PDA

View Full Version : Fox and Disney iTunes Movie Rentals, 24 Hours Only?




MacRumors
Dec 29, 2007, 07:07 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Variety cites (http://www.variety.com/VR1117978183.html) studio sources and confirms previous reports that Apple will be announcing iTunes movie rentals at Macworld San Francisco 2008.

They also report that both Fox and Disney have signed on to provide movies for the new iTunes movie rental service. Variety, however, expects rental costs between $2 to $5 for only a 24 hour period. This is a significantly shorter window than earlier rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/10/itunes-movie-rentals-at-2-99-for-30-days/) which reported 30-day rentals. Variety does not cite specific sources for its pricing information, so could represent speculation.

Apple will be kicking off Macworld San Francisco with a keynote address on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/29/fox-and-disney-itunes-movie-rentals-24-hours-only/)



synth3tik
Dec 29, 2007, 07:09 PM
A 24 hour limits is garbage. I will not go for it.

ncoffey
Dec 29, 2007, 07:11 PM
It's probably just like the Xbox Live movie rental service, with a 30 day time limit on the download, which turns into 24 hours after you start watching the movie.

Eidorian
Dec 29, 2007, 07:11 PM
24 hours is much too short. :confused:

Foxglove9
Dec 29, 2007, 07:14 PM
that's a terrible deal for that price

notjustjay
Dec 29, 2007, 07:16 PM
Fox, eh? 1-day rentals, eh?

Anyone remember DIVX?

(No, not the video codec)

InkMaster
Dec 29, 2007, 07:18 PM
that's a terrible deal for that price

thats pretty much what Comcast charges for their movies on OnDemand :/

Cleverboy
Dec 29, 2007, 07:19 PM
It's probably just like the Xbox Live movie rental service, with a 30 day time limit on the download, which turns into 24 hours after you start watching the movie. Yeah, I hate that idea too, but I can see it happening that way. 30 days would be excellent, but a bit unrealistic to hope for I feel. If its $5 for NEW movies, I'm sorry that's just a laugh. It's like these studios don't WANT to make money or something. If it was $1.99 for new releases AND old releases, they'd be making money HAND over FIST, and not losing anything for it. Right now, its like they like giving Redbox and Netflix the money instead. Silly. --Though, its probably all that "on-demand" cable money interfering with things now. I don't have cable, so I couldn't care less about those.

~ CB

CaptainScarlet
Dec 29, 2007, 07:21 PM
thats pretty much what Comcast charges for their movies on OnDemand :/

Yep and so does Time Warner...And to me thats just great! 24 hours to watch a movie I will only see once...

If I want to see the movie more, I'll go buy the DVD....


And I believe thats what the industry wants consumers to do...

dynamicd
Dec 29, 2007, 07:22 PM
30 days did seem far too long for only $2.99. I think 7-10 days would be a good amount of time for rental.

Project
Dec 29, 2007, 07:22 PM
Its most likely 24 hours after you start watching the film.

law guy
Dec 29, 2007, 07:23 PM
Maybe they're taking a cue from services like On Demand with it's $3.99 for 24 hour rentals. Of course that's new releases. Older movies are usually free on demand. The down side is that what's available changes every few weeks or months. But it's still hundreds of movies for "free" (or at least included in the cost of your cable service) and I can usually find something in there when I finally have time to watch a movie. Not to mention all of the TV shows that are on there on-demand for free. We are constantly (or so it seems) calling up Calliou or Kipper or Sagwa from the PBS Sprout On Demand channel. Then there's Discovery and all the music vids on-demand for free.

So all of those free movies, free tv shows, delivered to any TV in my house (instead of a computer or add-on like Apple TV) that I can pause or stop and come back to or just order again, and new releases for $3.99... I guess it will take some convincing for someone like me that what Apple is reported to be proposing will add value.

soLoredd
Dec 29, 2007, 07:27 PM
24 hours is too short and here is why...

Apple is pushing mobile video. Unless you have an AppleTV, fine because you will most likely be sitting in front of your TV already with time to watch. But, for the most people who don't have AppleTV, and whom aren't ready to watch, it sucks.

I've missed out on a couple movies on Xbox Live already because I've been interrupted during a portion of it and by the time I come back, no go.

14-day rental or even 7-day rental periods would be great.

Cleverboy
Dec 29, 2007, 07:29 PM
So all of those free movies, free tv shows, delivered to any TV in my house (instead of a computer or add-on like Apple TV) that I can pause or stop and come back to or just order again, and new releases for $3.99... I guess it will take some convincing for someone like me that what Apple is reported to be proposing will add value. True, perhaps... but you should know better than to repeatedly call it "free". It's like you've been hypnotized by them or something. You need to use the word "included", which of course casts a pall over your argument, but to folks like me who continue to debate whether they even NEED cable... its a very salient point. You put a significant amount of money in their bank each and every month. I certainly don't. At the end of the year, how much money have you paid them? You can also rip your DVDs to your Apple TV too. It has other uses.

~ CB

gifford
Dec 29, 2007, 07:31 PM
Does not sound a too bad deal to me. I would most defo be game.


I want a spontaneous service where I dont have to travel, or pop anything in the post.
I dont want to have to be signed up to some cable or satellite service.
I want it on my computer, and I want to watch it today.

I HATE Blockbuster with a passion, and look forward to Apple annihilating them.

Zman5225
Dec 29, 2007, 07:34 PM
I'd gladly go for a 24 hour rental from iTunes to watch a film I only would want to watch once anyways, GIVEN it's quality/bitrate.

GeekLawyer
Dec 29, 2007, 07:45 PM
24 hours makes no sense given Apple's (current, at least) model of allowing viewing of content on multiple devices. So... I rent Star Wars (thanks, FOX). I watch a little bit of it on my AppleTV. The next morning on the bus, I watch a little more on my iPhone. At lunch, I watch some more on iTunes at work. I have to get all of this done within 24 hours?

Maybe. But hopefully not. I guess the counterargument is that you'd buy it if you wanted that much flexibility with viewing options. <sigh>

SkippyThorson
Dec 29, 2007, 07:53 PM
Step 1 - Download Movie
Step 2 - Sync movie to iPod
Step 3 - Don't sync to iTunes again until your ready to 'return' your rental.

GreatOne08
Dec 29, 2007, 07:54 PM
I will go for 24 hours for 2 bucks a movie. Who needs to keep a rental for 30 days anyway.

evilyankeefan
Dec 29, 2007, 07:55 PM
24 hours starting after the 1st play of the movie kinda makes sense. It's like PPV. Would be nice if it was a little longer (48-72 hours). Why do I get a feeling that something might happen such as the 24 hour clock starts ticking right after download completes. Boy is this going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

So... I rent Star Wars (thanks, FOX).

Do we really think Lucas will allow us to rent Star Wars right off the bat? He will have to create the iPhone and :apple:tv special editions first. :)

gkarris
Dec 29, 2007, 07:57 PM
It's probably just like the Xbox Live movie rental service, with a 30 day time limit on the download, which turns into 24 hours after you start watching the movie.

Same as Tivo...

Mykbibby
Dec 29, 2007, 08:00 PM
My guesses, by taking bits and pieces from everywhere...
1.99 for 24 hours
2.99 for 7 days
4.99 for 30 days

One of these models will happen, in my opinion. I just hope it's more than Fox and Disney. Too bad Steve wasn't on the board of Universal :rolleyes: .

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather rent the Bourne Identity than High School Musical...

:apple:

EricNau
Dec 29, 2007, 08:00 PM
Step 1 - Download Movie
Step 2 - Sync movie to iPod
Step 3 - Don't sync to iTunes again until your ready to 'return' your rental.
I'm sure the videos will be automatically deleted from the iPod when the given duration has expired - sync or not.


1 day is too short, but 30 days was a bit long. I would put my money on 5 or 10 days.

Eriamjh1138@DAN
Dec 29, 2007, 08:04 PM
24 hours is about how long it will take to be hacked.

GeekLawyer
Dec 29, 2007, 08:06 PM
24 hours is about how long it will take to be hacked.

I think you make an excellent point. I haven't seen an incidence of DRM yet that hasn't been circumvented in relatively short order.

chas0001
Dec 29, 2007, 08:08 PM
I would accept 48 hours. Ever been in that situation where a friend or relative has called just as you started to watch the movie and did not cease talking until it was time for bed.

ltldrummerboy
Dec 29, 2007, 08:28 PM
I sure hope this isn't true. It would take me almost that long just to download a full length movie.

ChrisA
Dec 29, 2007, 08:38 PM
I doubt it will be only for a 24 hour period. Not with the slow download times many users would have. When it takes overnight to download the movies the short 24 hour period might mean you could never watch it. 24 hours is just to short to be workable.

Island Dog
Dec 29, 2007, 08:39 PM
I will be sticking with my Blockbuster online rentals.

theheadguy
Dec 29, 2007, 08:58 PM
Step 1 - Download Movie
Step 2 - Sync movie to iPod
Step 3 - Don't sync to iTunes again until your ready to 'return' your rental.
Oh my gosh- you've just tricked Apple engineers. They never thought of that! (?!)

Sheesh, why is everyone here so surprised? 30 day rentals? Now that was a stretch beyond the imagination.

This is Apple we are talking about here, it needs to be profitable, VERY profitable.

Let's not forget, we are talking about a company that you need to pay (again) to take a song you purchased and make it your ringer. :rolleyes:

iJon
Dec 29, 2007, 09:01 PM
24 hours does she a little short but it seems okay. If I go to BlockBuster to rent a movie I am going to assume I will go home immediately and watch it. After I watch it I probably will not watch it again during the duration of the rent. I almost always return the movie very quickly anyways just to make sure I don't forget and get late fees.

Even though it will work, I think at least 3 days should be considered since owning it more days isn't going to cost the studios anymore money or any lost revenue.

jon

nimbuscloud
Dec 29, 2007, 09:03 PM
Yeah, I hate that idea too, but I can see it happening that way. 30 days would be excellent, but a bit unrealistic to hope for I feel. If its $5 for NEW movies, I'm sorry that's just a laugh. It's like these studios don't WANT to make money or something. If it was $1.99 for new releases AND old releases, they'd be making money HAND over FIST, and not losing anything for it. Right now, its like they like giving Redbox and Netflix the money instead. Silly. --Though, its probably all that "on-demand" cable money interfering with things now. I don't have cable, so I couldn't care less about those.

~ CB

Get real.

Blockbuster charges $5 for a new movie that you have to return in the next two days. The problem with renting isn't so much of getting it, it's returning it. Usually, people get lazy after they've watched it or they wait to the last day to watch the movie.

If you can rent online, you will rent it RIGHT when you want to see it...or at least within the hour. Calm down. You don't work at Apple for a reason.

Stop asking for the world when you want it for free.

:apple:

Rocketman
Dec 29, 2007, 09:05 PM
This is a trial balloon.

The rental period was set in studio contracts months ago and is similar to mailback periods.

Rocketman

nimbuscloud
Dec 29, 2007, 09:05 PM
Let's not forget, we are talking about a company that you need to pay (again) to take a song you purchased and make it your ringer. :rolleyes:

Ask Verizon how much they charge for a ringtone that you can ONLY use as a ringtone. :rolleyes:

Apple isn't a non-profit company. Their stock wouldn't be going up if they were.

:apple:

nimbuscloud
Dec 29, 2007, 09:08 PM
I doubt it will be only for a 24 hour period. Not with the slow download times many users would have. When it takes overnight to download the movies the short 24 hour period might mean you could never watch it. 24 hours is just to short to be workable.

More than likely, it will be 3 days to watch it, but once you do...you keep it for 24 hours.

Nothing really wrong with that, but might as well have it as 3 days to keep it also.

Another thing, everyone need to calm down lol. This is a rumor, not fact.

:apple:

ifjake
Dec 29, 2007, 09:09 PM
i could see a week timer starting after you first start watching. you need to be able to watch it at least twice. with netflix, we share, some people watching it one day, some people watching it a couple days later. basically they're trying to charge per viewing, which is lame. that's how i imagine the studios pitching it. "we rent, but charge for each viewing", and then haggling back and forth and Apple only able to get them to budge to a 24 hour viewing period. i mean, i could see charging per each viewing, maybe, if it was like dollar theater pricing. 1 buck.

macomposer
Dec 29, 2007, 09:11 PM
You know, if I were trying to figure out what price/term the market would bear, I'd seed some rumors and see what the responses were on the message boards. Seriously. Real market research, cheap.

I worked at Circuit City back during the DIVX rollout in 98-99, and that was pretty much an impossible sell. I do not see how limited-use downloads are going to be received much differently. I'm very curious to see how they think this is going to actually work.

Curtis72
Dec 29, 2007, 09:12 PM
I agree with others who express displeasure with stupid 24 hr limitation.


This is why rental box stores like Blockbuster are still going to be around. Even without their new liberal overdue policy, you still had a good 36 hrs to watch a rental. That limitation I saw only as them (and other rental places) trying to be fair to all their customers so people would start hording movies.

I hope this is true. I really wanted to start putting my AppleTV to more use that just playing music.

rockthecasbah
Dec 29, 2007, 09:20 PM
That's ridiculously short. If true, bad job Fox and Disney...

HiRez
Dec 29, 2007, 09:21 PM
Who are the weirdos voting positive on this? How can anyone see this as positive, it's a terrible deal and they certainly won't be getting my business with that proposal. 3+ days, 720p, 5.1 audio, and good compression is a must. The cost can vary with the age of the movie.

twoodcc
Dec 29, 2007, 09:22 PM
yeah, i don't like the 24 hour limit. hopefully they are wrong about that part

cazlar
Dec 29, 2007, 09:43 PM
I have netflix, so I probably won't use iTunes for rentals, but one point I have that was sort of mentioned before is that 24 hrs is just way too restrictive, but just a few hours more (28-36) would make it so much better. That's because for most working people, movie viewing is actually restricted to a ~5-6hr window each weeknight. So just say you get home from work at 6pm and begin watching. Then for whatever reason you have to go out, or someone else "needs" to use the TV at the time, and you don't get to finish watching it before bed. Then the next day, you are at work, and just as you get home at 6 again, it expires!

Whereas the extra few hours actually give (regular working folk at least) 2 "primetime" slots. This is also very useful as you could watch a brilliant movie one night, and show your partner/friend the same movie the next night to prove to them how great it was...

Jadeite312
Dec 29, 2007, 09:45 PM
Guys a new movie is like 5 dollars in blockbuster and its a 2 day rental + an additional 7 days before you get fined. And as a member with a new release rental between mon-wed you get a free non new release rental at the same time. So thats 2 movies for 5 dollars...

law guy
Dec 29, 2007, 09:49 PM
True, perhaps... but you should know better than to repeatedly call it "free". It's like you've been hypnotized by them or something. You need to use the word "included", which of course casts a pall over your argument, but to folks like me who continue to debate whether they even NEED cable... its a very salient point. You put a significant amount of money in their bank each and every month. I certainly don't. At the end of the year, how much money have you paid them? You can also rip your DVDs to your Apple TV too. It has other uses.

~ CB

I don't disagree - I refer to it as "free" because I'm paying for the cable service to get the digital channels anyway (i.e., if there was no On Demand, I'd still subscribe to cable (or satellite)). So - included, or at no additional charge, or free - as opposed to the $3.99 fee on top of the regular costs for a new release. From my standpoint, they're getting that monthly fee for my internet, phone, and cable TV in any event.

The computer is actually similar, its just that Comcast is also getting that $40 for broadband just like they are getting the $$ for cable television - but the cost to access the computer content is unbundled from the content provider. The content is "free" once we get to the web, but there's a cost to access the data on the web.

Back to the notion that I'm paying for it anyway - for me, where it actually matters to what is in the subscription is more in case of the HBO, Starz, Encore package. Even with a DVR, I'd probably get very little out of premium channels, but since all the premium content is "included" On Demand at no additional charge, I can watch whatever HBO, etc. has on whenever I want to without having to set a recording first (which I would rarely do). Since it's all on demand and adds a lot of movie variety to the "included" category, its been worth it for us so far - e.g. we used to spend $16.99 on a DVD and watch it a few times. One DVD is more than the premium package a month. While it also is true that we get some of that same value where the kids are concerned, those viewing habits are different (which Steve Jobs is happy about) because kids will want to watch Cars or Mary Poppins or Lady and the Tramp or ... again, and again, and again, so we still buy those discs. But we're more likely to just watch something like Ice Age 2 on HBO On Demand for the few months that its on rather than buy it, so it's still useful even for the kids films.

The Apple service might be great, but I was just wondering aloud about the need it fills. With iPod / iTunes - having all your CDs with you and being about to buy anything you might want a track at a time when you didn't want to buy a CD was an early to market success. Already, and for years with more free (i.e. included in base access price / no additional $3.99 like for a new release) content in recent years, I can get all kinds of content direct to my TV already for what I'm paying anyway. Again, the Apple service might be great (Steve will explain have nothing like has ever been seen on planet Earth prior to it at MWSF - and who knows, there could be a real twist to it) but if I rent three or four movies a month, that's the price of digital cable (over non-digital) with the hundreds of included on demand choices and all the extra channels.

I also wonder about it because I haven't found the iTunes video content to be useful for me or my family. And if it's just another feature added to that set-up, I don't see us using the service any more frequently. It's just one soul opining that the space seems like its been addressed in various ways but curious to see what Apple comes up with.

Stella
Dec 29, 2007, 09:49 PM
LOL - 24 Hours.

I'd rather go with PPV. We all must remember this isn't an Apple decision, instead its the decision of the shortsighted movie industry who haven't moved with the times.

( Oh, this is another reason why rumours are bad - they inflate people's expectations and then upon reality hitting, these expectations are flattened. Oh, Apple rumour sites are still good fun!)

MacNerd12
Dec 29, 2007, 09:51 PM
Don't tell me Apple is going Comcrap on us!

Oh great. Here we go, next, you rent the music on iTunes not buy it. :mad:

Cleverboy
Dec 29, 2007, 09:56 PM
Guys a new movie is like 5 dollars in blockbuster and its a 2 day rental + an additional 7 days before you get fined. So.... :: blink :: Are you actually using BLOCKBUSTER as a measure of good pricing and value? :eek:

~ CB

SPUY767
Dec 29, 2007, 09:59 PM
Step 1 - Download Movie
Step 2 - Sync movie to iPod
Step 3 - Don't sync to iTunes again until your ready to 'return' your rental.

I thought there was going to be a Step 4: . . . and a Step 5: Profit. Then I was going to weep about this site becoming too Digg-like.

EagerDragon
Dec 29, 2007, 10:03 PM
24 hrs is way too short, I don't care if that is what others are doing. A week rental that starts after you first start viewing the movie, not after the movie is downloaded.

It takes too long to download to then limit it to 24 hours, what if the download completes after I go to bed?

One week after I start viewing it for 2.99 is about right. It is not like the studios would lose anything if I keep it for more than 24 hours. I see little point to go with iTunes rentals if all iTunes does is give me what others give me or even at worse quality.

Ill hold off until iTunes gives me something of much greater value than what others are offering.

Besides it cost me little to pickup or return the movie on my way from work to my home, it is not out of the way or a special trip.

I vote this one Negative.

Even better, don't charge until I start viewing or charge a dollar for the download and a dollar 99 for the actual rental. That way I can select multiple movies to download while I sleep or work and have them ready for viewing over a week period. If I never get to view them, they still have the dollar for each download so they loose nothing. Only charge the additional 1.99 after I start watching it.

evilgEEk
Dec 29, 2007, 10:06 PM
When I want to rent a movie on demand I'm going to watch it right then and there, so I couldn't care less about the 24 hour time limit.

I don't have an HDTV so I couldn't care less if it's not HD.

But please give us 5.1 surround!

:D

SheriffParker
Dec 29, 2007, 10:15 PM
Wow this is ridiculous. Does everyone here really want to watch a movie two or three times every time you rent one?

This service will most likely be just like Amazon's unbox video rental service. You DL the movie, have 30 days to push play, and then 24 hours to watch it once you've started it. Thats not unreasonable. I don't think all these: "what if my relative calls right after I started the movie" gripes are realistic at all. So nobody ever goes to see a movie in a theater? Its not the cineplex's fault if a relative calls and I need to talk to them during a movie that I already paid for.... ridiculous.

Cleverboy
Dec 29, 2007, 10:25 PM
I don't disagree - I refer to it as "free" because I'm paying for the cable service to get the digital channels anyway (i.e., if there was no On Demand, I'd still subscribe to cable (or satellite)). So - included, or at no additional charge, or free - as opposed to the $3.99 fee on top of the regular costs for a new release. From my standpoint, they're getting that monthly fee for my internet, phone, and cable TV in any event.No... I know why you said it was "free". I just know that its really "included" (especially if you're drawing comparisons). When I had cable, they suckered me in at a respectable rate, and not only increased it over time, but the original package price was only a promotion.

It's more accurate to compare iTunes to MovieBeam than to compare it to "OnDemand" where they're able to put a lot of content under a universal subscription fee. Point of fact, NFL has been trying to get its content under the mantle of "basic" service for a while, but still its relegated to "premium", because the cable companies don't want to go for it. The money comes from somewhere, and its all negotiation. I have fantastic reception of broadcast television.

So, there's no such thing as "free" OnDemand programming.

You made a comment that renting three or four movies a month will be the price of having cable. You're not making much sense. Until it gets announced, we're not clear what Apple will be charging. If its $1.99 to rent, then I have to disagree with you. The cable box and the basic subscription are going to run you at LEAST $20 a month ($13/mo. for basic, and at least $8/mo. for the box). --I'm not even clear OnDemand would be included with that. Usually a decent cable package will run you at least $30 each month... and cable subscribers rent too. I have friends and family with cable that go to Blockbuster and have Netflix accounts.

At the end of th day its consumer choice and freedom. As I understand it, Apple is working out a deal so that movie purchasers can get a digital download included. Walmart tried this, but had no traction with consumers. Apple does. Apple has already sold millions of movie downloads. Rentals are a no brainer. Look at the people in this thread already saying they'd try it. Amazon has a similar deal with TiVo.

We'll see how it works out I guess. I've already posted elsewhere what 3 things I think Apple needs to do to make Apple TV successful (aside from its content deals). 1.) Enable its USB port. 2.) Open the Platform to 3rd party vendors like EyeTV. 3.) Lower the price. --Then all this hemming and hawing becomes moot. --The only other big question is HD content... and WHEN.

~ CB

EagerDragon
Dec 29, 2007, 10:27 PM
Wow this is ridiculous. Does everyone here really want to watch a movie two or three times every time you rent one?

This service will most likely be just like Amazon's unbox video rental service. You DL the movie, have 30 days to push play, and then 24 hours to watch it once you've started it. Thats not unreasonable. I don't think all these: "what if my relative calls right after I started the movie" gripes are realistic at all. So nobody ever goes to see a movie in a theater? Its not the cineplex's fault if a relative calls and I need to talk to them during a movie that I already paid for.... ridiculous.

I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?

Besides I have a family and we don't always have time to all sit down and see the movie at the same time.

You look at it from a different angle than some of us do. Some of us want more than what it is currently available elsewhere. If Apple wants my dollars then it needs to give me more than I can get elsewhere. Why should I change from the other alternatives?

Giving me what others give me is not compelling, it is just a "me too".

GregA
Dec 29, 2007, 10:30 PM
24 hours starting after the 1st play of the movie kinda makes sense. It's like PPV.

Beyond PPV.... isn't that just like DVD rentals? ie: New releases are overnight anyway. Perhaps you do it differently in the US?

(edit: it would be nice to allow a "late fee" extension for 50% of the original cost, or something)

DaBrain
Dec 29, 2007, 10:42 PM
yeah, i don't like the 24 hour limit. hopefully they are wrong about that part

If they are going to do this, I would pay at the most $1.99 and it would have to be immediate streaming like netflix does. Not interested in using up my bandwidth, time and hard drive space to d/l movies!

Id rather stick with netflix then. I pay a flat amount every month for xxx movies at a time PLUS I get 1 hour of on line streaming credit for each dollar I pay them monthly.

The only problem I have with netflix is the limited movies available to stream due to the movie companies restrictions placed on netflix.

This deal does not sound good, especially if I have to buy 300 to 400 dollars of hardware besides my monthly ISP bill. Were just gonna have to wait and see. :confused:

ClassicBean
Dec 29, 2007, 10:44 PM
How about we wait until Apple actually makes an official announcement about the service, the terms, and everything else instead of getting all upset about unfounded rumours?

Not sure if you guys heard, but Apple is removing wifi connectivity from iPhone 2.0. Someone said so. It must be true. Discuss.

nimbuscloud
Dec 29, 2007, 10:47 PM
I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?

Besides I have a family and we don't always have time to all sit down and see the movie at the same time.

You look at it from a different angle than some of us do. Some of us want more than what it is currently available elsewhere. If Apple wants my dollars then it needs to give me more than I can get elsewhere. Why should I change from the other alternatives?

Giving me what others give me is not compelling, it is just a "me too".

Why? Because you don't have to get your lazy tush off your couch in order to rent it with iTunes.

What kinda angle do you want? Not Apple's fault that your family has an odd schedule. Heck, you don't even know if the rumor was real.

:apple:

nimbuscloud
Dec 29, 2007, 10:48 PM
How about we wait until Apple actually makes an official announcement about the service, the terms, and everything else instead of getting all upset about unfounded rumours?

Not sure if you guys heard, but Apple is removing wifi connectivity from iPhone 2.0. Someone said so. It must be true. Discuss.

GRRR!!! SNORT!!! I hate Apple, how could they do that?!?!?! THEY ARE DOOOOOMM'DDDD!!!!

;)

Anyway, I agree with you. People need to get a grip until Apple actually announces something.

:apple:

~Shard~
Dec 29, 2007, 10:57 PM
A 24-hour rental period is not unheard of. For our VoD service we charge $4.95 per movie and the rental is for 24 hours, and our take rate is extremely high - it is an extremely popular and profitable service. I think Apple would do well to adopt this kind of model. That being said, obviously the longer the rental period the better, however I would definitely not call this approach "garbage" or "unreasonable".

sfhc21
Dec 29, 2007, 11:02 PM
If Fox and Disney only allow 24 hours to watch the movie, the online rental model will never take off and AppleTV will continue to be just a "hobby" for the Apple enthusiasts.

Apple would probably be thrilled to offer 30 day rentals, but I don't think the studio's would allow it and will continue to make the same mistakes they are already making.

Until the cost is $2 a movie for 7 days once I start watching it (about my cost for a Netflix rental), Netflix still makes the most sense for me, especially with HD DVD.

EagerDragon
Dec 29, 2007, 11:02 PM
Why? Because you don't have to get your lazy tush off your couch in order to rent it with iTunes.

What kinda angle do you want? Not Apple's fault that your family has an odd schedule. Heck, you don't even know if the rumor was real.

:apple:

You seem to be taking this personal, You presume to know me and attack me and my family?

xDANx
Dec 29, 2007, 11:07 PM
the comparisons to blockbuster are fairly irrelevant. for those potential customers who are less familiar with their computers the itunes rental service is really competing with netflix (or zip up here in canada)...to win it has to be as easy and hassle free to use and similarly priced with no onerous DRM restrictions or it will quickly become less attractive than renting DVDs over the internet.

for people who are perhaps more familiar with their computers i think this service is more competing with bittorrent, a 'competitor' no one seems to have mentioned yet. it'll be much harder to win this one...to compel people to pay for content that they are becoming more and more used to getting for free apple will have to match or beat quality, file size, download speed, and catalog depth. the only real advantage i think apple has here is that the vast majority of bittorrent video content is not compatible with the iphone and ipod. so while visual fidelity is important i think apple's real strength lies in low def portability, mostly because of the total domination of the ipod. i'm curious to see what they do with the apple tv, because right now it seems like a huge waste of money.

as for time restrictions, as long as limits come close to conforming to already established behaviour no one is really going to even notice. if apple screws this one up it means that they really haven't been paying attention. as someone else pointed out, the main hassle with DVD rental is returning them, which is a non-issue with itunes. most people watch their movies very soon after having rented them. give people a week and it should work out. i don't understand why they would start a 24 hour timer once the file is played for the first time...it's just anti-consumer. if the intention is to limit the number of times the download is watched inside the period for which the file has been rented then people will continue to see physical DVD rental as better value. just tell people their rental is good for a certain length of time, let them watch it as many times as they want to, and give people the option of having itunes provide alerts to remind people how much time is left on the rental files.

l8to89
Dec 29, 2007, 11:17 PM
If Fox and Disney only allow 24 hours to watch the movie, the online rental model will never take off and AppleTV will continue to be just a "hobby" for the Apple enthusiasts.

i think that apple would have to drop the price on AppleTV or offer 5 free rentals with its purchase to get people to start buying it, and that would be the only way i see the rental endeavor working out.

EagerDragon
Dec 29, 2007, 11:24 PM
the comparisons to blockbuster are fairly irrelevant. for those potential customers who are less familiar with their computers the itunes rental service is really competing with netflix (or zip up here in canada)...to win it has to be as easy and hassle free to use and similarly priced with no onerous DRM restrictions or it will quickly become less attractive than renting DVDs over the internet.

for people who are perhaps more familiar with their computers i think this service is more competing with bittorrent, a 'competitor' no one seems to have mentioned yet. it'll be much harder to win this one...to compel people to pay for content that they are becoming more and more used to getting for free apple will have to match or beat quality, file size, download speed, and catalog depth. the only real advantage i think apple has here is that the vast majority of bittorrent video content is not compatible with the iphone and ipod. so while visual fidelity is important i think apple's real strength lies in low def portability, mostly because of the total domination of the ipod. i'm curious to see what they do with the apple tv, because right now it seems like a huge waste of money.

as for time restrictions, as long as limits come close to conforming to already established behaviour no one is really going to even notice. if apple screws this one up it means that they really haven't been paying attention. as someone else pointed out, the main hassle with DVD rental is returning them, which is a non-issue with itunes. most people watch their movies very soon after having rented them. give people a week and it should work out. i don't understand why they would start a 24 hour timer once the file is played for the first time...it's just anti-consumer. if the intention is to limit the number of times the download is watched inside the period for which the file has been rented then people will continue to see physical DVD rental as better value. just tell people their rental is good for a certain length of time, let them watch it as many times as they want to, and give people the option of having itunes provide alerts to remind people how much time is left on the rental files.

I am not sure about bittorrent in this conversation as it's use is clearly illegal, but I am pro consumers getting good value for their dollars and I am pro competition and the value it brings to consumers.

There are several rental services out there that appeal to different consumers (including also physical DVD rentals). People should vote with their money and get what best meets their needs. If Apple wants the consumer dollars then it needs to offer a compelling reason for people to switch.

I own a lot of Apple products but I like others need to have a compelling reason to get a particular product or service. Just because it comes from Apple is not enough for me.

ks-man
Dec 29, 2007, 11:28 PM
i think that apple would have to drop the price on AppleTV or offer 5 free rentals with its purchase to get people to start buying it, and that would be the only way i see the rental endeavor working out.

I agree that the main thing people here are ignoring is AppleTV. IF the pricing comes out at $4.99 for a new release this will likely never take off b/c you still need to invest in the hardware to make it a feasible alternative to Blockbuster, Netflix or VOD.

AppleTV currently costs at least $299. That is a lot of excess money to spend to be able to get immediate movie rentals considering you could go to Blockbuster and get the same thing. I think $3.99 and 3+ days is the minimum needed for this to take off. The problem is that the movie studios don't care if you buy an AppleTV or not, it doesn't directly add to their bottom line.

All this being said I don't think we should sell Apple short just yet. I'm sure Steve has an ace up his sleeve come Macworld and if not, they will adapt to make this business at least moderately successful.

SheriffParker
Dec 29, 2007, 11:31 PM
I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?

Besides I have a family and we don't always have time to all sit down and see the movie at the same time.

You look at it from a different angle than some of us do. Some of us want more than what it is currently available elsewhere. If Apple wants my dollars then it needs to give me more than I can get elsewhere. Why should I change from the other alternatives?

Giving me what others give me is not compelling, it is just a "me too".

5 to 7 dollars? Where did that come from?

Instant watching, not waiting for the DVD to be shipped or having to go out to the store to buy it.

Watch on TV via :apple:tv

Works seamlessly w/ iTunes and iPod

theheadguy
Dec 29, 2007, 11:37 PM
Ask Verizon how much they charge for a ringtone that you can ONLY use as a ringtone. :rolleyes:
Apple isn't a non-profit company. Their stock wouldn't be going up if they were.
:apple:
You seem to be on the attack with a few people here... Don't take people's opinions about Apple personally, cloud. As stated in my post, they like to make a lot of profit (which is the reason their stock price is going up, not merely because they are for-profit). That is why they will not implement a 30-day rental. I'm not arguing for or against it, just saying that profit, not customer satisfaction, is their [main] key to a high stock price.

Take a deep breath and relax. You'll see if the rumor is true soon enough.

theBB
Dec 29, 2007, 11:43 PM
I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?
I don't know why you would pay 5 to 7 dollars, either, especially because the rumor says $2 to $5. :)

People pay $5 to watch a recently released DVD, because they save $10-$20 over purchase price if they are not gonna watch it again.

EagerDragon
Dec 29, 2007, 11:43 PM
5 to 7 dollars? Where did that come from?

Instant watching, not waiting for the DVD to be shipped or having to go out to the store to buy it.

Watch on TV via :apple:tv

Works seamlessly w/ iTunes and iPod

To answer your question:

1) Someone else in one of the previous post mention 5 dollars for new releases and more if more than 24 hours.
2) Some people are willing to pay for instant gratification, others not as much. I can stop at the store on the way home so I am not as driven by the instant gratification tax. I also enjoy the human contact specially if pleasant and knows its product.
3) There are very few Apple TV out there, the cost has to be considered as part of the formula.
4) Most people want to watch their movies on their TV, iPod viewing is nice but not a killer App, and iTunes viewer is also not as popular as viewing in a physical TV.

I agree most people are willing to pay extra for convenience, but this type service would not be the only one that offers that instant gratification, so Apple has to offer something more or their success is going to have some limitations.

There are always a few million people that will just get it because it is Apple, but to get past that point, they need offer more.

Seems most people would rather never interact with other humans and sit on their couch and have everything delivered to them. No wonder porn and dating services do so well, most people would rather not have an intelligent conversation with another person and instead have instant gratification.

ks-man
Dec 29, 2007, 11:52 PM
What Apple really should do (if they go this route hopefully I will get massive royalties) is partner up with Sony or Samsung (the two largest TV manufacturers) and have :apple:tv built into tv sets. This way the cost is rolled into the price of a TV and then you don't need to purchase something separate to transfer your rental to the TV. They even could put wifi and Itunes on the :apple:tv and then you don't even need a computer.

Once this is all in place you are paying the same thing as a normal rental but the convenience factor is even better.

On a side note, people around here seem to be outraged by the $4.99 rumored price point. What would people think if new releases were $3.99 for 480P and $4.99 for 1080i and later 1080p? I think Apple and the studios can't get away with that.

So my guess for pricing would be

$1.99 - very obscure titles
$2.99 - mainstream movies over 1 year old
$3.99 - new releases in 480p and 5.1
$4.99 - new releases in 1080i and 5.1 and in the future 1080p and PCM

Just a few thoughts.

MikeTheC
Dec 30, 2007, 12:02 AM
And I believe thats what the industry wants consumers to do...

And this, by you, is a good thing? You want "all of us" to be nothing more than trained dogs?

Not in my country, and sure as hell not on my watch.

Bosunsfate
Dec 30, 2007, 12:11 AM
If I rent I'm only going to watch it once. So, the time limit is really meaningless in my opinion.

What is important is that I can take the rental fee and upgrade to a full purchase. I haven't seen that in the rumor yet, but expect that is there given how it works with music purchases.

All in the all, I think these are good signs. Now if only bandwidth would improve faster because I need my instant gratification. Not, start download, watch movie 6 hours later.:p

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 12:48 AM
If I rent I'm only going to watch it once. So, the time limit is really meaningless in my opinion.

This is a good point. I am the same way - I listen to music over and over, however I usually only watch a movie once. If I really enjoy it, perhaps a couple more times, but that's usually it. This is one of the reasons I only own 10-15 DVDs, and of those, have only watched perhaps 5-6 of them multiple times. I chuckle, as I have friends who have hundreds of DVDs and I often wonder how often they actually have watched each one. If the answer is "only once", then why did you shell out $20 for it? :p ;)

So further to this, I think a rental model makes sense if implemented correctly, and as for a 24 hour time limit, I see no problems with that.

fpnc
Dec 30, 2007, 12:50 AM
I think it is highly unlikely that we'll see any HD content. The iPods and iPhones don't support HD and I can't see Apple offering content just for the AppleTV (which under the best of circumstances only does something like half HD -- just somewhat better than a good quality, standard definition DVD).

Unfortunately, I'm sure that the rental terms are going to be dictated solely by the movie studios and they are unlikely to offer anything that would directly compete with either DVD sales or the standard physical-media video rental stores. Furthermore, iTunes Store video quality at its current best is below standard DVD quality which means that you could end up paying as much as you do today (Blockbuster, et. al.) for an inferior product.

Given the above, I'm not expecting anything too exciting when the announcement is finally made. However, my guess at a best-case deal would be:

72 hour viewing period (weekend plus)
Prices starting a $2.99 (higher for new releases).
No improvement over current iTunes Store video quality (1.5Mbps which in a stretch could be termed "standard definition" or "broadcast" quality but which will continue to be below DVD quality and nothing near to true HD).

If this new service can't even do the above then I predict continued "small potatoes" for online video delivery (which frankly is probably what the movie studios really want).

NAG
Dec 30, 2007, 01:10 AM
Considering the download time it would be nice if it was two or three days though so you could download ahead of time. Or does this limit only apply once you start watching it?

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 01:22 AM
Considering the download time it would be nice if it was two or three days though so you could download ahead of time. Or does this limit only apply once you start watching it?

Perhaps the 24-hour counter would only start upon completion of the download.

unknownart
Dec 30, 2007, 01:38 AM
Of course Apple could always ]stream content to your Mac, PC, apple-TV, as well. If y'all remember, The keynote addresses have lately been streamed over the internet, and not as a viable download as it had been in the past.
That's the way ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX does it... mind you, for consumers, it's for free, i.e. advertisers have commercial spots and that's who pays for them....
IMHO, 1-day rentals are totally unreal expectations. That's why I have never thought of using Redbox. I do use Blockbuster Online and I find that conducive to the way I view movies. I once had 3 movies for 2 months :eek: before I could effectively watch them... of course I paid for that with my monthly charges... but I did finally watch them.

jasonklee
Dec 30, 2007, 01:55 AM
we've become spoiled, haven't we?

back in my day, i would go to my corner video store, pay a buck to rent a movie for a day. i'd go home and watch it that night or the next morning, and return it.

movies are roughly 2 hrs, right? a 24 hour period seems okay, depending on how many flicks you rent in a given day. wanna watch it again, go buy it.

poppe
Dec 30, 2007, 01:56 AM
I'd rather have a rental solution where I pay monthly and have a list built up. Then on down times when the computer is resting at night it downloads 3 of the newest ones. Once I remove them from my computer or return them to iTunes the next three begin.

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 01:58 AM
I'd rather have a rental solution where I pay monthly and have a list built up. Then on down times when the computer is resting at night it downloads 3 of the newest ones. Once I remove them from my computer or return them to iTunes the next three begin.

Sounds like a Netflix-type of arrangement. ;)

irun5k
Dec 30, 2007, 02:19 AM
Wow this is ridiculous. Does everyone here really want to watch a movie two or three times every time you rent one?


Well, to be completely fair, sometimes you're watching a movie and you can't complete it. Perhaps the baby starts crying and won't go back to sleep and you've got a couple long days at work ahead, so it ends up being the weekend before you can finish the flick.

Or, if you're like my wife, you go to sleep in the middle of the flick and have to finish it at a later time.

One size doesn't fit all with rental schemes. Netflix is a dramatically different model from video on demand, for example. And they're both a bit different from a trip to the neighborhood blockbuster.

I tend to think a simple model like 99 cents per day would please the most people. 4.95 for 5 days, or a cheapy 99 cents for a single day. Or pick anywhere in between.

fastbite
Dec 30, 2007, 03:02 AM
I guess that it will be US only. Here in the UK nada.

BRussell
Dec 30, 2007, 03:57 AM
I think it is highly unlikely that we'll see any HD content. The iPods and iPhones don't support HD and I can't see Apple offering content just for the AppleTV (which under the best of circumstances only does something like half HD -- just somewhat better than a good quality, standard definition DVD). Half HD? Nah, AppleTV does 720p. And remember that it's also possible to watch movies on a computer display.

They could offer a choice for downloading a portable version or a full version. Or maybe a portable version will be downloaded along with a full version.

koobcamuk
Dec 30, 2007, 06:33 AM
24 hours is about how long it will take to be hacked.

Thus might be a quicker way to get your favourite movies [torrents can be slow, not that I use them].

They could offer a choice for downloading a portable version or a full version. Or maybe a portable version will be downloaded along with a full version.

Would be great but unlikely.

yamabushi
Dec 30, 2007, 06:39 AM
Apple has been pushing content in iTunes largely for use on iPods. Those who watch on a computer or via :apple:TV have been in the minority in the past. That being the case, any rentals must take into consideration that they are likely to be used on a portable device. If I want to buy some movies to watch on an iPod before a trip I will likely want to have them available for the entire length of the trip, including the return trip. That means a 30 day from purchase usage limitation is probably the best fit for the way the hardware is likely to be used. A limitation of 24 hours from first time played could be inconvenient for families but is understandable from the studios point of view. If the consumer intends to watch the video many times they might consider buying instead of renting. Still, whatever terms Apple provides must be very favorable in order to lure customers away from other distribution methods both legal and illegal.

zedsdead
Dec 30, 2007, 06:54 AM
Apple has been pushing content in iTunes largely for use on iPods. Those who watch on a computer or via :apple:TV have been in the minority in the past. That being the case, any rentals must take into consideration that they are likely to be used on a portable device. If I want to buy some movies to watch on an iPod before a trip I will likely want to have them available for the entire length of the trip, including the return trip. That means a 30 day from purchase usage limitation is probably the best fit for the way the hardware is likely to be used. A limitation of 24 hours from first time played could be inconvenient for families but is understandable from the studios point of view. If the consumer intends to watch the video many times they might consider buying instead of renting. Still, whatever terms Apple provides must be very favorable in order to lure customers away from other distribution methods both legal and illegal.

They could set it up like they did originally with iTunes Plus...allow those who want the HD download to get it, or they could give the option to buy both at a slightly higher price.

Then again, maybe they can up the specs for what the iPods and iPhone will playback.

BRussell
Dec 30, 2007, 06:55 AM
Would be great but unlikely.Something has to give: At some point, they're going to have higher-resolution videos for AppleTV, but they'll also want compatibility with the iPod. The most reasonable way to do that is to have multiple files. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen soon.Then again, maybe they can up the specs for what the iPods and iPhone will playback. Maybe, but then you run into the problem of the files taking up so much room.

zedsdead
Dec 30, 2007, 07:07 AM
Something has to give: At some point, they're going to have higher-resolution videos for AppleTV, but they'll also want compatibility with the iPod. The most reasonable way to do that is to have multiple files. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen soon. Maybe, but then you run into the problem of the files taking up so much room.

i know, the files would take up almost 4 gigs, but they would work;)

I think Apple will allow people to buy both for a higher cost personally. The HD has to be on the horizon.

safetyobc
Dec 30, 2007, 07:15 AM
I think this is great! 24 hours or more, doesn't matter to me. I live in a small hick town with 1 video store that sucks. I tried Netflix, but didn't like it because the DVD would come in and sit on the counter for weeks, then when I finally found time to watch, I send it back and wait on the next one.

I think being able to dowload a rental and watch it on my Macbook is awesome, so long as you can watch it without being tied to the internet.

I will gladly fork over my money for rentals, whereas I have yet to buy a movie from iTunes because it is tied to my Mac, can't be easily transferred (or transferred at all as far as I know) to a DVD, and I can buy the same movie for half the price at my local WalMart on DVD, use handbrake to rip it if I so desire.

But rentals are a different story (as long as the price is reasonable). My local store chargers about $5 for a 2 day DVD rental on new releases, so this would be great for me, as long as it is under the $5. I hope the service is available the same day it is announced!

sushi
Dec 30, 2007, 07:19 AM
Twenty four hours seems a bit short to me.

diamond.g
Dec 30, 2007, 08:28 AM
Half HD? Nah, AppleTV does 720p. And remember that it's also possible to watch movies on a computer display.

They could offer a choice for downloading a portable version or a full version. Or maybe a portable version will be downloaded along with a full version.

The AppleTV only does 720p @24fps. So either it needs to do 3:2 pulldown or the TV has to do it. Very few 720p TVs support 24fps natively. That also mean no home HD content will play as it is usually 1080i @30 or 60fps.

brewcitywi
Dec 30, 2007, 09:00 AM
Let's wait and see before panicking.

I hope they create a:

25 cents for 2 hours offer

law guy
Dec 30, 2007, 09:59 AM
So, there's no such thing as "free" OnDemand programming.

You made a comment that renting three or four movies a month will be the price of having cable. You're not making much sense. Until it gets announced, we're not clear what Apple will be charging. If its $1.99 to rent, then I have to disagree with you. The cable box and the basic subscription are going to run you at LEAST $20 a month ($13/mo. for basic, and at least $8/mo. for the box). --I'm not even clear OnDemand would be included with that. Usually a decent cable package will run you at least $30 each month... and cable subscribers rent too. I have friends and family with cable that go to Blockbuster and have Netflix accounts.

~ CB

*Sigh* of course the pricing is not yet announced - thus the discussion of the rumor. I was noting with the pricing noted in the posted rumor ($2 to $5), but you may have skimmed over that info. The cost that I noted - as I said in my post - was the cost of digital over regular extended ("but if I rent three or four movies a month, that's the price of digital cable (over non-digital) with the hundreds of included on demand choices and all the extra channels") -- for me that is $10 a month more to get digital cable, which is what comes with all of the on demand programming. Did you really think I was suggesting one could subscribe to digital cable for a total price of $10 a month?

So here it is again. I subscribe to cable anyway. I subscribe to digital cable anyway because it gives you a lot of additional channels [while it gives you lots of included HD channels (including HD movies on those channels) as well, we have yet to go HD]. But one of the nice features of that extra $10 are all of the TV shows and movies that are available at no additional cost. Given all of that included content on demand that comes to all the TVs in the house, we're not wanting for more. We've also found that paying for a premium package like HBO/Starz/Encore which puts all of that content on demand is a better economic deal than what we did before because we used to buy DVDs and one $16.99 is more than the package that gives us a fairly good number of recent releases.

zoozx
Dec 30, 2007, 10:06 AM
It will fail Horribly with those prices and a limit at anything under 5 days.

Digitalclips
Dec 30, 2007, 10:11 AM
I think it is highly unlikely that we'll see any HD content. The iPods and iPhones don't support HD and I can't see Apple offering content just for the AppleTV (which under the best of circumstances only does something like half HD -- just somewhat better than a good quality, standard definition DVD).
Given the above, I'm not expecting anything too exciting when the announcement is finally made.

I must disagree with your statement that 'half HD -- just somewhat better than a good quality, standard definition DVD' . By 'half HD' I would assume you mean 720x1280 if so it is actually slightly larger as it is 1920 x 1080/1.5.

Viewed on a nice large HD screen 720p blows away the NTSC 480x 640 (interlaced or not) picture (unless you are watching on a small enough screen so as not to be able to see this). Remember the square-law, double the pixel density and you have 4 times the area covered. You can place 9 NTSC standard video pictures in the HD format 1920 x 1080.

I am sticking my neck out and will eat humble pie if I am wrong but ...

With the end of standard TV transmissions just a short time away and many people becoming accustomed to the higher definitions and higher internet speeds common, I suspect strongly that Apple and the studios are not going to be holding back on pushing the higher definitions sooner rather than later. Apple especially has always pushed the envelope.

Cleverboy
Dec 30, 2007, 10:12 AM
*Sigh* of course the pricing is not yet announced - thus the discussion of the rumor. I was noting with the pricing noted in the posted rumor ($2 to $5), but you may have skimmed over that info. The cost that I noted - as I said in my post - was the cost of digital over regular extended ("but if I rent three or four movies a month, that's the price of digital cable (over non-digital) with the hundreds of included on demand choices and all the extra channels") -- for me that is $10 a month more to get digital cable, which is what comes with all of the on demand programming. Did you really think I was suggesting one could subscribe to digital cable for a total price of $10 a month?I get it, you don't want to be wrong. No problem. My original message just said that you should NOT call "Included" services on your cable "free" if you wanted to make a fair comparison. That's all. You wrote a very looooooong response. It's clear you have a legal background. ;) You were still inaccurate, and I think you agreed... you just like the relative feeling that its "free to me", regardless of how incompatible the statement is to the value proposition represented to others.

--Everything else is completely irrelevant, but possibly fun to explore and discuss I 'spose, we shouldn't digress into it though and lose the original point being made.

~ CB

Hustle
Dec 30, 2007, 10:29 AM
Apple wonder why people use Limewire.

xDANx
Dec 30, 2007, 10:33 AM
I am not sure about bittorrent in this conversation as it's use is clearly illegal, but I am pro consumers getting good value for their dollars and I am pro competition and the value it brings to consumers.

the bittorrent protocol is not illegal...that's like saying that http is illegal. people routinely break copyright law using bittorrent clients...i will leave the discussion as to whether those copyrights laws in their current form are reasonable for another time.

just because you find its use distasteful doesn't mean that you should ignore its impact on the online rental market. if apple puts on the blinders in this regard this rumored rental service is in big trouble.

BRussell
Dec 30, 2007, 10:39 AM
The AppleTV only does 720p @24fps. So either it needs to do 3:2 pulldown or the TV has to do it. Very few 720p TVs support 24fps natively. That also mean no home HD content will play as it is usually 1080i @30 or 60fps. Come on now, if Apple sells/rents HD content through the iTunes store, it will certainly be in a format compatible with the AppleTV.

Peace
Dec 30, 2007, 10:51 AM
Come on now, if Apple sells/rents HD content through the iTunes store, it will certainly be in a format compatible with the AppleTV.

True dat but it will be a new Apple TV.

BRussell
Dec 30, 2007, 10:57 AM
True dat but it will be a new Apple TV. I don't see them leaving out older AppleTVs, especially since they can already play 720p HD. I've never heard of anyone not being able to play properly encoded (i.e., 720p, 24fps, etc.) on their TV.

Cleverboy
Dec 30, 2007, 11:05 AM
True dat but it will be a new Apple TV. Yeah, I disagree. They'll add true 720p, and it'll work just fine with existing Apple TVs. The ONLY problem is, it will likely only work on the current generation of iPod Classic, Nano, Touch and iPhone. Basically anything with access to a hardware H.263 decoder (which I believe Apple TV has).

~ CB

Peace
Dec 30, 2007, 11:06 AM
I don't see them leaving out older AppleTVs, especially since they can already play 720p HD. I've never heard of anyone not being able to play properly encoded (i.e., 720p, 24fps, etc.) on their TV.

Yeah, I disagree. They'll add true 720p, and it'll work just fine with existing Apple TVs. The ONLY problem is, it will likely only work on the current generation of iPod Classic, Nano, Touch and iPhone. Basically anything with access to a hardware H.263 decoder (which I believe Apple TV has).

~ CB


I was actually referring to any potential 1080i/P content.

And as long as Fox/Disney are the only providers this will continue as a "hobby".

Grimace
Dec 30, 2007, 11:17 AM
Eh, I don't see this as a huge negative. It's just like video-on-demand. Pricing is the real obstacle. For only 24 hours, I would grade this service:

A+ $1.99
A- $2.99
B $3.99
B- $4.99

law guy
Dec 30, 2007, 11:26 AM
I get it, you don't want to be wrong. No problem. My original message just said that you should NOT call "Included" services on your cable "free" if you wanted to make a fair comparison. That's all. You wrote a very looooooong response. It's clear you have a legal background. ;) You were still inaccurate, and I think you agreed... you just like the relative feeling that its "free to me", regardless of how incompatible the statement is to the value proposition represented to others.

--Everything else is completely irrelevant, but possibly fun to explore and discuss I 'spose, we shouldn't digress into it though and lose the original point being made.

~ CB

You'd try to argue with someone trying to give you a free pancake. It's included in the cost of the rest of my breakfast! But to each his own. I'll enjoy the pancake at no additional cost.

Of course the digital cable costs money, but Comcast could either not include as much free, er... no-additional-fee on demand programing or none at all and just leave it as pay only. So it's included (although they could just take it all away at any time)... and one way to talk about it - I think accurately - is that it is included for no additional cost. You can call no-additional-cost whatever suits you.

pubwvj
Dec 30, 2007, 11:44 AM
24 hours is too short.
$2 to $5 is too expensive.
Download times are too long.
BlockBuster or NetFlix is better.

Cleverboy
Dec 30, 2007, 11:46 AM
You'd try to argue with someone trying to give you a free pancake. It's included in the cost of the rest of my breakfast! But to each his own. I'll enjoy the pancake at no additional cost. I think there is a difference between "included" and "free". I think its a "free gift" if they give you a 1 GB USB memory stick every month with your cable subscription during a certain "promo" period. Your OnDemand channels are "included". They're actually on the service description, aren't they? Moreover, if they decided tomorrow to take them ALL away tomorrow, and still charge you the same thing... I'm sorry, but I have a feeling you'd have a legal leg to stand on if you declared that they were supposed to be "Included". You wouldn't call them up asking them where your "freebies" were. --I mean, would you? :)

EDIT: Just saw your update.
I'm not going to change my
argument though. :)

Another good example was Register.com. They were the first registrar to provide "free DNS" service with your domain name registration. Network Solutions at the time required you to find a "DNS provider" before you registered your names. Once, Register.com's DNS service was acting up, and my name wasn't pointing to the right website. When I got them on the phone, at one point the person ACTUALLY tried to float to me the explanation of "Well, you're getting this for free anyway..." he heard the tone and my voice and backed off this tactic, and said that they'd have it resolved soon. --So, maybe I would argue about the pancake. I'd still call it "Included" though.

Those monopoly game pieces that give you "free" fast food? Those are "free". It's the quintessential meaning of the phrase "No Purchase Necessary".

Don't feel bad, honestly... a year ago someone pointed this out to me. I'd attended a Salesforce seminar here in Boston, and they were giving out a "FREE" book of "Salesforce for Dummies". I thought it was great. I remarked to my boss... "Hey, its great that they're giving these out for FREE!" He squinted at me, and reminded me that he pays for each and everyone of our Salesforce accounts... and that whether its "Included" or "Complimentary", I shouldn't be under the delusion that its "free". I felt mortified 'cause he was right.

EDIT:
I can see how they're presenting it...
http://comcast.m0.net/m/p/com/mic/view_free_movies.asp
If I was looking at this everyday I can see how I'd start to think they were "free" too.
It's just not workable for comparing that to a service without a subscription.
If you were comparing cable services, it would make complete sense to compare
subscription rates, and compare what each gives you "for free", "complimentarily" or "at no added cost".

~ CB

poppe
Dec 30, 2007, 11:51 AM
Sounds like a Netflix-type of arrangement. ;)

It is but you aren't doing it through the mail and you aren't streaming the videos; isn't netflix streamed?

Cleverboy
Dec 30, 2007, 12:00 PM
I was actually referring to any potential 1080i/P content. And as long as Fox/Disney are the only providers this will continue as a "hobby".Actually... same difference, right? I only referred to 720p, because of the issue of practicality for downloading (and that being the lowest you could go and still call it HD). I've gotten over the "swelling" of the standard iTunes video resolution, but it certainly killed playback on my old computer.

That said, AppleTV has already been doing 1080i content. It's only the 1080p content that it doesn't support. I think a number of people have been giving that a whirl. I'm not clear on the tests of streaming vs. on-board HD though.

~ CB

GrannySmith_G5
Dec 30, 2007, 12:12 PM
It immediately struck me that both reports are likely correct. What we have is 2 numbers. 30 days and 24 hours. This is basically the standard with most of these services, no? 30 days to watch, once you start it expires in 24 hours. Am I missing something here?

Peace
Dec 30, 2007, 12:13 PM
Actually... same difference, right? I only referred to 720p, because of the issue of practicality for downloading (and that being the lowest you could go and still call it HD). I've gotten over the "swelling" of the standard iTunes video resolution, but it certainly killed playback on my old computer.

That said, AppleTV has already been doing 1080i content. It's only the 1080p content that it doesn't support. I think a number of people have been giving that a whirl. I'm not clear on the tests of streaming vs. on-board HD though.

~ CB

To me "true HD" means 5.1 DD..Something the current Apple TV wont do.

law guy
Dec 30, 2007, 12:19 PM
It's just not workable for comparing that to a service without a subscription.
If you were comparing cable services, it would make complete sense to compare
subscription rates, and compare what each gives you "for free", "complimentarily" or "at no added cost".

~ CB

But that's the point of my post CB. For folks that have digital cable (like me), will Apple's service be alluring, fill any gaps / needs? Will it add something that folks will want for the $2 to $5 if they're already getting a to-the-tv service with at least some no additional charge programming and $3.99 rentals.

Like I said, the delivery charge is bundled with Comcast - I pay them for access and content when it comes to TV. Because the delivery and content are unbundled, you think of iTunes as free but I pay Comcast $40 to access the web and iTunes. So for the iTunes rental service, I'll still pay $40 (broadband access) plus $2 to $5 per film to use it.

For me, it just seems that folks that have digital cable may not find a to-the-computer rental service a longed for addition. But as I said knowing Apple there may be some surprise twist to it all.

Go Pats.

Cleverboy
Dec 30, 2007, 12:19 PM
To me "true HD" means 5.1 DD..Something the current Apple TV wont do.Mm. That's just sad. I was also looking up 1080i just know, I guess there's a lot of confusion out there. Apple TV ALSO doesn't do 540p at 60 fps, so its not really able to REALLY do kosher 1080i either, right (just upscaled 720p at 30 fps)? I guess I misspoke. Sorry.

~ CB

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 12:22 PM
It is but you aren't doing it through the mail and you aren't streaming the videos; isn't netflix streamed?

Yep, you're correct - that's why I said it was similar to it. :) Not a bad model, really...

Digitalclips
Dec 30, 2007, 12:22 PM
To me "true HD" means 5.1 DD..Something the current Apple TV wont do.

Why would you think the type of audio defines a video source "true HD". This would mean, using your definition, that 480i with 5.1 is HD whereas 1080p with stereo is not? HD refers to the number of pixels in a single frame to me, thus anything around or over 1 Million Pixels is worthy of that title today (who knows in 5 years). Maybe I am not understanding your meaning here.

Cleverboy
Dec 30, 2007, 12:26 PM
But that's the point of my post CB. For folks that have digital cable (like me), will Apple's service be alluring, fill any gaps / needs? Will it add something that folks will want for the $2 to $5 if they're already getting a to-the-tv service with at least some no additional charge programming and $3.99 rentals. I know. I get into arguments all the time on the "true for me" relativity thing. I have a friend that regularly plays devil's advocate without warning, its unnerving. You're totally right for people in your situation. I went back to terrestrial a few years ago, after a friend chided me for not realizing how many people don't need cable to watch TV (I'd been regularly buying Lost episodes from iTunes along with Battlestar Galactica).

Pats? OMG. I hadn't even looked!
I saw they were down last night.
38 to 35. Wow. Must have been a great game.
NFL History. Nice.
Why would you think the type of audio defines a video source "true HD". This would mean, using your definition, that 480i with 5.1 is HD whereas 1080p with stereo is not? HD refers to the number of pixels in a single frame to me, thus anything around or over 1 Million Pixels is worthy of that title today (who knows in 5 years). Maybe I am not understanding your meaning here.I think he really means "high definition" straight up. It's fairly RIDICULOUS to have a high resolution picture and NO surround sound in the audio track. It's not as if AAC doesn't support 5.1 either. Hopefully they'll sort this out along with closed captions and language options.

~ CB

mrtravel123
Dec 30, 2007, 12:28 PM
Even if just 24 hours... this is not a major problem for me, especially if it ends up just supplementing my Netflix subscription.

If I'm in the mood to watch a movie... I (personally) can go online... choose a movie... and then watch it within the next 24 hours. If it's a 24 hour window that begins when I start watching the movie... all the better. But, I'm fine with the former scenario. Really, it's comparable to most (store) rentals.

However....

If it can match the benefits (and costs) of Netflix... I'll quit my Netflix subscription and move over entirely. But, if it's more costly, I'll likely keep my Netflix... and just use this 24 hour service on rare occasions. In regards to Netflix, I love to pick 10+ movies out in advance... and just not think about it for 2+ weeks. I also think it's a good value... at roughly $2- 3 per video (if I'm not sitting on a DVD for a week).

Honestly, I hope that the features and benefits EXCEED Netflix & other DVD rental services. I'd hate to see this thing get started and then see it either fall apart (via the studios disliking Apple's profit-sharing) or not win people over because it's a terrible value, doesn't meet people's needs, etc. I don't want to see any flops with Apple in the near future. But, I guess sometimes trying to be innovative means taking risks and trying to create new trends vs. following everyone else. So, I hope Apple does well with this... and it doesn't end up being useless.

benspratling
Dec 30, 2007, 12:51 PM
Step 1 - Download Movie
Step 2 - Sync movie to iPod
Step 3 - Don't sync to iTunes again until your ready to 'return' your rental.

Step 2.5 - pretend your iPod doesn't have a clock or calendar.
Step 2.75 - Sadness ensues

Peace
Dec 30, 2007, 12:56 PM
Why would you think the type of audio defines a video source "true HD". This would mean, using your definition, that 480i with 5.1 is HD whereas 1080p with stereo is not? HD refers to the number of pixels in a single frame to me, thus anything around or over 1 Million Pixels is worthy of that title today (who knows in 5 years). Maybe I am not understanding your meaning here.

In the real world High Definition movies,TV shows and radio almost always has Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound.That's what I meant by "true HD".

benspratling
Dec 30, 2007, 01:00 PM
some folks will go for a 24-hour rental. My rommate and I have done the red-box rental which is only 24 hours; the trouble is internet reliability. If I go to the red box, I have the dvd in my hand (oh and it's cheaper than the rumored rates) so I don't have to worry about having the movie when the friends come over. but if I have to download, the cable company might do unannounced service that day, and I won't have the file. While it's true you can watch a movie as its downloading with present day download speeds, it's also the case that there's a chance as you're watching part of the movie you don't get the rest of it. So when you come to Friday night, something goes haywire, maybe your friends can't come back over 'till Sunday night, but you have to pay for the movie again? At this point, you say "%&$( it, I'll get something from Red Box, it's cheaper anyway." 24-hours is not the kind of rental time I'm sure Steve will press for, (because let's face it, in the tech industry, other than game developers he's the only person who cares how people feel when they use his products). At least 2 days for the rental, no more than $1.99, otherwise "%($^#% it."
45 minute TV shows are $1.99.
1.5 hour movies are $9.99
Why is the scale so non-linear?
TV shows give you so much more bang for your buck, as long as it's not "Bone Detectives." (Oh my gosh I wanted to die of boredom!)

benspratling
Dec 30, 2007, 01:03 PM
Mm. That's just sad. I was also looking up 1080i just know, I guess there's a lot of confusion out there. Apple TV ALSO doesn't do 540p at 60 fps, so its not really able to REALLY do kosher 1080i either, right (just upscaled 720p at 30 fps)? I guess I misspoke. Sorry.

~ CB

Movies are shot at 24 fps anyway. That's what really bugs me. I can see 24 fps, so movies always look jittery to me. Being in a theater is like going to watch a strobe light in my face. At least they blur the frames together when they move to NTSC TV on DVD's. When they pan the camera in these new "reality" movies it makes everything so blurry you can't read anything anymore. I only go for the immersive experience.

irun5k
Dec 30, 2007, 01:10 PM
45 minute TV shows are $1.99.
1.5 hour movies are $9.99
Why is the scale so non-linear?
TV shows give you so much more bang for your buck, as long as it's not "Bone Detectives." (Oh my gosh I wanted to die of boredom!)

Well, movies and TV shows are pretty different when it comes down to it. A 2 hour movie may take many months to film and produce, and could cost $100 or more. The box office used to be the primary source or revenue for movies (prior to VCS/DVD.) I'm not sure what DVDs have done to the model though.

TV shows on the other hand are produced in bulk, maybe 20 per season, at a much lower cost. Generally advertising is the ultimate vehicle that funds TV shows.

I'm not really sure how they price DVDs and downloaded movies and TV shows though. In all cases, I suspect that the additional income is just "gravy", and that the content has already been paid for by advertising, box office sales, etc.

Solver
Dec 30, 2007, 01:12 PM
The way that Amazon Unbox does this for my TiVo is

I choose a video rental from our TiVo for ($0.00 to $3.99)
The video is downloaded to our TiVo
We have 30 days to start watching it after the download completes
After we begin watching the video, we have 24 hours to view it as many times as we want before the video is deleted

So if I download a 2 1/2 hour movie and the family starts watching it two weeks later at 8:30pm and for some reason we can't finish so we continue watching the same movie the next day at say 8:00pm, the movie will be abruptly deleted by our TiVo right at 8:30pm while we are still watching it.
All we have after that is some copyright holder message.

I believe this is some industry standard copyright rule and the way it will work for iTunes.

sndcj1
Dec 30, 2007, 01:29 PM
I would love a Netflix style subscription for this service, personally. $20-$30 a month, unlimited viewing until you "return" the movie. X active movies at a time (based on monthly fee). A queue that as soon a the movie is "returned" the new one starts to download. I would even be fine with a limit to the number of movies per month that you can view, say 10 for a $20 plan and 20 for a $30 plan. The only problem with this would be the integration of the mobile devices. Perhaps they only allow playback for 24-48 hours after sync, then they need to be re-synced to ensure the movie has not been "returned"? This style would probably work best for me... so I'm sure it won't be offered.

madmax_2069
Dec 30, 2007, 01:39 PM
$2 - $5 for only 24 hour rental, a bit much for a short period of time.

it might be worth it if it was like a 2-3 day rental. i think $0.99 for a 24 hour period sounds allot better then $2 - $5 for only 24 hours.

elgruga
Dec 30, 2007, 01:49 PM
NO facts, just idle speculation.
Time range is 24 hours to 30 days.
Price range, so far, is .99c to $5.

I'll wait until its announced - it will only be in the US anyway, as usual 'Free Trade' is a lie.

EagerDragon
Dec 30, 2007, 02:01 PM
I'd rather have a rental solution where I pay monthly and have a list built up. Then on down times when the computer is resting at night it downloads 3 of the newest ones. Once I remove them from my computer or return them to iTunes the next three begin.

I like this type of solution, movies are downloaded automatically from a list I selected, they are ready to go, I can watch once or a hundred times, when I "virtually return one", another one from my list is scheduled for download.

Very reasonable, only weak point is that I may change my mind as to what order I may want to watch the movies, so I have to rearrange my list and return one of the ones I downloaded even if I have not seen it yet.

But otherwise very workable.

elgruga
Dec 30, 2007, 02:03 PM
You'd try to argue with someone trying to give you a free pancake. It's included in the cost of the rest of my breakfast! But to each his own. I'll enjoy the pancake at no additional cost.

Of course the digital cable costs money, but Comcast could either not include as much free, er... no-additional-fee on demand programing or none at all and just leave it as pay only. So it's included (although they could just take it all away at any time)... and one way to talk about it - I think accurately - is that it is included for no additional cost. You can call no-additional-cost whatever suits you.

NO.

You are not correct when you think 'free' is the same as a no-cost add-on.

The costs of services is what you actually pay for them. If the company delivering the service chooses to call one of the components 'free', but you cant have it unless you buy the rest, it is clearly not free.
Its just a marketing ploy designed to attract the unwary, the greedy, the stupid, by using absolute concepts that have zero meaning.

Why dont you go to the restaurant and ask for the free pancakes, without the rest of the breakfast?
They will happily give you a plate of pancakes and no money will change hands. NOT.

ITS ONLY FREE IF NO MONEY OR SERVICES CHANGES HANDS!

Free is a concept that has so many meanings it is meaningless; like truth.

If you are involved in the Law (another meaningless concept, BTW), I suggest you switch to Marketing.

Those guys love to talk in absolutes, when no such beast exists.

wightlight999
Dec 30, 2007, 02:04 PM
it doesnt say whether or not you could even put the rental on your ipod

ill bet you can have it downloaded on your computer for only 24 hours
but you can keep it on your ipod, as long as you dont plug it into itunes

EagerDragon
Dec 30, 2007, 02:25 PM
the bittorrent protocol is not illegal...that's like saying that http is illegal. people routinely break copyright law using bittorrent clients...i will leave the discussion as to whether those copyrights laws in their current form are reasonable for another time.

just because you find its use distasteful doesn't mean that you should ignore its impact on the online rental market. if apple puts on the blinders in this regard this rumored rental service is in big trouble.

The protocol is perfectly legal, using it to upload or download movies by other than authorized distributors is illegal.

Apple is not run by a bunch of stupid, brain dead people.


I am not sure why Apple needs to take such practice into more consideration than they did 1 to 3 years ago. That practice been going on a while now. It is more of an issue when purchasing movies via iTunes than it would be over renting movies over iTunes.

It is already part of the equation, I am sure Apple studied that form of illegal distribution and determined how it affects Apple, before they sold the first movie and revisited that subject before they started negotiations for rentals.

andy721
Dec 30, 2007, 02:41 PM
yet another mac money hungry Co.
Stupid Idea, way to go, lets get on with the macpro specs and the new apple LCD rumors.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

law guy
Dec 30, 2007, 03:26 PM
NO.

You are not correct when you think 'free' is the same as a no-cost add-on.

The costs of services is what you actually pay for them. If the company delivering the service chooses to call one of the components 'free', but you cant have it unless you buy the rest, it is clearly not free.
Its just a marketing ploy designed to attract the unwary, the greedy, the stupid, by using absolute concepts that have zero meaning.

Why dont you go to the restaurant and ask for the free pancakes, without the rest of the breakfast?
They will happily give you a plate of pancakes and no money will change hands. NOT.

ITS ONLY FREE IF NO MONEY OR SERVICES CHANGES HANDS!

Free is a concept that has so many meanings it is meaningless; like truth.

If you are involved in the Law (another meaningless concept, BTW), I suggest you switch to Marketing.

Those guys love to talk in absolutes, when no such beast exists.

Bad Elgruga.

Cleverboy
Dec 30, 2007, 03:28 PM
Bad Elgruga. Not biting, I see. Nice. :D Someday I'm going to resolve to only speak in haikus.

~ CB

law guy
Dec 30, 2007, 03:32 PM
Not biting, I see. Nice. :D Someday I'm going to resolve to only speak in haikus.

~ CB

Yep. I do feel for Canada not getting the iTunes services quickly, though. I do have some cross boarder documents from time-to-time with a company in New Brunswick and simply getting everyone to agree that the French and English translations of the contract are both accurate can be time consuming.

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 04:47 PM
$2 - $5 for only 24 hour rental, a bit much for a short period of time.

it might be worth it if it was like a 2-3 day rental. i think $0.99 for a 24 hour period sounds allot better then $2 - $5 for only 24 hours.

I think it depends how you approach it. If you are wanting to watch a few movies over the weekend, let's say, but don't know which ones in which order and when exactly, then yes, obviously a 24-hour time limit is prohibitive. However, if a person treats it as a VoD service, and only goes to rent a movie when he/she actually wants to watch it (assuming quick d/l times, etc.) then a 24-hour rental period is not unreasonable in my opinion.

They key there of course is that not only would Apple would need to implement things properly on their end to ensure fast content delivery, but the end user would also need to have enough bandwidth available to make everything work smoothly. Sitting down after dinner and saying, "Hey, I'm going to rent a movie and watch it right now" is great, but if you then need to wait a significant amount of time for the download to complete, this is obviously less desirable.

robanga
Dec 30, 2007, 04:53 PM
IMHO to compete with brick and mortar, blockbuster and netflix you need to offer a longer than 24 hour window. Sometimes you watch a movie 2-3 times during a rental period. I've rented from Xbox Live and this is one of the issues that keeps me from renting more movies from MS. Interestingly MS gives you an indefinite time period to watch downloaded TV episodes. That I like and have purchased a lot of those. My neighborhood blockbuster is likely to continue to see my business.

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 05:02 PM
Sometimes you watch a movie 2-3 times during a rental period.

Really? I would think people like yourself would be in the minority, but perhaps I'm mistaken... Whenever I have rented a movie I have only ever watched it once, and know many people who do the exact same.

Regardless, Apple cannot cater to everyone, since obviously everyone has different needs and wants when it comes to this type of service. It will be interesting to see the details once they are released.

robanga
Dec 30, 2007, 05:06 PM
Really? I would think people like yourself would be in the minority, but perhaps I'm mistaken... Whenever I have rented a movie I have only ever watched it once, and know many people who do the exact same.

Regardless, Apple cannot cater to everyone, since obviously everyone has different needs and wants when it comes to this type of service. It will be interesting to see the details once they are released.


I would probably agree with you that I am in the minority there, but then again it would be an interesting survey. I think we are more likely to watch movies multiple times if they are kids movies particularly, we bought the movie "Elf" a few days ago and I think they have watched it 4 times. It would have been the same if it was rental :)

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 05:18 PM
I would probably agree with you that I am in the minority there, but then again it would be an interesting survey. I think we are more likely to watch movies multiple times if they are kids movies particularly, we bought the movie "Elf" a few days ago and I think they have watched it 4 times. It would have been the same if it was rental :)

Good point - I think the numbers would change when involving kids movies.

Good idea about the survey - I'm going to submit it to MacPolls and see if they post it. :cool:

seedster2
Dec 30, 2007, 05:23 PM
:apple:TV is doomed to be a niche product

What is compelling about having to

1) Buy the device for 300-400 buckeroos
2) Play in low resolution (not true 720P)
3) Non dolby digital surround
4) Having limited movie choices

While you could continue to use your DVD, Tivo, OnDemand services and watch up to 1080P, full digital surround, choice of every movie, and no unnecessary interface to mess with.

Apple better break out some big guns otherwise this thing will continue down the path of irrelevance.

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 05:28 PM
:apple:TV is doomed to be a niche product

What is compelling about having to

1) Buy the device for 300-400 buckeroos
2) Play in low resolution (not true 720P)
3) Non dolby digital surround
4) Having limited movie choices

While you could continue to use your DVD, Tivo, OnDemand services and watch up to 1080P, full digital surround, choice of every movie, and no unnecessary interface to mess with.

Apple better break out some big guns otherwise this thing will continue down the path of irrelevance.

I agree - right now it just seems a bit too restrictive and catering to a niche market. It has potential and I know many people who have one and are happy with it, but long term I think Apple will indeed need to make some adjustments.

poppe
Dec 30, 2007, 05:30 PM
I like this type of solution, movies are downloaded automatically from a list I selected, they are ready to go, I can watch once or a hundred times, when I "virtually return one", another one from my list is scheduled for download.

Very reasonable, only weak point is that I may change my mind as to what order I may want to watch the movies, so I have to rearrange my list and return one of the ones I downloaded even if I have not seen it yet.

But otherwise very workable.

True, but don't you kinda have to already do that with Netflix/Blocbkuster.

firstapple
Dec 30, 2007, 05:33 PM
I like the idea of this. Only takes 24hrs to watch a movie anyways... Just download it right before you are ready to watch it. Better then driving out and renting it, then forgetting to take it back and getting charged more... :rolleyes:

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 05:59 PM
I like the idea of this. Only takes 24hrs to watch a movie anyways... Just download it right before you are ready to watch it. Better then driving out and renting it, then forgetting to take it back and getting charged more... :rolleyes:

As I previously mentioned, this would be along the lines of the VoD approach we have with our TV service - instead of driving to Blockbuster or what have you, users can simply rent a movie online for immediate watching, have access to it for 24 hours and only pay $4.95. As can be seen in this thread though, not everyone wants that type of a rental model and has different needs and wants, which is totally understandable.

BTW
Dec 30, 2007, 06:16 PM
I will go for 24 hours for 2 bucks a movie. Who needs to keep a rental for 30 days anyway.

I'd go for that too if it is 24 hours from first viewing. I wouldn't get rid of my Netflix membership just yet though as 2 studios is not enough. All the studios with their entire libraries need to have their content available so I can dump Netflix.

~Shard~
Dec 30, 2007, 06:45 PM
I'd go for that too if it is 24 hours from first viewing. I wouldn't get rid of my Netflix membership just yet though as 2 studios is not enough. All the studios with their entire libraries need to have their content available so I can dump Netflix.

I hear ya, that definitely would be the ideal situation. Unfortunately, I don't know how likely that is - at least not for starters...

Guess we'll find out more in a couple weeks!

donlphi
Dec 30, 2007, 07:31 PM
thats pretty much what Comcast charges for their movies on OnDemand :/

Not only is that what Comcast charges, but it is also the amount of time you have to watch it.

I don't see what the big "negative" votes are for. :rolleyes:

jaw04005
Dec 30, 2007, 08:04 PM
Interestingly MS gives you an indefinite time period to watch downloaded TV episodes. That I like and have purchased a lot of those.

That's because you "purchase" those TV episodes not "rent" them. Big difference.

neutrino23
Dec 30, 2007, 09:03 PM
Movies are shot at 24 fps anyway. That's what really bugs me. I can see 24 fps, so movies always look jittery to me. Being in a theater is like going to watch a strobe light in my face. At least they blur the frames together when they move to NTSC TV on DVD's. When they pan the camera in these new "reality" movies it makes everything so blurry you can't read anything anymore. I only go for the immersive experience.

I agree. 24 fps drives me nuts, especially when they pan the camera. However, movie fans claim they like this. They say that 60 fps or higher somehow loses the feeling of getting lost in the story.

ipodG8TR
Dec 30, 2007, 09:38 PM
However, Apple has to start somewhere and with the movie studios not playing nicely I wouldn't be surprised if Steve had to settle for now. Once he proves itunes rentals have legs he can come back to the negotiating table in 6-12 months.

For me, rentals would have to be much more competitive. I can literally drive 2 minutes to a grocery store that rents DVDs from a vending machine for .99/day including new releases. Can't get much better than.

I would support Apple though for $1.99/day if the quality was on par with DVD. No one seems to mention that DVDs come with many extras you don't get on the digital versions. Not that big of a deal for rentals because who really watches them anyways. But for purchases, the add-ins make a difference.

Apple should always offer the option to buy the movie minus the rental fee as an upsell. Kind of like the complete my album deal they did with purchased songs a while back -- except the offer shouldn't expire so quickly.

Ideally, I would like $1.99/7-day rentals transferrable to any Apple device. $2.99 would be acceptable for new releases if the quality was HD.

Eventually if the studios don't play along, Apple should include Handbrake like functionality with iTunes (or iMedia) and protect themselves by having the user click a user agreement indicating they understand that "backups" can only be made for content they own. Show the studios that if they refuse to offer content at reasonable prices, consumers will resort to taking what they were willing to pay for.

Can't wait for MWSF. Just hope that there are a few surprises in store!

MacFly123
Dec 30, 2007, 09:55 PM
Really? I would think people like yourself would be in the minority, but perhaps I'm mistaken... Whenever I have rented a movie I have only ever watched it once, and know many people who do the exact same.

Regardless, Apple cannot cater to everyone, since obviously everyone has different needs and wants when it comes to this type of service. It will be interesting to see the details once they are released.

I think anyone like myself that has a decent size family knows that when you rent a movie it is going to get watched at least a few times before it is returned because not everybody in the family always watches it together the first time. And if its good then they wanna watch it again in a couple days anyway.

MacFly123
Dec 30, 2007, 10:11 PM
Eventually if the studios don't play along, Apple should include Handbrake like functionality with iTunes (or iMedia) and protect themselves by having the user click a user agreement indicating they understand that "backups" can only be made for content they own. Show the studios that if they refuse to offer content at reasonable prices, consumers will resort to taking what they were willing to pay for.

Can't wait for MWSF. Just hope that there are a few surprises in store!

I agree. But as I've said before in the other forums, I want iTunes to rip DVDs as what I call a "Digital DVD" or a disk image with nice cover art that plays with menus, the movie, and the extras just as if you put the DVD in your computer. Why aren't more people seeking that??? That is what I really want whether they sell it like that online or I rip my DVDs into my library :o

madmax_2069
Dec 30, 2007, 11:27 PM
now that i think about it, i dont think it would be good to have a set amount of time for a set amount of money and have that as the only option. like only have a option for 24 hours for $1.99.

i think it could be allot better to have multiple prices for the length of time you would want it for.

like
$0.99 for 24 hours
$1.99 for 48 hours
$2.99 for 3 day's
and so on and so forth

maybe a dollar more then what i said, this is how i hope Apple will do this

i think that could appeal to more people that way then with only one set option. that way someone that only wanted to watch it once could get the 24 hour rental and people that want to watch it more times then what 24 hours would allow one to ( due to work, or other things).

Mydel
Dec 31, 2007, 12:04 AM
now that i think about it, i dont think it would be good to have a set amount of time for a set amount of money and have that as the only option. like only have a option for 24 hours for $1.99.

i think it could be allot better to have multiple prices for the length of time you would want it for.

like
$0.99 for 24 hours
$1.99 for 48 hours
$2.99 for 3 day's
and so on and so forth

maybe a dollar more then what i said, this is how i hope Apple will do this

i think that could appeal to more people that way then with only one set option. that way someone that only wanted to watch it once could get the 24 hour rental and people that want to watch it more times then what 24 hours would allow one to ( due to work, or other things).

I like your idea. I think its pretty cool. I would definitely support it. I think most of us will just download and watch. In the other case I think most of people just buy DVDs.

Cleverboy
Dec 31, 2007, 12:26 AM
now that i think about it, i dont think it would be good to have a set amount of time for a set amount of money and have that as the only option. like only have a option for 24 hours for $1.99.

i think it could be allot better to have multiple prices for the length of time you would want it for.

like
$0.99 for 24 hours
$1.99 for 48 hours
$2.99 for 3 day's
and so on and so forth

maybe a dollar more then what i said, this is how i hope Apple will do this

i think that could appeal to more people that way then with only one set option. that way someone that only wanted to watch it once could get the 24 hour rental and people that want to watch it more times then what 24 hours would allow one to ( due to work, or other things).This is how RedBox works. If Apple did this, it would be a NO-BRAINER. Absolute NO... BRAINER. Crazy money for all involved.

~ CB

SheriffParker
Dec 31, 2007, 01:00 AM
$2.99 for 3 day's

Get that apostrophe out of that word!

Either that, or explain who is this Day and what they are possessing!

fpnc
Dec 31, 2007, 01:22 AM
Come on now, if Apple sells/rents HD content through the iTunes store, it will certainly be in a format compatible with the AppleTV.

Let's review... the AppleTV does 720p but only at 24fps and at limited bitrates. However, it can not decode 1080i and in fact the AppleTV's 1080i output comes from 960x540 source but at least it offers 30fps. If Apple does offer "HD" content I'd be pretty certain it would be in the 960x540 format (faster downloads, wider compatibility). All in all, I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to call the AppleTV true HD. In any case, I can't see Apple offering two different formats for the rental content (one for iPods/iPhones at the current standard definition, and the other for the AppleTV in an "HD" format).

illitrate23
Dec 31, 2007, 02:55 AM
i know there's an incredible 230 negative posts for this topic, but just waiting MWSF08 - i'm there'll be some incredibly brilliant side to this that we're all missing and we just need Steve and his RDF to get us on board

crazycat
Dec 31, 2007, 04:10 AM
This system will only work for me if i had time to trigger the 24 hour countdown. A 3 to 7 day window to start watching the movie which triggers the 24 hour countdown will work for myself.

diamond.g
Dec 31, 2007, 06:40 AM
I don't see them leaving out older AppleTVs, especially since they can already play 720p HD. I've never heard of anyone not being able to play properly encoded (i.e., 720p, 24fps, etc.) on their TV.
Most, if not all, DVD players do a 3:2 pull down to fix the fact that most TV's have no idea what to do with a 24fps signal. If you have a PS3 force it to 24fps and try to watch a BD movie (or a DVD movie as well I think). You should get a blank screen unless your TV accepts a 24fps input.


I think he really means "high definition" straight up. It's fairly RIDICULOUS to have a high resolution picture and NO surround sound in the audio track. It's not as if AAC doesn't support 5.1 either. Hopefully they'll sort this out along with closed captions and language options.

MP4 supports AAC's version of 5.1, and it also supports 1 main and 1 secondary sound stream. The secondary sound stream can only be 2.0 though. It also supports subtitles. So movies could at best have 2 languages spoken and one in subtitles with the current MP4 container. That would mean that movies from Apple would not have director commentary...
Movies are shot at 24 fps anyway. That's what really bugs me. I can see 24 fps, so movies always look jittery to me. Being in a theater is like going to watch a strobe light in my face. At least they blur the frames together when they move to NTSC TV on DVD's. When they pan the camera in these new "reality" movies it makes everything so blurry you can't read anything anymore. I only go for the immersive experience.
I actually think the blurring that 3:2 pulldown causes stinks. But there isn't a whole lot you can do unless your TV supports 24,30,60 (25,50)fps.
Let's review... the AppleTV does 720p but only at 24fps and at limited bitrates. However, it can not decode 1080i and in fact the AppleTV's 1080i output comes from 960x540 source but at least it offers 30fps. If Apple does offer "HD" content I'd be pretty certain it would be in the 960x540 format (faster downloads, wider compatibility). All in all, I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to call the AppleTV true HD. In any case, I can't see Apple offering two different formats for the rental content (one for iPods/iPhones at the current standard definition, and the other for the AppleTV in an "HD" format).
I wouldn't call 960x540 HD. As long as AppleTV can do 3:2 pulldown correctly, or your tv supports 24fps then I would hope Apple would just encode two different versions. One that is HD (1280x720) and the other that isn't (whatever max rez the iPhone/iPods support). As shown with XBL, 720p movies with 5.1 surround sound are no bigger than 5GB and have pretty good quality video (as much as can be expected with up to 5mpbs bitrate) and pretty good sound (although I think the DD is only 384kbps).

For those that want 1080p downloads, well bless your hearts. You have more patience to wait for a download to complete than most. With the doubling of pixels I am pretty sure the bitrate would have to be raised to somewhere in the neighborhood of 10mbps. That should have movies sitting at 9 or 10 GB in size. Of course it would also have to be encoded with CABAC (to maximize quality with higher compression), which currently AppleTV doesn't support, nor does it have the power to.

shyataroo
Dec 31, 2007, 07:06 AM
If you guys want to get around the 24 hour thing just have one of those screen recording things running in the background while you watch your movie, when the movies done so is your screen recording you edit what you don't want out and ba-da bing ba-da boom you gots yourself a semi-legit copy of (insert movie title here)

madmax_2069
Dec 31, 2007, 08:04 AM
Get that apostrophe out of that word!

Either that, or explain who is this Day and what they are possessing!

spelling/grammar error, sorry Mr. teacher i do better next time's


Oh and BTW nice going off topic, you correcting my errors has nothing to do with the OP's topic, which made me go off topic to tell you this

Thank you

BenRoethig
Dec 31, 2007, 09:44 AM
The one time rental conditions are very similar to other online video services. Vongo charges $3.99 for a new release and has the same 24-hr window. The problem is that they don't seem to want to offer the more practical and popular subscription option.

Maccus Aurelius
Dec 31, 2007, 10:04 AM
And this is all based on what Variety expects? :rolleyes:

I expect the Easter Bunny to file my taxes for me.

DisturbedLen
Dec 31, 2007, 04:00 PM
Rental with a purchase credit would be nice. I wonder how this will compare to Directv On Demand... I would really like a subscription "on demand" tv service. The only problem with all of this is the unpublished download limits by most ISPs.

If this is a hit, I wonder how long it will take before the ISPs like Verizon start crying and cutting off service because their users are "abusing" their internet connection.

I have Directv, but my internet service is through the cable company. They will start to get pissed off if I start renting movies. It's bad enough that I don't have cable tv through them. And they charge me an extra $10/month because of that!!!

SheriffParker
Dec 31, 2007, 08:30 PM
spelling/grammar error, sorry Mr. teacher i do better next time's


Oh and BTW nice going off topic, you correcting my errors has nothing to do with the OP's topic, which made me go off topic to tell you this

Thank you

Here, try this... it looks like you might need it.

http://www.donloper.com/images/sense_of_humor.jpg

jasonklee
Dec 31, 2007, 11:11 PM
buck per days seems great.

one day, maybe they'll release flicks simultaneously on the net and in theaters.

madmax_2069
Jan 1, 2008, 04:08 AM
Here, try this... it looks like you might need it.

[snip]

its not that i lack one, i just been bashed so much cause of i lack in this area, and tend to get rather heated that someone will go off topic just to point out spelling and grammar errors in a post and add nothing useful to a topic.

as i said before i lack a since of humor about that. i am starting to get to the point of telling people like this what to go do with themselves.

if they have nothing useful to post about they don't even need to bother posting at all. its not like you could not make out what i was saying.

and sorry again for straying off topic

Cleverboy
Jan 1, 2008, 11:28 AM
Movie downloads won’t move the needle on Apple’s stock. TV and movie downloads are over-hyped and won’t deliver to the bottom line. People will end up preferring advertising-supported small-screen content and disc-based delivery for their TV’s. This preference will not go away as we transition to a BluRay or HD world.
Read more at:
[--SHAMELESS PLUGS--]This is fairly laughable, and its amazing that people can repeat it with a straight face. You should stop and check your premises. Your premise is that people will migrate to ONE major outlet for content, and be satisfied with viewing it from a web browser. I could possibly agree with you under a very shakey series of requirements, but as trends currently go, these requirements are unlikely to happen.

Here is the problem. People will begin looking for a NEW way to get content, that replaces DVDs in accessibility and value. The content needs to be multi-channel (multiple studios), and needs to integrate with playback on a multitude of devices.

DVDs are purchases that exist as PERMANENT property of the consumer. New offerings like Hulu DO NOT compete directly with DVDs, as they represent "streaming" content that users cannot watch on devices not maintaining that constant connection, AND are not equipped to playback "Flash". This is a HUGE divide between how people wish to use content.

Companies like Apple, TiVo, Sony and Microsoft have begun the battle for the BOX many years ago. Whosoever wins the war of the supreme set-top box, will rule the world. These set-top boxes will pull content directly from the Internet onto a local hard drive. The main problem has been delivery mechanisms. Apple is counting on iTunes to be a ubiquitous delivery mechanism for a range of consumer devices, and has so far been successful with this strategy. With Xbox 360 and XBox Live, Microsoft has targeted its XBox 360 platform as an ecosystem. Schizophrenically, Microsoft has dashed hopes of unity by created a wholly separate track with its Zune system as well as powering yet a third track by providing the underlying DRM technology allowing companies like TiVo, Amazon, and Netflix to get into the game in limited ways. Meanwhile... Sony and its PS3 are in left field beating itself over the head with a wooden mallet.

iTunes is the ONLY cohesive ecosystem enabling content delivery to consumers across a broad range of devices for different purposes (albeit devices from one manufacturer). They are the virtual embodiment of the consumer experience most people are expecting as we move further into the 21st century. Moreover, Apple's line of products can be made compatible at any time with other standards as needs dictate. iTunes isn't relegated to simply being a STORE either. It is the delivery nexus for all of Apple's next generation gadgets. As Apple brokers deals with studios, DVDs and HD discs themselves may allow consumers to obtain "iTunes compatible" versions of films they purchase.

The more studios lose track of reality and believe that offerings like "Hulu" compete with iTunes, the more they will lose touch with the changing and multifarious nature of the modern consumer. The will encourage widespread piracy and lose millions and millions of dollars as the entire world of personal technology, moreso than not, passes them by.

~ CB

CWallace
Jan 1, 2008, 01:13 PM
With Xbox 360 and XBox Live, Microsoft has targeted its XBox 360 platform as an ecosystem. Schizophrenically, Microsoft has dashed hopes of unity by created a wholly separate track with its Zune system as well as powering yet a third track by providing the underlying DRM technology allowing companies like TiVo, Amazon, and Netflix to get into the game in limited ways.

It may be more a "throw it on the wall and see what sticks" strategy. Try different delivery modes, see which one grabs the most interest/share, and then migrate everything over to it.

Microsoft is also known to take a long-term view when it comes to entering a new market. The early IE editions were absolute dogs, so even bundled with the OS, people sought out alternatives. However, later ones eventually became capable enough to keep most users from seeking an alternative.

So even if Microsoft's current offerings are inferior to the iTunes experience, it will likely only get better over time. On the plus side, this will drive iTunes to evolve, itself.

Cleverboy
Jan 1, 2008, 02:16 PM
Microsoft is also known to take a long-term view when it comes to entering a new market. I'd love to believe that, but they are losing a tremendous amount of kenetic energy by these fits and starts. Clearly numerous personalities at play within Microsoft, and an overall vision is being lost.
The early IE editions were absolute dogs, so even bundled with the OS, people sought out alternatives. However, later ones eventually became capable enough to keep most users from seeking an alternative. I think the "v.3" parable with Microsoft is mostly something people graft/retrofit onto the past more than its a reflection of it. Follow the IE story further out, and you'll see how they made a HUGE late-stage mistake by saying that the next IE will ONLY be available as part of the next version of Windows. They then spent years in stagnation, thinking they'd effectively stomped out the competition. IE holds marketshare more through entrenchment and OEM distribution, not innovation or convenience.

Microsoft did something special with the XBox. They improved it with the XBox 360. Now they're trying to reproduce that with the Zune. Unfortunately, instead of taking advantage of their XBox success, like they should have... something made it important for them to try to make Zune stand on its own. Their Windows Media Player environment was abandoned for a piece of software they call "Zune", and their Media Center functionality has finally been somewhat "freed" from the shackles of a separate operating system version with Vista (athough you still have to get the "right" version).

Why doesn't Microsoft drink its own kool-aid. Look at the parallels...

Microsoft: Windows Media Player/Zune, Windows Media Center, XBox 360, Zune
Apple: iTunes, AppleTV/FrontRow, AppleTV, iPod

If Microsoft made it so that Zune used the same marketplace as the Xbox 360, you could transfer movies and songs between them, you could install FREE "media center" software on Windows XP/Vista, and Windows Media Player was the universal software that connected it all to your computer... Microsoft would crush Apple like a steam roller.

As it stands, I can't fathom buying ANYthing in Windows Media DRM, whether its video or music. I have NO IDEA where I'd be able to play it 1 year from now, even if I'm buying hardware that says its Microsoft DRM compatible... I have to read details closer. It's a horror show. It's not "progress" or "trying things out"... its stagnation and chaos.

Meanwhile, Apple happily makes commercials like this, and my heart melts.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/ads/
It's on your computer, it's on your iPod, now its on your TV.
--And now, its also on my phone!

To me, it really looks like Apple is the one with the long term strategy.
Microsoft is making things up as they go. :(

~ CB

GregA
Jan 1, 2008, 02:55 PM
There are very few Apple TV out there, the cost has to be considered as part of the formula.

That's one reason I'd like to see a DVR option built in.

With the switch to digital, I need to buy a set top box (or new TV). If AppleTV was a digital set top box, DVR, AND rented videos from Apple, that would be very appealing and much more worthwhile.

However... Apple may stick with creating a new standard. And today's AppleTV doesn't work with my current TV anyway, so it wouldn't fit my need. Ah well, we will see soon! (hopefully!)

GregA
Jan 1, 2008, 03:42 PM
as long as Fox/Disney are the only providers this will continue as a "hobby".

Ultimately AppleTV needs all the studios involvement.

However, if Apple can make a simple way of getting to movies, at an attractive price point, they can make some real waves. For instance, I should be able to watch "AppleTV Trailers" restricted to films available in my own country
1) for rental. Or
2) to purchase
(or 3 - to watch at my local cinema).
etc.

They need a way of keeping people in the ecosystem.

pamon
Jan 2, 2008, 07:51 PM
I can see a 24 hr model from when you start to end it and a 3-5 day period on the time you download it to start it. So download it today, start it tomorrow and finish watching it the next day. That's far than enough time for 90% of the public.

pjarvi
Jan 2, 2008, 10:41 PM
With the Xbox 360 Live Marketplace, you have 7 days from the time of purchase to start the movie, and once you start to watch the movie, you then have 24 hours to watch it. This is important for HD movies, as with my experience I had to leave my 360 running overnight to download a movie, and then found myself too busy the following day to watch it, so I made sure not to start watching it until I was ready to sit down for the whole movie.

Within the 24 hour viewing period, you can watch it as many times as you want.

Personally, I would hope that Apple gives people a full week-long rental period, or at least 3 days so that all family members have a chance to watch a rental. It would be imprtant for allowing parents to pre-view a movie before deciding whether kids can watch it as well.

robanga
Jan 2, 2008, 10:54 PM
I believe that MS will eventually integrate the Windows Media Player on Vista, Zune, music store and Xbox Live along with some integration on the Windows Mobile platform so that the same music, video and simple arcade games can be used across many devices with one subscription. I believe they have stated this will be the strategy. They would be silly not too.

They are certainly taking their sweet time though. I think the groups in Redmond are not even the same teams (although I may be mistaken)

Full integration could at least present viable option to Apple's Ecosystem, as Apple all but ignores gaming. They are making money on Xbox finally and Live has been a money maker since the launch of the 360. Actually I'd be willing to bet that everything above makes some profit for them, except music and the Zune at this point.

Their execution certainly seems to be worse that it should be though doesn't it?