Apple Compromising On iTunes Movie Terms?

[GQB]

The word "its" is not equivalent to "it's". "Its" is possessive, and "it's" is a conjunction of "it is". I wish people knew how to use proper grammar.

Well, not like there's a logical rule or anything. It's a memorized exception.
Pretty much every possessive uses an apostrophe.

"aardwolf's comments were quite correct."

Thank god for spell checkers.

 

[twoodcc]

well, i still think they need hi-def to get people to really do this

 

[iSee]

Why rent for $3.99 when you can do Redbox for $1?

Do you really have to ask?
* Redbox has a tiny selection, and popular DVDs are often sold out.
* You've got to go to the Redbox location to rent and return the movie.
* The Redbox near my house is often broken--really, really annoying when returning a movie (you've got to return to the Redbox location repeatedly, waiting for your chance to return the movie, and you've got to call them up to avoid the extra charges--yuck).

 

[gnasher729]

Ouch - needs to be more like 3 days imo

It depends on what the terms are. What I would find reasonable: You can download a movie anytime, possibly without even paying. When you start playing, you need to pay for it, and the 24 hours start running (or maybe after watching more than five minutes of the actual movie).

The reasons why you want more than 24 hours say from Blockbusters are: You want to be able to borrow two movies and watch them on two nights, and you don't want to have to rush back to return the movie. The 24 hours is from starting to watch until finishing to watch. The 3 days at a rental store is from leaving the shop to returning the DVDs; that's not the same time.

 

[Stampyhead]

I liked Roughly Drafted's idea for rentals:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/07/how-apple-could-deliver-workable-itunes-rentals/

It's like Netflix. I pay Apple each month for 2 or 3 "empty slots" on iTunes that I can fill with any movie I want. The movie stays there until I download another one to replace it. It's exactly like how Netflix sends me a DVD and I get another one once I send it back.

Too bad they're not going that route.

I think that's a crap idea, at least for me. Maybe some people have nothing better to do than sit and watch movies one after another ad nauseum but others of us have jobs and lives and only have the time or the desire rent movies once in a while. I don't want to pay Apple or anyone else a monthly fee for a service I'm not always using. That's why I got rid of Netflix years ago...

 

[gvegastiger]

The clincher for me is getting it to my TV. Even if I went out and bought a $300 apple tv it still looks noticeably worse than a DVD, let alone a hi-def movie. So if the price is the same as the phsycial DVD, I'll just continue walking out to my mailbox for my blockbusteronline movies or occasional trip to the store if I have to see something right now.

 

[NYLawTalkingGuy]

IMHO, the 24 hour time limit (assuming it starts upon first pressing play) really impacts the iPod, or MB/MBP users, much more harshly than those piping to the tv. I would surmise that, other than on cross country flights, or long train or car rides, iPod users break up their viewing to match their commute/short trips. That break-down would likely prevent those users from watching a feature film during the 24 hour time limit. Of course, if there is an ability to sync between the tv and the iPod with a marker with the point in the film where it is started/stopped between devices, much of that concern could be alleviated.

 

[gnasher729]

e) sounds a bit virusy/intrusive doesn't it? I don't like the sound of files disappearing off my system. Won't someone work out a way to start removing key files from the registry after '24 hours'?

Am i being paranoid? It just sounds a bit dodgy having files magically remove themselves

Typically with this kind of DRM system no file disappears at all. What happens is that there is also a small note attached to the file "Play until Tuesday 21:30pm" and after that time, the file is still there, but it won't play anymore. Like when you de-authorize your computer to play music from the iTunes store. All the music files are still there, but the Mac won't play them anymore.

If Apple is clever, then the file is still there, and you can pay another $3.99 next month if you want to watch it again, or pay the difference to the full movie price if you want to buy it, without having to download anything.

 

[Yvan256]

Knowing Apple, I would think they asked for the following:
- the 24 hours limit only starts once you start viewing the movie
- the 24 hours limit doesn't apply until you've seen the movie once, for those "I have to stop watching the movie" moments.

As for the price, I also think they will align themselves with the average current prices, because of the advantages are:
- not having to drive to the rental place / not having to wait day(s) for the DVD to arrive in the mailbox
- being sure that if the movie you want is in the rental list, it's in stock
- not having to return the movie to the rental place / not having to send back a DVD by mail
- not wasting time and gas to move a plastic disc back and forth

As for the quality/bitrate/resolution, I'm expecting something similar to what they are currently offering (unless they upgrade everything and announce that at Macworld too).

I'm also expecting this to be for USA only.

 

[Lancetx]

If these are going to be the terms, I'll just stick with renting Blu-ray movies from my local Blockbuster. At least I have a full week to watch those and they're 1080p HD.

I don't blame Apple though at all, the studios are just too greedy to give them decent terms it appears.

 

[levitynyc]

well, i still think they need hi-def to get people to really do this

AMEN

 

[CWallace]

The 24 hours has to refer to how long you have to watch the movie once you start it.

To those who complain about the price, well any price is more then a torrent since the torrent is free. $3.99 is still cheaper then the DVD if you only want to watch it once. It could also be cheaper then a subscription to Netflix depending on how many movies a month you watch.

The only thing that has "protected" the MPAA is the sheer size of the files. With file sizes 10x or more then MP3s, it takes longer to download. Yet as bandwidth increases, that time continues to drop. What used to be impossible on dial-up and took hours on low-end DSL is now possible in tens of minutes on high-end cable.

The MPAA is moving to on-line rentals now because if they don't put out a legitimate offering, all that will exist are illegitimate ones. They're hoping enough people believe in paying for the content they watch and it will also help them down the road with legal proceedings by offering a legitimate alternative that people willfully eschew for the illegitimate one.

 

[levitynyc]

The 24 hours has to refer to how long you have to watch the movie once you start it.

T

Thats how it is on the 360, although you do get an HD option.

 

[NightStorm]

The problem with HD rentals is that they would be 1) a very large download, and 2) incompatible with current iPods/iPhone. They cannot play content > ~720x480.

As for the 24 hours, as long as you can begin watching instantly, I don't see this as too big of a problem. It would be pretty much exactly like PPV from cable or satellite. Just don't purchase until you're ready to watch it within the time period. Also, being able to upgrade a rental to a purchase quickly and easily (with a credit for the rental price) would be nice as well.

 

[CWallace]

well, i still think they need hi-def to get people to really do this

Considering the tv requires (more or less) a digital television (which pretty much means HD-capable), it is surprising Apple has not pushed HD content as of yet where it is (was) available OTA.

And while HD content is likely very large, and as such might not be popular as an "impulse rental", for the stuff you can buy, what does it matter if you queue it up before you go to bed and let it download overnight?

 

[GQB]

This is all pretty moot until they get the AppleTV into a LOT of homes.
Watching movies on a computer is and will be a niche market in the grand scheme of things. Its about the living room, and no one except geeks puts a computer in their living room.
Music downloads are big because of the iPod, not because of people listening to music on their computers.
Seems like the pieces of the puzzle are:
1) Seamless integration with (or even from) the home TV. AppleTV v1 doesn't cut it, and Apple has to have something in the wings. (Although I'm sure we'll hear screams of 'law suite' from people who expected V1 to be the ultimate version.)
2) Agreements with content providers in place from which negotiation can take place. (aka 'foot in the door')
3) Content.

But #1 is the key, and that's the big hurdle.

 

[CWallace]

As for the 24 hours, as long as you can begin watching instantly, I don't see this as too big of a problem. It would be pretty much exactly like PPV from cable or satellite.

The trick is, you may very well not be able to - or you might not be able to keep the stream running in real-time for two or more hours.

This is why I firmly believe that the 24-hour period is based on when you start watching, and not start downloading. That way, you can be sure you have the entire show before you start watching it.

Now, if you start watching as soon as you start downloading...

 

[notjustjay]

I was referring to their initial releases.

Yes, VHS and DVD machines did cost $500-800 when they were initially released. And yes, nowadays they are commodity items costing as little as $30-50.

Are you suggesting that the AppleTV or similar playback will one day cost as little as $30, new in stores? That seems highly optimistic.

Though, I certainly hope to be able to eat those words.

 

[levitynyc]

This is all pretty moot until they get the AppleTV into a LOT of homes.

1) Seamless integration with (or even from) the home TV. AppleTV v1 doesn't cut it, and Apple has to have something in the wings. (Although I'm sure we'll hear screams of 'law suite' from people who expected V1 to be the ultimate version.)


But #1 is the key, and that's the big hurdle.

I'm not good with networking at all and hooking up and synching my aTV took 3 minutes. If you can't handle that, then you need to seriously reexamine yourself.

The software needs an upgrade, not the hardware.

 

[tba03]

14.99 for a compressed to death crappy hollywood movie??
a DVD costs that and at least in's not a lossy file

The problem with HD rentals is that they would be 1) a very large download, and 2) incompatible with current iPods/iPhone. They cannot play content > ~720x480.

As for the 24 hours, as long as you can begin watching instantly, I don't see this as too big of a problem. It would be pretty much exactly like PPV from cable or satellite. Just don't purchase until you're ready to watch it within the time period. Also, being able to upgrade a rental to a purchase quickly and easily (with a credit for the rental price) would be nice as well.

720x480 is far from HD, it only SD, HD is 1920x1080 60fps, that means in h264 about 2,2 GB/42 minutes

 

[wake6830]

Too much money for too short a time.

I could see something like $1.99 for 24 hours and $3.99 for 3 or 5 days.

 

[damacus]

The prices mentioned on this news article are made of fail.

I think rentals are best left to a subscription model, a la Netflix. Flat rate, fixed number of slots.. maybe some requirement about only X movies may be rented per X days, but rentals may be held as long as desired until released from the slot. (The X per X day limit would be to prevent heavy server abuse.) They can also offer ala carte rentals for, say, $2.99 for a set length of time. Users could opt for either subscription or alacarte or both. (Say it was a movie weekend and you already watched 5 or 6 movies.)

Also it'd be interesting if they could work in P2P and credits, so you can earn back rentals by providing upstream for movies, or something of that nature.

I also wish iTunes would offer music rental like how Napster does. There's a lot of music I'd like to listen to but not own. Maybe they could offer a streaming service and work out a royalties deal or something. I'd prefer a flat rate, but I could also go for a micropayment service.. say, bill me at the end of the month for $0.05 per song played.

Movies to own is a hard sell to me currently at $10. Like someone else said, lower reso than DVD, lesser audio, something that eats my drive space and that I have to back up... $17? Give me a break.

These studios need to remove their heads from their collective asses. The time of them making terms that largely benefit them are over. Their greed blinds them to the fact that until their terms are amicable to consumers that many will ignore their efforts and/or find other venues of purchasing content.. be it second-hand purchases which don't benefit the studios and/or piracy.

 

[CWallace]

14.99 for a compressed to death crappy hollywood movie?? a DVD costs that and at least in's not a lossy file

Look at it this way - Apple is saving folks the effort of ripping the DVD in "MactheRipper" and then compressing it using VisualHub.

If you watch all your DVDs on a DVD player, this option is not meant for you.

It is meant for folks who rip their DVDs to their computer or tv.

 

[bluefiberoptics]

I still believe Redbox and Netflix are the better choices.

 

[tba03]

Look at it this way - Apple is saving folks the effort of ripping the DVD in "MactheRipper" and then compressing it using VisualHub.

If you watch all your DVDs on a DVD player, this option is not meant for you.

It is meant for folks who rip their DVDs to their computer or tv.

i rip them to x264 MKV (or just download them that way (tv shows))