PDA

View Full Version : Apple's iTunes Movie Store Hurdles - 2007?


MacRumors
Jun 21, 2006, 03:39 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Businessweek provides (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2006/tc20060621_022435.htm?chan=technology_technology+index+page_today's+top+stories) some added commentary and color to the Apple negotiations with the movie industry to provide content for an iTunes Movie Store.

Beyond echoing statements (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060619101731.shtml) that the pricing appears to be the main hurdle between Apple and the studios, Businessweek cites other Hollywood sources that the store was ready to be up and running within weeks, but the disagreement in terms may push it back into 2007.

Even if launched, the movie studios are said to be considering holding back their "hottest titles", which they want to sell for $19.99, above Jobs' $9.99 for-every-movie pricing.

Meanwhile, experts are still waiting for the killer consumer electronics hardware to stimulate digital movie sales. Interestingly, according to one Businessweek source, Steve Jobs "feels like there are few threats for consumers' electronics-related dollars for the remainder of the year". Rumor sites have long predicted a full-screen video iPod, with persistent hints (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060615101812.shtml) of its imminent arrival.

DontBurnTheDayy
Jun 21, 2006, 03:42 PM
...at least get the Adults Only section up and running...



(justttt kidding)

soosy
Jun 21, 2006, 03:43 PM
An Apple DVR would certainly be the killer platform for an HD movie store. (yeah, I know, dreaming about the HD).

mgargan1
Jun 21, 2006, 03:44 PM
$20 for a movie? I wouldn't pay for that. You don't get the DVD, or case...

$10 is a lot more reasonable. It's funny how greedy people are... they don't want their product stolen, yet they still want to charge an stupid price for it?

pilotgi
Jun 21, 2006, 03:44 PM
Seems like it's time for another "They're just being greedy" comment. $19.99 for a downloadable, digital copy instead of a physical dvd? That's crazy.

I would think people would just wait a few months until the newness wore off and the price went down.

DontBurnTheDayy
Jun 21, 2006, 03:50 PM
Seems like it's time for another "They're just being greedy" comment. $19.99 for a downloadable, digital copy instead of a physical dvd? That's crazy.

I would think people would just wait a few months until the newness wore off and the price went down.


I agree. I think the most I would pay for a movie I really wanted would be about $12.99

sartinsauce
Jun 21, 2006, 03:50 PM
It's funny how greedy people are... they don't want their product stolen, yet they still want to charge an stupid price for it?


Yeah, and what they don't get yet is that if the offered the product for less money sales would go up and theft would go down. Look at the iTMS example; easy and inexpensive music downloads beats difficult and sketchy downloads and searches.

Whatever, what do I know, I'm just a programmed consumer.

Macnoviz
Jun 21, 2006, 03:51 PM
Maybe with an apple set-top-box that does to video what iPod did for music, the producers will have to agree on 10 dollar a movie. It's a fair price, and once one big company is, in the others will have to follow.

but 20 bugs for a non-physical movie ? Rubbish!

aricher
Jun 21, 2006, 03:51 PM
At least Apple will have plenty of time to work the kinks out of whatever dvr solution they have up their sleeve. I wonder how they're going to put their newly acquired ex-MCI communications building to use?

Tanglewood
Jun 21, 2006, 03:53 PM
I'd pay $20 for a new DVD because I'm also buying the packaging. $10 maybe but not $20 for a digital copy that I can only play on my computer and iPod.

EDIT - iTMS example for music.

Nelly Furtado's Loose came out on Tuesday.

List Price: $13.99
iTunes Price: $9.99
about a 30% difference in price

Syriana also came out on Tuesday

List Price: $20.90
suggested iTunes Price: $19.99
about a 5% difference in price
Price with 30% difference: $14.63

A dollar difference wouldn't sway me to buy it on iTunes over a widescreen DVD cut with extras.

azentropy
Jun 21, 2006, 03:53 PM
Don't know if this is related or not, but went to

http://www.apple.com/movies this AM and get a "Forbidden" message rather than a "Looking for something at Apple.com?" page...

treblah
Jun 21, 2006, 03:54 PM
The only way I'd pay $19.99 for a download is if it were DVD quality (video and audio) AND it was a same day release for downloads and theater.

If it were same day and I didn't have to put up the *******s at the theater, I might even pay $29.99 for something like that. I would definitely pay $29.99 if I could burn it to a DVD (only once would be fine too).

Of course that is not going to happen anytime soon. :rolleyes:

Jesus
Jun 21, 2006, 03:55 PM
Can wait, I just hope the rest of the world will be let in on this (TV shows cough cough)

m-dogg
Jun 21, 2006, 03:57 PM
$20 for a movie? I wouldn't pay for that. You don't get the DVD, or case...

$10 is a lot more reasonable. It's funny how greedy people are... they don't want their product stolen, yet they still want to charge an stupid price for it?

I agree. With music, I tend to buy the physical CD if I want the entire album. I usually only get one-off tracks through iTunes.

But with a movie, you can't do that. It's just going to be the whole movie. And at that point, I think you're better off going with the physical DVD...

RichP
Jun 21, 2006, 03:58 PM
Ill jump on the bandwagon too:

For $9.99, I would consider the ease, convenience, and legality of DL'ing a movie.
For $20, I much rather have a physical copy of it.
For a few dollars, I can rent the movie on netflix or at a local store, and, if I REALLY like it, and dont give a damn, rip a copy to my computer.

The thing about buying movies at such a high cost is that, honestly, how many times are you going to watch a movie? The entertainment-per-dollar of a 99 cent song is much higher than a 20 dollar movie; to me at least.

xfiftyfour
Jun 21, 2006, 03:58 PM
yeah, sorry. 20 bucks for a download? that isn't going to prevent piracy one bit...

Object-X
Jun 21, 2006, 03:59 PM
I don't care how much it is, if it isn't resolution suitable for my HDTV then it's a waste of money. If Apple only wants to charge $9.99 then that tells me movies will only work on an iPod. You can't even go full screen on your iMac with these movies without them being severly pixilated. So why bother? Give me a HD resolution file and let me stream it to my HDTV or convert it for my iPod, or burn my own DVD; I want control and I would pay full price for it.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 21, 2006, 04:02 PM
Price it too high and we'll bittorrent. I'm not advocating it, I'm stating fact. You make more in volume sales, and iTunes is proof of that.

Greed will get you in the end, hopefully, and there will always be ways around DRM. Always.

9.99 is high for me, but if you get a good copy, i.e. HD and nice enough to watch on a MacBook for example, then it's going to move.

Be afraid of Steve Jobs. Be very afraid.

Selax77
Jun 21, 2006, 04:04 PM
Will the new ipod come out with this service or might it come out seperately? I am really hoping it comes out soon

Object-X
Jun 21, 2006, 04:07 PM
So read this:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060621-7105.html

This pretty much confirms that any movie downloads from Apple will be crappy resolution and only good for viewing on a small device. What Netflix is saying is what I wan't: viewing on demand with a download service.

This makes me think that Apple will start selling movies at low resolution to help selll some new video iPod and then later expand into an HDTV download subscription service. The Arstechnica article points out that because of licensing deals with the movie studios they will not be able to offer this type of service for several more years.

Guess I'll be renting my HD DVDs until then. Bummer.

mainstreetmark
Jun 21, 2006, 04:10 PM
Don't know if this is related or not, but went to

http://www.apple.com/movies this AM and get a "Forbidden" message rather than a "Looking for something at Apple.com?" page...

Well, well well.... that is interesting. The "movies" folder physically exists at Apple.com, just has no default page (index). Wonder if it's worth guessing a few common filenames and see if we get a hit.

jaxstate
Jun 21, 2006, 04:23 PM
How is this people being greedy?
$20 for a movie? I wouldn't pay for that. You don't get the DVD, or case...

$10 is a lot more reasonable. It's funny how greedy people are... they don't want their product stolen, yet they still want to charge an stupid price for it?

blueflame
Jun 21, 2006, 04:25 PM
I buy alot of DVDs, i go buy them used for around 5.99. this gives me the dd the packageing, and i can encode it myself to be used on an ipod. now, I understand paying a premium for having it alrady in ipod format, but this pricing is rediculous. many many dvds at best buy are 9.99. they should just include ipod formatted versions of the movie on the dvd, and they can have apple be the authorization scheme for it to run, as not to pirate, there is not a chance in hell I am going to pay 19.99 for an ipod 320.240 movie, not a chance.
andreas

jaxstate
Jun 21, 2006, 04:25 PM
You better go ahead and find a torrent site. You want a HD DVD transferred to you for less than 10 bucks. You have to be kiddin.:cool:
Price it too high and we'll bittorrent. I'm not advocating it, I'm stating fact. You make more in volume sales, and iTunes is proof of that.

Greed will get you in the end, hopefully, and there will always be ways around DRM. Always.

9.99 is high for me, but if you get a good copy, i.e. HD and nice enough to watch on a MacBook for example, then it's going to move.

Be afraid of Steve Jobs. Be very afraid.

jaxstate
Jun 21, 2006, 04:26 PM
There are many many DVDs at best buy that cost 19.99.
I buy alot of DVDs, i go buy them used for around 5.99. this gives me the dd the packageing, and i can encode it myself to be used on an ipod. now, I understand paying a premium for having it alrady in ipod format, but this pricing is rediculous. many many dvds at best buy are 9.99. they should just include ipod formatted versions of the movie on the dvd, and they can have apple be the authorization scheme for it to run, as not to pirate, there is not a chance in hell I am going to pay 19.99 for an ipod 320.240 movie, not a chance.
andreas

milozauckerman
Jun 21, 2006, 04:28 PM
It makes sense for the studios to want $20 - what do they get out of selling it cheaper through Apple? This isn't the music industry - movie piracy is still fairly limited (by bandwidth, resolution and time-of-release), there's no movie-Napster, and DVD sales are still strong.

If the resolution isn't complete bollocks, every iTunes Movie Store sale is a high-margin DVD coming out of their pocket.

AT71
Jun 21, 2006, 04:28 PM
If it's current movies as in the cinemas, I don't mind paying $9.99 for a view-once deal. Cinema-going is crappy anyway nowadays. If I really like the movie, I will buy the DVD, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray when it's out. And play it will my home theater.

But if it's $9.99 for pre-DVD release, forget about it. I might as well get the DVD at $19.99 - $21.99 for keeps.

I'm not sure about online movie piracy but I heard that you can buy pirated DVDs for less than four bucks in some countries.

The problem with movie studios is greed. If the studios think like a pirate, then piracy will lose out. Why? If you make stuff affordable and accessible, people will buy them. Simple logic. Then the pirates have to offer for free to beat this. Of course, pirates are greedy too.

jaxstate
Jun 21, 2006, 04:30 PM
I'm hoping for a rental type service. I have dozens of DVDs that I've never watched more than once. Let me rent a movie for 2 days for 5 bucks, and I'm happy.

~Shard~
Jun 21, 2006, 04:32 PM
It will be interesting to see how Apple implements this, as there are many aspects which I see as problem areas:

- low resolution = crappy quality = people not wanting to pay a lot
- high resolution = greater bandwidth requirements + longer d/l times
- some people will want SD, some HD
- some people will want to watch them on their video iPod, some will want to watch them on their MacBook or TV - each group will have their different requirements
- some people will want a rental service, some will not
- Hollywood apprently wants tiered pricing/higher pricing

This should be interesting...

dontmatter
Jun 21, 2006, 04:35 PM
Even at 9.99, netflix is a better deal. How many times do you watch the same movie? Most of the time, just once. A song I'm going to listen to a dozen times is easily worth a dollar- the experience of watching a movie is rarely worth twenty.

Of course, I've got no reason to grumble at the movie studios, as it's their loss of money, not mine. There are still great ways to get and watch movies out there, so they aren't stupidly making the media inaccessabile like the music industry has at times.

~Shard~
Jun 21, 2006, 04:36 PM
movie piracy is still fairly limited (by bandwidth, resolution and time-of-release)

Just wanted to say thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest thing I've read all day... :D :cool:

s10
Jun 21, 2006, 04:41 PM
why can't they stream.. not via internet but via sat.. like xm radio?

forrest1992
Jun 21, 2006, 04:41 PM
I think the movie companys are being a LOT too gready here.

You see, when they sell over iTunes, they don't have to cover costs such as the packaging, the DVD itself, shipping, etc. Apple takes the same cut out of the sales that the department/movie store would. They'll be taking a small cut at least, which will be made up by a lot more people splurging on more movies because its cheaper.

It could also come in different kinds. Example:

Choice A) HD quality/format, $9.99 (burnable)
Choice B) iPod quality/format, $4.99
Choice C) Rent for 7 days, $4.99 (non-burnable)
Choice D) 1 viewing, HD, $2.99 (non-burnable)

Would everyone be happy with something like that?

rockandrule
Jun 21, 2006, 04:47 PM
If everyone wants to keep pushing this HD stuff maybe they should start referencing that HD-DVDs are $30 per title at Best Buy, not $20. That would make a $15 purchase for HD quality a bit more understandable.

baleensavage
Jun 21, 2006, 04:48 PM
I think that the only way that a download movie store is going to fly is if it is tied to some type of really stellar device like a video iPod (not an iPod that plays video like the one now). The movie companies aren't going to consent to DVD reproduction and the public has shown that they don't want to watch movies on their computers (Media PCs anyone?) If you can watch movies on a decent screen on a handheld or plug that device into a dock by your TV to watch movies from it, I think it could be a real success.

But right now there is some pretty steep competiton from the PSP and from portable DVD players. So Apple better come out with something really innovative and with a better screen than their current offerings.

Add in wifi capabilities and the ability to download movies directly onto the device and it could be really cool.

Derekasaurus
Jun 21, 2006, 04:51 PM
I don't know what movie studios are smoking if they think anyone will pay $20 for an iTMS-quality movie, no matter how "hot" it is. I'll wait for the DVD.

Thanatoast
Jun 21, 2006, 04:51 PM
I don't understand the logic the studios are using. I mean, sure, tiered pricing I understand - but do these moguls have so on hand cash that they'd pay $20 for a 320x240 file? Okay, dumb question. How about this: what makes them think John Q Public has that kinda money lying around?

I don't even spend that much on the full-res and extras DVD's I buy. Where's my incentive to pay more for less?

Stella
Jun 21, 2006, 05:00 PM
$20 for a download movie - too expensive. More $ for less content than a similar priced DVD.

No thanks.


Don't know if this is related or not, but went to

http://www.apple.com/movies this AM and get a "Forbidden" message rather than a "Looking for something at Apple.com?" page...

Don't get excited by this, nothing new - thats been there for a long time.

~Shard~
Jun 21, 2006, 05:02 PM
I don't even spend that much on the full-res and extras DVD's I buy. Where's my incentive to pay more for less?

Especially when many people download a full ISO rip of a movie and burn it for free, creating a virtually perfect copy to the original themselves - menus, subtitles, bonus features and all. Although I suppose there are people who will always do that, no matter what the price and other circumstances are surrounding a movie store offering such as this one...

baleensavage
Jun 21, 2006, 05:09 PM
So read this:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060621-7105.html

That article really piqued my interest. I've been a regular Netflix customer for a few years now and I love it. Imagine a netflix box just like a TiVo that would download whatever movies you wanted to watch when you wanted to watch them. Forget cable on demand or TiVo or even an iTunes movie store. That sounds really cool. Who needs to own movies if you can access them when you want to.

celebrian23
Jun 21, 2006, 05:17 PM
Truthfully, I only care about 1 thing: resolution. I wouldn't even pay 10 bucks for crappy resolution. And I think the average customer agrees with me. I'd rather have the physical dvd anyways

kcmac
Jun 21, 2006, 05:30 PM
Today my son bought the release of the Hills Have Eyes for $16 at Best Buy. He pretty regularly buys the first release on Tuesdays at this price. The cover is in two layers and has red liquid (simulating blood.) It is a pretty cool cover and of course you get everything on the DVD.

$20 is just ridiculous. Even if it is the full file or one that would look good on your bigscreen.

However, for our money's worth, the Netflix rental model is pretty ideal. The send and return of the DVD's is super fast and nothing could be easier. And the price is right.

Selax77
Jun 21, 2006, 05:37 PM
So are they gonna release the video store with the new ipod or are they gonna release the new ipod soon? What are the chances they are going to release the new ipod soon.

poppe
Jun 21, 2006, 06:01 PM
They need different pricing though also. As stated earlier the first week at best buy, target and maybe even walmart the new releases start at 14.99. So any downloading service would have to come under that.

But they should also have a price vartiation like : 10.99 Newest and greatest, down to 7.99 for those lamo B movies.

Someone mentioned satilite and that would be sweet and awesome, but really who would go ok I just got my New Power Mac for 4 Grand now I need a 300 satelite also. No offense.

I know of one company that uses cell phone like towers and you get a reciever from them that has a hard drive in it. Its down fall is that it streams movies the newest movies to your hard drive, not the ones you personally want. So if they could figure soemthing out like this where (which is still way off) but having the user only having to buy a add on for 50 - 100 for a antenna, and then being able to make a list of movies to be streamed on to your mac. That would be sweet.

valiar
Jun 21, 2006, 06:21 PM
Even $9.99 is RIDICULOUSLY too expensive.
Of course, it is "an easy to remember" number, but for $19.99 a month I can subscribe to Netflix and view all the movies I want - and even, god forbid, rip them to my hard drive to be stored for posterity.
The most I would EVER pay for a DRM'ed movie download would be $1.99 - exactly as much as we are being currently charged for TV episodes.
Buying a DRMed file is, IMHO, more comparable to renting a movie, not to buying a DVD.
I think all parties in this debacle are being guilty of greed - yes, Apple, I am pointing my finger at you... :(

Porchland
Jun 21, 2006, 06:41 PM
Seems like it's time for another "They're just being greedy" comment. $19.99 for a downloadable, digital copy instead of a physical dvd? That's crazy.

I would think people would just wait a few months until the newness wore off and the price went down.

The only way $19.99 works is if it comes before the DVD and PPV release windows. I could see some of the people that are resistant to paying $20 for a DVD get much more trigger happy at the opportunity to download "Superman Returns" three weeks after it hits theaters.

Say what you will about shorter release windows encroaching on the box office receipts, movies hit video months earlier now than they used to and IFC has had a few simultaneous releases at theaters, pay-cable HD and DVD. It makes huge, HUGE sense from the standpoint of maximizing the marketing budget, and the theaters make a lower percentage of the theater receipts than they do the later windows.

Hey, the windows for downloading TV shows is next-day, so anything's possible.

Doctor Q
Jun 21, 2006, 06:56 PM
The exact price won't matter much to me (I watch cable movies, use Netflix, and go to the theater, and rarely want to own a movie), but I find the question of one-price-fits-all vs. variable pricing to be quite interesting.

It's a magnified version of the music pricing issue. Single-tier pricing is much simpler for all concerned, and better reflects the cost of distributing content. Multi-tier pricing better reflects supply and demand and the value to buyers of particular movies.

reyesmac
Jun 21, 2006, 07:14 PM
Skaroo the movie studios. I don't care about how much DRM there is in a movie file, all I care about is price. Buying movies ala cart wont work anyway, not like it does for songs, not at $19.99. If Apple made a TV and allowed you to subscribe to a service that can replace cable with shows on demand, then I would pay up to $50 a month for commercial free high quality content when I want to watch it. Anything less is a waste. Who wants to own movies that won't convert to other formats, can't watch without an internet connection, can't get in HD quality? You have to pay again just to back it up to something. You have to pay in the theater, you have to pay to take it with you or watch it on a PC and you have to pay again to own it on DVD. How many movies can you fit on an iMac anyway? This is why piracy does not go down in large numbers. Why should be give them a break when they are gouging us at every turn? I know why, but it is frustrating to see so much greed. Instead of making money from everyone by keeping prices reasonable, they choose to make money from people with higher incomes, because they keep falling for this stuff.

milozauckerman
Jun 21, 2006, 07:20 PM
Just wanted to say thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest thing I've read all day...

So where's the movie Napster? BitTorrent? Diffuse, unreliable.

Resolution and bandwidth - I can download a near-CD quality song in less than a minute (320kbps MP3). An hour-long non-HD television show (actually 40-45 minutes) is about 350MB and given the vagaries of BT takes an hour or so. Double that for an SD movie.

Does piracy exist? Yes.
Is it as widespread as MP3 filesharing? No.

Thanks for playing.

Electro Funk
Jun 21, 2006, 07:31 PM
I don't care how much it is, if it isn't resolution suitable for my HDTV then it's a waste of money. If Apple only wants to charge $9.99 then that tells me movies will only work on an iPod. You can't even go full screen on your iMac with these movies without them being severly pixilated. So why bother? Give me a HD resolution file and let me stream it to my HDTV or convert it for my iPod, or burn my own DVD; I want control and I would pay full price for it.

i agree 100%

i think the resolution of any tv shows/ videos from iTunes look HORRIBLE on my 20" iMac... There is no way i would even attempt to watch that rubbish on my 46" DLP.... at that quality i wouldnt buy a movie for $.99 let alone $9.99 or $20.00.

Give me at least 480p or 720P and ill pay 9.99... also let me burn to DVD at least once and im sold. otherwise there in not a chance of me buying anything but music from iTunes...

Antares
Jun 21, 2006, 08:00 PM
I would never pay $19.99 to download a movie when I can get the DVD for the same price or less. Plus, would the downloads have all the extra features of a dvd? I didn't think so.

xfiftyfour
Jun 21, 2006, 09:06 PM
Just wanted to say thanks for the laugh, that's the funniest thing I've read all day... :D :cool:

yeah, i don't know about everyone else, but we (as well as most of our friends, and others we've run into at rental places) will get dvds for 3.50: rent, rip, burn.

piracy is limited?

AndrewMT
Jun 21, 2006, 09:38 PM
Jean Claude van Dam and Steven Seagal in Under Siege 6 = $9.99
Superman Returns = $9.99

One movie would be a bargain at $9.99, while the other movie should pay the iTunes user to watch it.

LagunaSol
Jun 21, 2006, 10:40 PM
Where's the Airport Express + Video? Seems to me that's the key missing ingredient in this whole concept...

boncellis
Jun 21, 2006, 11:00 PM
Where's the Airport Express + Video? Seems to me that's the key missing ingredient in this whole concept...

I agree that there's something missing, and in my opinion it's the hardware component.

Apple is about the whole experience--in this case, the whole experience of watching a full-length movie--so the content is a necessary, but not sufficient, element of the experience. That begs the question, what is the missing component to make consumers excited about feature films available for download?

Your guess is as good as mine. I just don't see masses of consumers getting excited to watch 2 hour films on an iPod. I'll recant if I hear otherwise though.

Analog Kid
Jun 21, 2006, 11:20 PM
The only way I'd pay $19.99 for a download is if it were DVD quality (video and audio) AND it was a same day release for downloads and theater.
Now there's a model I hadn't thought of... Buy the download for the cost of two tickets while it's still in the theater. Single people get screwed again as usual, but not that bad of a model. Maybe $15 would be the right spot?

You don't get the big screen experience, but you don't have to deal with the morons at the theater. It's almost a fair trade, but I'd like them to throw something in for having put up with the morons all these years already...

evilgEEk
Jun 21, 2006, 11:23 PM
There's definitely a missing hardware component. Apple will likely introduce both the hardware and the Video Store at the same time, or at least release the hardware just prior to the Video Store announcement.

$19.99 for a digital copy of a movie? That is absolutely ridiculous. Thanks, but I'll go down to WalMart and pick up a new release for anywhere between $11.99 to $16.99. A digital copy I would not pay any more than $9.99 for. No actual disc to worry about, no packaging, so why charge more for it than a physical copy? It's like wipin' before ya poop, it just don't make sense!

Quality will obviously be another big issue, if I'm gonna pay $9.99 for a movie it better not be iPod quality.

Analog Kid
Jun 21, 2006, 11:25 PM
Jean Claude van Dam and Steven Seagal in Under Siege 6 = $9.99
Superman Returns = $9.99

One movie would be a bargain at $9.99, while the other movie should pay the iTunes user to watch it.
Theatre tickets would be the same for both-- why should downloads be different?

ictiosapiens
Jun 22, 2006, 03:23 AM
It makes sense for the studios to want $20 - what do they get out of selling it cheaper through Apple? This isn't the music industry - movie piracy is still fairly limited (by bandwidth, resolution and time-of-release), there's no movie-Napster, and DVD sales are still strong.

If the resolution isn't complete bollocks, every iTunes Movie Store sale is a high-margin DVD coming out of their pocket.

DVD sales strong???

Have you ever been to either Asia, South America, or even Eastern Europe(some western as well) You can buy ANY dvd for less than $3...

knock
Jun 22, 2006, 03:51 AM
$20 for a movie? I wouldn't pay for that. You don't get the DVD, or case...

$10 is a lot more reasonable. It's funny how greedy people are... they don't want their product stolen, yet they still want to charge an stupid price for it?

I agree with one part of what you say. $20 is too much (i think $10 is too much) as you are paying to store the thing on your hard disk, maybe burining a back-up, cost of downloading etc. Using Amazon or even some store you can get most DVD's for below that price anyway.

I disagree with your implication that high film/music/etc prices is what drives theft. This is not food or shelter we are talking about, it's a luxury that nobody needs. Stealing a Maserati is the same as stealing a 10-year old Ford. The punishment for high pricing is lack of sales, not theft.

The lenghts people will go to to steal something they don't even need or appreciate are amazing and ridiculous.

ezekielrage_99
Jun 22, 2006, 04:01 AM
$19.99 a download...... stuff that I'd prefer to buy the DVD and save on bandwith :rolleyes:

Torajima
Jun 22, 2006, 07:31 AM
I'll say the same about this as I said about Sony's UMD format for the PSP...

Who in their right mind would pay more for a lower quality version of a movie when you can get a high quality DVD for less, and rip it yourself?

That said, $20 for digital downloads may look like a bargain once the movie industry crams Blueray and HD-DVD down our throats and begins selling movies at $40 to $50 each...

Torajima
Jun 22, 2006, 08:23 AM
I disagree with your implication that high film/music/etc prices is what drives theft. This is not food or shelter we are talking about, it's a luxury that nobody needs. Stealing a Maserati is the same as stealing a 10-year old Ford. The punishment for high pricing is lack of sales, not theft.


And I would disagree that downloading music or movies off the internet constitutes "theft" in the strictest sense of the word. Ultimately we're talking about folks downloading binary data... ones and zeros... how is THAT theft? It's not like you're stealing a physical CD or are stealing money out of the companies bank account.

At worst, it's a loss of a potential sale, but that's not theft... if it was, badmouthing a band or writing a bad review would be a crime.

One could also argue that art (which is what GOOD movies and music are), is as important to the soul as food or shelter is to the body.

But even in the age of limewire and bit torrent, it's still possible to attract paying customers... Apple has proven this with iTunes. Rather than coming up with new DRM schemes or attempting to punish those who download content, companies need to adapt to the post-internet era and think of new ways to attract customers to their product (such as digital downloads, more reasonable pricing structures, extras with CD or DVD purchase, etc). If they can't adapt, then frankly they should go out of business.

notjustjay
Jun 22, 2006, 08:52 AM
I say, let the studios have their stupid $19.99 pricing.

And when the iTunes music store announces "100 downloads in the first week of release!" Steve can turn around and say "I told you so!"

Even better, let's find one enterprising studio willing to actually have reasonable prices on its movies, and let all the other studios watch it run circles around their sales.

Leondunkleyc
Jun 22, 2006, 09:00 AM
.

dernhelm
Jun 22, 2006, 09:24 AM
i agree 100%

i think the resolution of any tv shows/ videos from iTunes look HORRIBLE on my 20" iMac... There is no way i would even attempt to watch that rubbish on my 46" DLP.... at that quality i wouldnt buy a movie for $.99 let alone $9.99 or $20.00.



You do realize that your 20" iMac probably has a higher resolution than your 46"DLP, right? Still in all, the main problem with iTunes is that the shows are not encoded in widescreen aspect ratio. I don't care about HD resolution, if you can give me the proper aspect ratio for a widescreen TV things will scale well.

~Shard~
Jun 22, 2006, 09:42 AM
I say, let the studios have their stupid $19.99 pricing.

And when the iTunes music store announces "100 downloads in the first week of release!" Steve can turn around and say "I told you so!"

Although it would be a nice slap in the face to the studios, Jobs wouldn't do this, as it would have a negative impact on Apple's business as well. Jobs is no dummy and wouldn't proceed with a model such as that when it is obvious it would fail. The failure of a new, important service with huge potential is not worth it just for pure spite. :cool:

Bonte
Jun 22, 2006, 10:13 AM
the movie studios are said to be considering holding back their "hottest titles"

Thats not where the money is, Amazon's success is offering books that don't sell extremely good but are hard to find and offering thousands of titles. We can buy the blockbusters everywhere but Apple needs the cult, cinefile, French, manga, shortfilms, Horror, classics ... thousands.

Hopefully there will be a CD-baby like service for the home made movies. Made in iTunes?

AT71
Jun 22, 2006, 10:41 AM
Theatre tickets would be the same for both-- why should downloads be different?

This is the best rational point why there should be only one download fee for movies.

I juz wonder is there any legit online download for current movies. Currently all out there are not.

celebrian23
Jun 22, 2006, 11:00 AM
This is the best rational point why there should be only one download fee for movies.

I juz wonder is there any legit online download for current movies. Currently all out there are not.


Here we have a dollar theatre for movies that are no longer much in demand for just aq dollar. So here, movies actually do cost differently :)

~Shard~
Jun 22, 2006, 01:45 PM
This is the best rational point why there should be only one download fee for movies.

Actually, no. Here we have discount theaters which play movies which are a few months old for $2 or $3 at a second-run theater. So that point you're citing isn't really valid. :cool:

milozauckerman
Jun 22, 2006, 02:30 PM
DVD sales strong???

Have you ever been to either Asia, South America, or even Eastern Europe(some western as well) You can buy ANY dvd for less than $3...

Which has how much relevance to the average consumer? None. DVD sales remain extremely strong, with the owning over renting mindset reigning supreme. DVD sales are keeping the movie industry afloat in a time when theatre income is stagnant. There is no piracy-related downloading panic in the movie industry as there was with music - it doesn't stand a chance of crippling the corporations.

The music industry had, essentially, two options - partner with Jobs under his rules, or continue to lose sales to illegal firesharing. He had the upperhand. With the movie industry, there is no upper hand, iTunes would exist not as a saving grace but as an additional cash cow - and the studios have to ensure that the new cash cow doesn't starve their old one (DVDs).

JimmyB248
Jun 22, 2006, 05:38 PM
Being in the UK I think things must be different, I have to say I'm extremely suprised by the fact that many of your feel that most people rent movies. I know very few people that rent, only really if they want to check out a movie that looks good, but movies that have already been seen are bought by the boat load here. Everyone I know has a huge DVD collection, 15-20 films minium. Now that's at around 15, ocassionally more, occassionally less, a lot of the films are newer ones. Infact two seperate video stores near me are shutting down due to lack of rental sales.

I think Steve should look into doing this in places other than the US. Sky (UK Cable company) have recently started Sky By Broadband, in which if you are a Sky subscriber you can download a huge amount of movies in decent quality for free (Windows only and full of DRM far worse than iTunes of course). Interviews have said that the movie studios were more than happy for this to happen...For free. So surely a 6 or 7 price point per movie in the UK would do well. Accompanied with some sort of media hub or new iPod. And it would never hurt the 5g sales because many people I know are holding off on buying it simply because they cant find easy places to get the movies (they're not as keen as us, they dont want to spend hours converting and tagging).

Maybe if Steve goes for Europe and the movie studios see the results the US will follow. US doesn't have to get everything first.

ezekielrage_99
Jun 22, 2006, 06:28 PM
I say, let the studios have their stupid $19.99 pricing.

And when the iTunes music store announces "100 downloads in the first week of release!" Steve can turn around and say "I told you so!"

100 is being very optimistic ;)

I would have said 10 :D

thejadedmonkey
Jun 22, 2006, 06:34 PM
100 is being very optimistic ;)

I would have said 10 :D
Yeah, but that same crowd that goes around paying for $3 ringtones which ammount to a dime/second worth of music would happily pay $20 a movie to show off on their iPods.

JimmyB248
Jun 22, 2006, 07:06 PM
Maybe tiered pricing will be introduced, however if the studios see that sales for the older, cheaper films are huge and they're actually making far more money off of them than they are off of the $19.99 ones that are more widely available in stores to rent or buy maybe they'll realise that they're making more money by pricing them lower. Trial and error.

Leondunkleyc
Jun 22, 2006, 10:28 PM
.

Leondunkleyc
Jun 22, 2006, 10:30 PM
.

celebrian23
Jun 22, 2006, 10:33 PM
But that's normally the equivalent to renting a movie, a lot of the time the movies you watch at those places are just DVD players plugged into a projector (I think sometimes they might buy real discs second hand off of other cinemas, but that's just a guess)

Not true...they're not even on DVD yet. :) And they're cheaper then renting too, especially on 50 cent tuesdays ;)

AT71
Jun 22, 2006, 11:35 PM
Oh well, I still agreed to Analog Kid's point on why it should be a single-tier pricing for movies on iTMS. When a movie is first release, good or crap it's still the same price. And same goes for rental.

Yes, I understand that there are countries with cinemas showing oldies or unpopular movies at a single lower flat admission fee. Still it's a single pricing. For example, two bucks for Casablanca and The Glimmer Man.

Yes, video rental shops so have two-tier pricing generally. New releases may just be a buck or two more than regular titles. New releases' rental price will drop to regular price. Thus, single pricing again.

Single-tier pricing simply simplifies for everyone. At most, two-tiers > $9.99 for new release (one month time-frame) and $4.99 for the rest. When I say "new release", I mean movies showing in the cinemas. Of course, I don't think movie studios will agree to that. At most, they release the current movies two weeks after opening. Well, wishful thinking.

Honestly, I prefer to part my money to movie studios than cinema operators. The latter is getting from bad to worse.

notjustjay
Jun 23, 2006, 08:55 AM
Honestly, I prefer to part my money to movie studios than cinema operators. The latter is getting from bad to worse.

Really? What are your cinema operators doing that's so bad?

And don't say high prices, cause ... they're just passing along the high prices they have to pay to, you guessed it, the movie studios.

~Shard~
Jun 23, 2006, 10:42 AM
Really? What are your cinema operators doing that's so bad?

And don't say high prices, cause ... they're just passing along the high prices they have to pay to, you guessed it, the movie studios.

Exactly. The theaters actually make next to nothing on tickets sales - almost all of the proceeds go directly to the movie studios. Why do you think concession prices are so high? It's because that's the main source of revenue for the theaters, not ticket sales. :cool:

billyboy
Jun 23, 2006, 11:00 AM
The movie store is an adendum to the most successful most visited music site going. The quality of the music files is not the top notch it could be in theory, but they sound great on the intended devices, iPods and computers with less than amazing speakers. Therefore Apple have a massive client base to start from who think Apple are the mutts nuts for downloading. Coupled with a snazzy Apple device that shows off the material to its best potential, they will do well pretty much regardless of how many purists think the resolution destined to look good on that Apple device is less than perfect on their 60" HD screen.

HGW
Jun 25, 2006, 07:21 AM
better a quicktime movie store.

2 reasons:

quicktime = video,

the name is encouraging to people who worry about download times