Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Jumps Into Video Streaming
Endoflow2010 writes "Today Wal-Mart has added streaming video to their website. What better time to compete with Netflix, now that they have raised their prices? On Wal-Mart's website, the movies will be available the same day the DVDs go on sale in stores. Walmart.com general manager Steve Nave said the retailer is following its customers as they increasingly embrace digital movie rentals and purchases. 'We know customers are starting to shift their behavior, in terms of how they consume their media,' Nave said, adding, 'As as customers make that change, we don't want to lose that customer as they shift to digital.' Wal-Mart, long the nation's leading seller of DVDs, signaled its intent to double down on digital movie distribution in February 2010, when it spent a reported $100 million to acquire Vudu, a Silicon Valley start-up that was gradually being added to home entertainment devices."
For Europeans there's Voddler, which is basically Spotify but for movies and tv shows. Both are much better than their US counterparts, too.
Streaming is useless when ISPs keep adding more caps.
Many ISPs are also cable-television providers and they're doing their best to smother this baby while it's still in the crib.
--
BMO
Any idea if a similar service will be offered by Walmart Canada? While Netflix in Canada is currently priced at about half of the US price ($7.99 pm), the spectrum of movies and shows is pretty pathetic. I'd happily shell out $16 pm for what you guys in the U.S get. Of course I still subscribe in-spite of the crappy selection, since the documentaries are alright, and $8 pm = a few coffees!
But will it support Linux?
'Impossible' is a word that humans use far too often. -- Seven of Nine
On Wal-Mart's website, the movies will be available the same day the DVDs go on sale in stores. Rental prices range from 99 cents to $5.99. Digital purchases are priced from $4.99 to $24.99.
Right. This is just the standard Pay Per View and Digital Store, not a competitor for Netflix since there's no unlimited streaming. I signed up for Netflix for the unlimited streaming. I do not want to pay per-movie ($7.99/mo will just allow you to watch 8 $0.99 movies for the month and you're at the same price level).
They are the same price as Apple is. At least my $99.00 appleTV will play all the videos on my iTunes. Granted they are partnering with Roku, but they need to be cheaper to compete.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
sell more DVDs than anyone else for a bunch of reasons other than that they have the best DVDs available. The concept that content is king will be more important online than it is for stacking DVDs high and selling them cheap.
Nullius in verba
Netflix actually lowered the price customers pay to get the most comparable service to the Wal-Mart offering (streaming-only), as well as for disc-only service; the only people who saw price increases were those people who want both streaming and DVD delivery, which
Doesn't wal-mart already own VUDU.com and has for some time now?
... I wouldn't touch it. I just don't do business with Wal-Mart for a number of reasons. Of course, I'm just one person among hundreds of millions who just don't care where they spend their money.
I don't respond to AC's.
I know Wal-Mart sells censored versions of CDs. Will they be doing the same with the movies, or is there a reasonable expectation that the streaming movie will be the same as I would see in the theater or on Netflix?
Unclear convo:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=85664
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
Walmart had a habit (still do?) of editing songs on CDs it thought weren't family appropriate material. Are they doing the same with movies? Are Walmart movies like the airline version where cursing is badly overdubbed and the nude scenes are cut?
The MAFIAA standard plan to releasing content on the internet while maintaining control of the distribution chain:
The MAFIAA learned their mistake from iTunes, where they waited until it was too late to try to stop Apple. And while they eventually got variable pricing, they still had to give Apple more control than they're comfortable with - it still makes them rage to this day. They aren't going to make the same mistake with films and TV shows: no single competitor will be allowed to get big enough to dictate contract terms. It will be the studios who make a profit and the studios who anyone has to go through to publish content; the role of the distributors is to distribute content as cheap as possible for the studios.
And thus we're on Step 3. WalMart is the competitor the studios are setting up to combat Netflix. When Netflix is sufficiently bled, WalMart will then have their contract prices increased just as Netflix had.
This comment was posted on another site and annoyed the hell out of me.
Walmart is competing with iTunes and Amazon which are all pay per view streaming $0.99 - $5.99 a pop. Netflix's only real competition is Blockbuster and Hulu who all offer flat fees. When Walmart offers unlimited digital streaming for $7.99 including current releases then it will be the beginning of the end for Netflix.
I recently bought a Samsung TV. I really like it; one of the cool things about it is that I can play AVI and various other types of video\music files on the TV from a USB stick or external hard drive. As far as I can tell, there are no "protection" measures at all; it'll play whatever is on the drive (even some MKVs!). With Walmart getting into the content streaming game, what are the odds that media companies might start to lean on Walmart to push "protection" of digital content? Walmart's known for pushing vendors around; what are the chances that Wally World starts to act as content police and begins telling vendors to remove features like the one I described above? I'm only concerned because when content creators and content providers get chummy, things tend to get more restricted.
From the article, this is not an unlimited streaming service like Netflix or Hulu. This is a video-on-demand service like iTunes (and plethora other similar stores) where you have to pay for every item you download, either as a rental or a purchase. Yes, you can get titles the same day the are released on DVD -- for a $25 download price.
Walmart has a history of selling music that was edited for content. I don't see that being a good thing for video.
Late to the party and offering nothing new. Walmart briefly offered a Netflix competitor (DVD rentals by mail) not long ago...they sold it to Netflix. This is another dead end.
Tell 'em, Steve Nave!
Several of the Wal-Mart's near me have RedBox machine's in their entrance lobby. I wonder if they are going to remove them to not compete with their online offering? I realize RedBox isn't streaming, but if I'm Wal-Mart, I will probably want to direct customers to purchase online from me, instead of giving up valuable revenue when those customers come to my store to purchase from my new competitor.
Newsflash: DVDs are digital, have been since they came out.
Please stop calling each new wave of technology "switching to digital" -- practically everything is digital already; I know it's hard, but you'll just have to bite the bullet and get half a clue what you're talking about so you can describe it. In this particular case, "internet", "on-line", "streaming", and/or "not a big truck" may be useful.
It would be nice to see Wal-Mart push their weight around and lower streaming licensing costs. Netflix is reportedly going from around $180 million in licensing fees to $1.98 billion in licensing fees in 2012. If Wal-Mart could shatter the greedy content producers then not only Wal-Mart, but also other streaming providers like Netflix could possibly expand their streaming libraries and not have to hike subscrption plans in the process.
That is just too fucking awesome: people want to time-shift streaming to make it cheaper, more efficient, and less painfully laggy. Don't get me wrong: it is a good idea. I sincerely like it. Who wants to stream when the network is at its busiest?
Then, next, all you need to do is have multiple recipients for each stream (no problem getting people to synchronous their receipt, since they're time-shifting anyway; this is a job for a computer!), so that you can reap the advantages of broadcast or multicast. For a popular TV show with n viewers, this would lead an an up-to-n-fold increase in efficiency on some segments of the network. For large values of n that is truly a no-brainer.
And then you will have invented something new and patent worthy. Call it "cable television combined with DVR." It would be awesome tech, similar to what people will be using in the year 2000.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
... I think "walmart'
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Walmart's skill is its physical distribution network, and numerous bricks and mortar stores. Which of these benefit Walmart in operating data streaming over the internet?
Wake me when streaming video looks as good as Blu-Ray (or even DVD), has 5.1 DTS sound, lets me select chapters, has special features, etc. I didn't buy an expensive 62" high-def display, Oppo BD player, component surround sound system, and nice speakers so I can watch the crap quality of what Netflix and everyone else today calls HD. Even with 15 mbps cable internet it still looks and sounds like crap compared to BD and DVD. I've been a faithful Netflix customer for quite a long time and gladly pay the extra fee for BD and the new rates. But, it's becoming obvious that Netflix and all the other providers want to completely eliminate disks and go solely with streaming to cut costs and increase profit. I'm an old guy so let me just say - BAH!
For many years the movie selection at Wal-Mart has been all DVDs though I think they might have Blu-Rays too, now. I can't even remember when I last saw VHS tapes or anything like that. If Wal-Mart wants to follow customers "shifting to digital," the year 2000 is about the right time to announce it.
So.. two predictions: 1) In the year 2000 we'll have digital movies and high-performance efficient analog delivery systems. 2) 11 years later we won't have good video delivery systems anymore, but big retailers will finally start to talk about those movies as a soon-to-come product.
I don't know what's going to happen in the early 21st Century, but it sounds like there's going to be another world war or something, throwing infrastructure into chaos and freezing brick'n'mortar markets for something like a decade. Should be interesting times.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Does it make sense that you can get a physical DVD for $1, but to stream it you pay $5.99?
RedBox has costs including millions of discs, 10s of 1000s of kiosks, employees all over the country to physically drive and stock the machines.
Companies like Comcast and Netflix basically already have the infrastructure just sitting there to wipe out Blockbuster and RedBox and anybody else out if they offered $1 movies. Plus it seems like the % profits on $1 streamed movies would be way higher vs RedBox with it's physical costs.
Is this something being blocked by the old studio type execs or am I missing something? I know there are costs with streaming, but it can't be anywhere near what they are to run 25,000+ RedBox kiosks at $1 a rental can it?
Walmart is only going to ensure fatter profits for themselves, what makes you think it will benefit consumers or competitors?
/. doesnt use bbcode fag !
All these other companies seem to be missing why Netflix is doing as well as it is - it's business model is essentially an all you can eat buffet. Whereas Blockbuster and now Walmart are offering what's essentially a McDonald's value meal by comparison. What makes Netflix so likeable is being able to be an absolute glutton of video entertainment for as much as your bandwith holds out.
I'm not a movie snob, I'm a movie slob.
I like Netflix, but I watch movies on my computer and they don't offer streaming for Linux users. I seriously don't like Walmart to the point where I don't want to give them my business if I have an alternative.
Would anyone care to suggest a streaming movie alternative ( Linux friendly ) to Netflix that is comparable in selection and price?
Is there such a beast?
I've spent the last two days flat on my back with some kind of horrible food poisoning. Lacking a DVD player in the bedroom, I trolled Netflix streaming looking for something good. Not only was I sick, I was bored, too!
You can sometimes find art house / foreign titles of quality, but quite often its really schlocky B movies in the 2-3 star range. The "best" selection is often StarzPlay, but even then its a lot of older titles in heavy rotation on the various Starz & Encore cable channels.
I've gotten some value out of it -- all the Rockford Files seasons are available on streaming, and I recently noted that the original Star Trek now is, too (in HD, no less), but those are only distractions.
You still need the DVD subscription to get any real value out of Netflix unless you have some unusual tastes that can be satisfied with streaming.
I'm sure that lots of people won't care, and if Walmart can make the system simple enough for Walmart shoppers, it can succeed. However, Walmart is the company that forces artists to make CDs with the radio versions of their songs - because Walmart doesn't want us to hear the word "fuck" in something they sell.
Are they going to bleep the movies I'm not streaming from them too?
Would anyone care to suggest a streaming movie alternative ( Linux friendly ) to Netflix that is comparable in selection and price?
Is there such a beast?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
I've looked, and there just isn't. And that's even ignoring your Linux compatibility requirement.
Personally, I get most of my TV via OTA broadcast and Tivo. I've already got a reminder to myself to cancel Netflix streaming in early Sept before the rate increase. The netflix streaming is the best in the industry by far, but haven't you noticed that it is still extremely limited in selection? I hardly ever use it.
I'm also going to switch to the lowest DVD option (2 exchanges per month) because that's about how many movies I wind up watching per month, anyway. I guess Netflix is going to get a lot less money from me.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Essentially what they are offering is the same service for twice as much or more than the closest competitor. This is a very un-WalMart approach. I think the executives need to really look at the competition before deciding on a price plan.
I find it interesting that WalMart chooses to jump into the video streaming market with a non competitive product. I just looked at their prices and they have a very limited 99c collection the rest is $2+. I can get the same movies from redbox or blockbuster for $1/24hours. As far as the 99c collection for $10 per month I can watch most of these on Netflix. So far the only value added service they offer is the option to pay full price and watch it like you own it. I'd still go buy the disk though as I've seen services like that go under and folks lose all the money they put into "owning" the media.
Thank goodness, finally there is an online rental that is not 24hours only. With real lief my wife and I never get to finish a movie in one night anymore, 48 hours is in the right direction. But only some of the movies are priced this way on vudu. None of the films have captions/subtitles on vudu either, that's a real bonus for us. We watch the movies pretty quietly that we do to not wake the kids. Netflix is starting to have subtitles on more of it's streaming content, it's been great!