iPod Amazon.com starts video download service

[Snowy_River]

Simple.. the files are protected with windows media. This has recently been hacked, so you could install parallels, download the movies, un-DRM them, then convert them to something you could play on your ipod...

Or you could wait until apple does the same thing but with software that works on both a mac and a pc...

glad I don't own amazon stock....

Do we know that for a fact? Yes, we know that the portable versions are, but what about the DVD quality versions?

It seems to me that these are being done in a proprietary way by Amazon. It will only play in their player, right? So that suggests that this is a new proprietary DRM, not WMV.

If that's the case, then their comment about the reason for not offering their service on Macs is hollow. They could easily offer the service for the computer, if it is their proprietary DRM and software. For that matter, they could offer the service for the computer even if it's based on WM and WM DRM. It is only the portable player, the iPod, that they simply couldn't offer the video for.

So, let's not overemphasize Apple's role in the fact that Amazon isn't making their service Mac compatible. Sure, we can blame Apple for not letting Amazon in on FairPlay and, therefore, the iPod, but it is possible to have other DRM systems on the Mac.

 

[Evangelion]

What convenience? It's going to take me a whole lot longer to download the beast than it would take me to walk to the rental store, browse the racks, and pick up the physical disc...

Well, I assume that you don't have to wait for it to finish downloading. Start the download, get some snacks/pizza/etc., and start the movie. If you have decently fast broadband, 10-15 minutes of lead-time might be enough.

 

[Snowy_River]

Yah like iPod is any better. As if it means anything. I couldn't give less of a crap about the name as long as it has the content. I'm going to be laid up from surgery in Nov. Literally 23 hours out of the day I need my foot above my head for a week. If there is a large selection I'm golden.

I hope that this service, or Apple's service, gives you what you need. And good luck with your surgery. I had knee surgery a few years ago. Not much fun...

 

[balamw]

So, let's not overemphasize Apple's role in the fact that Amazon isn't making their service Mac compatible. Sure, we can blame Apple for not letting Amazon in on FairPlay and, therefore, the iPod, but it is possible to have other DRM systems on the Mac.

Also note that Real made their Rhapsody service iPod and thus Fairplay compatible without asking for Apple's permission or cooperation.

B

 

[Analog Kid]

Buying these movies isn't where its at. Renting is the future for this form of content delivery. $2.99-$3.99 isn't too bad to rent if you have the bandwidth to get it there fast. H.264 will automatically make the Apple movie store better in this respect. The only problem is that, as I said earlier, the Amazon store is a non-intuitive mess. I clicked the link to buy a movie over an hour ago now and still haven't been able to start the download. It could take up to 24 hours at this point just to start it!

No! No! No!!
Renting is not where it's at. Killing off the rental market is where it's at. Digital renting makes absolutely no sense...

Why do people rent? To share the cost of a movie they only intend to watch once across an entire neighborhood. One $30 disc gets rented to to 30 people at $4 a piece-- customers are happy because they saved $25 bucks, and the rental stores are happy because they've made money on the deal.

Why do the studios permit it? Because they have to, for one, and because they're getting a buck from everyone watching their movie. They are certainly getting a buck from a lot more people than they're getting $30 from.

Of course, they'd rather get the $4 from everyone watching the movie-- and the market says it's possible... Customers think the movie is worth that, and companies would make 4x the return. The catch is that they can't manufacture, warehouse and ship a DVD for $4.

So this parasitic middle man has found a niche where they can syphon off a cut in exchange for making the initial outlay, and for storage-- they also take some of the risk if they stock a movie no one wants to rent.

There is no reason for that middle man anymore. People are willing to pay $4 for a DVD, and they're already doing so without being able to keep the physical object, artwork, etc. Studios don't need to pay for manufacture, shipping and warehousing anymore so that $4 is far sweeter than the $1 they're getting on the discs being rented.

Then why put the stupid time bombs in the files? When I rent a movie from the video store I get it for 3 days. People rarely rent a movie more than once, and even if they did the studios stop making money after the initial sale-- so why restrict the digital rental? Add to that that passing the bits over so many peoples machines, giving a taste and then locking the file, is a sure fire way of encouraging people to just break the encoding.

Sell the movies for $4, give a buck to the online seller, triple your profits. Much better idea than digital renting...

 

[balamw]

Sell the movies for $4, give a buck to the online seller, triple your profits. Much better idea than digital renting...

Insane! Next you're going to suggest that they should sell individual songs for $0.99! It'll never work!

B

 

[Analog Kid]

Well, I assume that you don't have to wait for it to finish downloading. Start the download, get some snacks/pizza/etc., and start the movie. If you have decently fast broadband, 10-15 minutes of lead-time might be enough.

I think I'd have to download it all from the beginning, even on a relatively fast connection. We're looking at about a 6 hour download on a 1Mbit line for a 2 hour movie... 10-15 minutes won't do it-- you'll need to buffer at least 4 hours.

Nothing worse than getting 3/4's of the way though a movie and having to stall to rebuffer... You know the line is going to kink right at the critical moment.

 

[digitalbiker]

No! No! No!!
Renting is not where it's at. Killing off the rental market is where it's at. Digital renting makes absolutely no sense...

Why do people rent? To share the cost of a movie they only intend to watch once across an entire neighborhood. One $30 disc gets rented to to 30 people at $4 a piece-- customers are happy because they saved $25 bucks, and the rental stores are happy because they've made money on the deal.

Why do the studios permit it? Because they have to, for one, and because they're getting a buck from everyone watching their movie. They are certainly getting a buck from a lot more people than they're getting $30 from.

Of course, they'd rather get the $4 from everyone watching the movie-- and the market says it's possible... Customers think the movie is worth that, and companies would make 4x the return. The catch is that they can't manufacture, warehouse and ship a DVD for $4.

So this parasitic middle man has found a niche where they can syphon off a cut in exchange for making the initial outlay, and for storage-- they also take some of the risk if they stock a movie no one wants to rent.

There is no reason for that middle man anymore. People are willing to pay $4 for a DVD, and they're already doing so without being able to keep the physical object, artwork, etc. Studios don't need to pay for manufacture, shipping and warehousing anymore so that $4 is far sweeter than the $1 they're getting on the discs being rented.

Then why put the stupid time bombs in the files? When I rent a movie from the video store I get it for 3 days. People rarely rent a movie more than once, and even if they did the studios stop making money after the initial sale-- so why restrict the digital rental? Add to that that passing the bits over so many peoples machines, giving a taste and then locking the file, is a sure fire way of encouraging people to just break the encoding.

Sell the movies for $4, give a buck to the online seller, triple your profits. Much better idea than digital renting...

It'll never happen! The studios are too greedy to settle for $4.00. Plus you are way, way over estimating the cost of mass producing DVD's and storage. On a large scale this amounts to less than a $1.00 a DVD.

Most of the profits off DVD sales go directly to the studio. I am sure that Apple would love to sale DVD's at a lower cost but I just don't think the studios are that progressive. This maybe one reason why there are rumors that studios are reluctant to deal with Apple.

Already Apple is having a hardtime keeping the recording industry from increasing the cost of downloads on the iTune Music Store.

Personally I still don't see the appeal of downloading movies. Between HD Tivo, PPV, On Demand, NetFlix, and DVD rental stores, Movies are pretty well covered. Most of the US is stil using limited broadband, with downloads of high-quality video taking hours to download. I would never watch a movie on an ipod. It's just too da*# small. If I were to watch a movie on a plane I would use a laptop with at least a decent sized screen. So where is the advantage.

Plus movies eat up the disk space.

 

[Evangelion]

I think I'd have to download it all from the beginning, even on a relatively fast connection. We're looking at about a 6 hour download on a 1Mbit line for a 2 hour movie... 10-15 minutes won't do it-- you'll need to buffer at least 4 hours.

The solution is simple, really: get a faster broadband . I'm on an 8MB connection, and I have been thinking about going to 12MB.

 

[bloodycape]

Wait how can this be played on the iRiver PMC and the Toshiba Gigabeat S last i checked those players only supported wmv and not divx like the Archos players and the Creative Zen Vision series. I wonder if my Cowon A2 is supported seeing as I can play pretty much any format(except for realplayer and quicktime stuff.) What format is the portable format in. WMV? I dont think Archos has full WMV10 support but not to clear on that one since some got it working with out a problem while some have a problem with that one.

I see no use to play this on an ipod seeing as it only has a what 2 hour(2.5 if you are lucky?) battery life while those players have at least 3hours or more out of video.

And that is false that those players are not support on apple. You can get a plug in for the creative players to play them on Apple. And I have used an older Toshiba Gigabeat fine on my apple. Then Archos players if I am not mistaken are UMS compatible so yeah.

 

[kresh]

The solution is simple, really: get a faster broadband . I'm on an 8MB connection, and I have been thinking about going to 12MB.

Why don't you get the 2 TB connection?

 

[VanNess]

So this is the best they could come up with, huh?

First, what's with the high hardware requirements? I can play any store-bought DVD just fine on my 1 ghz eMac with a 32 meg Radeon 7500 card. I didn't see anything off the bat on Amazon regarding what codec specifically they are using, but assuming it's WMV HD DRM'd whatever dialed down supposedly "DVD quality" (whatever that means) it's still...well, DVD quality. So why would I need such a relatively high performance set-up just to play a DVD?

To add to the user-unfriendly array of crapola: Not Mac compatible. Burning is allowed but disk is not compatible with a regular DVD player - like the one that is probably already in your home, already hooked up to your TV set. So why bother? Rented movies are 3.99. Why? Not an especially attractive deal over the local terrestrial rental joints. And they go poof after 24 hours of pressing play, which again is not the case with terrestrial DVD rental joints. When you start watching, you better make absolutely sure you have time to finish it or YOU lose, buddy. And the prices, download time and frankly absurd restrictions makes Netflix and it's terrestrial-based counterparts sure to come out of this as clear winners. This just smells of the major studio's doing and for the most part it - by virtue of it's consumer-hostile implementation - just plain stinks.

Hope Apple has something way better up it's sleeve, but as I've posted before, I doubt it. I think Apple is making it's move now primarily so the market isn't completely seized this early on by Microsoft and thier croonies, and Microsoft's Windows/OS/only/proprietary/WMV-based/locked-in/ garbage. And Apple has the ubiquitous iTunes and iPod already on board (beloved the world over by tens of millions ) and possibly a beefed-up video-enabled airport express, whereas Microsoft, well...it has Zune. At least, one of these days it will.

Well,

isn't it interesting that Amazon would create a service that is incompatible with their best selling computers, and bestselling players.

Sounds like a recipe for success to me.

Sure, and here's that recipe:

1) Extend palms

2) Await Microsoft execs to arrive with grease.

3) Saturate palms with grease, making sure all areas are amply covered

4) Do not overcook. Simply serve.

 

[ddrueckhammer]

No! No! No!!
Renting is not where it's at. Killing off the rental market is where it's at. Digital renting makes absolutely no sense...

Well the problem is that studios will never agree to purchase prices for new releases below $9.99. At this price, you are better off just going and buying the physical media. Renting is intriguing because maybe I don't want to own a copy of the content at all. For movies I don't know anything about, I really could care less about owning the media. Also, most people watch a movie once or twice. Thats it. There is no need to own the physical media if you arn't going to watch it over and over. I have a whole bookcase full of DVDs I never watch. Thousands of dollars worth. So for 3-$4 I can watch it and don't have to spend quite as much. In crowded cities there is some worth to not having to go fight the crowds IMO.

I agree that Hollywood should be happy to have a new distribution system that costs them far less but we are talking about one of the greediest industries in the world. The only ones I can think of that are worse are insurance and telecommunications in the US.

 

[psionic001]

What happens if the movies come with a scratch on them?


On another note, if I understand correctly, apple could halve the data rate of the same movie using H.264 for the same quality as Amazons codec (WMV?), thereby having a quicker download. Correct?

Rental for 24hrs sucks!

 

[balamw]

Rental for 24hrs sucks!

To be fair it's 30 days, but once you start watching it you have 24 hours to finish. Worse than DIVX.

B

 

[ddrueckhammer]

Rental for 24hrs sucks!

Well it definately isn't 24 hours for most broadband connections. It should be more like 1.5-3 hours, assuming that your ISP doesn't limit your up/download speeds, and as fast as 20 minutes for Fios 15Mbps customers. Also, you can stream them after you let them buffer a little as I understand. But you are right, H.264 should lower the download times.

 

[balamw]

Well it definately isn't 24 hours for most broadband connections.

The movie rental from unbox will expire 24 hours after you start watching the movie, or 30 days after the download according to the Terms of Service.

B

 

[JGowan]

They can't beat NetFlix®!

For those of you who hate going to the rental store (long lines, bad selection, having to get up off the couch) or using Netflix (speed hindered by mail delivery times, "throttling," difficulty obtaining new releases), downloading might b the best option. But Unbox has plenty of its own drawbacks

I have had 5 glorious weeks with Netflix with 22 movies coming to me in that time (I'm on 3@aTime$17.99/mo)... V for Vendetta was shipped the day it came out on DVD so I don't know what you're talking about in terms of mail delivery times or new release difficulties. With Free shipping, popping a DVD in the mail box simply couldn't be easier.

I've got about 80 movies in my Queue so things are just coming to me at a very regular pace. Being that I work from home and have 3 computer monitors (2 for work and 1 for a movie), I am totally entertained while I'm earning a living. While the average person might not be able to watch a movie a day, most could take advantage of at least 10 movies a month-no problem. Navigating the site, adding movies to my Queue for delivery and being able to rearrange my movie delivery couldn't be easier.

I could not be happier. They email a very thorough email everytime they mail anything out and I also get an email letting me know they received the DVDs that I am through with. The turnaround time in shipping to receiving is NEVER more than 2 days and sometimes even next day (I am about 2 hours from Dallas and they have a distribution center in the DFW area.

Again, I never dreamed it could be so easy getting caught up on dozens of movies that I've always wanted to see but never had the opportunity due to the barrage of movies that hit at the same time.

DVDs are overpriced anyway and there are are not that many that I want to own for keepsies... And when I do, I'll want to own the actual disc that can be played anywhere (computer, tv or ipod using Handbrake) -- Oh,... did I mention that Netflix sells tons of it's used DVDs for $5.99 and they are 100% guaranteed. You get the plastic box and artwork and free shipping. I just don't see the point in buying a downloaded version that ties up your computer while you download and then to have so many restrictions and NONE of the extras that come with an actual DVD (movie trailers, commentaries, subtitles, etc). When you consider that you only have to wait a couple of days to own your own disc for $5.99 or $7.99, I don't see the value: Amazon or Apple for that matter.

I know I've gone overboard about the service but for very little money I've gotten a lot of entertainment. Movie lovers should definitely consider this service.

 

[amols]

Simply pathetic. Just plain crap. Not just Unbox but the whole movie download fuss. It is never going to be as big as music downloads and in-fact will be down in matter of months . Here's why I think...

1. Music files are one of the smallest multimedia files on the planet thanks to the compression technology. Movie files are way to big for the internet. The technology is not there yet.

2. You can play the music on almost any audio hardware and not see(hear?) the difference at all. My music collection sound as good on 1000w HT as on iPod earphones. Try playing iPod quality movies on 42" and you'll see what I mean.

3. Music never gets stale. In-fact, it gets even better over time. And movies...I don't remember last time I saw any movie for third time.

4. Music is anytime, anywhere. But movies, I don't think anyone want's to see LOTR on a 4" screen with a pair of headphones.

5. Music on hard disk is better (iPod) because you can browse through thousands of songs swiftly and listen what you want instantly. Movies on hard disk....really bad idea. That's why most people will prefer buying it on DVD at same cost rather than downloading it on HD.

6. And lets not forget why iTMS was such a big success in first place, .99$ per song. You don't have to buy the album if you liked just one song. No such thing for movies.

7. What about BR disks?? Thay'll be common format in about few months from now and costing about the same. Will we be able to download 40GB movie by then??

IMHO Apple should not compete with Amazon/M$ in an already doomed market place.

 

[liketom]

now if they allow this service to be used on xbox 360 then we might have trouble

but then microsoft would have to develope an app for dashboard and marketplace for this to work ? mmmm

 

[Snowy_River]

5. Movies (sic) on hard disk is better (iPod) because you can browse through thousands of songs swiftly and listen what you want instantly. Movies on hard disk....really bad idea. That's why most people will prefer buying it on DVD at same cost rather than downloading it on HD.

6. And lets not forget why iTMS was such a big success in first place, .99$ per song. You don't have to buy the album if you liked just one song. No such thing for movies.

Good points. This is why, I think, TV shows for download do work. Now, I'm not inclined to buy shows from iTMS if I intend to get the DVD set when they're released. The quality is just so much more, and the cost isn't that much greater. Sort of the same idea behind a CD. If I want an entire album, I'm not going to get it from iTMS (with the exception of one Christmas album that I wanted "now"), but rather I'll go buy it at my local store, or from Amazon (talking physical CD, not download ), or from SecondSpin.com (a great source for used music, if you haven't heard of them). But if there's just one episode of a TV show that I want, I'll shell out $1.99 for it, sure. Just like I'll pay $.99 for a song if there's just one song that I want.

As an interesting case-in-point, I'd never buy Babylon 5 from iTMS. To buy first season, they want $39.99. To buy the physical DVDs from Amazon I'd pay $44.99, $5 more. Or, from Amazon Marketplace, I could get it "Like-New" for $37.62, $2.37 less (though that doesn't include shipping). Or, from SecondSpin.com I could get it for about $27.99. Finally, I could get it from eBay (which is what I did) for, perhaps, as little as $18.99, new in package.

So, once again, I agree. When someone is after a full movie, or a full season of a TV show, they're probably not going to look at iTMS or Amazon's Unbox. But for individual shows, I do see this as being a viable model.

 

[toughboy]

However, as a windows-only product, it is of no interest to me.

Their loss.

+1

couldnt agree more..

 

[Analog Kid]

It'll never happen! The studios are too greedy to settle for $4.00. Plus you are way, way over estimating the cost of mass producing DVD's and storage. On a large scale this amounts to less than a $1.00 a DVD.

I'm not in the mass production business, but I don't think I'm over estimating by much... Logistics like this are a major expense in mass produced articles-- which is why so many small manufacturers have sidestepped distribution and gone to online sales even for physical items. One warehouse is easier to deal with than sending product to every major city in the world. Anything physical has to be handled by people and carried on transport.

The problem is compounded by items with as many variants as DVDs-- they have to figure out how many of each title to produce, deal with overstock, etc. The answer to that in the physical world is to reduce selection-- Apple only makes a handful of products, Sam Goody (ugh) only stocks a handful of popular titles. In the digital world, it's just the cost of storing bits-- not free, but it's a fixed cost per title rather than per article.

As far as greed, I think that plays in favor of my argument. Blockbuster is taking their money-- it's that simple.

...

Personally I still don't see the appeal of downloading movies. Between HD Tivo, PPV, On Demand, NetFlix, and DVD rental stores, Movies are pretty well covered. Most of the US is stil using limited broadband, with downloads of high-quality video taking hours to download. I would never watch a movie on an ipod. It's just too da*# small. If I were to watch a movie on a plane I would use a laptop with at least a decent sized screen. So where is the advantage.

Plus movies eat up the disk space.

You don't see the appeal because the download schemes we're seeing have stripped all the consumer appeal out of the equation. All that's left is lower costs for the manufacturer. What should be the selling points-- lower cost to the consumer, greater selection, and all the flexibility of dealing with digital files-- have been completely undermined. Contract terms forcing absurd prices and a limited catalog while wrapping so much DRM around the product that you're limited to certain devices running one program take all the joy out of it.

Disk space isn't the problem, or shouldn't be. You can stuff 300 of these movies on a 750GB drive, and you should be saving more than enough by doing that to afford the drive itself. In this case, that's not happening-- they're just wasting your time and bandwidth downloading, giving you an inferior product, and charging you the same as if you'd bought the physical media yourself. For now, I'll continue buying movies and shipping them FedEx-- maybe it'll cost me an extra buck or two but I'll be able to watch it about as quickly and I'll have the physical product.

 

[Analog Kid]

The solution is simple, really: get a faster broadband . I'm on an 8MB connection, and I have been thinking about going to 12MB.

While it's tempting to me, I don't think Amazon will have much of a market if they're relying on cutting edge technophiles.

 

[toughboy]

Yah like iPod is any better. As if it means anything. I couldn't give less of a crap about the name as long as it has the content. I'm going to be laid up from surgery in Nov. Literally 23 hours out of the day I need my foot above my head for 10 days. If there is a large selection I'm golden. Well that and rereading LotR.

Get Well Soon..

iPod sound much more cool then UnBox though..

On the Apple side, we dont even need a name.. iTunes Movie Store is ready waiting for us..