iPod Amazon.com starts video download service

[jettredmont]

Here's an interesting thought...

Suppose iTunes (or iFlicks, or whatever) encoded DRM into the movie as it ripped it. Then this wouldn't be a file that could be shared indiscriminately. But it would allow the functionality that GryphonKeeper was suggesting.

Bob buys Terminator 4 (Arnie's gotta do something next ...). Rips it to his Mac as a DRM'd MP4 tied to his account. He has no use for the disk anymore, so he sends it to Jane who hasn't seen the movie.

Jane also rips the disk to her PC as a DRM'd MP4 tied to her account. She also has no use for the disk anymore, so when Jim asks her what she thought of the movie she just hands it to him and says "judge for yourself".

Jim, seeing this is a great way to get movies, sets up a voluntary mailing list for people to buy/rip/mail the disks of all new releases to each other in a large circle. The fee to join the list is $1/disk, and the set exchange rate for the disks is $5 (fair market value for a used disk); each DVD makes it through about 100 people before it is too scratched to be useful and is retired. This yields Jim a profit of $80 per disk he "sells" (and eventually buys back) from the circle.

While perhaps the mailing list idea would pull in civil lawsuits against Jim, the rest is certainly expected, and even the mailing list might survive a legal challenge with a bit of luck.

I can't see the MPAA members going for this.


CSS (the DVD protection mechanism) ONLY works so long as the hardware REQUIRES that the original disk be present to display the images it contains. That is why the MPAA freaks out over "back up copies" of disks.

FairPlay (and WMA) rely on tying the bits of content to specific hardware. This means that no matter how many times you duplicate it, only the one piece of hardware can play it. This is why "back up copies" of this data is allowed and encouraged.

 

[bloodycape]

My favorite part is how it says that if your device is PlaysForSure compliant, it may work with these videos. This must be another Windows Genuine Advantage courtesy of Microsoft.

Actually that would be more of an issues with the companies that make the player. If this is using wmv10 technology it may not play well on some of the devices listed and even that might depend from player to player.

 

[milo]

The DVD quality for *TV* content is a big improvement over Apple's for the same price, I wonder if this will pressure them to up their quality (and if they did, would they offer any sort of upgrade for people who already bought content)?

With digital distribution, they should sell the movies for $4.99. They'll sell a lot more and it's not costing them any more to produce. No way would I pay 14.99 or higher for a digital copy when I can pretty much get the same deal with a hard copy.

But would they sell three or four times as many? I doubt it. Really cheap prices for download will cannibalize DVD sales.

It looks like they've dropped prices since this morning on some movies. Still some that are more expensive than the DVD, some much more so. Looking at Do the Right Thing (oft used example), they sell the download for 18.99, but for the same price you can get a collection of FIVE Spike Lee movies on DVD!

You forget to mention another option that I haven't seen anyone else discuss here so far: On Demand.

Doesn't On Demand require having cable TV?

I guess you haven't been reading! It's not that Amazon doesn't want to support Mac, it's that Apple won't let them.

That's not true. Apple won't let them support *iPod*. Apple's not stopping them from supporting *Mac*, but maybe microsoft is, if they're using their file format. Does anyone know yet what the format is on the higher rez versions?

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

But apple broke that compatibility. It no longer is ipod compatible, is it?

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

Your logic doesn't really make sense. Sales will go up, but if they're selling a movie for $24 now, if they drop the price to $4 they need to sell six times as many copies to make the same profit. That's just not going to happen. Not to mention that if you start selling every movie for that, and don't do rentals, you'll still have people who just want to see the movie once, and will feel like they're getting a bad deal buying a movie instead of being able to rent for less. Even with $4 sales, I'm still going to want to watch most things via netflix, for a lower per-movie cost.

 

[balamw]

But apple broke that compatibility. It no longer is ipod compatible, is it?

Still works fine if you don't upgrade the firmware on the iPod. (4G or older). Doesn't work w/ 5G or nano.

B

 

[pyramid6]

It better be better.

Unless it's as easy as putting a DVD in the player and pushing play, it is doomed. Also, the quality better be better than DVD, not as good, better. If your going to charge the same as a DVD it better be better.

 

[milo]

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.

You're a new user, and you've been lucky. Many new releases have a wait the day they are released. And you won't always get the fast turnaround - once netflix sees how fast you're going through movies, they'll start intentionally delaying your shipments so you can't have as many per month. Netflix is still a great deal, but it's unrealistic to assume you'll consistently get 16 movies a month.

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

But at $4 per sale, they'd get more of the Blockbuster cut but they'd lose money on lost DVD sales. I'm not convinced they'd come out ahead.

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.

Size of the market isn't that important. This market will grow over time - it's crucial to become a big player in the market while it's still young (look at Netflix).

A question: when was the last time you saw an Amazon.com tv ad?

And yet, they are one of the biggest online retailers. People will find out about it the way they find out anything else on Amazon - they'll go to the site to buy a book or DVD and see it. The reason nobody has heard of it is because it was just released TODAY.

 

[riversky]

Just saw this!!!

Wow, sucks that there is no Mac/iPod support!

I guess this is why Real was so upset with Apple NOT letting them on the iTunes/iPod platform. Real and Apple users loss.

****ing sucks when Apple want's to keep everything propreitary even when other companies have to crack the DRM (which Real did briefly I think) until Apple shut that down.

So much for competition

 

[balamw]

****ing sucks when Apple want's to keep everything propreitary even when other companies have to crack the DRM (which Real did briefly I think) until Apple shut that down.

Real is still claiming iPod support. They no longer list specific firmware versions that are supported and in fact link to the latest firmware from Apple.

iPod support in RealPlayer and Rhapsody

Question
Does the iPod work the same way with RealPlayer and Rhapsody?

Answer
You can transfer your own MP3 and AAC files (plus tracks purchased from Rhapsody and RealPlayer Music Store) to the Apple iPod (including the regular iPod, the iPod Nano, the iPod Shuffle, and the iPod Mini).

The iPod is not compatible with subscription services, so you cannot transfer subscription (Rhapsody To Go) tracks to it without being charged. However, you can install it to work with other tracks (imported and purchased) on Rhapsody. Click here for installation steps.

For best results with RealPlayer Music Store tracks, we recommend using RealPlayer to manage your iPod. Click here for installation steps.

We hope you'll enjoy taking your music with you!

B

 

[Loge]

I didn't see this anywhere else - what are the French and Scandanavian responses to the decision to restrict the computers that will support the service and the tigher DRM?

I guess we'll find that out if Amazon eventually offer the service in those countries. As well as the over-restrictive DRM, I also notice this from the Terms of Use -

5. Promotional Content
From time to time, Amazon will automatically deliver promotional video content (e.g., movie trailers, celebrity interviews, reviews, etc.) to your Authorized Device. Amazon may automatically delete such promotional video content from your Authorized Device without notice to you.

 

[bloodycape]

In theory there is ipod support and but it requires loosing the drm and stuff and once that is gone all you do is convert it to your ipod. A little time consuming but it still works.


User review of it.
http://www.dapreview.net/comment.php?comment.news.3608

 

[Snowy_River]

Bob buys Terminator 4 (Arnie's gotta do something next ...). Rips it to his Mac as a DRM'd MP4 tied to his account. He has no use for the disk anymore, so he sends it to Jane who hasn't seen the movie.

Jane also rips the disk to her PC as a DRM'd MP4 tied to her account. She also has no use for the disk anymore, so when Jim asks her what she thought of the movie she just hands it to him and says "judge for yourself".

Jim, seeing this is a great way to get movies, sets up a voluntary mailing list for people to buy/rip/mail the disks of all new releases to each other in a large circle. The fee to join the list is $1/disk, and the set exchange rate for the disks is $5 (fair market value for a used disk); each DVD makes it through about 100 people before it is too scratched to be useful and is retired. This yields Jim a profit of $80 per disk he "sells" (and eventually buys back) from the circle.

While perhaps the mailing list idea would pull in civil lawsuits against Jim, the rest is certainly expected, and even the mailing list might survive a legal challenge with a bit of luck.

I can't see the MPAA members going for this.


CSS (the DVD protection mechanism) ONLY works so long as the hardware REQUIRES that the original disk be present to display the images it contains. That is why the MPAA freaks out over "back up copies" of disks.

FairPlay (and WMA) rely on tying the bits of content to specific hardware. This means that no matter how many times you duplicate it, only the one piece of hardware can play it. This is why "back up copies" of this data is allowed and encouraged.

Yes, but they face this kind of problem today with DVDs. They faced it with VHS tapes. This is a small scale problem and depends, primarily, on how many people you know. Because the kind of mailing list you described would be illegal, and easily trackable, not many people would want to participate in such a thing. Whereas the friend-to-friend sharing would be more realistic. But, as I said, it would be a small scale problem.

 

[Analog Kid]

Your logic doesn't really make sense. Sales will go up, but if they're selling a movie for $24 now, if they drop the price to $4 they need to sell six times as many copies to make the same profit. That's just not going to happen. Not to mention that if you start selling every movie for that, and don't do rentals, you'll still have people who just want to see the movie once, and will feel like they're getting a bad deal buying a movie instead of being able to rent for less. Even with $4 sales, I'm still going to want to watch most things via netflix, for a lower per-movie cost.

I easily rent 5 or 6 times as many movies as I buy probably more like 10 times-- and I own significantly more than friends around me. I'd guess most people are at least 20:1 rent to buy and the ratio is probably even more skewed than that.

Don't think about how many people bought Star Wars, or whatever, but think about how many movies people watch vs how many they buy.

Interesting point about people being conditioned to think they could get a better deal if they're only watching it once-- there's probably some truth in that. I don't think people are going to be too upset if they don't need to pay more than they are now-- nothing lost. And any discontent will evaporate the first time they realize that can keep the file if they decide they like it, or if they want to keep it around until they get a chance to show one scene to a friend.

 

[bigmc6000]

No worries...

For anyone who think this might hurt iTunes or even steal Jobs' thunder head over to cnet and listen to the blog on the front page. This software is a Big Brother nightmare. It won't even let you uninstall it without logging in online. crap crap crap - that's all it is. Thinking it's a bit too bogged down by windows junk - haha!

 

[dmelgar]

I'm sure its all been said before but here's my opinion anyway...

Overall it does not look like a compelling offering.
- Price is the same as a DVD for no added function. Missing DVD extras. Not really any easier to deal with than a DVD
- Hardware requirements. Only supports a relatively high powered Windows XP box with lots of spare room. Most users don't have this good a system.
- Viewing quality. No ability to burn a DVD from it. Means that you can't view it on your large TV and DVD player. Most people don't like watching movies on their PC.
- DRM.
This is the crux of the issue. I think the reason that iTunes and iPod took off is that its the first music environment with reasonable DRM. All the movie studios for previous music downloads forced such restrictive DRM that no one wanted it. Sounded like a money maker or money protector for the studios but not something anyone would want. Somehow Steve Jobs was able to break the music industry reluctance to aggresively price music with reasonable DRM. When they did, it took off for the greater convenience.

Here we go again with video. The studios want to protect the money they make on DVDs at the expense of supporting a new download market which will eventually take over for DVD sales. Rather than embrace technology the studios have to be dragged into it kicking and screaming.

Charging the same price for less content, that only allows me to run on 2 high powered PCs and not on my DVD player means that this will not ever get significant traction.

The idea of only supporting 2 PCs is abhorent. This means that you spend your $20 for a movie. Upgrade to a new PC next year and you maybe out of luck if you've exceeded your 2 PC limit? Worse, you know there will be a new DRM scheme in a few years and your ability to play your movie will eventually be lost.

It will be interesting to see if Apple can break the studio logjam this time. The situation may not be critical enough for the studios yet. In the meantime, online sharing of ripped movies will continue to accelerate with full content, no restrictions. The only inhibitor is still network speed.

 

[karlfranz]

Doesn't On Demand require having cable TV?

Doesn't downloading movies or music from Unbox or iTunes require having a (broadband) Internet connection?

Doesn't renting from Blockbuster or Netflix require having a credit card and/or some form of membership?

What's your point?

Everone here has been suggesting better methods of buying or renting movies. I suggest that On Demand is one of the best approaches for picture quality, convenience and price (if you already have cable TV).

 

[GreatOne08]

Let's just wait until tuessday so we can all see digital movie download done right. (I hope)

 

[fuel1411]

surprises?

Let's just wait until tuessday so we can all see digital movie download done right. (I hope)

I have to agree. I think that despite all the worry that this forum has SPECULATED on, Apple is going to roll out their iFlicks (ugh, if that is the name or wutever) with a couple last minute surprises.

Apple always surprises on the last minute (ok not ALWAYS, but look at the release date ((and specs)) of the 24-inch iMac). It's funny how they manage to dodge all the speculation and still come out with "voila!" and everybody (even after all the hypotheticals) "oohs and aahs."

Also, does anybody REALLY think that Disney is going to be the ONLY studio onboard with this? Even the TV shows on iTunes didn't start out with only one network (if memory serves). Once again, surprises are in store on Tuesday.

 

[Analog Kid]

Everone here has been suggesting better methods of buying or renting movies. I suggest that On Demand is one of the best approaches for picture quality, convenience and price (if you already have cable TV).

I tend to agree-- television was the original streaming video.

How's the selection? I don't have access, but my understanding was that it was only on the order of 100's of movies available at any one time. Kinda like the old HBO, but without a fixed schedule.

 

[killr_b]

I think hard drive suppliers are dancing a jig right about now. We need our home RAID solution for all of our downloaded media.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing!!!!! A jig!

 

[50548]

I have to agree. I think that despite all the worry that this forum has SPECULATED on, Apple is going to roll out their iFlicks (ugh, if that is the name or wutever) with a couple last minute surprises.

Apple always surprises on the last minute (ok not ALWAYS, but look at the release date ((and specs)) of the 24-inch iMac). It's funny how they manage to dodge all the speculation and still come out with "voila!" and everybody (even after all the hypotheticals) "oohs and aahs."

Also, does anybody REALLY think that Disney is going to be the ONLY studio onboard with this? Even the TV shows on iTunes didn't start out with only one network (if memory serves). Once again, surprises are in store on Tuesday.

Yes...Amazon, as every other maker out there when compared to Apple, screws up big time...but honestly, I still don't see a market for long movies in high quality encoding in this world...even from Apple.

Long download times, no possibility to rip, strict DRM, no extras...it's already HARD to buy a normal DVD with high price tag and crappy Hollywood productions...even more so for downloads.

 

[karlfranz]

I tend to agree-- television was the original streaming video.

How's the selection? I don't have access, but my understanding was that it was only on the order of 100's of movies available at any one time. Kinda like the old HBO, but without a fixed schedule.

We have two kinds of On Demand.

The first is the typical On Demand like you see in a hotel. You pick a category and browse through a selection of mostly new releases. After reading a brief description you can choose to purchase (usually $3.99) and the movie will start within 1 to 3 seconds. You can pause, rewind, do a 15-second instant replay, slow motion, and watch as many times as you want during a 24 hr period. Many movies are available in your choice of either fullscreen or widescreen formats and there is a separate channel where you can order High Def movies, but right now the selection of those is more limited. Many of the DVD extras such as the "making of" featurettes are free of charge.

The second type of On Demand doesn't cost anything extra beyond what the extended digital cable costs. Currently we have about 40 channels of these including: CNN, Speed TV, G4/Tech TV, HGTV, DIY, AOL Music Videos, Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, A&E, TBS, Adult Swim, Oxygen, and many others. You can select from dozens of shows and series played in those channels and the great thing is that in many cases, they even strip out the commercials for you. In addition, if you subscribe to HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, or The Movie Channel, you get all there shows on demmand as well so you can pick an episode of Sex in the City, Sopranos, or Entourage to watch without having to buy the box DVD set (which might not even be out yet for thath season). We even have an On Demand channel for Howard Stern only.

Once (if) the major networks start puting their shows in On Demand channels, there will be no need for services like Itunes, Unbox, etc. However, I doubt they would do this as it would kill their emerging business of cashing-in on DVD box sets of old shows and previous seasons of current shows.

Regardless, I really see this as the future of all video entertainment. It gives you the ability to watch whatever show you want, when you want to watch it. As bandwidth and storage capacity increases there may be no need for DVD's or DVR's except for very specialized purposes, and live television broadcasts will only be used for time-sensitive material such as news, weather, or financial.

In just the past 3 years, our selection of On Demand has increased greatly and I only see this getting better. With all these features, I fail to see the appeal of a service like Unbox since it is slow and limits your viewing to a (PC) computer.

I used to buy dozens of DVD's and even have a 400 DVD changer full of movies (my own "personal" on demand system). However, I find myself buying much less now and using the On Demand "rental" system much more.

 

[Cooknn]

I used to buy dozens of DVD's and even have a 400 DVD changer full of movies (my own "personal" on demand system). However, I find myself buying much less now and using the On Demand "rental" system much more.

I have Comcast 'On Demand'. I used it once. If it was in Hi-Def I'd use it all the time. Not sure why they are dragging their feet on this. I understand there are other parts of the country that already have Hi-Def On Demand

 

[Doenertier]

I don't think Apple did wait all this long (since opening their music store) to choose the 12th of September 2006 only to offer 11 Disney Movies in 320x240 and iPod video support for $9.99 to $14.99. No way.

1.) as-good-as-DVD quality is for sure, I even think HD in Apple's H264 codec

2.) whole package as with the iPod
iPod + iTunes is the perfect solution for storing and playing music on the go
Apple has got a perfect solution for video as well, that's why they are coming out now (after having finished negotiations with the movie studios);
we don't know what hardware part this solution has but can be sure it is great; maybe some media center, maybe some streaming solution.

We'll see on tuesday. And I think we'll be content with what apple offers. Because they are the only ones who think about the whole package, not only pieces like amazon does.

 

[hamholio]

Trying to get my Parallels virtual disk large enough so I can download Amok Time. Wish me luck!

 

[benthewraith]

how the hell can they offer BBC content to you guys and girls in the US ?

I imagine because we get BBC in the U.S.