Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Can't Get Movie Content
An anonymous reader writes "This article analyzes Apple's negotiations with record companies and movie studios. It explains why Apple's preferences are aligned with those of consumers. Using a software model, it concludes that the iTunes Movie Store currently doesn't have the software/hardware lock-in that forced the music industry to agree to Apple's terms for the Music Store."
I'm an iTunes user with a video iPod. I'm comfortable with their pricing ($10 or $15 per movie) and I've had no problem buying, downloading or viewing a couple of movies. The speed is good, and the video quality is fine, and DRM has not (yet) gotten in my way.
The problem is that I have already run out of movies that I want to buy from iTunes. They need a library of 100X more in order to get a critical mass of users. If that doesn't happen, and soon, I will find another way to get viewable content onto my iPod in an equally easy/convenient way.
Apple took a brave stance when they opened the movie store for business, and if good intentions == $$ they would be doin' just fine; However I haven't seen a scrap of news about the movie store since it's been launched. That's either good news or bad news.
So what would slashdotian's prefer to see? Apple make compromises and let in the companies that are twisting it's arm, or Apple to stand it's ground and watch the movie store sink?
Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
This is true but Apple have Disney and all the associated studios that Disney owns and operates, its a start and people will still buy stuff from them
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
Yeah, I'll remember that next time they increase the video resolution and force me to buy the video again if I want that new resolution. It's what I, as a consumer, must have wanted.
The Disney man, he like Apple.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I don't have any data but it seems the TV Shows on iTunes would have been starting from the same situation the movies were, maybe even worse because everybody already has free or unlimited access to the shows. The TV Show selection started out limited but has rapidly grown. There is a ton of stuff now. I don't know how many they are selling but I have to think it is doing well. So I'm not sure their analysis holds up.
It's all just been called the "iTunes Store" since this last September."
Oh those bastards at Apple.
Yeah, as you watch gay porn they are doing you a favour.
Distributing physical media is expensive and an exchange program makes it even more expensive.
Apple knows exactly what you bought and allowing you to download it again would cost them a few cents per download. (which they could easily charge for and make a buck; "upgrade for just $1.99!")
Not having *anything* in place for upgrades or replacements of lost downloads is a farce in the internet age; you already own a license, why should you pay for that part again?
If "Apple's preferences" were really "aligned with those of consumers", there'd be be no DRM hassle, and buyers of the content could easily burn it to DVD/etc to watch on their TVs. Do YOU like DRM? What consumer does????
Where were you when the voynix came?
Your talking about physical media versus a file that is downloaded. It costs them nothing but bandwidth for you to download another file. It's not really possible to draw an accurate comparison because of how new the idea of downloading movies (legally) is. If you purchase the rights to download a movie from Apple, it should be known that you are actually paying for a single file. Of course I'm not saying that I agree with this notion, but that is how they see it. Personally I prefer the idea that if I "buy" a title, I have purchased the right to download that title as many times as I want and in whatever formats strike me at the time...... but that's what I think it should be, not the way that makes the most money.
I don't think you were responding to the grandparent post. Grandparent was complaining about business practices, using figuratively the word 'force.' You responded sardonically based on a literal interpretation of 'force' which shifted the argument from one concerned with good business practices to one concerned with rights.
You are not having an argument here, but rather a misunderstanding.
This site is funnier than fuck!
www.sosecret.com
Is itunes really only for all those rich people that are too scared to go to
the scary hood and rent $2 dvds in crime prone districts?
Or for anti social people , or people who work too much to find the time to go
to a store to rent a dvd for $2.
In all respects, itunes is inferior to all other offerings, what do you live
50miles from a rental shop? wow huge customer base there.
DRM rentals, $1-$2 each is the MAGIC spot and will be norm in 2010.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Consumers expect to pay a reasonable price for software and hardware (and who doesn't agree, for example, than an iPod is a marvel for a reasonable price?). However, consumers also expect to be able to play the music/movies they bought on their own hardware without hassle. Wanting no DRM is not the same as wanting free hardware.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I think it's at least a mild misuse of the word 'force' anyway. I think it's only fair for me to say that in a crowd where some people complain about the misuse of 'piracy'.
What would happen if the big tech compamies started funding the production of copyleft music and movies and the like?
It might make for some interesting times.
all the best,
drew
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/262954
Sayings - Deterred Bahamian Novel.
In progress, watch it being written daily in ##zotz on irc.freenode.net
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
$2, I wish!
Even when it only takes 10 minutes to go to the video store there's still the problem that you might not like anything (or the video you wanted isn't available). Then you either rent something else or get the next best thing. That's not so much fun. Neither is spending 30 minutes in the video store trying to pick something.
Videos are supposed to be relaxing. People have a low threshold for hassle on something that's supposed to be hassle free.
Picking up the videos is not and never has been the worst part. What's really annoying is having to bring the tape back. Video stores make most of their money from late returns. At $6 a movie you'd have paid for it if it's a day or two late. Invariably, I'm busy the day after I rent something.
I'm not the only one. DVD sales are huge.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
yeah, let me just take my car back to Toyota - damn, they didn't put the Supra engine in it and i DESERVE the extra power.
Is this real data?
Or did he just make some up?
The music graph and the video graph have identical data points.
What are the X and Y axes?
The red dot looks like it is at (369, 99).
$.99 is the iTunes retail price.
What is 369?
I was examining the author's so-called BATNA content. The chart's pretty impressive but what are the numbers supposed to mean? Without the grounding that shows me the math and the meat behind those numbers, it's just a bunch of dots strung together to make a point. If you're going to use the scientific appearance, make sure you use scientific methods as well.
The author's explanation: "A short explanation: the graph shows all efficient contracts (those where no contract exists that is better for both parties). The x-axis shows a contract's value to Apple, the y-axis shows a contract's value to the recording studio. The vertical and horizontal bar indicate the BATNAs for Apple and the studio, respectively. Contracts that are outside the shaded area are unacceptable to at least one party."
Huh? What's that again?
Those are just words, Show me the science, the methodology or do us all the favor and take the article and your charts down and come back when you have real science.
ahh...but what about the marlboro man? Whats his position?
Mozy, free online backup service
--
Save yourself some reading, here's what the article says:
Apple had an 80% market share of MP3 player hardware, and only offered their own proprietary format AAC for DRM (since MP3 has none). So studios had to concede to Apple's demands if they wanted any DRM control over their media on Apple hardware. Thus Apple was able to provide a better deal for consumers in that arena. Apple has no such leverage with the movie studios.
I left out a confusing explanation of BATNA, lots of banter like "I could buy movie X here or I could buy it here" and something about not having kids or taking them to Vegas, and grammatical errors like using to instead of two.
I'm curious why both BATNA charts (Music verses Movies) in the article are exactly the same - the plots are identical. Obviously they don't represent actual data, so are they just for illustration?
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
I think this is a bit of a chicken/egg situation. I don't think the iTunes movie store can be a success or get the content they want without a large iTV userbase. I also dont think they can get a large iTV userbase without a proper iTunes movie store.
Why digital distubution for Movies will win in time
I've bought a few albums off itunes recently. I don't like the DRM hassles, and I like CDs. Here is why.
Selection. The last 3 CDs I bought I checked 3 record stores and 1 big box chain. They had none. Itunes had them. Itunes had them, and I got them for cheaper and in less time than if they were at the store. The tradeoff is a slight quality degradation and that DRM. I burn them to audio CDs anyway as one backup so I don't care. I miss the packaging but some CDs you buy online come with PDFs of the liner notes.
Itunes has lots of music and never runs out (I don't think it can.... Maybe bandwidth could kill the site). Any online sales of music have these advantages.
This is why ultimately I choose to buy online.
Movies will eventually come around for the same reason. Selection. Now only if we could get bigger pipes (and not clogged pipes) to get these movies faster..
I think the article is an interesting (and accurate) bit of analysis contrasting the Music and Movie stores and how Apple gets content for them. However, tossing out the BANTA graphs, and the accompanying banter [pun intended] gives the article a feel not unlike a couple of MBA students presenting a case study to their professor. They (BANTA graphs) are useful tools for comparative analysis, but I've hardly ever seen them outside of a business school classroom.
...there would be no iTunes Store at all.
As it stands, Apple's DRM itself and the actual functional DRM restrictions are (by far) the least obtrusive to customers among all online stores legally selling mainstream copyrighted content in the US marketplace (and others).
Also, you can watch the video content on your TV, via:
- Hooking any video iPod directly up to a TV with the A/V cable (composite video + analog audio)
- Hooking any video iPod directly up to a TV via the iPod dock (S-video or composite video + analog audio)
- Playing the video from any computer hooked up to a TV (S-video, composite, RGB/VGA, or DVI video + analog or optical digital audio)
- Playing the video via the forthcoming iTV product (S-video, composite, RGB/VGA, or DVI video + analog or optical digital audio)
Further, there is much more to the DVD restrictions. To burn a video DVD that would even have the remotest chance of being accepted by content owners - who DO have the final say here:
- CSS would have to be applied to the DVD. This would make it the essential equivalent of a commercially purchased DVD. But content owners may be concerned that consumers would quickly find they could burn multiple DVDs. Even though CSS-protected commercial DVDs can be copied as-is now (without decrypting), most consumers don't know this can be done, and right or wrong, content owners don't really want people to know they can just copy DVDs and give them to their friends for free. (And no, it wouldn't be as easy to have number-of-times restrictions for burning DVDs like you can with iTunes playlists, but I suppose something like that could be explored.)
- Licensing CSS for use in a consumer-targeted (i.e., non "profressional"/"industrial") product (to *apply* CSS, not just decrypt it) may be impossible from a cost and/or contractual standpoint.
- The content would have to have a DVD menu added, that would have to align with the owners' marketing/presentation intentions for the video; not impossible, but an undertaking.
- The content would have to be transcoded to MPEG-2 Transport Stream for video DVD, which means that burning a single DVD video disc could take a LOT longer than burning, say, a CD.
- Technically, they could use unprotected H.264 on content destined for Blu-Ray Disc or HD-DVD players, since H.264 is a mandatory codec on all BD and HD-DVD players, but those players have nowhere near the market penetration to make it worthwhile.
There's a lot more here than meets the eye. Audio CD burning was a no brainer because there is no massively time consuimng transcoding (thus making the user experience poor), just uncompression, audio CDs didn't have any encryption, and there is no addtional content (DVD menus, etc.) to be managed.
DRM is a necessary evil for there to be an iTunes Store at all, and like it or not, Apple's preferences are in fact aligned with the customers, because Apple fought for:
- The least obtrusive DRM.
- The most customer rights of any legal online store also selling mainstream commercial content from major copyright holders.
- The first major commercial store that sold almost all audio content for the same price
- The first major commercial store that sold all content from all the major labels a la carte
- The first major commercial store that got video content owners to sell al la carte AND without commercials
- Etc.
Apple is a leader here, and DRM is a part of this service even existing. There is no scenario where Apple could have launched a store with no DRM, period.
[1] Hint: allofmp3.com is not in this category, because they're basically stealing all of the content under the guise of a "radio license" and letting anyone buy it worldwide for a fraction of its value in all other marketplaces - you may like allofmp3.com, but that doesn't make what they're doing legal within the legal and copyright frameworks that have been established. The only reason they're even able to do what they do is because they're in Rus
Interesting points until you got to the end: "1] Hint: allofmp3.com is not in this category, because they're basically stealing all of the content"
In reality. Allofmp3 has stolen nothing. There are copyright problems as you mentioned, but it is extremely misleading to link them with theft.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Also do you really care if they take all night to download a movie when you are sleeping or all day when you were at work? The bandwidth is NOT the issue, the selection is an issue.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Netflix - the answer for social recluses! If you can get past that whole fear-of-the-mailman part, that is.
Just pick either step 3. ;-)
Theft (stealing) and copyright infringement are two different situations (or crimes). Pointing this out is not an "argument that people use to justify taking content for themselves". It is merely pointing out that the definitions are different. If someone points out that a rape is not murder, then (using your logic) they are trying to justify the rape. Besides, no content is taken (your word) in copyright infringement.
"But then selling it for a profit with none of the correct amount of compensation going back to the rights owners?"
That sounds like a type of fraud, but not theft.
"Copyright infringement - stealing by misappropriating copyrighted content, or taking/using such content without payment"
Your burglary and embezzlement examples are correct. However, your above sentence is incorrect, since stealing does not occur. Nor does any sort of appropriation or taking. If I make a copy of your Porsche and drive away in the copy, I have not (mis)appropriated your Porsche, nor have I stolen or taken it.
"Also, "stealing", by definition, contrary to popular opinion, does not require deprivation"
Stealing is a specific word, not generic. And yes, it does require deprivation (taking).
"The only thing "broken" here is the chain of logic justifying it"
That is very true of the logic of those who use the word "stealing" without regard to its actual meaning. The usual logic is: stealing is wrong and copyright infringement is wrong. Therefore, copyright infringement is stealing. I'm not even bothering to justify the logic that copyright infringement is not wrong. I've never argued that. It is in fact a straw-man argument on your part. However, I'm trying to impress upon you the fact that there are other things that are wrong besides theft, and just because it is wrong does not mean it is theft.
Where were you when the voynix came?
So, his theory doesn't entirely make sense (how do you calculate BATNA again?). His article is riddled with grammatical errors (I caught three). And the article is the only one posted on the blog. Wherein lies this gentleman's credibility and why are we all discussing his article? Perhaps it's in the money he must have paid CowboyNeal to post the article to Slashdot.
For music itunes is for mostly people who only want to buy one or two songs and not the album. As others have pointed out, this model translates reasonably well for TV shows where itunes allows you to buy one episode and not the entire season. For movies, however, itunes offers no such advantage, since the competing product (a DVD) is already cut to as small a product as someone would buy. So, I agree with you. Why would someone buy such an inferior product just for a small amount of convenience? The one way to sell someone a smaller product is by limited the time, instead of the content - in other words a rental. This is why I sort of agree with...
DRM rentals, $1-$2 each is the MAGIC spot and will be norm in 2010.
I do think we are heading this way. However, I don't think it'll be that cheap, at least not for new releases. (Where can you rent DVD's for $2, anyway)? The real question is, who is going to provide you with the rental? Apple, Microsoft, Sony, the cable company, or your phone company? My money is on the cable companies since they are already beginning the process with pay-per-view. This is also why the telecos want a teired internet. With a teired internet, they can lock out the competition, or at least be assured they can make a hefty profit no matter who wins, (with the exception of the cable companies who can use their own lines).
"Yeah, I'll remember that next time they [add a new feature] and force me to buy the [software] again if I want that new [feature]."
What's with having to buy a new version of software that comes out. I already have a license to the software, so why can't I just upgrade the new version for free.
Deal with it. Was it worth it when you bought it? You bought it, so it must have been. Just because a new version came out does not mean you should get a free upgrade.
I have always heard the record labels make Apple pay "royalties" per download not per song. That is the reason they (Apple) don't allow you to have a "library" on their servers and just download anything you have purchased as many times as you want.
Blame the labels not Apple if this is true and I would not doubt it for a second.
The bandwidth is NOT the issue, the selection is an issue.
I'm going to disagree with you here, at least if you consider your competition rentals and not purchases. When people want to watch a movie, they want to watch it now, or at least that evening. Downloading kiosks are an interesting idea, but I'm not sure they have enough of an advantage over the current rental system to make it worthwhile. What people really want is to push a button in their living and instantly start watching. A minute delay while a buffer fills might be acceptable, but waiting until the next day probably isn't.
Having said this, a Netflix like scheme where you always have a few new movies on hand might work.
Personally, I'm not buying any movies from iTunes. I rarely buy movies as it is, and when I do, I usually just watch them once or twice, then to the shelf to collect dust they go. Anyway, when Apple announced movie downloads they also announced iTV. The fact is that I'm not buying movies from iTunes because I'm waiting for iTV. I have no desire to squint at a 2.5" screen to watch a movie.
It's strange they chose this tactic, since it drove Osbourne into the ground. When you promise something great, people stop buying because they want to wait and get the better version. I guess it doesn't hurt Apple to provide movie downloads now, even if sales are low. When the rest of the solution comes out, sales may pick up, but right now it's too early to tell.
$2, I wish!
That's cause you are not going far enough into a ghetto. (Obviously you didn't read GPP careful enough!) You need to find a place where there are a lot of drive by shootings. That way you can save $$$ on videos. Plus, you pick up some crack while you are there and maybe even a ho (or is that "hoe"?)
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I am the same as you, in that you say you rarely watch a movie more than once or twice before it becomes clutter. However, this is why i like the online movie thing. For $10 i can see a movie in the comfort of my own home, (which, these days is often much better than spending $10 to see it in the theatres) and if i really like it i can keep it, and if i i only kinda like it, then i just delete it with no detrimental effects on the extra mess in my place.
you also mention:
"I have no desire to squint at a 2.5" screen to watch a movie." I hear this quite a bit, and I wonder if apple simply hasnt done enough education on their movies. I dont have a video iPod, i watch my movies and daily show clips either on my 23" cinema display or on my big sony tv via s-video. (both from my laptop) It seems to me that many people might think that the video iPod is the only way you can watch this content. (i am not necessarily accusing you of this, but i have noticed that a very many people seem to have this assumption)
I have also heard people complain about the resolution of said content. Even before they upped the default rez of everythng to 640x480, all of the stuff i bought and watched looked just fine. I think people put it on fullscreen on their desktop monitor and then are dissapointed by the pixelation and artifacting. I would challenge these people to roll their deskchairs up, and sit two feet away from their expensive 50 inch rear-projection TV. They would be just as dissapointed in the blurryness and pixelation.
my desktop looks like ass through an s-video interface to my living room tv, but once i get the daily show running up there i can't tell the difference between that and cable.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You could go down to the mall, drop off your ipod, select a few movies ad go shopping, then pick up your ipod on the way out. I'll bet the Japanese could even automate the whole thing with a vending machine. Stick in your credit card and it returns your ipod to you.
American movie companies are selling the same movies we pay $15 and up for in China for $1.99 because piracy is so extensive. So what does that tell us? That companies don't look at the cost of goods when setting a price, they look at what the market is willing to pay. Not that it isn't smart of the movie industry, but there is certainly a semi-collusion going on to set the price fairly evenly across the board. You don't have one company selling DVDs for $4.99 while everyone else is charging over $15. So if Universal is able to sell in China for that low, they could sell for just as cheaply here. It is because most people don't really want to steal that movie companies are still charging so much. I am not going to pull an Abby Hoffman and say steal this movie (or book) but I have trouble feeling that what is being charged for the same DVD with the same special features here and in China could be considered fair.
And I'm sorry, but charging $15 for a reduced resolution movie to be downloaded with reduced rights is just plain dumb. Your average Joe who gets burned by his more than a couple times will realize at the very least that they can rip a DVD they BUY for $15 and have it both in full quality for their DVD player and for their mobile video device. Then movie companies will try to Macrovision or alternate DRM DVDs and consumers will do an D-A-D conversion to get around it.
Music artists like Beck are figuring out that by adding significant value to the typical offering is the way to get people to buy your stuff and give the artist mind share which converts to live ticket sales which is where the artist makes much of its money anyway (read - Price who will regularly play in Vegas for $125 a ticket and runs his own record label).
Movie companies are stuck in spending money trying to defeat technology instead of adding sufficient value that makes it worth it us giving them our money. Asshats.
Who is Matthias Winkelmann and why should I care about his hackneyed (read: unsubstantiated) analysis?
From what source data does he derive these so-called BATNA charts? I'm a financial analyst responsible for revenue analysis and forecasting of over $250 million and what I see here is no clothes, no emperor... just a straw man argument.
His definition of BATNA is extremely arbitrary in the sense that one has to accept what HE defines as Best Alternative to even believe the graph's imaginary plots and quadrants... and then assume that he really knows what was going on in the contract negotiations, which he doesn't.
Case in point: In August, Lions Gate Films CEO let slip that they had already secured digital distribution with Apple. I *presume* (I don't claim to know) this means that currently, they're working out the logistics of library transcoding and content delivery. This is not something that happens over night, folks... And for an existing back-library, studios might be apprehensive about trickling out a title here, a title there... To achieve any kind of break-even, they might need to get the entire library up so they have a "shelf presence" on iTunes Store all at once... giving them better visibility and a better chance of getting volume on their backlog of older films that, typically, don't do as high a collective volume as new releases all put together.
Its also incorrect to claim that the iTMS model had pushed record companies in a corner to need DRM. Why? If that were the scenario, and I were your typical short-sighted CEO, my response would probably be, "Why should I bow to the distribution model of a company that has less than five percent of the PC market?" The answer is a bit more complicated than Winkelmann would like to think.
Record companies balked at internet distribution since it became a possibility in the early to mid 1990's. By 1996, RealAudio and Quicktime had given rise to, albeit imperfect, reasonable multimedia content delivery systems.... Quicktime being the vastly superior of the two. However, the PERCEPTION among industry pundits was that the demand was not overwhelming. This was partly due to the fact that they didn't view piracy as competition, and more importantly because they didn't have a clue, technologically speaking, of internet distribution's potential.
Enter iTunes... iTunes arrived at least three years prior to the inception of iTunes Music Store. At this time, Apple was still in the process of trying to prove a point concerning the "appliance" model of thinking with regard to electronic devices and the "digital hub" mentality toward the computer as the backbone of home entertainment and productivity.
A billion downloads later, Apple has proved their point.... at least as far as music is concerned. However, while iTunes was useful before the music store emerged, because the LACK of DRM on CD's (not the lack or presence of DRM on iTunes, mind you) allowed users to easily make use of iTunes to store their existing library.
The same cannot be said of DVD's... At least not for the majority of us. It's considerably more cumbersome to rip a DVD than a CD, and this inconvenience makes it a bit more difficult, but not impossible, for Apple to prove a point regarding the utility of iTunes as a digital hub for movie exhibition in the home.
So the hurdle is not about Best Alternatives, BATNA, or any imaginary negotiations on contracts taking place in Winkelmann's head. It's about hard numbers... the hard numbers were there to prove that not only did people want digital distribution and a user-friendly UI, but the combination of the two proved to be worth the premium (paying instead of pirating). It took TIME to prove this, yes... but that's what Winkelmann doesn't seem to get. iTunes Music Store was not an overnight success... It seems like it's been around forever to those of us who were first adopters (honestly I have trouble remembering when exactly in my usage of iTunes the Music Store came along), but it
yes, it is too bad that for most purposes you are stuck with your own nation's laws, but the transnationals can operate all over and engage in anti competetive/cartel price fixing schemes and you can't do much about it as an individual. For example xyz software or entertainment media is available in another nation for cheaper, but you can't get it legally in your nation, nor can you sue for access (not easily anyway). You are stuck in the dodgy gray market then, when all you want is normal freedom to shop anywhere the internet reaches. Regional coding in particular is a blatant example of transnational cartel price fixing, yet it is tolerated by the law. Inside the US, all the major music media outlets have at one time or another been convicted (usually multiple times) of payola, yet they are all still in business, none of them have been broken up and had their incorporation charters revoked, which should be the remedy dealing with the vague "corporation is a person" deal they enjoy by the laws, but it is not. They get little fines which said costs get passed on to the next batch of suckers..I mean "consumers". Look at sony rootkit, by the law it was no different from any script kiddy doing a rootkit install to build a zombie network (hidden tracking software that phoned home, installed without the users knowledge or consent), and those folks when caught go to jail. Sony should have been broken up (that division) and whomever signed off on that inclusion of the rootkit (no matter how many pointy headed "bosses" that was, all of them up the food chain) should have gone to jail, but instad, a little toy fine. Blatant example of the laws and "justice" departments being paid off stooges for the elite globalist corporate fascists.
The fix is in. Want to be a crook legally, be the biggest business you can be, especially shoot for being a transnational corporation hidden behind many layers of paper corporations and be most generous with campaign contributions and consultation fees or 'speaking' fees, the later being the most obvious way of paying important political figures off "legally".
The only remedy you have left legally is to shun and boycott, which I do, I purchase zero new media, download or on disk, from any of the price fixing majors, for any reason because of that.
FWIW, for anyone in the US, vote all the bums out this US election. Do not put a checkbox against any incumbent, we need top to bottom serious political change, vote third party, independent or write-in, or at a minimum, against the incumbent. Then make sure you follow up and see if your vote was really tallied in the final election results especially as regards third parties and independents running, I have and have noted the asssholes must have thrown out my ballot, and I was excrutiatingly careful to make sure it was filled correctly. The simplest test to perform is write your own name in (don't use something stupid like donald duck,. that WILL get your entire ballot tossed) for some position that has a pol running unopposed, see if your "vote" shows up in the final detailed tallies.
Agreed, Apple is likely going to win on this. Why? Because they've left themselves upgrade paths *that people want*.
In hardware, they can at least leverage 16:9 screens and higher resolution for their next generation video ipods. They can also add processing power and hardware conversion if that becomes economical (like high speed mpeg2 to mpeg4 conversion).
On the software aka media side, movies are doing something music isn't quite yet as an industry--increasing the quality of the product. (I realize there are higher fidelity music formats like SACD.) As it stands now, the major component of next generation video sales are the lasers and components. Not to mention 2 HD definition formats to choose from. People can either choose to drop $200-300 (in say, 2 years) on a BluRay or other HD player, or buy a video ipod. Not a hard choice to make.
All Apple has to do is have a product ready that will take care of high definition content and get *1* major blockbuster copyright holder to bite and offer it on the itunes store. Given also they are releasing a home player, 20GB downloads via bittorrent for HD content that is seeded by Apple on Akamai networks would slaughter the industry. Apple is going to take this step by step, but one thing they are damn good at is consistently progressing their product offerings and setting the relevant industries up in preparation of their next releases.
How strongly is Apple really aligned with the customers?
My MacBook Pro has a region-locked DVD drive - the first such that I've encountered in years. No workaround on the 'net as well, because it's in the firmware.
Doesn't sound like consumer alignement to me, sorry.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Just so you know, apple is taking care of this problem, it is called iTV (for know, the name will probably change). iTV will allow the video to be streamed from the computer to your television. I am going to assume that once Apple has proved the success of iTV, that is when the major studios will jump in. Heck, when iTV coes out, I am going to jump on the bandwagon, and get myself one. I am looking forward to this device. The only thing I ask og the device is a way to add additional storage for the movies (movies get quite large, and I want to have by entire library at my disposal), as well as being able to play mutiple movie formats (mpeg, avi, etc). I am not worried though, Apple will work it out, and I will be adding to my collection really soon, and iTV, video iPod, and not to mention, the upcoming iPhone. Me and my MacBook can hardly wait...
You're talking about the addition of new media types. GP was talking about replacing existing poor quality files with existing better quality files. The old versions no longer exist in their catalog. The files play on the exact same player and are the exact same media type. They cost the exact same amount.
To help you understand the problem, Amazon lets you download the same file as many times as you want. If they upgraded (remove old file, replace with better file) their catalog with better versions of the files, you'd be able to just redownload it again.
This shares little similarity with the upgrades from 8-tracks through to CD.
Just so you know, apple is taking care of this problem, it is called iTV (for know, the name will probably change). iTV will allow the video to be streamed from the computer to your television. I am going to assume that once Apple has proved the success of iTV, that is when the major studios will jump in. Heck, when iTV comes out, I am going to jump on the bandwagon, and get myself one. I am looking forward to this device. The only thing I ask of the device is a way to add additional storage for the movies (movies get quite large, and I want to have by entire library at my disposal), as well as being able to play mutiple movie formats (mpeg, avi, etc). I am not worried though, Apple will work it out, and I will be adding to my collection really soon, and iTV, video iPod, and not to mention, the upcoming iPhone. Me and my MacBook can hardly wait...
Oh, and if you want to have some portability with the iPod video for those long drives, I recommend getting something like the Sonic Impact Portable Video System
Consumers expect software to have new versions. They don't expect iPod videos to have new versions. They certainly don't expect to have to buy the same video for the same price to get the new version.
All of this is pointless though, as GP's implication that "Apple's preferences are [NOT] aligned with consumers" is correct in this case.
I've been poking around with ripping the content from my DVD's this week. It's time consuming, but really empowering.
1. I don't have to watch the %%&^#$@!#$$^ FBI warning. For heaven's sake - the people who BOUGHT the DVD don't need the warning. It's the pirates who don't read or care about it. It's like carping to the people who show up on time to meetings about the onse who arrive late!
2. I don't have to watch whatever commercials the content producer shoves down my throat.
3. I don't have to fiddle with media - now that it's hosted on my computer I can get to the whole catalog any time. This is rich for two reasons:
a. I don't want to worry about where did I put the disc the last time I watched it? and
b. I don't have to worry about my kids losing, scratching, breaking the media
On the down side, there's
1. It takes a LONG time to yank that content from the disc.
2. "bonus features" are no longer associated with the movie
3. No concept of chapters - It's one long stream from start to end - rather like videotape. When I want to watch a DVD with multiple "shorts" I can "play all" - do I rip that content to individual clips and then do some sort of playlist, or do I rip to one contiguous clip and scan along until I get to the part I want?
4. No transparent support of multiple audio tracks with each movie - If I want the content with the english and the director's commentary I need to rip the movie twice - and take 2x the time and DASD.
5. Less portable - I can't as easily take one piece of content to my friend's house to watch, nor can I trivially loan this content to a friend on something cheap.
6. Hookup to TV - since I don't (yet) have a video iPod, my choices are:
a. watch on my computer
b. hook up a computer to the TV and play it there.
Still working on that one - Love my Tivo and the menu-driven simplicity. Do I set up Myth, too? (Tivo's networking is AWFUL - in series 2) Do I buy a mini and play thru itunes to my tv? Do I wait until St. Steve releases the "official" Apple way (iTV) - dunno - none of the ideas available to me are trivial and/or inexpensive.
In general, I'm happy with the shackles of content control being lifted from me. There are still some issues to resolve, but choice is good. I don't mind paying the content providers, but once I have paid them, I should be able to manipulate the data for personal use the way I want to.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can't Apple come up with a name that is not already used by the biggest commercial television network in the UK ?
Where were you when the voynix came?
Digital movie distribution will obviously "win in time". It's growing as we speak, and has been doing so for a number of years. CinemaNow.com I think started in 1999, and it's been getting larger every year. It's selection and service blows iTunes Store away. And the studios themselves formed MovieLink.com, which also blows Apple's store away. There are other smaller digital movie sites as well (and I won't even get into the growing porn VOD sites). Oh, and there's also Amazon's new site, but everyone says it sucks at the moment.
Apple's problem is that they were the first to open an online music store, so they got to dictate terms. They're playing catch-up in the online movie business, and the terms have already been set for that market. They either play ball, or go home.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
The GP is dealing with it. They're dealing with it by bringing it to other people's attention so that they realise exactly what they're buying and what their future options may or may not be. This allows other people (like me) to make a more informed purchase decision and may (or may not) ultimately put pressure on Apple to comply with the GP's wishes. This is one good way to "deal with it" in a free market economy. Efficient free markets require the free flow of information and people who bitch and moan are an important part of that flow.
There is a common belief out there that the free market is all good and we should just suck up its results. On the contrary, the free market is good precisely because there are people who don't just suck it up.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Has everyone forgotten this?
I don't think you'll hear much about Apple's Movie Store plans until the iTV is released next year. That's where their strategy is headed. I'd bet dollars to donuts they'll have tons of movies and TV content available when this sucker comes out. If not, they will within a year after all the movie studios start drooling over its success with TV show downloads.
Alternatively, I could just look back on this comment in a year's time and be laughing at myself for being so wrong...
Appealing to common use of "stealing" is irrelevant -- you could just as well argue that child abuse is stealing, because you're "stealing innocence". (In fact, you might do a better job there, since innocence is actually deprived.)
...except for cases where theft is defined an act of stealing. In either case, they express the same concept (from Wikipedia, on theft):
So, we should restrict ourselves to a more formal definition. All of the relevant definitions for stealing I've found essentially defer to the definition of theft.
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
While the mention of 'deprive' section is under a couple qualifiers, looking through all the various legal definitions of theft cited on that page shows that all of them either do include a 'deprive' clause, or exempt information as a form of property.
Of course this doesn't mean that copyright infringement is not wrong, but suggesting that it is theft is grossly inaccurate. Copyright and intellectual property are relatively recent inventions. They were invented because something that seemed wrong was happening, but the legal codes at the time -- which did define and outlaw 'stealing' or 'theft' and related concepts -- could not be applied, so new definitions and new laws were created. If they were simply theft (under some suitable definition of property) then those new laws would have been unnecessary.
I sure never expected to be able to get free upgrades to CDs/DVDs/iPod videos for the tapes/VHS/iPod videos I bought years ago. I view all those formats the same way. I fully expect that there will continue to be improvements in what Apple and others offer. Why would I expect them to not have new higher resolution versions? Is this the end of progress?
Consumers don't have to buy the new version. Their old versions work just fine. Just because a new version comes along does not mean the old version is worthless - it's just as good as it was.
Good point. I agree that voicing opinions is a good thing. We both do, which is probably why we write comments on Slashdot.
Article cached.
In my opinion, buying movies online makes little sense. The trouble is, when you buy online you need to provide the storage yourself. I don't have that many DVDs, but I'd still have to invest in some serious storage to put all that stuff on harddisks. And then back it up, move it to newer bigger disks every few years... This is a huge headache. With CDs, it's different, because one CD only needs about 1/20th of the disk space that the contents of a DVD does. And when you want to listen to a 4 minute song, spending 2 minutes to find the CD is problematic, so it makes sense to store your music on your computer. 2 minutes to find a DVD and then watch it for 2 hours isn't a problem at all so there isn't much of a case for doing the same here.
I think buying online will mostly be popular with people with small kids, who like to watch the same stuff over and over again and tend to wreak havoc on physical media, and for people who will treat the service mostly like a rental service and don't care about the price difference.
Downloading rentals rather than buying movies online makes much more sense: you get your stuff faster but you don't have worry about permanent storage. The DRM and slightly lower quality are much less of an issue.
I've heard previously that the Movie Industry types are scared to death Apple won't get the DRM right (uncrackable) and then "Something Bad" will happen. The MPAA types apparently see this as higher stakes than the RIAA folks did. No sensible reason that I can see, but there you go.
Apple also has a pricing conundrum on their hands. 99 cents is a great price for a song for everybody. I'm going to download it quickly, listen to it over and over and over, hundreds of times in the next decade or so, quality is fine for most purposes and the 3MB or so of bandwidth is super-cheap.
Now, compare a TV episode - 200MB or so, takes a while to download, quality is mediocre, I might watch it once or twice. This costs me twice as much, Apple 75 times as much, and it has less value to all of us. I don't care about burning it to disc because it'll be deleted soon.
The movie download might get more watches, but the scales are about the same as the TV episodes, just multiplied, except the pricing is a higher multiple and the non-archival nature of it sours the deal even more.
Now, FTTH might help some of this but based on the above the Studios don't need to rush into this and if they're scared they're not inclined to either.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)