Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple in Online Film-Rental Deal with Fox Studio?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would love to have a blu-ray player on 
TV, but I think is very unlikely to happen. two reasons:
•blu-ray would add huge cost increase as well as the complexity oftv, making the physical dimensions much larger or taller
•blu-ray format would be competing directly with iTunes downloads, providing better quality and more titles availability.
So I thinkTV will stay as they are now. a bridge between your Mac and your HDTV. But I see maybe they adding the ability to connect direct with iTunes store, maybe a touchscreen remote to navigate audio content without having to turn your HDTV on or maybe adding this same capability to the current iPhones and iPod Touch by software update.
1080p or i and 5.1 audio is very important too and larger drive to locally add my library without the need to turn your Mac on would be a big plus.
I would love to have all my cd and dvd collection ripped and stored locally using and external drive connected toTV and be able to easily navigate with front-row and enjoy all the content I have.
TV, but I think is very unlikely to happen. two reasons:•blu-ray would add huge cost increase as well as the complexity of
tv, making the physical dimensions much larger or taller•blu-ray format would be competing directly with iTunes downloads, providing better quality and more titles availability.
So I think
TV will stay as they are now. a bridge between your Mac and your HDTV. But I see maybe they adding the ability to connect direct with iTunes store, maybe a touchscreen remote to navigate audio content without having to turn your HDTV on or maybe adding this same capability to the current iPhones and iPod Touch by software update.1080p or i and 5.1 audio is very important too and larger drive to locally add my library without the need to turn your Mac on would be a big plus.
I would love to have all my cd and dvd collection ripped and stored locally using and external drive connected to
TV and be able to easily navigate with front-row and enjoy all the content I have.
I think this will be great for Apple and the consumer. The TV needed updating anyway.
This is a rumor site. People throw their input in about upcoming products, and with this news about Apple and Fox agreeing on renting movies off the iTunes store, theTV looks like it should be updated with this news.
TV needed updating anyway.This is a rumor site. People throw their input in about upcoming products, and with this news about Apple and Fox agreeing on renting movies off the iTunes store, the
TV looks like it should be updated with this news.
I think this will be great for Apple and the consumer. The
This is a rumor site. People throw their input in about upcoming products, and with this news about Apple and Fox agreeing on renting movies off the iTunes store, the
If this rumor is correct, these rentals would most likely play on all
tv models already out there, so there's no evidence that this even points to an update.This rumor does not have anything to do with the HD format war, unless you count downloads as a third contender... which they aren't really at all...
so yeah your comments are a little confusing.
If this rumor is correct, these rentals would most likely play on all
This rumor does not have anything to do with the HD format war, unless you count downloads as a third contender... which they aren't really at all...
so yeah your comments are a little confusing.
Sorry, just trying to spark some more controversy.
The TV should be updated though, at some point in time, and who knows what Apple will throw in it.
Movie rentals on the Xbox Live Marketplace are typically 240 points, about $3. So, $2.99 sounds right. I just hope they still offer the movies to own for $9.99.
And that's why we have copy protection. Fair use doesn't give you the right to share it with your "close friends". Maybe family (immediate, not extended), but you're stretching it.
As for new AppleTV, I'm all for it, as long as they update the software on the current hardware. I'd hate to have to buy another one (even though I'd be more than happy to move my current one into the bedroom).
If I buy a song that I think is one of the better songs I've heard in a long time, then I should have every right to share it with some of the closest people in my life, up to and including my sibling, girlfriend and best friend. I'm not mass mailing it to everyone on my contact list. There is a 5 machine max, you know...
aTV - maximum resolution: 1280 by 720 pixels
The aTV will upscale 720 to 1080, it will not handle 1080 natively.
just keep going!
I'm just glad there is a business answer to what happened with NBC last year. It's really great that Apple isn't just allowing the movie aspect of iTunes to wane. I still think that all of these other movie sites are going to run into some problems of their own, i.e. traffic and corporate dedication.
I'm just glad there is a business answer to what happened with NBC last year. It's really great that Apple isn't just allowing the movie aspect of iTunes to wane. I still think that all of these other movie sites are going to run into some problems of their own, i.e. traffic and corporate dedication.
Why does ANYONE need a 30 day rental??? And if it is $4.99 a movie? Bloody forget it. The competition here is Netflix. I get my top-queued Netflix movies in ONE DAY. No, it's not instant, but 1 day is barely a wait at all -- I mean, I have work and a life
If you can get 3 at a time Netflix for $17 or whatever it is these days... and you can probably get 20-30 DVDs a month if you're not throttled and you do a quick turnaround. So we are talking DVD-quality rentals for 60 or 70 cents.
Allow Apple a premium for bandwidth costs, immediate vs. 1 day wait, and no queue waiting at all (not that there is usually a wait on Netflix), but demerit for the likely less than DVD-quality.... and I'd go with a 24-48 hour rental for $1.99-$2.49 or so. $2.99 is pushing it, and $4.99 is absurd!
I agree that $4.99 is too high but far from absurb if that is all Apple can get the studio(s) to agree to. I think $2.99 is a steal for this type of service. I have netflix (3 a month) and I can't tell you how many times my wife asks me what movies we have at home for me to respond, "nothing that you will like."
She probably only asks me once or twice a month, but if I don't have anything for her I will no doubt be asked why we need netflix if we can't have a movie to watch on a Sat night we stay in. I try to explain that I do have movies but they are ones that I will be interested in and watch more regularly. I don't want to burn 1 of my 3 at home for the random weekend when we want to sit and watch a movie together and thus only be able to regularly watch 2 a month. And god forbid we want to watch 2 movies in a weekend.
$2.99 is well worth it for me to be able to respond with "what movie do you want to watch, I'll go download it from Itunes", and 30 mins later be able to press play. I probably wouldn't drop netflix (I get blu-rays and many tv seasons), but I definitely see a lot of people who would use this. $3.99 is the wash point. If I have it for 30 days with comparable quality to DVD, it would still beat going to blockbuster to pay the same price.
I highly doubt that we would see anything less than $2.99 as it would probably mean that Apple wasn't making much on the download and counting instead on profits from AppleTV sales. Personally I think they could still get a large portion of the market at $2.99 so there is no reason to go lower. The 30 days is just a convenience thing for the customer. The studios won't want to sell it for 1 day at $1.49. What do they care whether you have it for 1 day or 30 days? You probably still won't buy it and now won't rent it. They need to get their base money from you experiencing the movie. They just want to make sure you don't get it for good at that price.
Also I think this business is very different than the digital music business was back in 2001. At that time there were no real legal alternatives so by pricing it cheaply they got to become the standard and basically dominate the market. Even if Apple priced the downloads at $1.99 I doubt they would be able to get their marketshare of the rental market anywhere near what it is for music sales. There are too many other cheap solutions and Apple isn't first into the game this time around. Not to mention you still need to get the AppleTV which hasn't taken off like the Ipod did in 2001. Even though very few people had it, there was a coolness factor to the Ipod that AppleTV just hasn't quite adapted.
Nonetheless assuming this news turns out to be true (it is still a rumor after all), it is great for the industry both for the rental market and also for getting the digital copy when purchasing a dvd (assuming the markup isn't too high). I think this is why ebooks and ebook readers haven't taken off yet. I want to be able to purchase the hard copy of a book as well as get a digital copy to load onto my reader. People like having physical media when they purchase something to own.
If this rumor is correct, these rentals would most likely play on all
I think the Apple TV update will be a Software update but also increased hard drives. but thats it, and thats fine by me
Of course people want a cheaper price. But why do disappearing bits translate to a cheaper price? No one's going to buy the same movie twice, if that's what the movie studios are thinking.
Or maybe they're hoping people will buy the "cheaper" exploding version and forget to watch it during the allotted time.
At any rate, when studios can offer downloads with the features and quality that bit-torrent provides, I'll be their best customer.
In the age of RedBox and other $1/day rental machines, I cannot understand why iTunes or any other online media source does not offer a really cheap rental option. For TV shows especially.
I want to see $1 options on digital video rentals. Maybe $2 for movies. Or some sort of 7 day rental thing for less than the rumored $2.99 for 30 days. Oh yeah, 30 days? What idiot thought up that time window? Give me 1 day and I'd still willingly pay half of this rumored price. ($1.49) The whole point of renting is to just watch it one time. If people like it that much and it doesn't cost a lot to rent, they'll rent it again or buy it.
Over the summer I had Blockbuster's $17.99/month 3 at-a-time unlimited rental. I flew through seasons 4 & 5 of 24, Planet Earth and other random movies. I would have 3 DVDs, watch them, turn them in at a Blockbuster, get 3 free rentals from the store, meanwhile the 3 I turned in get processed and 3 more were sent while I had the free rentals.
Repeat.
That is easily, easily 6 DVDs a week. Over 20 a month. The only con is if you're anxious to watch movies or TV shows that snag a wait time, oh and having the time of a college student over the summer.
I did this for the sole purpose of avoiding buying the iTunes or DVD versions of these TV shows and movies for way more money.
Renting or buying in a somewhat overhead free system like iTunes ought to be a lot less expensive. (compared to RedBox, Netflix, Blockbuster)
Classic example is Pirates 3. It costs is $14.99 on iTunes. It is also $14.99 on Amazon for an actual DVD copy from Amazon. This is what is wrong with their business model, they aren't charging significantly less for a digital copy. Even if the movie was $9.99 on iTunes...that still seems like too much for a digital copy of something.
The same is true for rentals, why should a rental online cost the same or more than a physical rental.
I sincerely hope that Apple has negotiated a very competitive price per rental with Fox and that other studios follow suit. Otherwise records like a couple billion downloads on iTunes will continue to pale compared to the illegal download market that thrives and probably continues to grow.
Cheaper options should exist.
I want to see $1 options on digital video rentals. Maybe $2 for movies. Or some sort of 7 day rental thing for less than the rumored $2.99 for 30 days. Oh yeah, 30 days? What idiot thought up that time window? Give me 1 day and I'd still willingly pay half of this rumored price. ($1.49) The whole point of renting is to just watch it one time. If people like it that much and it doesn't cost a lot to rent, they'll rent it again or buy it.
Over the summer I had Blockbuster's $17.99/month 3 at-a-time unlimited rental. I flew through seasons 4 & 5 of 24, Planet Earth and other random movies. I would have 3 DVDs, watch them, turn them in at a Blockbuster, get 3 free rentals from the store, meanwhile the 3 I turned in get processed and 3 more were sent while I had the free rentals.
Repeat.
That is easily, easily 6 DVDs a week. Over 20 a month. The only con is if you're anxious to watch movies or TV shows that snag a wait time, oh and having the time of a college student over the summer.
I did this for the sole purpose of avoiding buying the iTunes or DVD versions of these TV shows and movies for way more money.
Renting or buying in a somewhat overhead free system like iTunes ought to be a lot less expensive. (compared to RedBox, Netflix, Blockbuster)
A DVD copy of Season 6 of 24 can be bought for $37.99 on Amazon right now. Lost Season 3 is $38.99. Why in the h$#! is 24 44.99 on iTunes for the whole season?! Lost is $34.99, a whopping $4 less than a tangible physical DVD copy of the movie.
Classic example is Pirates 3. It costs is $14.99 on iTunes. It is also $14.99 on Amazon for an actual DVD copy from Amazon. This is what is wrong with their business model, they aren't charging significantly less for a digital copy. Even if the movie was $9.99 on iTunes...that still seems like too much for a digital copy of something.
The same is true for rentals, why should a rental online cost the same or more than a physical rental.
I sincerely hope that Apple has negotiated a very competitive price per rental with Fox and that other studios follow suit. Otherwise records like a couple billion downloads on iTunes will continue to pale compared to the illegal download market that thrives and probably continues to grow.
Cheaper options should exist.
Yes, it is a move in the right direction; DVD ripping is a chore, even on a new MBP, and I don't mind paying a bit more for the the disk if all I have to do then is to copy the file(s). Just make sure it's the full widescreen deal and not cropped.
Legality question...
If we're legally allowed to make a 'backup' copy of a CD, why aren't we allowed a backup copy of a movie? Why are we having to use DRM?
If a CD came with AAC encoded DRM infected tracks - would we all be happy?
Why doesn't iTunes have a handbrake-esk tool?
Sod DRM m4v's, I'm quite happy using handbrake.
F
If we're legally allowed to make a 'backup' copy of a CD, why aren't we allowed a backup copy of a movie? Why are we having to use DRM?
If a CD came with AAC encoded DRM infected tracks - would we all be happy?
Why doesn't iTunes have a handbrake-esk tool?
Sod DRM m4v's, I'm quite happy using handbrake.
F
They need to get something like this up and running as soon as possible seeing as I can rent HD vids through my xbox 360 right now.
Do remember the user base for iTunes stuff is not just Macs. In fact we're the minority of iPod users.
Unfortunately, this is one area where Apple is slow and wants to stick with what has worked with music. Unfortunately it isn't quite understood that users are going to watch a movie much less frequently and because of the large size of the movies (due to compression not being as being anywhere near as good as the music side), people are not going to buy digital movies as much. My current DVD library would take out a large chunk of my 320 gig hard drive if it were digital. The by title rental system is a good start, but a 3-at a time monthly fee plan similar to blockbuster or netflix would really help Apple in the long run, especially when it comes to
TV sales. If they learn to adapt and be flexible, they could dominate videos like they do music.I would love to see movies available the same day they are released in theaters.
The biggest piracy of movies comes from the releases not yet on dvd - if you make the same movie available in good quality (i.e not a cam or TS), you're going to virtually kill off all piracy of these releases.
I personally hate going to the cinema - especially if it means I have to go alone. But, there are some movies I'd love to see as soon as they come out.
Heck, I'd even be willing to pay a lot more for the privilege.
The biggest piracy of movies comes from the releases not yet on dvd - if you make the same movie available in good quality (i.e not a cam or TS), you're going to virtually kill off all piracy of these releases.
I personally hate going to the cinema - especially if it means I have to go alone. But, there are some movies I'd love to see as soon as they come out.
Heck, I'd even be willing to pay a lot more for the privilege.
And in other news, piracy of FOX films and TV shows remains rampant...
Jobs already knows that DRM doesn't solve the piracy matter, so why do we continue down the DRM path? I can understand it for rentals but NOT for digital copies included with a DVD - much easier to rip the DVD or download it online, whichever would be faster for you, and oh by the way in that case it would be legal because you actually own a license to the movie.
Jobs already knows that DRM doesn't solve the piracy matter, so why do we continue down the DRM path? I can understand it for rentals but NOT for digital copies included with a DVD - much easier to rip the DVD or download it online, whichever would be faster for you, and oh by the way in that case it would be legal because you actually own a license to the movie.
The only thing that would happen then is someone would crack the DRM off the digital release then release it on the piracy scene, and voila a good quality copy of the movie is available for illegal download. No, I think that the studios like things the way they are and hope that someone doesn't get a DVD screener up while the movie's in theaters so people can continue to pay ridiculous $6+ per watch (and no, very little of that money goes to the theater which is why popcorn etc is so expensive there).