Apple Racing to Include Movies and TV Shows in iCloud Service?

[OllyW]

tangled is a sweet sweet movie. ive seen it so many times, i doubt i will download it from icloud so it is useless to me.

Are you expecting iCloud to only have the one movie which was used in an iPad publicity shot which MacRumors just happened to use for this story?

Bizarre.

 

[onetoescape]

If this goes the way I want it go this could be huge for me. Apple Tv in in each room. Go to basic Tv with sports. Spend the difference onto content. Game changer if it goes this way. No longer kids fighting over watching the same movie in there bedrooms etc.

 

[bushido]

movies and tv shows would obvs be itunes content only, i doubt they would allow u to upload anything u ripped etc. so what is the difference to streaming which u can already do???

 

[DJinTX]

Other then having your content available anywhere anytime with iCloud you can buy a movie in iTunes and stream it to Apple TV right now. You just can't buy it on Apple TV. So for home use I don't see a need for iCloud.

But this may be nice for vacations if you have wi-fi available you could bring your Apple TV with and stream your library.

Some of us, including me, do not want to leave their Mac on and running iTunes all the time to be able to stream a movie they own. If Apple knows which movies TV shows I have purchased and I can just stream their copy directly to my Apple TV, this is a much better solution. Likewise, I don't want to have to go to the other room and buy a TV show in iTunes, then return to the living room to then start watching it. Making Apple TV a one stop shop is ideal and much more practical and convenient for users.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

If this goes the way I want it go this could be huge for me. Apple Tv in in each room. Go to basic Tv with sports. Spend the difference onto content. Game changer if it goes this way. No longer kids fighting over watching the same movie in there bedrooms etc.

Again, I too love the conceptual pieces of the idea. What it seems lots of people are still ignoring is the practical. How big is ONE movie to be streamed from this iCloud? There's the iTunes price or maybe we'll finally get some kind of subscription option which will still have some cost associated with accessing the content itself. AND- and this is the important one- there's the toll to be paid to the gatekeepers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc)- those who control the pipes through which this content must flow.

Paying to rent or even buy some iTunes media is no big deal. But, let's say you want to do what onetoescape wants to do: cut the cable cord as much as possible and then use the "savings" to "cover" their iCloud replacement option.

We know the general fees for the media itself.

We (almost certainly perceive) there will be some charge for iCloud service (someone is going to pay for that NC facility)

We seem to keep ignoring the gatekeeper portion. Movies I've got on my Apple TV tend to average just over 2.5GB. Note what AT&T charges so that someone can stream just 2GB: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/ipad.jsp to their iDevice.

Sure, that's 3G pricing for accessing media and our home broadband is likely to cost less than that. But notice that home broadband has already begun to tighten that noose. We have tiers, we have caps. Will the gatekeepers stop where they are or will their tighten those levels so they can make more money? If we don't like the tightening to come, where are we going to go? In my area, I'm fortunate to have 2 (TWO!) broadband suppliers: Comcast & AT&T. When Comcast tightens their tier pricing too much, do you really think that AT&T will offer a much bigger pool of broadband capacity? Some people only have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband in their area.

I think what you see at the above link is inevitably coming for home broadband. Maybe not as tight (and exploitive) as that, but I expect usage above certain levels to involve additional fees (becoming much more expensive than we pay now). Why? There's lots of money in it for the duopolies that control your broadband options. And consumers pretty much have nowhere to go as hardly any competition facilitates buyer exploitation.

AND, have you not noticed that the very same companies that control your broadband are also in the business of selling video programming via subscription? They have ZERO incentive to ever allow a company like Apple to take their video subscription revenue when Apple's streams must flow through their pipes. It's impossible to cut the cord when Apple's solution must flow through the very same cord. I guarantee that any revolution that starts significantly eroding the cash cows of video subscription models will be accompanied by broadband price hikes and/or much more expensive tiered pricing such that it will prove to be (barely) cheaper to stick with cable or satt, including a bunch of channels you never watch.

Personally, I love the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services. But the reality is that Apple doesn't own the middle ground between their iCloud and your computer or iDevice. Those that do already illustrate that they want to charge $25 for just 2GB (or about 80% or so of just 1 movie stream).

I want to cut the cable cord too. I want the perceived savings of not paying for a bunch of channels I never watch and instead getting what I want to watch when I want to watch it commercial free via iTunes and this iCloud. The trick then is since those between the iCloud and us completely control the pipes, how do they replace all that money they lose should we all adopt the cable-cutter concept? And griping about outdated business models and all that is fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that the only way the middle men support Apple taking their video distribution business is if it somehow makes them MORE money by allowing it to happen. Guess where that "more money" will come from? Hint: not Apple.

 

[bobob]

Three words - - Apple Satellite Network - - launching soon on a planet near you!


(What'd ya think all that extra cash was for?!?)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I've long since thought Apple should buy Dish Network and allocate some of that bandwidth on Dish for these purposes. While that could solve the problem I illustrated above (home broadband), there would still need to be a solution for iCloud access "on the go" (and beyond north America). (It is easy to imagine the Apple ego being fed by having satt dishes with the Apple logo stuck on homes & building all over the country.)

It's possible to buy blocks of bandwidth in wireless spectrum and thus become a competitor of AT&T & Verizon, etc, but few companies choose to do that... presumably because the net profit in it is not appealing enough to make it work for them.

When the digital TV transition occurred there was all this new wireless spectrum made available from freeing up a bunch of former analog TV channel spectrum. Both Apple & Google appeared to be genuinely interested in bidding for that spectrum. Had either won it, it was a great way to address this "on the go" access issue. But guess who grabbed just about all of that spectrum? The broadband gatekeepers love their duopoly control (and pricing).

 

[onetoescape]

Again, I too love the conceptual pieces of the idea. What it seems lots of people are still ignoring is the practical. How big is ONE movie to be streamed from this iCloud? There's the iTunes price or maybe we'll finally get some kind of subscription option which will still have some cost associated with accessing the content itself. AND- and this is the important one- there's the toll to be paid to the gatekeepers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc)- those who control the pipes through which this content must flow.

Paying to rent or even buy some iTunes media is no big deal. But, let's say you want to do what onetoescape wants to do: cut the cable cord as much as possible and then use the "savings" to "cover" their iCloud replacement option.

We know the general fees for the media itself.

We (almost certainly perceive) there will be some charge for iCloud service (someone is going to pay for that NC facility)

We seem to keep ignoring the gatekeeper portion. Movies I've got on my Apple TV tend to average just over 2.5GB. Note what AT&T charges so that someone can stream just 2GB: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/ipad.jsp to their iDevice.

Sure, that's 3G pricing for accessing media and our home broadband is likely to cost less than that. But notice that home broadband has already begun to tighten that noose. We have tiers, we have caps. Will the gatekeepers stop where they are or will their tighten those levels so they can make more money? If we don't like the tightening to come, where are we going to go? In my area, I'm fortunate to have 2 (TWO!) broadband suppliers: Comcast & AT&T. When Comcast tightens their tier pricing too much, do you really think that AT&T will offer a much bigger pool of broadband capacity? Some people only have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband in their area.

I think what you see at the above link is inevitably coming for home broadband. Maybe not as tight (and exploitive) as that, but I expect usage above certain levels to involve additional fees (becoming much more expensive than we pay now). Why? There's lots of money in it for the duopolies that control your broadband options. And consumers pretty much have nowhere to go as hardly any competition facilitates buyer exploitation.

AND, have you not noticed that the very same companies that control your broadband are also in the business of selling video programming via subscription? They have ZERO incentive to ever allow a company like Apple to take their video subscription revenue when Apple's streams must flow through their pipes. It's impossible to cut the cord when Apple's solution must flow through the very same cord. I guarantee that any revolution that starts significantly eroding the cash cows of video subscription models will be accompanied by broadband price hikes and/or much more expensive tiered pricing such that it will prove to be (barely) cheaper to stick with cable or satt, including a bunch of channels you never watch.

Personally, I love the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services. But the reality is that Apple doesn't own the middle ground between their iCloud and your computer or iDevice. Those that do already illustrate that they want to charge $25 for just 2GB (or about 80% or so of just 1 movie stream).

I want to cut the cable cord too. I want the perceived savings of not paying for a bunch of channels I never watch and instead getting what I want to watch when I want to watch it commercial free via iTunes and this iCloud. The trick then is since those between the iCloud and us completely control the pipes, how do they replace all that money they lose should we all adopt the cable-cutter concept? And griping about outdated business models and all that is fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that the only way the middle men support Apple taking their video distribution business is if it somehow makes them MORE money by allowing it to happen. Guess where that "more money" will come from? Hint: not Apple.

Different countries different problems. Im on a uncapped 100mb service so the problems you will face will be different however I do take your point. I feel there will a "premium" service will be launched by the broadband companies as more and more traffic goes this way. My problem is the content over here isnt as fast.

 

[blackpond]

Again, I too love the conceptual pieces of the idea. What it seems lots of people are still ignoring is the practical. How big is ONE movie to be streamed from this iCloud? There's the iTunes price or maybe we'll finally get some kind of subscription option which will still have some cost associated with accessing the content itself. AND- and this is the important one- there's the toll to be paid to the gatekeepers (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc)- those who control the pipes through which this content must flow.

Paying to rent or even buy some iTunes media is no big deal. But, let's say you want to do what onetoescape wants to do: cut the cable cord as much as possible and then use the "savings" to "cover" their iCloud replacement option.

We know the general fees for the media itself.

We (almost certainly perceive) there will be some charge for iCloud service (someone is going to pay for that NC facility)

We seem to keep ignoring the gatekeeper portion. Movies I've got on my Apple TV tend to average just over 2.5GB. Note what AT&T charges so that someone can stream just 2GB: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/ipad.jsp to their iDevice.

Sure, that's 3G pricing for accessing media and our home broadband is likely to cost less than that. But notice that home broadband has already begun to tighten that noose. We have tiers, we have caps. Will the gatekeepers stop where they are or will their tighten those levels so they can make more money? If we don't like the tightening to come, where are we going to go? In my area, I'm fortunate to have 2 (TWO!) broadband suppliers: Comcast & AT&T. When Comcast tightens their tier pricing too much, do you really think that AT&T will offer a much bigger pool of broadband capacity? Some people only have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband in their area.

I think what you see at the above link is inevitably coming for home broadband. Maybe not as tight (and exploitive) as that, but I expect usage above certain levels to involve additional fees (becoming much more expensive than we pay now). Why? There's lots of money in it for the duopolies that control your broadband options. And consumers pretty much have nowhere to go as hardly any competition facilitates buyer exploitation.

AND, have you not noticed that the very same companies that control your broadband are also in the business of selling video programming via subscription? They have ZERO incentive to ever allow a company like Apple to take their video subscription revenue when Apple's streams must flow through their pipes. It's impossible to cut the cord when Apple's solution must flow through the very same cord. I guarantee that any revolution that starts significantly eroding the cash cows of video subscription models will be accompanied by broadband price hikes and/or much more expensive tiered pricing such that it will prove to be (barely) cheaper to stick with cable or satt, including a bunch of channels you never watch.

Personally, I love the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services. But the reality is that Apple doesn't own the middle ground between their iCloud and your computer or iDevice. Those that do already illustrate that they want to charge $25 for just 2GB (or about 80% or so of just 1 movie stream).

I want to cut the cable cord too. I want the perceived savings of not paying for a bunch of channels I never watch and instead getting what I want to watch when I want to watch it commercial free via iTunes and this iCloud. The trick then is since those between the iCloud and us completely control the pipes, how do they replace all that money they lose should we all adopt the cable-cutter concept? And griping about outdated business models and all that is fine, but it still doesn't change the fact that the only way the middle men support Apple taking their video distribution business is if it somehow makes them MORE money by allowing it to happen. Guess where that "more money" will come from? Hint: not Apple.

I understand the viewpoint you're presenting but don't completely agree. I've been happily using Pandora One almost nonstop for a year and a half, frequently view television and movies through Netflix and iTunes, as well as consume a fair bit of bandwidth as I work through the day. I'd consider my household to be pretty average in that regard. I've never come close to hitting a monthly cap with Comcast. It's not a concern whatsoever.

I agree with your argument that Internet providers will eventually try to limit data to such services. But by that time it will be their game to lose. The public will have already bought into the concept of streamed media and will demand it. And they'll get it. Either from the current providers or new ones competing for their business.

On a side note, some of your comparisons are a little off. For example, why would a mobile phone be streaming a 2.5GB movie file? Surely a much smaller resolution would look just as good.

So don't toss out your love for the conceptual benefits of iCloud-type services just yet. They're already used and enjoyed today by millions of people.... and that number is growing.

 

[twoodcc]

now this would be great, but what about the storage? if the user it limited to 20 GBs, that's not a lot of movies

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I understand the viewpoint you're presenting but don't completely agree. I've been happily using Pandora One almost nonstop for a year and a half, frequently view television and movies through Netflix and iTunes, as well as consume a fair bit of bandwidth as I work through the day. I'd consider my household to be pretty average in that regard. I've never come close to hitting a monthly cap with Comcast. It's not a concern whatsoever.

That's now. Where I am Comcast "unlimited" internet is capped at 250GB/month. It's not easy to eat 250GB in a month. Even with an iCloud and lots of streaming at home, I doubt my whole family could go through that.

But I have no expectation for that tier to stay at 250GB, anymore than I expected the Airline fees on the second bag to stop with the second bag (and it didn't) nor the AT&T unlimited 3G on demand plan to last with the first iPad with 3G launch.

Right now Comcast gets a big subscription price for broadband internet and another big subscription price for cable TV. If an iCloud-type service can make this dream of cutting the cable cord really fly with lots of Comcast customers, what move will Comcast want to make to prevent the defections? Since an iCloud service MUST flow through Comcast's pipes, the answer is very easy. Make that broadband expensive enough either by raising the fee AND/OR by lowering the tier so that fees go up for heavy broadband users (aka iCloud streamers) and they can make their cable pricing- even "as is" now- seem like the much better deal.

On a side note, some of your comparisons are a little off. For example, why would a mobile phone be streaming a 2.5GB movie file? Surely a much smaller resolution would look just as good.

These are conversions from DVD resolutions with Handbrake, admittedly focusing on trying to preserve the quality of the DVD picture rather than putting the squeeze on compression aiming for smaller file sizes. Note however that iDevice screens are already at resolutions well above full DVD quality. Could the compression be cranked up for iDevices to make the file sizes smaller? Sure, but I'm just going by efficient rips (H.264) as well as the file sizes available for sale/rental in the iTunes store.

Perhaps you are imagining another layer of download options at a more compressed (lower resolution and/or lower quality level) than what we get now from iTunes on iDevices, AppleTVs and our computers? However, it seems like the trend for that is in the other direction (bigger files) at HD quality (720p now but room to grow when Apple finally gets around to offering 1080p for streaming).

I just don't see them adding another layer of video formats for little screens (iPhone, iPod) and maybe "medium" screen (iPad) when the hardware trend for those seem to be going toward "retina" displays (if not already there). If so, you need higher resolution video to actually maximize the images on those displays not lower (like these DVD rips at around 2.5GB).

Besides the dominant concept of this iCloud is getting your content anywhere, anytime which almost begs for at least some of that streaming to be via 3G/4G, currently priced at $25 for 2GB.

 

[p3gamer]

Time to revisit this topic after WWDC announcement.

I believe that Movies and TV shows will be included, it's just when?

There will probably be an iTunes Match "Plus" that includes movies and TV shows. Guessing price point is between $25-$75 dollars a year(maybe too high or too low).

Just like iTunes Match will playback your music at 256 Kbps, movies and shows will also playback at a higher quality.

One more thing...(probably not, but some wishful thinking)

If a deal is made between the movie and tv companies, I wonder if that will impact Apple's decision to include Blu-ray drives in future hardware. Even if Blu-ray is added before or long after movies and shows are added, I still have to wonder if adding Blu-ray drives is/was part of the on-going talks.

I don't claim to have knowledge on how the BDA(Blu-ray Disc Association) operates or on the true reasons Apple hasn't put Blu-ray drives in their computers. Maybe it's the cost, maybe it's because they want to get into a digital only format or something else.