Nonsense conspiracy theory. If people don't buy movies because they're too expensive it hurts their bottom line.
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 Wants to Sell 4K Movies for $20 in iTunes, While Film Studios Want $25 to $30
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been using Itunes exclusively of late buying Codes from various sources so hopefully the market will open up for 4k codes. Using an app like cheapcharts i get most new updates and rarely ever buy movies more than 5 bucks and then using the code sites you can get new releases from anywhere between 2 bucks and 8. I only buy stuff i love with maximum rewatch on physical disks anymore
Nonsense. Apple doesn't charge higher for their hardware, when compared to equivalent hardware. This has been shown. Further, even the lower-equipped Apple gear is of immensely better quality than for example the crappy plastic Dell notebooks that it's not even funny. I'm sorry if you can't afford Apple stuff, but to claim they're overpriced is nonsense. The market has proven you wrong -- by making these devices best sellers.
Nope, Never cared about 4K, Never wanted the hardware, Have not owned , nor do I need to purchase a 4K rig. This particular thread highlights a valid reason to not purchase that hardware, pure and simple. Price. Hell i haven't paid above 599 for a TV ever. If Apple is hanging their hat on 4k this time around for the apple TV, they are already behind in the marketing game on this device.
I would pay for a premium netflix at $20 or even $25
True. And save the overpriced food costs too.
But Cinema is a much different experience for watching as well. Huge screen. Better audio. And places around us are going upscale with reclining chairs.
For that much, personally I'd rather have the theater experience.
It doesn't make any sense! Most good 4K TV's, including mine, are very good at upscaling content from 1080 to 4K. It's hard to tell the difference even on my 65" TV. It would be even less noticeable on smaller sets. I would never pay even $5 more for a movie in native 4K if it came to that.
Came here to say the same thing. Most movies are shot in digital format at a minimum of 4k, many 8k. All the effects and digital mastering are done at native resolution, so the output is just a matter of how much they want to down-sample. Productions using film aren't much different. The price difference is absurd. From Apple's standpoint, the bandwidth to host and serve the content costs some money, so a 4k file could represent a small marginal const increase for them. I would mostly cool with a small price gradation between standard def, HD (1080) and 4k content, something like $7.99, $10.99, $14.99. For the iTunes rental, maybe something like $3.99, $5.99, $7.99. Any more and people aren't going to buy any of the 4k content. The upgrade in actually viewing experience between 1080p and 4k content is negligible for most people given their living room setup and TV quality. Good luck Hollywood!
Another cancerous thing is copy protection and annoying DRM.
Like, come on. We all know that someone will manage to rip it anyway.
The only ones having issues with DRM are your own paying customers which get annoyed and frustrated.
Add un-skippable ads and 2 minutes of FBI warnings into the mix and I've lost 10 minutes of my life before the movie has even started.
Piracy is free and manages to deliver a better user experience than any DVD or Bluray.
It's obvious that studios can't compete with the free part, but at least offer better user experience instead of worse.
$30 and it's still DRM-laden and can only ever be played on an Apple TV or Mac.
Yes, I love my Apple TV now but want the flexibility to move to other platforms if it starts to suck sometime in the future. If you've invested thousands in a large movie library, you're stuck with Apple products forever to play them.
At least when you buy music on iTunes it's non-DRM so you can move it to other non-Apple devices.
No thanks.
Yes, I love my Apple TV now but want the flexibility to move to other platforms if it starts to suck sometime in the future. If you've invested thousands in a large movie library, you're stuck with Apple products forever to play them.
At least when you buy music on iTunes it's non-DRM so you can move it to other non-Apple devices.
No thanks.
Studios are CRAZY because all the digital services charge $29.99 for 4K movies that won't even play on all 4K devices, while prices on the equivalent 4K UHD has have been slowly dropping. Yet they want to keep the digital versions artificially high. I hope Apple wins this fight. You want more buy in 4K UHD movies, studios need to drop the stream prices down to $20.
I hope they will let you ‘upgrade to 4K’ content you already own back like when you could iTunes Plus your music.
It's why I always choose UV digital redemption codes over iTunes and now buying all my books and musics through other services. I'm tired of being locked into Apple Hardware.
If you're a movie studio, you need to pay up for distribution platforms. They don't have one (or one that few people use); Apple, Google, Amazon do.
And $20 is fair for a digital copy. If I wanted uncompressed video and audio for a high quality experience, I'd pick up the blu ray. Anything north of $20 for a 4K digital copy is gouging by the studios.
I think in this case after reading this article, paying for a physical bundle is the best deal with value. With iTunes you will only be paying for the one version of the content. With a Disc package, you get a DVD, a blu-ray, and a digital copy. In the case of a UHD disc bundle, you get the 4K+HDR disc, a standard blu-ray, and a digital copy. If I'm going to pay a higher price, then getting at least 3 copies of the movie in different formats for the price of one, is well worth it.
The other thing to consider, and I know this doesn't apply to everyone here I'm sure. Physical media can still deliver the highest quality audio and video then streaming right now because of file size and bandwidth limitations.
I've seriously considered going back to a disc based only library. I like the benefits of streaming, and digital copies. However, the way companies fight over licensing is stupid. Buying the disc, gives me the license to access that content, and once the disc is purchased, there is no middle man such as iTunes or any other service to change how I can view the content.
The other thing to consider, and I know this doesn't apply to everyone here I'm sure. Physical media can still deliver the highest quality audio and video then streaming right now because of file size and bandwidth limitations.
I've seriously considered going back to a disc based only library. I like the benefits of streaming, and digital copies. However, the way companies fight over licensing is stupid. Buying the disc, gives me the license to access that content, and once the disc is purchased, there is no middle man such as iTunes or any other service to change how I can view the content.
discs and digital are totally different things. Discs are all buy dying at retail with YoY losses for Blu-ray.
Digital has been growing each year.
The chances are when we die, other people aren't interested in getting other peoples films on DVD/Blu Ray. Seriously, most people care about memories, travels etc. I wouldn't be interested in getting someones old DVDs or video tapes
- they'd go in the bin!Who do you think is paying for and operating that new $1.3B facility in Iowa? Not the studios.
I don't care, I prefer physical media and there's no universe where digital should be MORE than the physical version, especially since the physical version is almost always better.