Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blockbuster Throws Hat into Movie Download Business

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-more-late-charges dept.

jtroutman writes "Stepping into the ring to compete with entities such as Amazon, CinemaNow and, of course, NetFlix, Blockbuster announced today the acquisition of Movielink, LLC. The deal had been scheduled to take place earlier this year, but was quashed amid trouble between the then CEO, John Antioco, and the Board of Directors."

48 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder if late fees by jschroering · · Score: 5, Funny

    will be downloadable, too..

    Jimmy

  2. Oh, the Irony! by Rorzabal · · Score: 1

    This comes on the heels of the Netflix DRM being 'broken'. I guess Blockbuster wants to be a 'me too' here, as well.

    1. Re:Oh, the Irony! by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      I just wish NetFlix's "Watch Now" feature didn't require Windows + Internet Explorer. That's just annoying.

    2. Re:Oh, the Irony! by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I subscribe to Netflix and I'd just be happy if they supported Macs instead of just Windows. As it is now I can't make any use of their service that I am apparently entitled to. I'm probably one of their model customers though since I've had the same set of 3 movies for 3 or 4 months now and I just forget to return them.

    3. Re:Oh, the Irony! by pythonic42 · · Score: 1

      Not to worry, dude. I'm thinking Apple has gotta eventually (i.e., within a year) add an iTunes subscription model to facilitate sales of AppleTV. Think about it: ten of your favorite TV shows, and a few 'queued' movies streamed weekly to iTunes/AppleTV, for 15 bucks a month. Sweeeet...

    4. Re:Oh, the Irony! by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

      Except Apple has not 10, not 9, not 8 but zero of my favorite movies available on iTunes. iTunes is fine for music if you don't mind DRM (I have yet to find a track that I want that is DRM free), but I've ended up using Amazon Unbox for movies. Just don't run it in BootCamp, apparently the issues with the clock in windows can cause the movie to "expire" somewhat before its actual expiration date.

    5. Re:Oh, the Irony! by nsayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reed Hastings has said that they want to make Watch Now available on every screen possible, be it a PC, Mac, TV or mobile.

      A few months ago, Netflix did a demo at the Silverlight coming-out party. I suspect that once Silverlight supports the DRM crap that that's how they'll make their cross-platform thing happen.

    6. Re:Oh, the Irony! by eozh · · Score: 1

      Today they talked about why Watch Now is not avalable for Macs on their blog:
      http://blog.netflix.com/2007/08/instant-watching-o n-mac-firefox-and.html

      According to them it's because there are no publicly available DRM systems for the Mac that the studios recognize.

    7. Re:Oh, the Irony! by RoundSparrow · · Score: 1


      A few months ago, Netflix did a demo at the Silverlight coming-out party.

      I suspect this demo is nothing more than Microsoft marketing dollars at work. Pretty typical of a smart marketer like Microsoft.

      They decide to have MS paid people (subcontractors likely) code a Siverlight demo application that has Netflix branding over it. Microsoft gets permission from Netflix, and Netflix gets their brand shown (free advertising paid for by Microsoft).

      In other words, it wasn't Netflix spending any money or even their own developers learning anything. Strictly a marketing / demo ploy.

    8. Re:Oh, the Irony! by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? You are the IDEAL customer. They spend much less money on you than a person who uses their system heavily, while you still pay the monthly fee.

  3. Blockbuster throws in hat... by thanatos_x · · Score: 5, Funny

    towel soon to follow.

    --
    I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
  4. Doomed to failure... by sdo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once again, I'm sure this will be doomed to failure. It will be riddled with DRM and have all sorts of technological (if not outright legal) hurdles to get the movies I buy to play when and where I want them.

    The first company that manages to convince studios to release simple file downloads in common formats that are either/both a) ready to burn to DVD or b) ready to play on an ipod or appleTV and completely unencumbered by any manner of DRM will clean up.

    But for now, the only way for me to get DRM-free movies is to buy the DVD and rip the content using quasi legal (or illegal depending on your perspective) methods. How else am I to get them loaded on my media server or transcoded for viewing on my ipod?

    It's the same for music. Right now, I either get them at emusic.com where I have a subscription, or the itunes plus store, or I rip CDs. It's silly and wasteful to buy a physical CD, rip it once, and put it on the shelf. As storage capacity increases, this too will happen for movies/DVDs as it has for music/CDs.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:Doomed to failure... by MC+Negro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once again, I'm sure this will be doomed to failure. It will be riddled with DRM and have all sorts of technological (if not outright legal) hurdles to get the movies I buy to play when and where I want them.
      ...
      It's the same for music.
      I agree with the sentiment, but not the reasoning. DRM didn't hinder the adoption of iTMS (I think, in part, because most people didn't really notice it.)

      I think it will fail because :
      1. Most people don't watch movies on their computer, and most people don't have media center PCs.
      2. Those that do probably already use something like iTunes, Amazon's Unbox, Vongo or CinemaNow or one of the many other services out there.
      And since it doesn't appear that the movies can be burned to DVD, I don't see it becoming a bit hit with the mainstream. At no point do I see the consumer avoiding the service because of copy restrictions.

      Of course, I could be wrong.
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    2. Re:Doomed to failure... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Once again, I'm sure this will be doomed to failure. It will be riddled with DRM and have all sorts of technological (if not outright legal) hurdles to get the movies I buy to play when and where I want them.

      I use Netflix, and it seems to work pretty well for me. Of course, I'm just watching them on my PC as they intended and not trying to store them for posterity because that would be dishonest.

    3. Re:Doomed to failure... by Nipok+Nek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless they do what Amazon did and partner with TiVo. Then suddenly LOTS of people have access.

      --
      Why choose white shoes?
    4. Re:Doomed to failure... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh come on! Obviously DRM has been abused, and will continue to be. But movie rental is a perfect example of using DRM in a "correct and fair way". I mean, you don't plan on keeping the movie long after you rented it, do you?

      No, I think I great idea would be to standardize the system so a user can rent movies online through a set-top box. Sure, using a media console tied to your PC provides more options, but I find it's too complicated for your average user.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Doomed to failure... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      And since it doesn't appear that the movies can be burned to DVD

      Does the word burned make it not count as a copy restriction?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Doomed to failure... by MC+Negro · · Score: 1

      And since it doesn't appear that the movies can be burned to DVD

      Does the word burned make it not count as a copy restriction? I assumed the lack of DVD-burning had more to do with the resolution or codec - not so much the DRM.
      --
      "You and your third dimension."
    7. Re:Doomed to failure... by EggyToast · · Score: 1

      Nope, iTunes is successful because it's NOT a store. It's a music catalog program that, as a feature, includes a music store and video support.

      Netflix does have the same technology, though, and the same crappy DRM. It's only playable on Windows, in Internet Explorer, using Windows Media Player, and only on a primary monitor. It won't play out of SVideo ports even. That also means that there's a sizeable chunk of people who won't use it.

      Still, I don't think it'll really help BB. It doesn't help Netflix because the selection is poor and the DRM annoyingness. Most BB users (who mostly use the service thanks to the physical store advantages, which they're dropping) probably won't even notice it.

    8. Re:Doomed to failure... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      You already can rent movies through your regular digital cable set-top box. It's usually called On-Demand or something. It would be nice to be able to choose from different providers, but I wouldn't want to have to add an extra set top box, just to rent movies.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:Doomed to failure... by encoderer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love the NetFlix WatchNow system. Yes, it's DRM protected, and Windows-Only, but I love it. I can't wait until they have a larger selection (they're adding new movies weekly). The system just works. It starts streaming almost instantly and the audio/video quality is sub-dvd but greater than VHS and greater than most Torrent movies.

      I can't easily rip it. WHO CARES? At any time, I can log back on to Netflix, and WATCH IT AGAIN. FOR FREE. This notion that all DRM is the devil is just silly. NetFlix WatchNow costs me nothing. It was added to my account at no extra charge. Every month I get 30 free hours of WatchNow.

      My laptop has Digital-Out for video and Audio. I set it on the tv, close the lid, hook it up to the stereo and television, and there it is. It's just a SMIDGEN more difficult than the VOD that comes thru my cable box.

    10. Re:Doomed to failure... by CavemanKiwi · · Score: 1

      I personally see video differently then music. I don't re-watch stuff therefore I have no need for non drm or the need to burn to DVD. I can see one price for a rental (DRM required) and one for purchase no DRM. Giving I think this service to rental burning to DVD is not required. So for it to succeed I think it needs to be accessible from the TV and compete on price with VOD from cable providers. Most people don't have computer hooked up to their home entertainment system which I think is the biggest problem with this type of service. One Movie rental Service I do use sometimes is Xbox market place. It is easy hooked up to my TV and is pretty much on demand for 480p stuff. Does the PS3 offer something similar? I think these consumer devices in the living room with net access are the only place something like this can really work.

    11. Re:Doomed to failure... by jadin · · Score: 1

      You're assuming they will be selling movies. Here's another possibility:

      You rent a movie for a few bucks. Watch it until your license expires (X plays or X days) and it deletes itself when you're done. You pay $3 bucks a movie or so. Or else subscribe for $10-20 bucks a month. Just like their Total Access, except instead of mailing the DVDs you download them.

      It makes for a profitable business model for the _rental_ market. One that has a good possibility of success.

    12. Re:Doomed to failure... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      I don't mind not being able to save for posterity.

      Most of these things I'm only going to watch once. I mean, as nice as having my own copy of all the Doctor Who episodes out on DVD would be (which are what I'm currently going through on Netflix streaming)...there doesn't exist enough time in my life to watch all the things I plan to twice.

    13. Re:Doomed to failure... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and that is what we want, not notice it. The iTMS did so great because it was integrated with iPod's of course but their DRM wasn't restrictive. Want a CD for the car or DVD player: just burn it, play it on your computer, play it on your iPod, play it on your AppleTV, share it with people in your household.

      That's what most people want, the only restriction (and biggest complaint) was that you couldn't just use it simply on any ol' MP3 player, but is easily circumventable (and condoned and supported by Apple) with the CD-in-the-middle.

      Most DRM we see however from other players in the industry is the buy-once-for-each-apparatus or buy-once-use-once (what the music industry wants) while the Apple DRM is buy-once-use-always (what the consumer wants).

      The consumer, in the end, always wins, either legally or less legally (P2P). I say less legally because in many countries (not US) you can technically media-shift the same product you bought even though the source might not be the same. Means: if you buy it in a certain format (CD or online), you can download a copy of the song in another format from elsewhere.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    14. Re:Doomed to failure... by silentben · · Score: 1

      I think that you are missing the market that Blockbuster is trying to appeal to with this move. Die-hard tech-savvy types (like us) are always going to be a tough nut to break for reasons such as DRM concerns, etc. But this is more of a direct compete with Netflix's current model where you have access to watch movies online instead of wait for them to be delivered. This move will offer additional ways for existing customers to access content as well as sway Netflix customers over to Blockbuster's version (which I personally consider superior anyway because I can go to the store and get rentals at no additional cost). This is a smart move on their part because they are catching up to Netflix's model while already having additional services Netflix doesn't have. Assuming they don't do anything stupid with the implementation (e.g., charge extra for online views or require separate user accounts to access such content) then this is bound to be a win for them. Most existing and potential customers of Blockbusters are not necessarily looking for the DRM-free holy grail that you claim as the linchpin to this venture.

    15. Re:Doomed to failure... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1
      On-Demand is ok, provided you have a reliable cable connection being that you're streaming the media as it's being played. With a set-top box, it could download the file before playback starts.

      "I wouldn't want to have to add an extra set top box, just to rent movies"


      I agree. In fact now that I think about it, the X-Box 360 and PS3 could provide this ability via software update. Now that would be interesting!
      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  5. rebound by SolusSD · · Score: 4, Funny

    blockbuster has really rebounded from their near bankrupt late 90s days... but they're starting to feel like the "best buy" of movie/game rental. maybe its the colors.

    1. Re:rebound by thanatos_x · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think I'd call what they're doing a rebound... Closing 282 stores this year, in addition to past closures... and the almighty stock price is near it's lowest 5 year point of 4$/share (to be fair it's been there a few times before though...)

      http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070628/blockbuster_stores_ closing.html

      --
      I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
    2. Re:rebound by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And those closed stores mean closed online accounts as well. The online experience with them was always subpar for me compared to netflix, with their only advantage the onsite extra rentals. We don't have a blockbuster in town anymore, so tossed our online account as well.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    3. Re:rebound by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would agree that if it wasn't for the free in-store rentals, my wife and I would have Netflix, but it's something we simply can't pass up. Basically now you just bring in your finished mailed DVD and get a free rental from the store. I'm too lazy to do that on my own but my wife is more than happy to pick something up, so more power to us I guess.

      I wouldn't mind having multiple queues though like Netflix has. It's really kind of annoying getting 10 chick flicks in a row.

      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    4. Re:rebound by morari · · Score: 1

      I haven't had a Blockbuster in my area in years (and good riddance), but the in-store rental never seemed like too much of a perk unless you're into the recently released crap that they make sure to keep in stock. I'm not sure if their online selection is any better, but NetFlix allows me to find just about any film I could ever think of with the exception of a few super obscure ones. And not to sound like a commercial or anything but NetFlix has pretty darn good customer service. They've yet to let me down in the almost two years I've had them.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    5. Re:rebound by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      would agree that if it wasn't for the free in-store rentals, my wife and I would have Netflix, but it's something we simply can't pass up. Basically now you just bring in your finished mailed DVD and get a free rental from the store.
      I was very close to signing up for BlockBuster's service. However I remembered that the store in my town is horrible: their stock is laughable and they never have what I want. I walked through the store a couple of times trying to find movies on the list I'd want to initially create in NetFlix and they had maybe 1/5th.

      So I went w/ NetFlix. If the BlockBuster in my town actually had a large selection then it would be a no-brainer, the immediate swap-out is just all-too-tempting, but that's not worth a darn if they don't have anything to swap back to you.
  6. Old news? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1
    Didn't Blockbuster already try this (or at least announce that they're going to try it):

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051226-5842 .html

    That's from 2005! Did they just never follow through? What happened?

    --
    UTF-8: There and Back Again
    1. Re:Old news? by bomanbot · · Score: 1

      No, that is not the same. You see, the article you mentioned was about online rentals, so you do the movie selection process online, but still get a physical object (the DVD) through the mail.

      Now Blockbuster enters the movie download business, so you actually get no physical object at all, you select the movie online and then proceed to download it. I think they refused to do this until now, so this is not old news, at least for Blockbuster.

  7. Stop chasing the dragon by rswwalker · · Score: 1

    Video rental companies need to stop chasing the home computer streaming media dragon and get their vast libraries available to the television for use in VoD. The way of the future is all media converges on the television which will be linked in to the home network. It's time to make deals with the cable companies that both sides can really use.

    1. Re:Stop chasing the dragon by jcausey · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your statement that eventually media convergence will occur (VoD, etc), I think that's exactly what Blockbuster is trying to do here. We're talking about a large, publicly traded company right? They must (at least in some small way) consider the long term effect of the industry on their business to stay relevant. They ARE creating a VoD service. I don't care if it's DRM-laden and doesn't work with the cable boxes -- that will only hurt them in the short term.

      Long term, VoD will be a reality because it is the pinnacle of what people want out of their entertainment. The method of delivery is only important now -- networks are slowly converging, and eventually all data will be transferred over a single network (the Internet or its successor) as it's a helluva lot cheaper to maintain one network than many. And Blockbuster is getting its foot in the door now, smartly.

      BTW -- I'm obviously not the best example for the common media consumer, but I'll say that Netflix's VoD service is rather nice. Installation and experience are great on a stock XP SP2 box. As most new HDTVs have DVI and/or VGA ports, and computer prices continue to fall, the large-scale viability of this service is certainly plausible.

    2. Re:Stop chasing the dragon by rswwalker · · Score: 1

      I too agree with your statement about Internet for delivery, but I think by targeting it at the consumer first is a mistake that is bound to fail as there is just not a large enough VoD on home computer market out there and that a failure in the first attempt will make these large companies reluctant to invest any time and money in any further VoD attempts.

      Of course one might say what does that matter? Sooner or later a media company will get it right and it will happen. It is just aggrevating to have to wait so long for them to get it right. Most consumers can see and want it to go that way, why don't these companies listen to their customers?

      In the meantime the Johnny-Come-Latelies, like Verizon FIOS TV, are starting to build up their own VoD libraries because they want to give their customers what they want now and can't wait for the large media distributors to get their head out of 'the sand'. Maybe Netflix and Blockbuster are killing themselves and don't even know it...

  8. Bit Torrent : Re:I wonder if late fees by Forge · · Score: 1

    This is all great but can they compete with Bit Torrent?

    I know it's shocking but BT is NOT just for grabbing the latest Fedora Core ISO.

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    1. Re:Bit Torrent : Re:I wonder if late fees by shmlco · · Score: 1

      I know it's shocking but some people use it for just that, and get our content legally. At 3 billion plus songs, and who knows how many TV shows and movies, iTunes seems to be competing with BT just fine.

      However, as you put it the question is whether or not MovieLink can be competitive, and that's debatable. Given the lengths to which their content had been locked down, then nailed down, then buried in concrete... I'd say no. BB can't effect more change than the studio's will allow, and they've been noticeably reticent in the matter.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  9. trajectory is to continue downards by Phurge · · Score: 1

    There was a post on techcrunch about this http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/08/09/blockbuster-d esperate-to-do-something-buys-a-loser/ The summary: "But Movielink certainly isn't going to be a silver bullet for Blockbuster. We looked at all of the players in Movielink's space last October. Their competitors include, besides Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, CinemaNow and Guba (and, let's be honest, BitTorrent). Movielink has a very deep library of movies, but they are DRM'd to the hilt and the studios force them to price downloads at higher-than-dvd prices. Blockbuster's salad days ended in 2002, and the stock has slid steadily since then. It is no longer profitable. There are just too many options for consumers who want to watch movies at home. The company's biggest asset, and biggest problem, are the long term leases it has on its 9,000 retail stores. It needs to defocus on Netflix and think about how to use those stores to its advantage. Otherwise, its long term prognosis is clear - deadpool."

    --
    I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
  10. Blockbuster Fails Again by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    I've been a loyal NetFlix customer for a while. Their site is well made and their service works as advertised. Contrast this to the terrible experiences I've had with Blockbuster in the past. But I'm not one to hold a grudge. Blockbuster can win me back by making the right moves. They offer in store swapping of movies which is a small win, but not enough to make me switch. Now, they want to compete with NetFlix download service, which is all well and good, and which targets the same audience, people who want a particular movie right now. NetFlix does not support the Mac at all. All Blockbuster needs to do for me to take a serious look is to support one of the several DRM'd video formats for the Mac. Instead they paired with Movielink, whose service does not support the Mac or the iPod or the PSP. Also, their Web site is obviously broken in standards compliant Web browsers.

    Congratulations Blockbuster. You found the chink in NetFlix armor, and then completely ignored it. Enjoy your death spiral.

  11. Re:Netflix service is OK, but needs improvement by Morinaga · · Score: 1

    I agree, the library of movies you can stream at Netflix is horrible. There's a reason that Happy Gilmore in the top 50 movies. That's because there's nothing else to watch. I was relieved and excited that I found Red October, only later to find it was yanked and no longer available. I think the movie studios aren't letting Netflix increase their library with popular titles or Netflix has no understanding of what people want to watch. The whole library reminds me of an old VHS collection.

  12. Downloads good, selection bad, navigation bad by Kong99 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    My family has been using NetFlix since 2003. We're heavy users. The download option works quite well, IMO. It is fast and the quality, image size is good. Currently the selection is lacking and at this time there is a 30 hour per month limit on the downloads and I can find no option to increase this. My guess is that Netflix is slowing ramping up their DL busines, I think one reason new releases are not available is because of bandwidth issues. I would say so far so good, but they've got a ways to to go still.

    My major complaint with Netflix is the way the website is designed, it needs a major overhaul. In particular browsing is a pain in the arse. Categories need to be grouped better, they need to stop having a unique listing for each season when browsing, especially for TV. Star Trek needs a listing for TOS, New Gen, Deep Space Nine, etc, then within each of these list out each season. Searching function needs work as well.

    1. Re:Downloads good, selection bad, navigation bad by Rebelgecko · · Score: 1

      The number of hours of movies you can watch per month is based on how many dollars you pay per month.

      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
  13. Shameless plug for GreenCine by wyip · · Score: 1

    I'm still sticking with GreenCine.com. It's a San Francisco based DVD rental by mail company, plus they have DivX Video on Demand rental and download to own. They have a good selection of mainstream as well as obscure movies... plus porn.

  14. Re:Busines? by MBraynard · · Score: 1
    why it makes Firefox render the site in a way which makes it impossible to read.

    And IE. I wonder what browser it works on - if any.

  15. Mod Parent Up - Answered question by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    Thank you for the clarification.

    --
    UTF-8: There and Back Again