Apple Compromising On iTunes Movie Terms?

[rockosmodurnlif]

Businessweek's sources also claim Apple's movie rental service will be priced at $3.99 for a 24 hour rental, which is consistent with recent rumors.

I'd love to see what steve does if that happened. I love it when he pauses expecting applause and it doesn't quite happen, just a smattering of applause - sounds like a load of nudists sitting down on a bench together!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Both of these were absolutely hilarious. Of course, I don't think the $3.99 is true, it just doesn't make sense. Geez, you do Netflix at $9.99, you can at least two DVDs a month (4.99 per movie) and you can watch them for as long as you want throughout the month. It just doesn't sound competitive. But its still good for a laugh.

 

[wscapital]

3.99

In agreement with wordmunger.

3.99 a day with better selection is an improvement, although not being able to record it with a DVR is a minus.

 

[levitynyc]

Yes, I'm well aware that 720x480 is far from HD. I was pointing out the fact that a HD file (1280x720 or higher is considered HD) would not be compatible with the current iPod/iPhone products, requiring users to choose between two files, or Apple somehow making the larger resolution files compatible.

a SOFTWARE update? possible?

 

[BobVB]

I dont understand why the studios want to kill digital downloads and they obviously do. This isn't an Apple issue, its the studios refusing to budge the the physical medium.

Hopefully its just that they are scared of 'giving away the farm' again as some feel they did with DVDs. This is a test to see if they can once again get you to fall for 'renting' and not owning a digital version of the movie, and if you do own it it is calculated to BE inferior.

But this will have hurdles that even DIVX didn't have - massively inferior sound and picture quality, ties up home internet (mine for hours) and confusing selections.

Same price for inferior product? Sounds like a question on the Darwinian IQ test. Count me in as one who will be going for physical DVDs and Blu-rays for the foreseeable future.

 

[milo]

a SOFTWARE update? possible?

Some improvement could definitely be a possibility, although full 480p is more likely than HD from an iPod, at least from the 5g and 5.5g. It's pretty close to those already.

I don't know if people remember, but the 5G ipod only did 320x240 resolution when it shipped...when the 5.5 came out they released firmware to enable 640x480. I'd love to see at least 720x480 and better anamorphic support for existing iPods, but full HD is probably unlikely.

One possibility is giving buyers a choice of resolution or including an iPod version along with the HD version, although that doesn't really help those wanting to watch on an HDTV from an iPod output.

 

[NightStorm]

Some improvement could definitely be a possibility, although full 480p is more likely than HD from an iPod, at least from the 5g and 5.5g. It's pretty close to those already.

I don't know if people remember, but the 5G ipod only did 320x240 resolution when it shipped...when the 5.5 came out they released firmware to enable 640x480. I'd love to see at least 720x480 and better anamorphic support for existing iPods, but full HD is probably unlikely.

One possibility is giving buyers a choice of resolution or including an iPod version along with the HD version, although that doesn't really help those wanting to watch on an HDTV from an iPod output.

I agree... they could try and tackle it via a software update, but full HD playback (even 720p) is unlikely (and would take up a lot of space on limited devices like the iPhone/iPod Touch). Including 2 versions of the movie would work, but would likely cause confusion and make downloads even bigger. If I were to make a prediction, I'd say that the videos will see a resolution bump, and hopefully the devices will be updated to include proper handling of anamorphic encodes.

 

[lemonpeazy11]

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.

Are you sure you know what a conjunction is?
"It's" is a contraction buddy.
And, but, & or are conjunctions.
Don't jump on someones grammar w/o a dictionary.

 

[jettredmont]

Hmmph.

So, just who the hell are the people who are renting a movie for 24 hours for $4?

Compare/contrast the options.

$4/24-hour download:

Pro:

• Time window likely starts when you start watching it

Cons:

• Likely sparse catalog (certainly compared to physical buy or rent for a while, which is astounding)
• Somewhat unpredictable start time (could start any time between half an hour after ordered to a day after ordering, depending on your net connection at the moment)
• Highly limited time window to enjoy movie
• You provide the bandwidth
• No extra features
• No physical pamphlet, etc
• Requires separately-purchased, expensive, physical device to enjoy movies fully

$4/7-day rental:

Pro:

• Rather large catalog available around the corner
• Start time relatively predictable (piggy-backs on other errand drive time)
• Large window to enjoy movie and share with a few groups of friends
• Extra features often available
• Physical box cover

Cons:

• Second disk extra features often missing
• Time window starts when you pick it up from the store, which is per errand convenience time, not when you want to watch it.
• Media or holder may be misplaced, resulting in benefit-less mandatory purchase.

$20/month for all you can view Netflix/Blockbuster

Pro:

• Cheapest option for more than 5 movies per month
• Queue management ability
• See DVD Rentals

Cons:

• More expensive for <5 movies per month
• Long lead time for impulse movies
• Even less physical artwork than DVD Rentals

$10-20/buy:

Pro:

• All physical media available
• All extras available
• Can start, stop, rewatch whenever and wherever one pleases

Cons:

• Most expensive option
• Need to deal with DVD box clutter

It seems like the download rental falls far beyond the $4 physical rental in terms of cons (the only possible advantage being that one need not leave the house, which makes it great for shut-ins), and also of the rent-by-mail option. It seems roughly the same step-down in service as between the "buy" and "physical rental" steps, which is a 3x-5x price differential.

Thus, IMHO, it seems about right for a one-day rental to be more along the lines of $1 - $2. Certainly, $4 is way too high, a there it is competing against an equivalent price and having many significant disadvantages.

 

[CWallace]

Problem is, it gives a result of lower quality, and with less features than buying the DVD and ripping it. If they want to replace the DVD they need to be competitive with it (and better yet, competitive with HD dvds).

Yes, but we here on the forums are the technical Illuminati. We are not the target market for this service because we're willing to take the time and effort to keep tweaking to get that last .00000000000000001%.

Apple and the studios are just starting to test the waters. They're hoping just the idea of being able to download a movie rental is interesting enough that they'll give it a shot. Some will try it and go "Eh." and never come back. Others will go "Not bad. It was pretty easy. Won't use it every day, but when I don't want to go to the store." And still others will go "Cool! I'm going to use this all the time now."

Look at tv. As a product, it's pretty mediocre. No discrete digital audio. No DVD functionality so it requires such content to be copied to a computer first and then converted to a compatible format. It can only play a handful of video and audio formats out of the box (others require hacking the hardware).

And yet, the AppleTV forum on this board is filled with users who love it. They download most - in some cases, all - of their audio and video content from the iTunes store and they can't wait for the movie rentals and expansion of sales many of us in this thread are disparaging. They understand the limitations, but they're willing to live with them because they believe and support in the idea behind the device.

Before the service even launches is a bit too early to write a eulogy for it in my opinion.

 

[diamond.g]

Including 2 versions of the movie would work, but would likely cause confusion and make downloads even bigger.

iTunes Plus for Movies!!!

 

[iStefmac]

jettredmont,

Very well laid out. It makes a clear case against $4/24 hrs.

To me, the only reason for purchasing iTunes movies in the past has been simple: Impulse. Thats what Apple counts on, they make media/content readily available for impulse purchases, down to one-click buy/download/watch.

They are probably going to continue that trend as they have sold billions of songs due to the impulsive nature of iTunes shopping.

------------

I also don't think $4 for 7 days would appeal any more though. Its the price thats the issue, not the duration. I would be much more inclined to rent movies frequently from iTunes if they had:

1. New Releases
2. $2 for 24 hours
3. Option to buy for additional 7.99

 

[iStefmac]

And yet, the AppleTV forum on this board is filled with users who love it. They download most - in some cases, all - of their audio and video content from the iTunes store and they can't wait for the movie rentals and expansion of sales many of us in this thread are disparaging. They understand the limitations, but they're willing to live with them because they believe and support in the idea behind the device.

I really can't imagine who these people are. Who would spend countless dollars of the their own money just to support the idea of another company's products?

 

[wordmunger]

Hmmph.

So, just who the hell are the people who are renting a movie for 24 hours for $4?

Compare/contrast the options.

$4/24-hour download:

Pro:

• Time window likely starts when you start watching it

You forgot the most important one: INSTANT GRATIFICATION. Also, there will likely be a better selection than the biggest competitor to this service, pay-per-view movies.

Cons:

• Likely sparse catalog (certainly compared to physical buy or rent for a while, which is astounding)
• Somewhat unpredictable start time (could start any time between half an hour after ordered to a day after ordering, depending on your net connection at the moment)
• Highly limited time window to enjoy movie
• You provide the bandwidth
• No extra features
• No physical pamphlet, etc
• Requires separately-purchased, expensive, physical device to enjoy movies fully

None of these cons are specific to a 24-hour rental. They can apply equally to any rental plan.

$4/7-day rental:

Pro:

• Rather large catalog available around the corner
• Start time relatively predictable (piggy-backs on other errand drive time)
• Large window to enjoy movie and share with a few groups of friends
• Extra features often available
• Physical box cover

What are you talking about here? An apple rental system? Why would a 4-7 day rental have all these things when a 24-hour system would not? Or are you attempting to compare an Apple rental system to blockbuster/netflix?

Cons:

• Second disk extra features often missing
• Time window starts when you pick it up from the store, which is per errand convenience time, not when you want to watch it.
• Media or holder may be misplaced, resulting in benefit-less mandatory purchase.

Ah, yes, it appears you're comparing Apple to Blockbuster.

Let me add to the cons:

• Late fees
• Cost of transportation to/from store
• Inconvenience of travel to store
• Media may be defective, requiring an additional trip to store

$20/month for all you can view Netflix/Blockbuster

Pro:

• Cheapest option for more than 5 movies per month
• Queue management ability
• See DVD Rentals

Queue management is a con, not a pro. With an Apple download system, there is no queue. You get the movies you want, when you want them. Queue management is a pain. Since movies are shipped automatically when a movie is returned, you must constantly manage your queue to make sure you get the movies you want when you want them.

Cons:

• More expensive for <5 movies per month
• Long lead time for impulse movies
• Even less physical artwork than DVD Rentals

Let me add to that list:

• Movies may get lost in the mail
• DVDs may be defective, requiring a return, and resulting in not having the movie when you want it
• You pay every month whether or not you watch the movies
• Many movies now require you to sit through ads/previews, whether you want to see them or not

It seems like the download rental falls far beyond the $4 physical rental in terms of cons (the only possible advantage being that one need not leave the house, which makes it great for shut-ins), and also of the rent-by-mail option. It seems roughly the same step-down in service as between the "buy" and "physical rental" steps, which is a 3x-5x price differential.

Thus, IMHO, it seems about right for a one-day rental to be more along the lines of $1 - $2. Certainly, $4 is way too high, a there it is competing against an equivalent price and having many significant disadvantages.

$4 is only way too high if you don't want to pay it. I already pay that much for an inferior product (pay-per-view satellite movies).

 

[milo]

Including 2 versions of the movie would work, but would likely cause confusion and make downloads even bigger.

It would make downloads bigger, but that might not be a big deal, especially if they gave the user a choice of which to download first. Once you have the first version and are watching it, it doesn't really matter that your computer is still downloading the second version.

And the confusion would only happen if it wasn't implemented well - iTunes could link together two versions of a video and display them to the user as one, and automatically send the proper format to each device.

Look at tv. As a product, it's pretty mediocre. No discrete digital audio. No DVD functionality so it requires such content to be copied to a computer first and then converted to a compatible format. It can only play a handful of video and audio formats out of the box (others require hacking the hardware).

And yet, the AppleTV forum on this board is filled with users who love it. They download most - in some cases, all - of their audio and video content from the iTunes store and they can't wait for the movie rentals and expansion of sales many of us in this thread are disparaging. They understand the limitations, but they're willing to live with them because they believe and support in the idea behind the device.

A few people posting online saying that they like a product isn't what makes it successful. Overall, the media and general public seem to consider the aTV a failure. I don't doubt that ANY product can attract a few customers who are willing to give anything a try just for the hell of it. But I assume apple is aspiring to mainstream success, not just a niche of a few happy users. Apple isn't going to make a real splash until the product is competitive on a features/quality versus price basis.

Before the service even launches is a bit too early to write a eulogy for it in my opinion.

I don't think it's dead...it's just going to be stagnant until they improve the quality or drop the price. Or both.

 

[swagi]

Apple better get their act together

And in other news, Microsoft announced that they stroke a deal with British Telecom to use the XBox 360 as IPTV device.

Maybe Apple should really stop being the Media provider but open up their iTunes store to other big players! Bring on the (insert telco company here) Apple TV IPTV exclusive deal!

Oh, btw, according to this article the pricing scheme doesn't look that bad. Though there still is some unlimited deal/monthly rate to be announced.

 

[Rot'nApple]

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.

Hey the studios need that money to pay for the new contracts with the striking WGA for new movies and tv shows. How else are they going to pay them?

 

[gvegastiger]

Queue management is a good thing, not a pain as described. What if you want to line up more than 3 movies so you don't have to write down all the movies you want to see?

The reason for the queue is so you dont have to update very often, and so you don't have to remember the movies or write them down. If you are surfing the net or watching tv and suddenly see something you want to watch, you put it in your queue and forget about it.

 

[takao]

if they want this to take off big time then 4 is too much ..... i pay 5-10 bucks for my dvds ... (sure not new releases but perhaps 6-10 months old)

a local retailer has 4 dvds for 24 bucks discount and change the lineup (30-50 different movies) every month with mostly newer releases so i'm never out of movies

heck i pay 5-6 bucks for watching a movie in theaters (a friend has discount card)... so 3.99 is quite on the steep side

the next rental store (actual movie rental vending machine) is within 150 meter distance and another one another 200 meters ... (and i don't pay 4 there either )


for 1,99 they wont have any problems with renting for 24 hours ... for 1,49 or less their servers very likely gonna melt down


personally i think the problem here on the pricing is that DVD sales etc. are despite piracy still on the rise and thus the companies not that hard pressed to compete

 

[filmguy15]

While I agree that $4 is too much to rent a movie for 24 hours at the current iTunes quality...why are we assuming the quality will stay the same? Everything points to Apple giving us a 720p option...or at least 480p. They wouldn't have bothered making the Apple TV support 720p unless they had future plans for it...

Speaking of the Apple TV...I have one and yes, it does exactly what I want it to. I just have to be realistic about what it is made for. It will NEVER have a DVR, and it probably won't have a DVD/Blu-ray player. (that would be like releasing an iPod with a CD drive....) The whole idea is to move away from physical media.

It has the hardware capability for true 5.1 surround...it just needs a quick software update. The current model supports everything I will need to do for the next 2-3 years, which is perfect. Back on topic.....

 

[levitynyc]

While I agree that $4 is too much to rent a movie for 24 hours at the current iTunes quality...why are we assuming the quality will stay the same? Everything points to Apple giving us a 720p option...or at least 480p. They wouldn't have bothered making the Apple TV support 720p unless they had future plans for it...

Speaking of the Apple TV...I have one and yes, it does exactly what I want it to. I just have to be realistic about what it is made for. It will NEVER have a DVR, and it probably won't have a DVD/Blu-ray player. (that would be like releasing an iPod with a CD drive....) The whole idea is to move away from physical media.

It has the hardware capability for true 5.1 surround...it just needs a quick software update. The current model supports everything I will need to do for the next 2-3 years, which is perfect. Back on topic.....

I've been saying that since it was released. No way it will EVER be a DVR and it wont be a Blu-ray / DVD player as the whole idea of it is to avoid physical media.

 

[SthrnCmfrtr]

I really can't imagine who these people are. Who would spend countless dollars of the their own money just to support the idea of another company's products?

I dunno, and the idea creeps me out.

I have an Apple TV and, as of today, I've bought 0 movies, 0 TV show episodes, and 0 songs from iTunes. I think there are a lot more people like me than some non-Apple TV owners would suspect.

$300 might seem a bit steep for a box to play video files on a TV, but that is precisely what many of us want.

 

[zedsdead]

While I agree that $4 is too much to rent a movie for 24 hours at the current iTunes quality...why are we assuming the quality will stay the same? Everything points to Apple giving us a 720p option...or at least 480p. They wouldn't have bothered making the Apple TV support 720p unless they had future plans for it...

Speaking of the Apple TV...I have one and yes, it does exactly what I want it to. I just have to be realistic about what it is made for. It will NEVER have a DVR, and it probably won't have a DVD/Blu-ray player. (that would be like releasing an iPod with a CD drive....) The whole idea is to move away from physical media.

It has the hardware capability for true 5.1 surround...it just needs a quick software update. The current model supports everything I will need to do for the next 2-3 years, which is perfect. Back on topic.....

Apple put 720p in the Apple TV right away because of the pictures which look amazing. I agree though about Apple's future plans, because the audio chip has the ability to even support 7.1, so at some point at least 5.1 and 720p will make it to iTunes...the real question is when...I am hoping Macworld.

 

[wordmunger]

Queue management is a good thing, not a pain as described. What if you want to line up more than 3 movies so you don't have to write down all the movies you want to see?

The reason for the queue is so you dont have to update very often, and so you don't have to remember the movies or write them down. If you are surfing the net or watching tv and suddenly see something you want to watch, you put it in your queue and forget about it.

Itunes has the same feature. If you don't want to buy / rent a movie right away, you can put it in a playlist, still unpurchased (you could call it "wishlist"). Then you have a list of all the movies you're interested in, in one place. This isn't a unique advantage of Netflix, and Apple's implementation is better because you can request the movie exactly when you want instead of waiting for it to arrive. I've found that by the time movies on my Netflix queue arrive, half the time I'm not in the mood to watch them.

 

[CWallace]

I really can't imagine who these people are. Who would spend countless dollars of the their own money just to support the idea of another company's products?

You must not own any Apple products.

I don't doubt that ANY product can attract a few customers who are willing to give anything a try just for the hell of it. But I assume apple is aspiring to mainstream success, not just a niche of a few happy users. Apple isn't going to make a real splash until the product is competitive on a features/quality versus price basis.

True, but we need to remember Apple isn't solely driving this bus. They're sharing the wheel with the content providers. And those providers either view us as criminals (the RIAA) or as potential criminals (the MPAA). Apple wants maximum content available through the iTunes Store because it drives sales of their product (iPod, tv, Mac). They...tolerate...other sources of content because they help sell the product, as well, but it's pretty clear that the integration of iTunes, the iTuneStore, and Apple's hardware creates a very powerful synergy.

Apple would like to run things in the way that is most advantageous to Apple, yet the other parties wish to run things in the way that is most advantageous to themselves. So both sides have to give because neither side has sufficient clout to solely drive and control the entire thing.

 

[chicagostars]

Jan. 15th, please come already

A lot of spit and vinegar out there. Remember, this is still a rumor and if it does turn out to be true, folks can stick with their current method of getting movies if it works best for them. Do hope these aren't the final numbers as there doesn't seem be be an extraordinary amount of value in the speculated offerings at these price points. Yet another thing to listen for during the Keynote . . . how many lost hours of productivity will be lost because of Stevie J and Apple on the 15th?