Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Opens On-Demand Video Store
g0dsp33d writes "Amazon opened the doors on its new video on demand service. Some promotional videos are free and the quality seems to be good. You can preview the first 2 minutes of any of the offerings. Episodes of TV shows cost $1.99 and movies are $14.99. Movies can also be 'rented' for 24 hours for $3.99. Purchasing allows download to two machines and unlimited viewing online. The service claims 14.5K movies and 1,200 TV shows including pre-purchasing the rights to upcoming seasons. Considering alternative, ad-based, free online video sites such as Hulu, is Amazon's service too pricey?"
Considering alternative, ad-based, free online video sites such as Hulu, is Amazon's service too pricey?
Yes.
Yay I can watch on my overpriced Mac! Unlike Netflix. :(
Considering alternative, ad-based, free online video sites such as Hulu, is Amazon's service too pricey?
This should read:
Considering open access to ad-free shows and movies via BitTorrent, is Amazon's service too pricey?
I firmly believe that if content owners and distributors charged a reasonable rate to download a TV show (maybe 10 cents), piracy would be a thing of the past. For 10 cents, very few people would choose black or gray market distribution channels. Of course, that would have the negative effect of MTV's Cribs not being quite as exciting. Instead of 5 Bentleys and 2 Cadillac Escalades they'd have maybe a Ford Taurus and a Honda Accord.
Or we can just continue with this charade. Personally, I'd like to start charging people for looking in my direction. If you look at me without paying me, it's stealing. Because I say so.
I'm a big tall mofo.
$15? Please. I'll just buy the DVD.
If one of your top priorities is using your Internet connection for video downloads, and your ISP happens to be Comcast, you may find the 250 GB usage cap to be a bit uncomfortable...
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
At the price they're charging, they should be offering something on the order of 1 megabit H.264 or the equivalent. Yet I opened one of the free episodes they had up and the quality was almost as bad as Youtube. One could argue that the prices were reasonable if the video was nearly as good as DVD, or at least as good as broadcast, but this is ridiculous.
Is this just a new press release for a rebrand of Amazon Unbox, the badly-named service that I have been using with my TiVo for a long time now? I checked the site, and I don't see anything to indicate otherwise. As long as they don't change the way it works, then I'll be happy. If they added some new features, then I might be even happier.
Rentals are for 24 hours, and purchases can be used on two computers. Sounds like some sort of DRM to me.
And if I'm not mistaken (and if I am, I'm sure someone will correct me) Amazon doesn't put DRM on their downloads.
You're mistaken. Amazon encodes all their video with Windows Media DRM.
Considering alternative, ad-based, free online video sites such as Hulu, is Amazon's service too pricey?
It's not just price that matters. This new service is for "Mac or PC", and the expiration means that it will be DRMed. This means it won't run on my Linux system. Hulu is far from perfect, but it runs just fine on Linux, so it's what I use to catch up on the occasional show.
Of course, most of the population doesn't care about Linux per se. However I've learned over time that "will it work on Linux?" is a good proxy-question for "will it be easy to get it working?" If it doesn't run on Linux, then it invariably means that on Windows it's going to require a custom download, non-generic codecs, DRM, etc. So basically it's going to be a pain for just about everyone.
At the end of the day, something like Hulu (where a friend can just send you a link for a show; where you can just open it up in a browser; etc.) is more easily accessible and thus preferable (in my opinion).
(Note: I fully agree that the video quality of something like Hulu isn't that great... but that's orthogonal to the accessibility question. A direct download of a generic video file is by far easier for everyone than a DRMed file and a custom playing app.)
I don't know what kinda monitor the poster above is using, but on my screen it looks awesome. I went in expecting youtube. It looks great. Furthermore, I am an avid Hulu user. The video quality on Hulu is crap. But it's free, so you know. Seriously. Check it out, then decide.
Yeah, if you want to sift through endless home-made garbage just to find that one low-quality movie to watch over 20 parts within a 2-day window before it's taken down for "various reasons".
There are plenty of good speed runs, which are more entertaining than modern Hollywood bullshit anyway.
See this is where those fun download caps come in to play. Say Rogers standard 45$ a month internet is caped at 65 gigs a month. But I want to start doing more multi-media online like this my internet works against me. I thought the future was suppose to be cheaper unlimited faster internet so movies I can rent through the internet and smiler stuff can be done.
I mean internet providers working against what the rest of the world are trying to do with the internet. All these great new tools/services become pointless as my internet provider puts a cap. Now the 250 gig cap of comcast is not to bad but its still a cap, in Canada even on expensive services its a 95 gig cap which my family blows through monthly as there are 6 computers online at my place. So when will services like this be actually usable because with caps its easier to go and rent the dam thing.
I believe the most important element in this may be how the actual service itself performs. Is the service easy to use and understand? Is the established Amazon user base going to be willing to give it a shot? Will the previewing, along with their peer-rated review system add value to the service? Will the quality, sound and technical requirements hinder the service in any way?
Amazon can absorb some losses if their initial price point turns out to be too high. They will still gain the valuable data they need to improve the system for an update, which could include their price reductions for the service. These sorts of offerings are nearly impossible to get right the first time out. Amazon has the position and resources to take a risk now and still come out ahead in the long run if they are able to adapt to the consumers wants and needs.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Doesn't seem like all movies are $15. I looked for Full Metal Jacket and it's $3 to rent and $10 to buy. And, that particular movie, like so many others, isn't available on Hulu.
:\
This is clearly a step in the right direction. I hadn't paid for music for several years before Amazon MP3 came out. I always said I would pay for a service to download that was simple, fair, and appropriately priced. Now, I've purchased four or five albums in the past month. I've been waiting for an equivalent service to be available for videos; maybe this will be the one.
Of course, I'm fortunate in that I have easy access to a Windows box to watch all this on... I guess Linux support is just too much to ask for.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
DVD vs. some low quality streamed video loaded with DRM?
Not even close to being interested. Many DVDs are available used for what Amazon is charging for a rental.
well how can any price compete with your model of 'pirated then owned'. Even at $1 its still infinitely more expensive than just pirating it.
The idea is to price it as reasonable value for money, not to compete with people prepared to break the law and pirate it.
I think this is a bit too expensive, but not by much, I also guess that I can't get that same price here in the UK where (if its even offered) the price will be jacked way higher.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Once I buy it, I should be able to download it all I want. If my hard drive crashes, I should just be able to re-download it.
If bandwidth is a problem, then charge me a one cent redownload fee. I could cope with that. But having to pay 15 bucks again is stupid. We live in the digital age, and these vendors really need to get with the program.
At the movie kiosk in the local grocery store and fast food stores I can rent 4 movies for 29 cents more than amazon charges me for 1 movie. Even with the price of gas I'll stick to that system.
In short, pirates are the reason that we all have to deal with DRM BS.
Bullshit. Companies don't implement DRM to combat piracy, they implement DRM to limit fair use. Without DRM, within a decade, there would be so many perfect, legitimate copies in the market that they couldn't make any more profit.
Of course, the real reason we are in this mess to begin with is because copyrights have been extended far beyond the 15-20 years they should be; that's only been possible because of massive bribery and corruption of Congress. Turn back the clock on copyrights and most infringement goes away automatically.
The way to combat their broken business model is boycott, not copyright infringement.
It's not clear that non-commercial sharing should be copyright infringement at all. We pay a blank media tax (yes, even in the US).
The dirty secret is that we're supposed to pay for the same content over and over and over again. That's what we need to fight.
I know there are people who want a subscription-based music service; but I think what the typical person really wants is a reasonably priced subscription-based television service. After all, (unlike with music) that's really what we've been already doing for the past 60 years. For most TV shows, one viewing is all anyone ever wants - so why attempt to charge us $48 to watch a season of a show that, once viewed, we'll never watch again?
I do think this is priced too high, as well. As others have noted, I can buy a DVD movie for less than what they're charging for online delivery.
#DeleteChrome
Why is there not an On-Demand (DirecTV, Cable, etc.), Download Service (Amazon), etc. that will offer movies for the same price that Redbox does at my local Walmart or Grocery Store?
I can go rent one from the Redbox vending machine for $1.00/day, yet download prices are still artificially inflated to match the old fashioned video store price of $3.99? This is ridiculous.
If Redbox or anyone else offered a download service for $1.00 or even $2.00 the total volume of rentals would go way up.
I don't mind grabbing 3 movies at $1.00/day on the hope that 2 of them might be watchable. At $3.99 it's just too expensive so I rent far fewer movies.
I wish people would quit dancing around the fact that what they are doing by pirating IP is illegal.
Regardless of whether one is a criminal in the eyes of the law, the fact is this is breaking a rule. Now I know rules are meant to be broken, but come on... the parent's point was very well made. Piracy is stealing/infringing/hurting the IP owner in some way and he's trying to justify it. End of story.
Starmen.net
Is it really criminal if I give it back? According to the rule of four-fold compensation, I pay my proper dues. Everything I download from Bittorrent, I make sure to reupload above a 4.0 ratio!
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Currently, there is not a large percentage of internet scribers sucking major monthly downloads.. for those of us who are (use net) might be an example. But when the masses try to come to downloadable decent resolution video (whether it's Apple TV, Net Flix or now Amazon (resolution TBD)) the internet will need to support serious end to end bandwidth. The ISP-s are in a speed contest that started with all you can eat, but now that there is a threat that Homer Simpson might show up at the Shrimp Buffet counter the ISP-s are having second thoughts. Exactly just what would happen if 50% of the DSL, Fiber and Cable Modem subscribers in the USA all decided to download a movie at about 6 PM local time ? My intention is not to defend download CAPS, but something is gonna give..