Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Great example of consumer inertia. Apple's high rate is due to the fact it's built into iOS, much like Internet Explorer in Windows. Neither the quality of downloads, price, or rental terms is superior to other services, but it is the easiest to use for iOS users.
 
is this slide suppose to make me ignore NETFLIX surging business ?

who "buys" digital content anyway??

stream or gtfo :D

You mean like the movie I bought last night? Or the one last week? Or the TV show I bought a season pass to? Or was it those three I bought in December. Or "The Hobbit."

Yeah, plenty of people buy the stuff. Netflix is great, but let me know when "The Hobbit" or "Silver Linings Playbook" hit it in a year.
 
I absolutely love this idea. I dont know why I have never heard this before but it would be perfect. They could even charge $60-70 and it would be a good deal. Bringing a family of 4 to the movies could cost easily more than that after popcorn and drinks.

Sure but the whole point of taking the family to the movies is to get them OUT of the house. Also why spend $10 a head to watch a movie on a small screen? The most popular home TV is 60" but even a 100" screen is small in comparison to a movie theatre. You lose a lot. I have a Sony 1080p projector w/ 100" Stewart screen so I talk from experience.
 
Its the concessions

I absolutely love this idea. I dont know why I have never heard this before but it would be perfect. They could even charge $60-70 and it would be a good deal. Bringing a family of 4 to the movies could cost easily more than that after popcorn and drinks. After apple takes their 30% it has to be about equal to what the movie maker gets after the theater takes its cut. The only problem I can see is how to you prevent somebody from throwing a movie party and showing it to 50 of their closest friends. But I do like the concept.

This is a pretty sweet idea. But like you said, theaters would fear the bootlegger having a movie party. More importantly they would raise holy hell if they miss out on concessions. The theaters make the vast majority of their money (profit) on overpriced concessions.
 
Apple TV needs to offer In-Theatre rentals of all major motion pictures.

I would set it up where they became available the week or two after opening weekend at a price point of around $40-$50 to rent for a 24 hour period.

Being a married man with a 5 year old, it is tough to get out to the movies to see the blockbusters especially in the summer time with numerous movies coming out week after week.

You figure that by the time my wife and I pay for a babysitter, 2 movie tickets, soda and popcorn we have already dropped ~$60-$80 for the night. Paying even $50 for a rental still saves us money, we are not on any time tables and we can watch the movies from home without having to deal with people's rude behaviors.

The movie theater companies will fight this to the death. I'm willing to bet companies like AMC would boycott showing a movie that was distributed like this by a major studio. AMC knows that's where its profit comes from, and the movie studios know their big bucks come from millions watching something at the giant theater chains.

I totally agree with you that it's a great idea. Charge me $50 or something, maybe even $65 and throw in the HD download when it becomes available in a few months. I barely go watch stuff in theaters because it's either too expensive for what you get or is crappy quality. Seeing a blown-up image that's fuzzy isn't exactly worth $15. I thought "The Hobbit" in 3-D with the 48fps was pretty neat. But that's the exception right now.

These theaters need to work on video resolution. From 10 feet, you really can't get better than 1080p TVs. Figure out how to replicate that picture quality -- they've figured sound out -- and then we'll talk again.
 
This matches my experience. I buy from Apple. I expect Netflix, Amazon and other services to basically give me product for free or for very cheap monthly services. These services have trained me to think this way. While Apple has trained me to expect to pay but to get an easy and convenient service. Apple can raise its prices because I can decide right at the point when I want to watch something if the price is worth it. But if NetFlix ever raises its prices I'm cancelling it. Too many weeks go by when I don't use it and too frustrating to never really know what will be available on it.
 
No mention of actual dollar amounts, which probably means they are very small and Netflix is slaughtering all of them.
 
Notably, NPD's study does not include subscription services such as Netflix and on-demand content from cable providers. Previous studies including those types of content have found Apple's market share shrinking to roughly 5% in the face of Netflix's overwhelming strength.

THIS is the most important part of the study: Apple is missing out on streaming video and music. The market is shifting again and while Apple was at the forefront of the digital media revolution, it's behind in the next phase: streaming. I love Apple, but they need to catch up.
 
Last edited:
Sure but the whole point of taking the family to the movies is to get them OUT of the house. Also why spend $10 a head to watch a movie on a small screen? The most popular home TV is 60" but even a 100" screen is small in comparison to a movie theatre. You lose a lot. I have a Sony 1080p projector w/ 100" Stewart screen so I talk from experience.

Its interesting to see What different people like. I would much rather prefer my home tv (a 50" sony) than on a movie screen. I think the movie theater quality isn't as good as my tv (even if the specs say it is). However I do feel as though I loose out on sound quality at home since I don't have a surround sounds system.

But to each their own.
 
Is it just me or is anyone surprised by the Xbox Video %?

Is Xbox Video their Xbox video service or is it also on Windows too? I just didn't expect that many people to pay for movies/TV Shows through their Xbox!
 
Of all the ways companies limit what I can do with the video I purchase/rent, I like Apple’s way the best.
 
Netflix should be king

I rarely watch movies, and never TV from Apple. Not worth the price. Netflix, for $8/month, is good enough.

I don't care if I don't see a movie until 2 years after release. Almost never hit the movie theaters either. If I want to spend big bucks, I'll either save up to buy tax exempt municipal bonds for retirement, or a $5 cup of coffee, or upgrade my iPad, MBP, or iPhone, or take a vacation somewhere and see the world from other than the comforts of a couch.

Being entertained is not worth premium prices.
 
Apple TV needs to offer In-Theatre rentals of all major motion pictures.

I would set it up where they became available the week or two after opening weekend at a price point of around $40-$50 to rent for a 24 hour period.

Being a married man with a 5 year old, it is tough to get out to the movies to see the blockbusters especially in the summer time with numerous movies coming out week after week.

You figure that by the time my wife and I pay for a babysitter, 2 movie tickets, soda and popcorn we have already dropped ~$60-$80 for the night. Paying even $50 for a rental still saves us money, we are not on any time tables and we can watch the movies from home without having to deal with people's rude behaviors.

This is a pretty sweet idea. But like you said, theaters would fear the bootlegger having a movie party. More importantly they would raise holy hell if they miss out on concessions. The theaters make the vast majority of their money (profit) on overpriced concessions.

The movie theater companies will fight this to the death. I'm willing to bet companies like AMC would boycott showing a movie that was distributed like this by a major studio. AMC knows that's where its profit comes from, and the movie studios know their big bucks come from millions watching something at the giant theater chains.

I totally agree with you that it's a great idea. Charge me $50 or something, maybe even $65 and throw in the HD download when it becomes available in a few months. I barely go watch stuff in theaters because it's either too expensive for what you get or is crappy quality. Seeing a blown-up image that's fuzzy isn't exactly worth $15. I thought "The Hobbit" in 3-D with the 48fps was pretty neat. But that's the exception right now.

These theaters need to work on video resolution. From 10 feet, you really can't get better than 1080p TVs. Figure out how to replicate that picture quality -- they've figured sound out -- and then we'll talk again.

There is a service that is suppose to launch that will feature first run movies that you can access at home while the movie is still in the theater.

I forget the name of it, but it's initial price is insanely high. It would be nice if the studios adopted this for the everyman and a decent price point- I bet box office numbers would soar.
 
I would much rather prefer my home tv (a 50" sony) than on a movie screen. I think the movie theater quality isn't as good as my tv (even if the specs say it is). However I do feel as though I loose out on sound quality at home since I don't have a surround sounds system.

But to each their own.

Certainly, but for the vast majority of people the whole movie experience is going to the theater; especially for families with kids, and of course all but the most introverted kids love going out. Also some movies are just made for the big screen, regardless of quality. Imagine if the original Star Wars was straight to streaming. I doubt it would have had the same landmark impact on a 50in screen.
 
Apple dominates the sell-through market because there isn't really much competition. Everyone else seems to be going down the subscription/streaming route. I'm always surprised that nobody else has built an iTunes type buy to own "all in one store" format.
 
smart money on the overall market is that piratebay and kat.ph probably have more "renters" of movies and tv shows than iOS, Xbox, and Amazon combined.
 
Amazon has original content. Netflix has original shows. That's what has made Netflix grow by two million streaming subscribers recently. I predict Apple wont keep up in this area since they don't give consumers a compelling reason to choose their service over rivals. Content is king where eyeballs are concerned.

for me and millions of others, the compelling reason is that iTunes is "built-in" to my iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple TV so it's easy and convenient.

if as you say content is king, that doesn't exactly explain the success of Netfilx, as most people I know say that their selection stinks, and I don't think one or two "exclusive" TV shows is going to make or break their subscriber numbers. the iTunes Store has most everything Netfilx has plus a lot more, they even sometimes offer rentals of movies currently playing in theaters! so, content-wise, I think they're just fine. :)
 
If apple could pull a Netflix or buy them so they can stream then I might go to iTunes for all my needs but right now my roku gives me all my options with Hulu and Netflix. Anything I want not on those services I can find on the net and stream it to my roku via plex channel. Roku is probably not as nice as a Apple TV unit but it does give more options and that is what a consumer wants in this market more options.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.