do allow you to back it up. You can't play it off the backup copy on a dvd player, but it will be backed up. Also you can redownload which sounds similar to audible.com Granted you can only put it on one portable device and not the most popular portable video play at that. Granted the latter part is probably due more to apple launching a similar movie service soon as well as not opening up their hardware.

I would say the biggest negative is that the rental copy can not be put on a portable device. To me the ability to rent a copy which can be put on a portable device would be the biggest reason to use this service, but alas they didn't get that done.

Re:Bears repeating...

[DrXym]

I hold a stock in Amazon. Even with a financial incentive to support Amazon, I think the pricing and the conditions are just dumb, dumb, dumb. Basically we're talking about an extremely shitty rental service - too expensive and too restrictive. Why the hell would I want to spend $9.99 or more on a movie which probably sells for the same or less on a DVD? Why should I use their lousy online service at a price that they (or a competitor) would send me a disc that I owned forever with no restrictions? The answer to these questions is I wouldn't. There is absolutely nothing in it for me to spend so much for so little.

I think if Amazon had sold movies for $5 on the same conditions then it would have sparked a revolution. At that point you're talking about a service offering semi-permanent movie ownership. You can't move or burn your movies but you can hang onto them as long as your PC is alive. A service like that that is basically a glorified rental model but it should be cheaper than buying the DVD.

Re:Bears repeating...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same reason iTunes doesn't do well...

Re:Bears repeating...

[arminw]

.....the ability to rent a copy which can be put on a portable device....

Do you really want to watch a two hour movie holding an iPod like player with a postage stamp screen? Your hands will likely get rather tired holding any portable gadget for that long.

MPAA

[x-kaos]

We knew this was the case, to much drm and not worth the money. What I fear is MPAA spin saying "Oh, well we tried to sell downloadable movies, but no one wanted them. People would rather pirate instead." I think they could work, just not this way.

Re:MPAA

[pla]

What I fear is MPAA spin saying "Oh, well we tried to sell downloadable movies, but no one wanted them. People would rather pirate instead."

Why? They've already bought draconian anti-fair-use laws that make the fines for "copyright violation" high enough to bankrupt most upper middle-class families, along with punishments for breaking DRM comparable to murder. Even if they go whining to the government, what more do you fear they'll get?

They really can't get any more, with current technology. We have effectively "lost" as badly as we can, with only a few freedom fighters such as DVD Jon as the last holdouts. And the media cartels have only our growing hatred to show for it.

Re:MPAA

[Anonymous Coward]

I can seem to think of plenty that they might want:

• Broadcast Flag
• Analog Hole legislation
• Broadcaster's copyright
• Remote key revocation
• ???

Re:MPAA

[x-kaos]

I guess I fear the MPAA using what I mentioned as yet another reason to jack up DVD prices, and add even more protection to the physical disks. I see what you are saying though.

Re:MPAA

[Yvan256]

DVD prices (well, most of them anyway) are high but nowhere as insane as the price for music CDs. As for adding protection, they can't do much without breaking regular playback in standard DVD players (especially old ones). The best they can try is some auto-run crap that only works on Windows and that can be disabled by holding the shift key when you insert the disc (or did Microsoft remove that feature?).

Re:MPAA

[CastrTroy]

It's really hard to compare the price of DVDs and CDs. On one hand, I listen to at least 1 song from each of my cd's at least once a week, some albums I listen to every week. So I get a lot out of them. DVDs on the other hand, I may watch once a month (for movies anyway), and often only once or twice a year. Some movies i've bought and only watched once or twice, but since it's cheaper than renting it 3 times, I've decided to buy it. So, although music is much cheaper for them to produce, it's worth a lot more to me, and yet they still charge less than DVDs. DVDs aren't really that expensive considering how much you pay for a theatre ticket, or how much you pay to rent them.

Re:MPAA

[DreamingReal]

I don't think the movie industry would be so disingenuous. At the end of the day, this is all about money. They live and breathe in fear of the faceless internet "pirate" and that fear is leading them to be their own worst enemies.

Consider that most average users want a fair price and ease of use. DRM solutions eliminate the second want and the industry's greed eliminates the first want. Everyday that passes is a day where a potential customer will turn to bittorrent and filesharing for their movie needs. "The price is that much? Fine, I'll get it for free from Pirate Bay" or "I have to download another player, can't move it to my laptop, and need to buy it again when I reinstall Windows for the fifth time this year? Fine, I'll figure out how Azureus works and get it from there" could be typical reactions to these crappy online offerings. In the long-run, they are losing more money by turning away customers by not making this cheap and easy.

All their bought-and-paid-for legislation and new DRM technologies won't change anything. They will never be able to win this war on the technological or litigious battlefields. They will only win this when they make it so easy that your grandma could use it and it wouldn't bankrupt her in the process.

Re:MPAA

[stunt_penguin]

The funny thing about it is that you can be fined a (manageable enough) couple of hundred bucks for endangering ( or at least increasing the risk to ) lives by driving too fast, but endanger a massive corporation's profit margins, and you get fined tens of thousands of dollars- it just doesn't make any sense..... but then I'm preaching to the converted here.

Re:MPAA

[blake3737]

YOu just singlehandedly raised the price of cd's worldwide.
Thanks

Re:MPAA

[jbreckman]

With the DRM, poorer quality, and extras missing, you actually get much less than if you bought the DVD. Therefore it should cost much less. It is as simple as that.

Who would pay the same price (or near it) for less features?

Re:MPAA

[DoorFrame]

You listen to one song per album per week?!? How many albums do you have? That's amazing.

Re:MPAA

[CastrTroy]

Well, even if I had 100 albums (i don't, I have less, you don't need tons of music when your music is good) i could still easily listen to that many songs. I have a 30 minute trip to work, so that's an hour a day. Which ends up being an hour a day. That's 12, 5 minute songs. Which over 5 days is 60 songs. Plus maybe an hour each night, is another 84 songs. Bringing it up to 144 songs. Mind you, i'm not really listening, listening, but it's on in the background, and i'm hearing it. Unless you mean i "Only" listen to one song from each album each week. To which I say "at least" one song from every album "at least" once each week.

Re:MPAA

[ultranova]

The funny thing about it is that you can be fined a (manageable enough) couple of hundred bucks for endangering ( or at least increasing the risk to ) lives by driving too fast, but endanger a massive corporation's profit margins, and you get fined tens of thousands of dollars- it just doesn't make any sense.....

Sure it does: the corporations make the law. Well, to be exact, they pay their employees in Senate to vote for it, but that's semantics. Anyway, there's plenty of human beings in the US, so the corporations have no incentive to protect them - especially since if you fine someone too hard for speeding, he doesn't have as much money to buy DVD's anymore.

Re:MPAA

[bky1701]

Never forget the Swedish!

Re:MPAA

[dimension6]

You should start renting from Tower Records if it's available. It costs $1.49 and $2.99 for new releases to rent a DVD from there. In NYC, it was even $1.99 for most DVDs. I've never seen a movie enough to justify buying the DVD.

Re:MPAA

[AaronLawrence]

How about free rights to enter your house and inspect your DVD collection and equipment? Rights to check your bank records for purchases from non-approved outlets?

Re:MPAA

[dangitman]

???

• Neural implants
• The blood of young children
• The Ark of the Covenant
• Annoying ring-tones
• Hookers
• Bling
• Portal to the Forbidden Zone

Surprised?

[quark101]

Is anyone honesty surprised at this? I for one am not.

Re:Surprised?

[Mantooth]

*Wesley Crusher sucks*

Re:Surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for am shocked, shocked, by this! I wish you could see this over the internet- I had a monocle in my eye, but upon hearing that people might not flock to a digital movie service that costs as much as buying a physical disc but with none of the advantages and with DRM and compatibility issues that remove the advantages of digital distribution, that monocle popped right out! Jeeves, bring my smelling salts, for I am going to overcome with surprise!

Re:Surprised?

[binarybum]

Indeed, I do say, what has become of these rowdy consumer peasants hoarding their demand for our nearly-infinite supply? HHmmpph - it's outrageous! I scorn them.

Market share

[silvermerlin]

is this just another way for them to try to gain market snare or try to make the idea of movie downloads legal?

Re:Market share

[MustardMan]

market snare?

It's a trap!

Re:Market share

[ScrewMaster]

As a previous poster pointed out, they can claim that they tried to go online with a legit service and it didn't work.

"So now, Mr. Congressman, you have no reason not to pass our new "Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act". Yes, I know that it requires the death penalty without due process for suspected infringers, and yes yes, the new Corporate Copyright Storm Trooper section of the bill may raise a few eyebrows but we need this to protect the artists so just sign it if you want your check."

Unbox Link

[in2mind]

The story should have linked to the Amazon Unbox.Anyway,here it is:
UNBOX

Re:Unbox Link

[truthsearch]

That URL is so obvious and easy to remember there was little need to post it.

Re:Unbox Link

[execute85]

So kind of you to post the link with your own referid.

Here's a non-referral link for people who couldn't type in www.amazon.com/unbox.

Re:Unbox Link

[in2mind]

Googling for "Amazon Unbox" returned only blog & news reviews instaed of the short link.

Even the short link you posted again takes to http://www.amazon.com/b/?&node=16261631 only.

Wonder why Amazon doesnt want to publicize a direct link.

Re:Unbox Link

[execute85]

Ah, but http://www.amazon.com/b/?&node=16261631 is the internal URL for the unbox service. Notice all those video ads and the buttons to buy downloads. This is the mighty unbox site.

Amazon does this with all their sites: music, dvd, software, furniture, etc. You don't really get different web sites, just a section within amazon.

So if you ever want to get to Unbox, just use http://ww.amazon.com/unbox.

I had the same problem with googling until I just tried adding /unbox to the URL.

"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[raehl]

When your content is DVD-quality, S-Video cable is plenty sufficient for carrying the signal.

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[dartboard]

As long as you don't have HDTV and your player doesn't do upsampling, you're probably right. But there's a big difference between the output of a S-video signal and a composite 720p or 1080i if your DVD player supports it. I would hope that Amazon's player has these capabilities.

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[pla]

When your content is DVD-quality, S-Video cable is plenty sufficient for carrying the signal.

Correction - When you have an NTSC-quality TV, S-Video can provide as close to an optimal picture as you can get.

You can't, however, do progressive-scan over Y/C... Meaning that most newer DVDs will look considerably better over component (Y/Pb/Pr) or even digital interconects (when going to a display of sufficient quality, of course).

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[captaincucumber]

Can someone explain what they meant about only being able to use S-Video with an MS Media Center PC? Don't Media Center PCs have DVI like every other computer in the world built in the last 3 years?

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[dfghjk]

DVD is also capable of higher chroma bandwidth than S-Video offers. Even with interlaced NTSC, component is better than S-Video.

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[Fulg]

When your content is DVD-quality, S-Video cable is plenty sufficient for carrying the signal.

Perhaps on SDTV, but on an HD set, component cables make a fairly big difference on quality, and allow for HD modes. There is also that nice auto-widescreen detection, so no hunting for the TV remote when the extra content is in 4:3...

Putting the whole quote in context:

A Windows Media Center PC can be cabled to a TV, but only through a relatively low-resolution S-video line. "The last piece of the puzzle is the connection to the television," says Thomas McInerney, CEO of video download service GUBA.

..perhaps Mr. McInerney hasn't heard of DVI cables? I have a DVI connector on my HDTV, and you can easily convert from DVI to HDMI for "recent" HD sets. You'll get a decent quality output on your TV (perfect output if you have an LCD set -- which I don't); you don't even need a special video card...

Where is the puzzle?

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[conigs]

Hate to nitpick, but I think you meant "component," not "composite." A composite cable is even worse thant S-Video, at least that separates the luminance and chrominance signals.

And since we're talking about video cables, did you know that component video cables are not RGB on DVD players (and most video equipment)? They're actually Y/Pb/Pr, which is fun, crazy math time!

Okay, I'm off my soap box now.

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[aonaran]

DRMed videos won't play on the DVI connector. That would be a hole in the DRM protection.

You need DVI with HDCP on both the computer and the monitor or HDMI to do digital transfer of the video. Most people with mediacenter PCs still don't have that kind of "secure" video setup.

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[jonnythan]

Weird that you say that, considering you can get seriously higher quality out of a DVD using component cables from a progressive scan DVD player outputting 480p.

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[Tony Hoyle]

.perhaps Mr. McInerney hasn't heard of DVI cables?

Perhaps you haven't heard of DRM?

Once a signal is DRM'd you can't output it over a digital signal unless all devices along that path support the encryption (in this case HDCP). HDCP graphics cards are as rare as hens teeth (manufacturers have been caught more than once claiming their cards are HDCP compliant when they weren't anything of the sort.. I'll believe there's an HDCP compliant card when I see proof that it's recognised as such by vista.. which btw. is the only HDCP compliant OS...)

Re:"Low Resolution" S-Video cable?

[Fulg]

.perhaps Mr. McInerney hasn't heard of DVI cables?

Perhaps you haven't heard of DRM?

D'oh, I completely forgot about DRM. I guess I block it mentally or something.

Still, I can't see how Unblock could actually use HDCP today, since (as you point out) only Vista is HDCP-compliant. Surely Unblock works today on XP? Assuming it does, a DVI cable should work fine, as long as your MediaCenter PC has a license for playback.

(phew, geek card saved...)

Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[__aaclcg7560]

Not Mac compatible. No good. I'll wait for Apple. It'll be a more elegant solution anyway.

Re:Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[Yvan256]

We won't have to wait for long anyway. It's Showtime on the 12th!

Re:Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[Walpurgiss]

I think only Disney signed with apple though. (for obvious reasons)

Re:Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[aonaran]

You must live in the states. I'm still waiting for something other than music videos trailers and Pixar shorts to be downloadable from iTunes' Canadian store.
I once wanted to buy a copy of a Lost episode I missed and would have been quite happy to shell out 1.99 for the lowres version on iTunes, but they wouldn't let me. (at least not without creating a Fake identity with a US address and US issued credit card) ...so my only choice was to get on a torrent site and download it.

Re:Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh god. the Macbois always make pointless comments they think are insightful and then they mod each other up. Job well done, Macbois, you took over /..

*Waits for comment to be hidden under a ton of troll tags.*

Re:Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you still can with the iTunes version out, but you used to be able to watch Lost for free on ABC's site the day after it aired.

Re:Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[Yvan256]

You must live in the states. I'm still waiting for something other than music videos trailers and Pixar shorts to be downloadable from iTunes' Canadian store.

Nope, Canadian too. What I'm hoping for is that "Showtime" will be a software+hardware setup which would allow me to send my ripped DVDs (in H.264/AAC) from my Mac mini to my TV. Just like iTunes + iPod doesn't require an online music store.

Mind you, I'd like to be able to get some episodes of This Hour has 22 Minutes or Royal Canadian Air Farce.

Re:Unbox needs to reboxed and sent back...

[aonaran]

You can but only if you know a good fast proxy server in the US.

This is a surprise how?

[Hap76]

Pay DVD prices for downloaded movies (for which you pay the shipping while not getting the features of the DVD) which you can only use on two computers, which can taken away at any time without recourse, to which can be added ads and other "features" you don't want while giving features which you may want but can't keep? What a bargain.

Why do the movie studios think I actually want this? Why don't they realize that if they don't allow their customers to use their product as they wish (without redistributing it or publically displaying it - you know, like fair use allowed before the b%$&*rds neutered it), then customers will find ways to get their product for which they will not be paid at all nor over which they will have any control? And why did Amazon think their customers would actually want this?

Dumb@$$es.

Re:This is a surprise how?

[Anonymous Coward]

The studios don't have a clue how to get through this transition period to disc-less media. I work for one so I have a small bit of insight into the thinking. They want to get content out there for people but are unsure of how best to do it. Add to this that their one real asset is their content and everyone is afraid to make any move that could jeopardize its security. What employee wants to approach the CEO and tell him that they are going to sell the studio's content (née crown jewels) with no DRM? Good luck to you.

They are mostly hedging their bets and going with every option available (movielink, cinemanow). I am frankly shocked that many of the studios went in so heavily to the Amazon offering. Some studios encoded 200+ movies for the service at launch. I would expect a little more 'wait and see' but I think they trusted that the ubiquity of Amazon as an e-tailer would mean this service had a better chance than a smaller player. I mean, HD-DVD & Blu-Ray titles are trickling out but they encode 200 films in WMV for Amazon (which has no established record in downloadable content)?! It sounds like the Apple product (I have no inside info on this - just what I read online) may launch with only 1 or 2 studios. To me that is crazy since Apple is the one vendor that has a userbase of significant size - for downloadable media specifically. Like I said, the studios are just guessing and are going with a mulitude of vendors. I would like to see one studio step up and sell ~5 older, more insignificant titles with no drm in h.264 at DVD quality and see what happens. Don't hold your breath waiting tho...

Netflix!

[andrewman327]

People fail to realize that Netflix is making money on what some would call an old-fashioned profit model: mail DVDs to people and they mail them back. They may spend millions and millions of dollars in postage (and impacted by postage hikes, but they do not have these limitations. People also do not realize that YouTube is losing loads of money every month. Online video has a place, but it is not in replacing DVDs with DRM.

Re:Netflix!

[The_Spud]

I read the linked article and the only proof offered for youtube losing tons of cash was this:

"A rival estimates that YouTube is losing more than $500,000 a month."

For all we know youtube could be making lots of money, not that likely admittedly but no one other than the u-tube people know.

Re:Netflix!

[stupidfoo]

Actually, that's the lowest estimate I've seen. And youtube itself has acknowledged that it is somewhat struggling to find a good way to bring in more revenue. Their main source of money has been repeated rounds of funding.

Re:Netflix!

[c_forq]

youtube has confirmed many times that they are losing money at an extremely rapid pace. Last I heard they were looking for more VP because they estimated their current pool was going to run out in two years. youtube will have to soon find a way to make money, or find a company willing to sponsor (or buy and operate at a loss) in a matter of years if it hopes to continue running.

Re:Netflix!

[SquadBoy]

DVDs *are* DRMed. It's just been broken for so long that folks don't think about this. In fact it's an incredibly restrictive DRM. One wonders had DVD Jon not cracked this how well DVDs would be doing now.

Re:Netflix!

[arminw]

....One wonders had DVD Jon not cracked this how well DVDs would be doing now.......

Not much different than it is. Outside of /. most people just buy or rent a DVD and pop it into their player or computer and hit the "Play" button. Watching a 2 hr or longer movie in a tiny screen is not very satisfying for most people.

If Apple comes up with a video iPod which shows a good picture on a 27" or larger screen, at least on par with present DVDs, they will have a hit. That requires either a lot of storage or a really fancy compression scheme. Also, the battery should last through a feature length film at this quality. Video data requires a lot of power to run the storage device (HD) and/or to decode and display at a decent quality.

It sucks already?

[UpInTheClouds]

Jeez, slashdot doesn't even wait for the launch story to leave the front page before proclaiming it dead.

Re:It sucks already?

[jZnat]

We proclaimed it dead before the first Slashdot article went live!

This has been proclaimed dead by a site independent of Slashdot, so it must be true. Netcraft confirms it: Amazon Unbox is dying.

Re:It sucks already?

[rekab]

Yes, do not deny our judgement

So I can buy a movie...

[Overzeetop]

...but I can't watch it on my TV.

I get to watch it on my monitor, which is fairly small.
In my office, where there's room for one, maybe two people.
On an uncomfortable chair instead of my couch.
And I get to pay more than an excellent condition DVD off of ebay, often as much or more than the DVD from Amazon, and probably more than the WalMart B&M down the road.

In return I get to avoid waiting the 2 days for shipping (which I get "free" from Amazon Prime), or driving the 4 miles to a local store.

I'm sorry, was there something I was supposed to enjoy about this transaction?

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[Red Flayer]

I'm sorry, was there something I was supposed to enjoy about this transaction?

You're not the target market of this release. Unboxed is for masochists only, it's the test market -- and they are sure to enjoy it. You'll have to wait release 2.0, which is currently under the working title "Unchained." They're still working out the kinks left from taking out the part where they walk on you while wearing stiletto heels.

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[truthsearch]

That's about right. I think they also want you to buy a more comfortable office chair.

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[captaincucumber]

Also, you can't dump this movie on eBay when you get sick of it like you can with a regular DVD. You should think of this as adding $5 to $10 to the cost of the download because a real DVD has a resale value.

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[Overzeetop]

Actually, that's exactly how I "rent" movies. I buy them occasionally, sometimes in a bunch from CH if I haven't signed up in a while, and usually average less than $10/disc including shipping (much less with CH). They go in my jukebox, and I eventually watch them, though it may take up to 2 years for that to happen. If I like it, I keep it. If I don't, it gets resold on ebay or amazon mktplace, often for between $8-$10 net of fees. It's cheaper than netflix, I'm (almost) never without a new movie, and I get to keep a copy of everything I like.

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[ultranova]

If I don't, it gets resold on ebay or amazon mktplace, often for between $8-$10 net of fees. It's cheaper than netflix, I'm (almost) never without a new movie, and I get to keep a copy of everything I like.

In other words, you allow people to get used DVD's from you instead of making each watcher buy one directly from the maker, therefore lessening the demand for DVD's and causing the artist to starve. Shame on you !

Seriously, getting rid of second-hand market is one of the main reasons for DRM. It's a wonder it's legal in the first place, seeing how much copyright laws are slanted against the public interest nowadays.

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[sowth]

You don't have very much imagination. A monitor is better than a TV, and I'm sure it would fit just fine in your entertainment center. If you don't like the size, buy a bigger one. Unless you don't have the money, then you're shit out of luck. However, think about this: for the price of your TV, you could've bought a bigger monitor. Yeah, if you want to watch old fashoned television, you'll have to buy a tuner card--they're $50(us)--actually I just found this Mercury one for $20.

I did that for a long time. My computer was also my TV.

There are a lot of reasons not to use Amazon's Unibox, but having to view movies on your monitor should not be one of them.

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[Overzeetop]

You'll understand someday when you move out of that dorm room.

Re:So I can buy a movie...

[sowth]

Whatever. I think you have been living in your parent's basement too long. Otherwise you would know TVs are expensive.

No Subtitles?

[methangel]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned this. As a hearing impaired person, I rely on subtitles extensively. Basically, you don't even get the basic "features" of the DVD, or even regular cable show.

I'll stick with my Tivo and Giganews subscription, thank you very much.

Re:No Subtitles?

[pluther]

They don't even come with subtitles?

Isn't that a violation of section 305 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act?

Or is video-on-demand somehow immune to that act now?

Re:No Subtitles?

[methangel]

It's a gray area, and hopefully a new act will pass. The act was created before Internet video streaming was as rampant as it is today. Here's some more info on the act and how it applies to iTunes, etc:

http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/frank_g_bowe/vid eopolicy.html

Re:No Subtitles?

[Anonymous Coward]

what?

Re:No Subtitles?

[DarkFyre]

Most of them do, in fact, have subtitles.

Re:No Subtitles?

[bky1701]

It's a gray area, and hopefully a new act will pass.

Too bad that will result in many problems for youtube and google video. :( Don't wish for something until you think of the outcome.

I don't like to have my private parts managed

[Wiseman1024]

...so I'll pass on this one. Just like I'll pass on Blu-ray and HD-DVD (unless pirated). Dignity > watching the latest movie.

If they offered files for purchase, I'd happily buy them. But I don't like streaming crap, digital restrictions management crap, propietary codecs and formats crap, etc. If I buy something, I must be getting a simple [b]octet-stream[/b]. No magic, no "final format", no "copy protections", no crap. That's the only format I accept.

Re:I don't like to have my private parts managed

[winnabago]

Dignity > watching the latest movie.

Amen.

Soon, I hope, we'll see the emusic.com of movies. No DRM, no hype, tier B & independent films, occasional blockbusters. I'm here waiting for my download service. Anyone?

Re:I don't like to have my private parts managed

[Guppy06]

"Dignity > watching the latest movie."

Unless you're still using VHS and/or laserdisc, you've already sold your dignity for the sake of putting up with DVD-CSS proto-DRM and proprietary MPEG-2 encoding. You're already a sell-out, it's simply a matter of degrees now.

Re:I don't like to have my private parts managed

[Wiseman1024]

I can DeCSS, and I usually play DVDs with DVD-X-Player, which removes digital AIDS in real time, so that I can play DVDs of any region (no region discrimination) and I can do anything when playing (no prohibited user operations).

Hasn't this already been...

[Anonymous Coward]

With the number of articles that we've had to deal with in the past 72 hours about Unbox I think we get the point. Can we move on to something new already? Is it too expensive? That's for the consumer to decide. Let's move on and stop beating this dead horse.
 
The scope of what's news worthy on slashdot just keeps getting more and more narrow and we have to deal with articles that a couple of years ago would have been considered "near dupes" as fresh news? Get real.

Re:Hasn't this already been...

[Anonymous Coward]

The scope of what's news worthy on slashdot just keeps getting more and more narrow and we have to deal with articles that a couple of years ago would have been considered "near dupes" as fresh news? Get real.

Three words. Katie Couric Effect.

Maybe this is what they want

[Damastus the WizLiz]

It seems to me that they would do this sort of thing on purpose just to get people to go out and buy dvds instead. I can also see them using this to promote whatever HD formate the studio chooses to put disks out on.

I don't like to have my private parts managed

[Wiseman1024]

...so I'll pass on this one. Just like I'll pass on Blu-ray and HD-DVD (unless pirated). Dignity > watching the latest movie.

If they offered files for purchase, I'd happily buy them. But I don't like streaming crap, digital restrictions management crap, propietary codecs and formats crap, etc. If I buy something, I must be getting a simple octet-stream. No magic, no "final format", no "copy protections", no crap. That's the only format I accept.

Free 1.99$ tv ep now to test, thanks to slickdeals

[nickfd]

http://www.slickdeals.net/#p8050 has a little blurp outlining that you can download a free tv episode (worth 1.99$) to try out the service for free. There isn't much selection, and the application you have to download doesn't work very well if you're behind a work proxy, so I have not been able to test to see if it even works. Does anyone actually have something good to say about this test?

Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success?

[dpbsmith]

I don't get at all. Why are companies so bent on copying failure instead of success?

DIVX disks played on ordinary DVD players, were time-limited, and cost less than straight DVDs. And failed.

FlexPlay disks played on ordinary DVD players, were time-limited, cost less than straight DVDs, and failed.

Amazon Unbox WON'T play on ordinary DVD player, won't play on my almost-spiffy almost-new Mac Mini, won't play on my wife's PC (Windows 98), wouldn't have played on the Hewlett-Packard PC my daughter's family uses (WIndows 2000 Home Edition) before it crapped out a few months ago, won't play on the spiffy new Mac Mini she replaced it with, apparently won't play on any portable video device... ...is time-limited, and costs about the same as straight DVDs.

And up to now I thought Jeff Bezos was a smart guy.

Anyone else notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else notice that Business Week just called DRM by its more appropriate name:

Digital Rights Restrictions

I don't go in for what most of the whiney slashbot crowd does, but this one brings some glee to my cold little heart that a fairly popular magazine is helping to relabel DRM appropriately. I don't care what movie studios do to their products, but it offends me as a consumer when they try to lock my purchases up and tell me what to do with them after I own them.

I don't support the dirty theives that are too cheap to pay for music and movies, but it's also not my problem and if you're going to make me suffer because they're scumballs, I'm not going to buy your stuff either. Not only will the jobless wonders keep stealing from you, I'll just stop buying on top of it.

Re:Anyone else notice?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you fail to get the full purpose of DRM. It isn't just to stop piracy. In fact, one could argue that it really doesn't stop it at all. One of the biggest benefits to the studios is that people are forced to spend more money on things that shouldn't cost extra. Want to watch that movie you just downloaded to your home entertainment PC on your portable video player? It'll cost you extra. Want to take the movie over to a friend's house for a dinner and movie party? No can do. Your friend will have to buy his own copy, or you'll have to buy it for him. Want to sell or even give the movie away when you get tired of it? Nope, you can't do that, either.

DRM has very little to do with piracy, but it has everything to do with control. According to the studios, you haven't bought anything; you've only licensed it. So, since you've purchased a license, can you get replacement copies if the computer your movies are stored on buys the farm? I mean, the DRM did keep you from making backup copies. Nope, not a chance. The files were locked to that machine, and it's not the studio's fault a power surge killed it, taking your $2,000 movie collection with it. Congratulations, you just became a new consumer all over again.

Re:Anyone else notice?

[TheoMurpse]

Bully for Business Week! I also have been trying to relable it; I'm the "go to" guy for computers and tech in my circles of friends. I always, when asked about things like this, refer to it as Digital Restrictions Management. I think the original idea came from DVD Jon, or at least maybe that's where I got the idea from a few years ago.

question is....

[Churla]

Will it be interesting enough for some enterprising Dvd-Jon type person come up with a crack for their DRM.

Once cracked, THEN you could burn DVD's, and move the media to use as you see fit...

Then it would be a worthwhile way to purchase media IMHO. Which of course the media producing companies will have no part it.

Re:question is....

[gumbo]

Once cracked, THEN you could burn DVD's, and move the media to use as you see fit... Then it would be a worthwhile way to purchase media IMHO.

I disagree. I still think it would be pretty worthless.

If I can pay the same price for the DVD, getting 5.1 sound and extras in the process, I'm not going to pay for the download even if I have the option of losing video quality and wasting time by re-encoding it to MPEG2 and burning it to DVD.

Re:question is....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already cracked. It's just vanilla WMV DRM 10, which has already been cracked. Google FairUse4WM.

Have you guys even checked it out?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm hearing alot of nonsense about too expensive and broken drm and crappy video quality.... have you TRIED it? $24.99 for an entire sg-1 season happens to be alot cheaper than blowing my cap by 2gig trying to download it illegally from bit torrent. And the video appears to be just fine for anything that was originally available in a decent quality and format in the first place. Instead of bitching and moaning because of the presence of buzzwords and the like, how about you actually try the service before writing it off as a failure? Bloody whingy fanboys...

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[dpbsmith]

How can I try it?

It won't work on my computer (Mac Mini), my wife's computer (Windows 98), my son's computer (Windows XP... over dialup), my daughter's old computer (WIndows 2000 Home Edition), or my daughter's new computer (Mac Mini).

Will Amazon also give me a free trial of a brand-new PC (with 2.4 gigahertz processor, and a gig of RAM, and a "DirectX 9.0 complaint Video" [sic]?

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[ScaryFroMan]

Are you honestly complaining that it won't play on a 7-year old OS? Or that it doesn't support a miniscule minority of computers? It'll work for 90% of the computers out there. It's your own fault. Not thiers.

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[dltaylor]

I appreciate the comments, because they tell me that I CANNOT try it out (don't have any box dumbed-down enough) and would not bother if I could, since I do not watch TV or movies on a computer. The big screen is for video (and a "fishtank" screen saver on a Mac Mini). The iBook is for when, at home, something piques my interest enough to get on the 'net without disturbing my partners' viewing.

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[Anonymous Coward]

...how about you actually try the service before writing it off as a failure?

Maybe because the product itself offers nothing that makes me think it serves any valid purpose in my life? Because, you know, I don't just run out and try every single new thing just because it's there. Smart consumers generally don't do that.

Just in case you're curious, here's why I have no interest in it:

1. My computer is nowhere near my TV, and I have no intention of watching movies on a 17" screen from a desk chair. I don't even know where anyone else watching it would sit since there's no other furniture in the room, and the only other chairs that can be reasonably moved are the dining room chairs which are hardly meant for hour and a half sessions.

2. I already have at least three players on my computer: WMPlayer, DivX, PowerDVD. I have absolutely no intention of getting yet another one just to play one freaking file type that uses the same anti-rights technology as WMPlayer anyway.

3. I can't play it in my portable DVD player when I'm on the bus.

4. All that, and I only have to pay the same amount as a perfectly useable used DVD that has none of those problems.

The only possible benefit would be that it's available on-demand, but #1 precludes me from finding that useful in this particular application of the concept, and I can already walk right around the corner to Blockbuster anyway, or order on-demand movies (albeit, with a much poorer selection) through my digital cable subscription.

In short: this product is inferior to used DVDs in every way and costs just as much, so why, exactly, would I want to give it a chance? If someone invents chalk flavored ice cream, should I "give it a chance" too just because it's new, or would a smarter person maybe think "hmmm... I'll bet chalk doesn't taste good, and I'll bet chalk flavored ice cream is probably in the same boat there. I think I'll get chocolate instead since it costs the same and I already know I like it" and not waste the money?

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you post an almost identical comment twice? I mean, I agree with you, but you're not doing yourself any favors.

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[damiangerous]

It'll work for 90% of the computers out there

More like 75%. It requires Windows XP, nothing earlier, not even 2000. The latest stats I can find put WinXP at only about 75% penetration as of August.

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[donutz]

The latest stats I can find put WinXP at only about 75% penetration as of August.

Maybe you should check the disclaimer on the page to which you linked:

W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.

Those stats are just for visitors to w3schools.com; visitors who are more likely to use different browsers and OSes than the average web surfer.

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't work on my computer (Mac Mini), my wife's computer (Windows 98), my son's computer (Windows XP... over dialup), my daughter's old computer (WIndows 2000 Home Edition), or my daughter's new computer (Mac Mini).

Dude, I think your Apple bias is showing. You're complaining about a brand new movie download service not working with Windows versions that are 6.5 - 8 years old and a current Windows PC that's using dialup? Unbox requires and OS that was released 5 years ago (Windows XP) and broadband. Is this unreasonable?

For the Mac, the iTunes Music store requires an OS that was released just 4 years ago (OS X 10.2). A "Mac OS 2001" computer would not work with iTMS.

Re:Have you guys even checked it out?

[damiangerous]

I did, and the skewing actually supports my point. What browser they use is irrelevant so that won't skew anything, alternate browsers masquerading as IE still report the correct OS. Taking OS skew into account only works against you. Technically inclined people tend to use the latest technologies and will be more likely to be using WinXP than using an older version of Windows so the WinXP numbers there will be at least as high if not greater than anywhere else. The numbers for alternatives OS's are the highest they'll be anywhere, so even if you take the entire 7.2% of people using an alternative OS and apply it to WinXP instead (obviously ridiculous, but just to put everything in your favor) you still end up with only 82.3%, which we've established as the absolute ceiling that can only be (probably significantly) lower in reality.

Hmmm...

[Otter]

I have enough technology at work that I don't need much of it at home, so maybe I'm out of touch with what "the masses" have.

But are there really a significant number of people with the computer-large screen integration to make this program useful? The article brings that point in at the end, but I wonder how much overlap there is between the Media Center crowd and the non-P2P'ing-everything-anyway crowd.

What were they thinking?

[gumbo]

I got worked up enough to write up a rant about Unbox's pricing and lack of features (come on, who wants to watch V For Vendetta without 5.1 sound?) before seeing that I was late to the bash-Unbox party. Oops.

If it's not just me, and everyone's first reaction is "oh my god, how much does this idea suck?" you really have to wonder about their motivation, and you start putting more weight into the theories that this is so the studios and MPAA can say "see, people just don't want to pay for movie downloads."

But I don't think that's the case. I think Amazon is expecting that my reaction and the typical technologically informed person's reaction aren't going to be universally shared. The average consumer who is thrilled to be paying for DRM music downloads is another issue. Of course, you'd still think that that person would much rather have a DVD they could watch on their TV without having to figure out how to hook their computer up to their television...

I still keep coming back to "what the hell were they thinking" on this one.

Re:What were they thinking?

[execute85]

Yeah, but the average consumer doesn't want to watch tv shows and movies on their computer. This service is for early adopters who don't mind a laptop or monitor for viewing video.

ITMS has only sold 35 million shows in the last year. That's pretty decent, but still only early adopter numbers. And ITMS plays on ipods and QuickTime.

Unbox is for nerds and nerds don't want special players and stupid DRM.

I noticed they are supposed to integrate this into MS' Windows Media Center, but couldn't find out anything substantial on how to do it.

At least it's more competition for Apple and google video.

Re:What were they thinking?

[gumbo]

This service is for early adopters who don't mind a laptop or monitor for viewing video.

I was thinking it was more for early adopters who already have a computer hooked up to their TV and sound system, acting as a DVR or HTPC (like me.)

Unbox is for nerds and nerds don't want special players and stupid DRM.

Right (like me). This is why Unbox just doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:What were they thinking?

[AmberBlackCat]

It doesn't make much sense to me either, but think about how many movies have been based on video games and books, with the movie completely missing the mark and alienating all possible target audiences. Maybe everybody throughout the movie industry is just really out of touch with reality. On the other hand, if they think everybody is into something like an mp3 player then companies make mp3 players and sell them. So maybe these people decided everybody likes downloading movies so they can sell the ability to download movies. Maybe somebody just got drunk and high in the boardroom. Or maybe they know this isn't going to catch on but they figure since the price pays for the bandwidth and there is no cost of material, even a few sales will result in a profit. I vote for the last option.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[Anonymous Coward]

> And up to now I thought Jeff Bezos was a smart guy.

Maybe he'll start directing customer complaints at the studios and say "they made us make it so crappy".

Just a fantasy. Naw, he probably really did think people would go for this crap.

o rly?

[IamTheRealMike]

And the counter-argument:

• More expensive than other legal methods (just buying the dvd used): well, it's not more expensive than buying on Amazon itself as it calculates the savings for you and displays them. Yes you could buy the DVD used but so what, the convenience is worth it for some - I don't plan evenings when I feel tired and want to watch some TV weeks in advance, it just happens. And when it does I want to watch some episodes of 24 right there and then, if I can. I'm willing to pay more than getting a used DVD off eBay for that convenience.

• With more limitations (can't backup, can't play in normal dvd players) - can't backup .... and? You couldn't backup DVDs for the first few years of their life either due to DRM and that didn't stop them taking over the world. I hypothesise that most people don't care; I know I never backed up any of my DVDs and I wouldn't care about backing up these movies either. I'd probably rent them instead. Don't play in normal DVD players ... yes this will have an impact and stop some people using the service. But lots of people already watch TV on their computers, it's no big deal.

• I can't understand why it won't do well!? - video on demand probably will do well. Will it be Amazon Unbox? I do not know, and I don't care to predict based on the feelings of Slashdotters which is basically "doesn't work on a Mac/Linux, must suck". It might succeed, it might fail, but apart from being restricted to the US (moving there soon anyway) I haven't seen anything that'd stop me using it.

Now it may fail for other reasons ... too hard to use, poor quality, too slow or whatever. But I don't think the masses care about DRM. For many years you couldn't copy CDs; the CD-R and MP3 was not yet invented. Yet CDs did very well and didn't die. iTunes music store is doing very well despite being ridden with DRM and locking you in to Apple (one software player, one hardware player, one store, one company) far more than Windows Media does.

Re:o rly?

[Kemanorel]

One slight nit to pick...

For many years you couldn't copy CDs; the CD-R and MP3 was not yet invented. Yet CDs did very well and didn't die.

Every CD player I've owned since the advent of the format had a cassette deck with a handy little record button. It may not have been a perfect digital recording, but it was good enough to make mix tapes long before CD-R rose to prominence.

Re:o rly?

[Prometheus Bob]

"...the convenience is worth it for some..." How long is it going to take to download a dvd quality movie from this service? and how long will it take me to go to the local used dvd shop? Agreed, if you're in BFE with no way to get to a used dvd shop, it may be useful, but then you wouldn't have the bandwidth to download this in any respectable length of time. It may fit a niche market of people that have broadband but cannot visit a used DVD store of any kind. "You couldn't backup DVD's for the first few years..." I'm talking now. DVD's didnt catch on because of backup purposes. I'm not here to explain why DVD's caught on. I'm saying [i]right now[/i] you can backup a dvd. You can't with this service. The main issue though is the second topic: "..can't play in normal dvd players..." you say "lots" of people already watch TV on their computers. "Lots" perhaps is correct, but I sincerely doubt a good percentage of people that watch television watch it on their PCs. They watch their shows and movies and series on their televisions. As for the Mac/linux rant I didn't bring that into it, but if you like read on: This goes back to the "can't play in normal dvd players" argument. They're making media proprietary to their OS to attempt to secure a monopoly in another business area. That sounds like abusing a monopoly to me, IANAL. People are used to being able to watch a movie in the living room, let the kids watch it in their room, move it into the bedroom and watch it in the master bedroom while they fall asleep. They don't like not being able to because of some (now arbitrary) rules.

Re:o rly?

[teh_chrizzle]

way to go grandpa!!! i'll bet you and george washington loved "mix tapes" when you were in the civil war!!!

just kidding, i used to make mixtapes to play in my car because it had a tape player in it, back in the old days when shifting formats was "fair use".

Re:o rly?

[midknight32]

With more limitations (can't backup, can't play in normal dvd players) - can't backup

.... and? You couldn't backup DVDs for the first few years of their life either due to DRM and that didn't stop them taking over the world. I hypothesise that most people don't care; I know I never backed up any of my DVDs and I wouldn't care about backing up these movies either. I'd probably rent them instead. Don't play in normal DVD players ... yes this will have an impact and stop some people using the service. But lots of people already watch TV on their computers, it's no big deal.

I've had enough of a failure rate in HD's to be very concerned about my ability to back up data on a HD

Moo

[Chacham]

The nice thing is, they did it. Even if it fails, someone else will try again. Eventually it will work.

It's simple. People want to download movies. Paying for it is not the issue, as many people will say. It's just plain old availibility.

The companies would love it if noone could watch a movie outside of a theatre, and would only sell long dead movies. The people think theatre's are a nice experience, but that is added on top of viewing the movie itself. And, if you don't like the theatre, or going to a theatre is cumbersome or not feasable, or even watching the entire movie in one shot is not desirable, the movie needs to be availible elsewhere. Also, people are willing to pay a premium to watch it the first time, but not the second, third, or more. Being many people who download movies have already seen it in the theatre, charging a premium at home would alienate that subset of potential buyers.

That's where this service comes in. They set up a mini-theatre in your house with some control (although, they own the process and restrict its use). This is what people don't like. But, it also means its happening. For Amazon to get this far, means that the industry recognizes the need. It's a large step, though perhaps not large enough for the consumers. The point is, it will happen. Eventually. And the more the industry holds back, the more piracy will pound them on the side.

So be happy. The child has taken his first step.

This needs accompanying hardware!

[King_TJ]

Arguments about price and DRM limitations aside for a moment, it occurs to me that Internet-based movie downloads won't really take off unless there's a piece of hardware accompanying the thing. Tivo, for example, should have partnered up with Amazon or someone else doing this and said "Ok - we'll send down a free firmware upgrade to all of our users, and then our boxes will be able to browse your movie catalog and order up content on-screen, saving it to the hard drive in the unit. Meanwhile, the user will be free to watch existing content while it downloads in the background."

The overall business model works a lot better for music downloads, because A) They're smaller and take a lot less time to download, B) Every single user of a portable digital music player has to learn to sync it with a PC in order to load it up with music, so a PC is a logical "starting point" for receiving that type of content, and C) Many more people are comfortable burning a standards-compliant audio CD from a PC for use in their home or car stereo than are comfortable burning DVD movie content that plays properly on their stand-alone players.

If it was really commonplace for people to use their computer as a media center attached to a TV and surround sound stereo receiver, then this might go over a little bit better. But it's not! Half the people buying new computers with "Windows Media Center edition" preloaded on them don't even use the TV playback and recording capabilities of it. They just went with it because the whole bundle was on sale....

Re:This needs accompanying hardware!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

it occurs to me that Internet-based movie downloads won't really take off unless there's a piece of hardware accompanying the thing. Tivo, for example, should have partnered up with Amazon or someone else doing this and said "Ok - we'll send down a free firmware upgrade to all of our users, and then our boxes will be able to browse your movie catalog and order up content on-screen, saving it to the hard drive in the unit. Meanwhile, the user will be free to watch existing content while it downloads in the background."

Bazingo! It has to be easy and convenient, Unbox is neither.

Tivo, or another box like, the xbox360 are ideal "set top" boxes for a download service. I think the networked game consoles have lots of potential in this market and if MS or Sony are smart they might be able to steal tivo's future for themselves.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[IamTheRealMike]

DIVX disks played on ordinary DVD players, were time-limited, and cost less than straight DVDs. And failed.

But DVDs which were protected from being "backed up" *rolls eyes* didn't fail. So, I don't see the causation you're trying to imply from correlation.

Amazon Unbox WON'T play on DVD player ... Mac .... portable player

Many people already watch TV or movies on a computer, Mac is still an insignificant part of the market (sorry, that's what the figures say ...), and who wants to watch a movie on a device with a tiny screen anyway?

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[patternmatch]

DIVX disks played on ordinary DVD players, were time-limited, and cost less than straight DVDs. And failed.

DIVX disks would not play on ordinary DVD players. You needed a DIVX player for that.

Amazon Unbox...is time-limited, and costs about the same as straight DVDs.

Unbox rentals are time-limited, and they cost a buck or two. Purchases are not time-limited, and cost about the same as straight DVDs (e.g. $9.99 for The Matrix).

Unbox again?

[quick9vb]

Can we get this discussion over with and just copy and paste all of the comments from the Unbox post from yesterday? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/07/233223 9

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[gumbo]

Many people already watch TV or movies on a computer

But I doubt it's anywhere near enough people to market a whole service to them.

who wants to watch a movie on a device with a tiny screen anyway?

Probably the same people who keep buying TV shows from iTunes, which seems to be doing very well. I don't understand the appeal either, but it seems like they're out there.

Not enough news out there?

[danfromsb]

Are we really running out of articles so bad that slashdot has to repost yesterday's news? Ok, so some Businessweek first looks says it is bad, sheeeeeesh we already knew that! Look at the comments yesterday! Are we going to start posting slashdot comments as articles now?

Re:Not enough news out there?

[chmod a x mojo]

Um, yes? Isn't that basicly what slashback is?

I'm telling ya....

[cttforsale]

$5 for 700mb Xvid movie. $1 per TV show. That's the magic number/size/encoding/price. Now do THAT.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[aesiamun]

DIVX needed a DIVX player which could play normal DVDs, but you still needed to buy the DIVX player first.

Why is it...

[sehlat]

that studio executives impose restrictions on their products that
I strongly doubt THEY would accept if they were buying those products?

Re:Why is it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm ... that's not a real problem if you're in the 'power-elite'. You just have your congresscritters pass a law that grants you (and only you) and exemption from the rules. (It's done all the time - why do you think that political parties are exempt from the Do-Not-Call phone rules ?)Problem solved. It's only the little people who are inconvenienced by this stuff.

If the little people wanted to be free of this hassle, they would form their own multinational corporations and be able to pay for their own legal exemptions.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[dfghjk]

When Apple does it through iTMS they will be hailed as a success, though, despite having basically the same story. Sure they will support your mac minis but those machines constitute and insignificant portion of the market. The number of systems each will support will be essentially the same, and if your household had any PCs as modern as your underpowered minis you wouldn't be having such a problem.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[malkavian]

DVD succeeded because of it's advantages over the existing media of the day. I.e. Video Tape.
The increase in both video and, most especially, audio quality was astounding.
From a fuzzy, often degraded video source with, at best stereo, to a crisp, reliable video source with 5.1 encoding that was crystal clear.
The light amount of copy protect on the DVD wasn't enough to prevent the market moving across to it, because of the benefits.

Currently (and it has been for quite some time now) it is possible for even the average person (with a PC, as most do) to back up a DVD. A quick search of the web will find a multitude of products that'll do the job with a click of a mouse.

The correlation I think he was trying to make was that comparable media, with reduced cost, but much higher restriction, have always failed, given no huge leap in quality (more than SD to HD). I think it's a reasonable statement for the GP to have made..

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[IamTheRealMike]

DVD succeeded because of it's advantages over the existing media of the day. I.e. Video Tape.

Right, but so does internet based video-on-demand. Choose from a large catalogue and have it there very quickly (if you stream it). It's more convenient than messing around with easily scratched disks. It's the same argument as online music store vs CDs. Whether Amazon actually give you all the advantages I don't know. But the potential is there.

The light amount of copy protect on the DVD wasn't enough to prevent the market moving across to it, because of the benefits.

Light?!? DVDs were armor plated! Not only heavily encrypted but also region protected and the specs were entirely secret and had to be reverse engineered. It took several years before CSS was broken, and even then, it was broken by exploiting a minor mistake in the key generation algorithm. If CSS had been just a little bit stronger it would have lasted far, far longer. Perhaps not even being broken today. People like to make out that the DVD protections were easy to break, but really, it involved a lot of luck. DVDs didn't start taking off when backup software came along. They were popular before that.

Re:50% Of The Problem Is MPEG-4/H.264 +VC-1 Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous response to the troll...

Just so you know, Apple's h.264 is a neutered version of the real thing. It doesn't even support B-Frames for cripe's sake. Full-out h.264 implementations (OSS ones include the libavcodec decoder and the x264 encoder) are actually REALLY good. For normal web distribution (pushing the compression just to the point where noticable artifacting starts to appear), I can get 320x240 video down to 128k in many cases. The AUDIO starts to become a problem at that point since there are very few audio codecs capable of sounding decent below 32k.

Apple's h.264 implementation was designed early on to forgoe support of many features in exchange for speed. This is why you can watch 1080p on an only marginally fast PC with it. 1080p with every x264 encoding option turned on will bog down even the fastest PCs in many cases.

Standards for DRM?

[PopeZaphod]

I'll never use Unbox because I own a Mac and an iPod. I'm assuming Apple's version of buying movies online will work on Macs and Windows PCs running iTunes/QuickTime, which makes it more compatible than Unbox but leaves out "Plays for Sure" devices (and other non-Apple portables) and Linux boxes.

Why do Microsoft and Apple both insist on force-feeding customers their proprietary DRM solutions? If the recording, motion picture, and television industries insist on DRM for digital content, the very least these companies can do is settle on a standard format. But it looks like no one learned anything from the VHS vs Betamax years, so we have Windows Protected Media from MS and FairPlay from Apple, and we have the option of sinking thousands of dollars into HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. Such a waste of time.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[Dark_MadMax666]

Light?!? DVDs were armor plated! Not only heavily encrypted but also region protected and the specs were entirely secret and had to be reverse engineered. It took several years before CSS was broken, and even then, it was broken by exploiting a minor mistake in the key generation algorithm.

Wikipedia: The first DVD players and discs were available in November 1996 in Japan, March 1997 in the United States, 1998 in Europe and in 1999 in Australia.

Decss was released in octorber 1999. Several year if you look from japan's perspective ,but real mainstream use didnt being till 2001 . And there is no "minor" mistakes - all those " copy " protection techologies are impossbile in principle . you have to deliver a signal to a user eventually . -copy protection will never work on large scale .

Use the negotiating power of the masses

[nohup]

Here's your chance to let Amazon know you don't appreciate the draconian DRM they have included in their video service. If you log in to your Amazon account, you can send email to customer service. Since you'd be sending an email directly from your account, they will know that you are indeed a loyal customer that has purchased content from them in the past. Let's let them know what we think about this new DRM service. Here's my email to them:

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a loyal customer of yours for many years. You can verify this since I am sending this from my customer account. Now I see you are offering this new Unbox video service. I am deeply frustrated by the fact that the service is so limited by DRM technology. I am a tech-savvy person. I have built my own media computer attached to my TV to manage all of my media. This computer runs Linux. With your video service, there is absolutely no way I can watch my videos the way I would like to.

I can't even express to you how upset and frustrated I am by you offering this crippled service. I refuse to buy videos from your new download service. At least buying a DVD I can control my own content and play it where I like. I don't have to worry about always being issued a license everytime I want to watch my movies.

I know your contracts with movie companies probably compel you to put these draconian protection measures in. However, are you aware how upsetting it is to your loyal customers that you don't trust us to be able to handle our own content? Many of us feel that the pirates will find a way around these measures anyway. Please don't insult us by taking away our privileges because of the few.

Perhaps you could compromise in the way Apple has with their Itunes service. It contains DRM, yet we can still burn the music to a CD, thus freeing us to be able to do with the content as we please.

Thank you for your time.

Wanted: Fair downloadable commercial movies

[dw604]

It'll be a while - I'm with Ben Affleck on this one... ;)

How can anyone say it is too expensive

[DrXym]

Police Academy 7: Mission to Moscow for $13.99 is a positive bargain!

Re:How can anyone say it is too expensive

[GweeDo]

I know you were being funny, but I just had to show how cheap this really is.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[jZnat]

iTunes isn't restricted to just Windows XP, right? It therefore automatically just gained almost the entire theoretical market (iTunes works in WINE by the way).

Fair Use by Crossover office

[goombah99]

These movies are locked to the latest DRM for WMV and WMA. The WMV and WMA players that Microsoft makes for Macintosh don't support the DRM component so you can't play them on anything but a windows machine.

What I wonder is whether this DRM is in the OS or in the player itself. If it is in the Player will Wine or Crossover office be able to play the movies on Linux and Mac without having a copy of the operating system?

One suspects that the long term trend, espeically with HDTV, is going to be DRM that flows all the way through the device driver, out the cable and to the screen. IN that case the DRM is going to have to reside in the OS and not the player application. So I suspect that Wine is not the answer.

But will it work for now to use the Video's without having to boot to Windows?

Apple

[mobby_6kl]

> I'll wait for Apple. It'll be a more elegant solution anyway.

Of course. It'll feature brushed metal and light-gray to white gradients.

What's the Newspeak for 'Amazon'?

[payndz]

Unbox? Ungood.

Doubleplus ungood.

The problem is copyright law

[Digital Vomit]

And up to now I thought Jeff Bezos was a smart guy.

The problem is copyright law, not individual idiocy (although that contributes greatly to the current media problem). Modern copyright laws are like a shackles binding slaves in a sinking galley. They keep trying to row their oars harder and harder -- because that's all they know how to do -- but the ship keeps sinking because it's the wrong solution to an existing problem.

It's obvious that intellectual property laws are severely hampering innovation and progress in the arts and sciences. We need to completely rethink intellectual property laws in the digital age, or corporate greed will continue to bring the rest of us down to the bottom of the sea.

Xbox 360 Connectivity?

[ChufiShaman]

Does anyone know if the rented videos from Amazon Unbox can be watched on an Xbox 360 using a Windows XP Media Center PC?

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[jb.hl.com]

(WIndows 2000 Home Edition) ...what? I presume you mean XP Home, or Win2K Professional. Win2K Home doesn't actually exist :)

Have A *How-To* on *nix DVD-Movie Bakup

[Mana Mana]

... on Knoppix? Or other live-disk How-To? Teach [regular] people how to fish and they're set.

Re:Have A *How-To* on *nix DVD-Movie Bakup

[Brother Dysk]

Problem being that most people won't be able to eject the CD tray to insert that DVD they want to back up when they have an OS running off a disc in that very same drive...

Re:Have A *How-To* on *nix DVD-Movie Bakup

[RobertLTux]

lets try this

linux -toram -de=kde

oh gee in some cases it even ejects the disc for you

Re:Have A *How-To* on *nix DVD-Movie Bakup

[CastrTroy]

How well does the Live-DVD fit into ram on a $299 Dell that only came with 256 MB of Ram? Sorry but there's lots of other problems you aren't considering. Like where to store the Data that your ripping off the DVD. You'll need to copy the files to the hard drive, especially if you only have 1 DVD/DVDWriter drive. Oh, and better hope those NTFS drivers are working flawlessly, or you might lose some of their precious data.

Re:Have A *How-To* on *nix DVD-Movie Bakup

[Brother Dysk]

Nevermind that by doing so you're filling all the RAM you need for the transcoding process by doing so (if you even have enought RAM). This, of course, assuming that the user doesn't have a swap partition (which they likely don't if they're running a LiveCD). There's also the problem of where to put ripped VOBs before you start the transcoding process - assuming a Windows PC with NTFS (by far most likely) you're not going to be able to to write it to disk...

Fastinating....

[SWTP_OS9]

Tried ST TOS. The Man Trap
Audio is 48khz 6 channel.

Hardly surprising...

[duden]

The movie studios still haven't been as severely hit by illegal downloads/copies as what forced the record companies into iTunes. I guess that explains why they out-price their digital offerings.

I trust most people believe in fairness and deals accordingly. $19.99 is stupid money for a digital copy, I mean, come on it's more than the studios make on a DVD! Why is it that every time a new distribution format is out, the studios have to make more? It appears that pricing is reversely proportional to the cost of production. I.e. the cheaper it get for the studios to manufacture, the higher the retail price ends up for the consumer. Now why is that?

Perhaps we need to get further down the line and have a higher percentage of movies downloaded on the 'black market' before they wake up?

Don't get me wrong here I buy premium priced DVD's from Amazon and even HMV, and I'm happy to pay when I feel value is being offered. But I'm getting a bit fed up with paying premium prices for my favorite movies every time a new media format is out. First VHS, then DVD, BlueRay around the corner and now a digital version costing the studios 0 cents per copy. They are charging $19.99 and for that price I can't be allowed to burn it on a DVD so I can play it in the living room TV? Get real!

Call me an anarchist, but as long studios are behaving like this, I support bittorrent downloads. The market forces will eventually give us fair prices.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[asuffield]

If CSS had been just a little bit stronger it would have lasted far, far longer.

No, people would just have been using copies of keys that had been extracted from 'official' DVD players. That's been done, and I think it actually predates DeCSS. We use libdvdcss instead because it's probably legal in most of the world (except the US and its vassals, like AU).

(The media hoarders claim that the decryption keys are copyrighted, and prosecuted some people who used copies of keys in commercial products - the sanity of a key being copyrightable is somewhat dubious, but then so are most of the laws they've bought).

My first download experience was pretty good...

[mropp]

I tried the first tv episode free offer, picked an episode of Star Trek TOS, and downloaded the Amazon client. After it installed I was working on some other stuff so wasn't paying attention when it initially run. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was automatically downloading the episode I had "purchased" (free) and I, unlike the author of the article, was quite impressed with the video quality. The only negative thing I noticed was the volume level seemed quite low... The potential to rent videos through this service seems quite enticing to me as well.

Studio behavior...

[wumingzi]

Just a note that download to computer is old news in a lot of markets.

I have a friend who has been doing various VoD offerings for the last 7 years or so in Taiwan. The Chinese/Taiwanese distribution companies have an implicit understanding that when they release product, it will be pirated, and there is not much they can do about that. They go on to focus on boring stuff like maximizing revenue from their product.

When my friend pitches the idea of offering movies to Chinese stuidos using VoD over the Internet and/or over a building wide LAN, their main concern is with channel overlap. i.e. "If we let you do this, we'll get paid, and that's fine, but will this cut into our DVD sales, and do we need to assuage our video distribution channels that we're not taking money out of their pocket by going to VoD?"

He says American studios are obsessed with DRM, and that conversations with them are hopeless. Evidently the studio execs he's having these conversations with need to hit the local night market and see how well their piracy prevention programs are working out so far.

Let them know what you think:

[grolschie]

email them.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[geekoid]

"And up to now I thought Jeff Bezos was a smart guy."

If only there was evidence of this.

Amazon is only evidence of his connections with people who have money.

I won't buy

[Spazmania]

I certainly won't be buying any video that I can't store on a DVD (whether with or without additional processing) and play on my DVD player. That would be like buying music that I can't write to a CD and play in my car.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[SnapperHead]

who wants to watch a movie on a device with a tiny screen anyway?

I do. I am one of those crazy people who do that, and here is a few reasons why.

• I travel and work a lot. I miss too many shows that I enjoy because of it.
• I have the freedom to watch it when, and where I want. When I am traveling, I have my laptop with me so thats where I watch 90% of my TV.
• I don't own a TV. For the low amount of time I watch it, and due to space reasons. I don't need one. I would rather have a 23" or 30" screen that I can watch stuff on, do work on, play video games, etc.
• I am willing to pay $1.99 per episode to have NO commericals. I do NOT enjoy watching a show at 1 volume, to have someome shouting at me to purchase their product the next second.
• I am the type of person that will re-watch a show a few times.
• *VERY* portable, need I say more ?
• What do you think I do on the flights where Jetblue doesn't go ? :P
• Easly organized. I own a lot of media. I can pop on some of my favortie movies (that I watch all the time) in a few seconds rather then searching for the DVD, removing it from the cash, putting it in the drive, loading the software, skipping through 10 legal disclaimers, 4 product ads, 17 previews and 5 screens telling me that the "the views expressed here are not blah blah blah".

Sure, not all of the above applys to everyone. But, there are a lot of people out there that have some of the above. It really boils down to, I get the content *I* want to watch when *I* want.

Keep in mind, I won't use a service like unbox though. I am a Mac guy, like many others in these comments. I will wait for iTunes to release theirs. Lets face it, it will be better anyway.

Horrible, stay away

[woodledoodle]

I broke down and decided to try Amazon's unbox service out. Season five of 24 was just too tempting condidering the DVD set is months away from shipping. I began my wonderful journey at 3PM today. It is now 10PM and I have not been able to download a complete espisode. After purchasing the entire season and downloading amazon's software all the episodes were queued and began downloading automatically. This would have been great except unbox started with episode 2 first. I didn't think much of this since episode 1 was next in line to be downloaded. I then went out for a few hours. Four hours later I get home to find episode 2 at 47% and episode 1 frozen at 7%. I check my DSL connection and it is up. I restart amazon's software and the download still doesn't budge. I restart my computer with no luck. Eventually, I delete episode 1 and that fixes the problem. But now I have episode 2 downloading with episodes 3-24 in the queue. I'm a die hard 24 fan and there is no way I'm going to miss an episode! I need to get episode 1 damnit! So add episode 1 to the top of the queue and it freezes again. This time it doesn't even start downloading. It stops at "allocating space 100%" and then does nothing.

Ah, but missing an important point

[Anonymous Coward]

"But DVDs which were protected from being "backed up" *rolls eyes* didn't fail. "

Sure, because software became available that let people copy DVDs easily. If you look at DVD's sold versus when copying became practical for home users and you'll see a big increase.

That's reality of it.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[dfghjk]

How generous of Apple to make iTunes work in WINE. Perhaps WMP does as well. Your point?

The difference between Windows and Windows+Mac is a couple percentage points of marketshare. Mac users who will buy DRMed content are likely to use iTMS in any case. Having WMV files not play on Mac is a loss of virtually no customers.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[mdfst13]

"(WIndows 2000 Home Edition) ...what? I presume you mean XP Home, or Win2K Professional."

More likely WinMe (Millenium edition). It was the home version of Windows released in 2000. Therefore it was Win 2000 Home. Completely wrong of course, WinMe was actually the last Window built on the 9x/Dos platform (rather than the NT/2000/XP platform), but it's still what people say.

Microsoft added to the confusion in that what they wanted to release in 2000 was what later became WinXP. They weren't able to finish it, so they rolled a bunch of changes back to the 9x platform and released them as WinMe. However, they promoted the planned 2000 Home until reality intruded and they realized they weren't going to deliver it in 2000.

ohoh: Terms of use

[rjdegraaf]

From Terms of use:

Removal of Software. If you uninstall or otherwise remove the Software, your ability to view all Digital Content you have downloaded to the Authorized Device will immediately and automatically terminate and we reserve the right to delete all Digital Content from that Authorized Device without notice to you.

So why would I buy this?

Oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have built my own media computer attached to my TV to manage all of my media. This computer runs Linux. ...
At least buying a DVD I can control my own content and play it where I like."

Isn't it still illegal (in the US) to play DVDs on Linux?

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac is still an insignificant part of the market (sorry, that's what the figures say ...)

Those figures are generally comparing Macs to PCs in all markets including office use. How does the market share in that situation have any influence on this?

I'm a PC user, but I can tell you that easily half of the people I know (IRL) are Mac users at home (and I'm writing this on a friend's Mac right now).

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[Anonymous Coward]

I only disagree with one point, it does play on portable devices. I just watched Trouble with Tribble on my phone. (Sprint PPC-6700) This is probably the first "Unsure Play" app that seems to work for me.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[jZnat]

Having WMV files not play on an iPod is a loss of virtually all customers.

There, fixed for you.

Re:Why does Amazon copy failure instead of success

[dfghjk]

"Having WMV files not play on an iPod is a loss of virtually all customers."

A loss that is forced on those customers by APPLE. Perhaps you should ask Apple to stop their boycott of the WMV format then. Meanwhile, the iPod will be iTMS only for DRMed content. I'll remind you that the iPod itself was once Mac-only. Where would the iPod be now if that continued? Lockouts of the iPod are ALWAYS Apple's fault.

That said, the iPod has yet to prove itself as the portable video player of choice. I've used one in that capacity but it's screen is too small and the formats it supports are limiting. Other devices make it easier with flexible input formats and automatic transcoding. Virtually all customers? Hardly. I'm not sure what the ultimate device will look like but I promise you that "virtually all customers" desire a bigger screen than the iPod offers.

There, fixed for you. You can thank me now.