Apple Negotiating to Offer Rentals for Movies Still in Theaters, but at a Price

[MacRumors]

Apple wants to bring new movies to iTunes more quickly, and is in talks with several film studios over rights that would allow it earlier access to content, reports Bloomberg.

Warner Bros, Universal Pictures, and 21st Century Fox are all seeking deals to offer higher-priced rentals of new movies as soon as two weeks after they debut in theaters, and the studios are said to be considering an offer from Apple.

Like Apple Music exclusives, access to earlier releases could draw more people to Apple's platform, but encryption is said to be a concern. Studios aren't sure whether iTunes will be a secure platform for showing movies that are still in theaters, because content can be recorded and leaked online.

The most recent talks are part of longer-running efforts by Cupertino, California-based Apple to get new movies sooner, two of the people said. Such an arrangement could help iTunes stand out in a crowded online market for movies, TV shows and music. While the iTunes store helped Apple build a dominant role in music retailing, the company hasn't carved out a similar role in music and video streaming.

Most major movies that debut in theaters are not available on iTunes and other streaming platforms for a period of 90 days, but film companies are said to be looking to expand beyond theaters to find new revenue streams.

At least one option studios are considering involves a $25 to $50 fee for a new rental, which is potentially more affordable than a movie theater ticket depending on how many people are watching a film.

No deal has been established as of yet, and it's possible the film studios could decide to offer the rights to a competing company.

Article Link: Apple Negotiating to Offer Rentals for Movies Still in Theaters, but at a Price

 

[rammes]

so we get a hd rip within two weeks? I wonder if the studio's take that risk

 

[Babu Life]

$50 dollars for a rental? i guess thats courageous too

 

[iDento]

50$ to rent a movie and PROs are complaining about 80$ dongles for months!

 

[and 1989 others]

They should have a movie subscription pass. I've got a movie pass for a cinema in the U.K. It's £18 month. Why not just extend that to digital showings? Oh that's right, because they cinemas would complain they aren't extorting people for money when they buys drinks or popcorn.

 

[aristobrat]

Even if folks can't decrypt the iTunes encryption, I bet the quality of the "cam" bootlegs will dramatically increase.

If it's in the $20-$30 range, I'd be willing to pay for this. I'd much rather watch a new release at home than in the theaters around where I live.

 

[ThaRuler]

This is proof the Apple Watch is a flop

 

[tech3475]

Recently at Vero Beach I saw 2 films for just over $4 each (around £3, usual ticket prices at home £6-12), if more films were at that price I'd go more often as opposed to my usual wait for a home release.

 

[Logic368]

it would be a good risk to take, honestly... i mean, if you want pirated content, that'll always be there, even without immediate rentals... this will be like steve jobs's "carrot" theory: people will pay money if the carrot is easier to get/higher quality. If the studios can really take advantage of this and let people watch movies at super high quality levels (hdr, high frame rate, etc...), it might work out...

 

[eternlgladiator]

They should have a movie subscription pass. I've got a movie pass for a cinema in the U.K. It's £18 month. Why not just extend that to digital showings? Oh that's right, because they cinemas would complain they aren't extorting people for money when they buys drinks or popcorn.

They aren't extorting people. The theater makes very little money on the movie tickets sold and has to make a large majority of their profits with concession sales.

 

[HiRez]

so we get a hd rip within two weeks? I wonder if the studio's take that risk

It's not a bad idea, but pretty pricey. At $50, I probably wouldn't do it. At $25, I'd probably use it occasionally. If they get it down to $15-$20, I'd use it a lot. Only 2 people in our household so it doesn't make financial sense for us if it's priced for 3+ people watching.

What would sweeten the deal and get me to consider using it more at the higher price is if they'd apply part of the rental price to purchasing the movie when it becomes available for sale later on. Let's say they charge $35 for the rental (while in theaters), but then a few months later you can buy the movie at a $10 discount ($10 instead of $20). Or something like that.

 

[Icaras]

$50 dollars for a rental? i guess thats courageous too

Three people going to the theater can easily add up to $50.

Also, Steve Jobs at All Things D 2010 said he believed that people would be willing to spend "a bunch of money" to watch a first run movie at home before the DVD/blu-ray release.

 

[OnTheZone]

It cost $20 for 2 to go to the theater and $20 for 2 for food and drinks. I don't see the perks here because I'd rather just buy the movie for $20 or watch it on Redbox for $2 about. Maybe $10 imo it would be worth it for some movies but will probably never happen.

 

[akfgpuppet]

Only worth it if you have a really good TV to enjoy a movie. I would pay ~$30 for a movie that I can enjoy on my own time, being able to pause, rewind, seems pretty cool.

 

[jdillings]

Studios aren't sure whether iTunes will be a secure platform for showing movies that are still in theaters, because content can be recorded and leaked online.

They aren't sure? ROFL...where do they think all those web-dl come from? The encryption was broken a long time ago.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Seems like every few months this same topic comes up but with a different potential streaming partner.

Cost for Me + SO + baby sitter > $50 so I'd be interested if this ever actually came to market. I wouldn't do it frequently, but I'd do it for movies I really wanted to see.

 

[TimCookMustGo]

Another day with Tim Cook, more bad apple news.

 

[Brian Y]

Wow, $50!!!!?! That's insane.

 

[macman312]

$25 Sounds like a good deal to me. Even $50 is cheap.

Movie ticket is $18 , popcorn , candy and a drink is usually $15. If I take a date it's x2

It cost $20 for 2 to go to the theater

Since when are movie tickets $10 each for adults?

 

[npmacuser5]

Patience, not needing to be first inline, pays off with excellent return on ones Monies!

 

[Icaras]

Wow, $50!!!!?! That's insane.

Don't forget that you can have as many people in your living room as you can fit to watch that rented movie. This will be great for families, parties or friends coming over.

And these are first run movies that are concurrently running in theaters. Don't want to pay $50? You can always wait 4-6 months later for the standard rental fee.

 

[spherox]

They should have a movie subscription pass. I've got a movie pass for a cinema in the U.K. It's £18 month. Why not just extend that to digital showings? Oh that's right, because they cinemas would complain they aren't extorting people for money when they buys drinks or popcorn.

Too be fair, most cinemas make their profit off of confectionary and drinks because they make very little profit on the actual ticket itself.

 

[Gorms]

*begins to read article*

Wow, I am well into this idea! This could be the service of my dreams!

*gets to the pricing*

Nope.

 

[ProjectManager101]

We should start by having movies worth watching.

 

[Icaras]

Since when are movie tickets $10 each for adults?

I was wondering the same thing