Fox and Disney iTunes Movie Rentals, 24 Hours Only?

[SheriffParker]

Wow this is ridiculous. Does everyone here really want to watch a movie two or three times every time you rent one?

This service will most likely be just like Amazon's unbox video rental service. You DL the movie, have 30 days to push play, and then 24 hours to watch it once you've started it. Thats not unreasonable. I don't think all these: "what if my relative calls right after I started the movie" gripes are realistic at all. So nobody ever goes to see a movie in a theater? Its not the cineplex's fault if a relative calls and I need to talk to them during a movie that I already paid for.... ridiculous.

 

[Cleverboy]

I don't disagree - I refer to it as "free" because I'm paying for the cable service to get the digital channels anyway (i.e., if there was no On Demand, I'd still subscribe to cable (or satellite)). So - included, or at no additional charge, or free - as opposed to the $3.99 fee on top of the regular costs for a new release. From my standpoint, they're getting that monthly fee for my internet, phone, and cable TV in any event.

No... I know why you said it was "free". I just know that its really "included" (especially if you're drawing comparisons). When I had cable, they suckered me in at a respectable rate, and not only increased it over time, but the original package price was only a promotion.

It's more accurate to compare iTunes to MovieBeam than to compare it to "OnDemand" where they're able to put a lot of content under a universal subscription fee. Point of fact, NFL has been trying to get its content under the mantle of "basic" service for a while, but still its relegated to "premium", because the cable companies don't want to go for it. The money comes from somewhere, and its all negotiation. I have fantastic reception of broadcast television.

So, there's no such thing as "free" OnDemand programming.

You made a comment that renting three or four movies a month will be the price of having cable. You're not making much sense. Until it gets announced, we're not clear what Apple will be charging. If its $1.99 to rent, then I have to disagree with you. The cable box and the basic subscription are going to run you at LEAST $20 a month ($13/mo. for basic, and at least $8/mo. for the box). --I'm not even clear OnDemand would be included with that. Usually a decent cable package will run you at least $30 each month... and cable subscribers rent too. I have friends and family with cable that go to Blockbuster and have Netflix accounts.

At the end of th day its consumer choice and freedom. As I understand it, Apple is working out a deal so that movie purchasers can get a digital download included. Walmart tried this, but had no traction with consumers. Apple does. Apple has already sold millions of movie downloads. Rentals are a no brainer. Look at the people in this thread already saying they'd try it. Amazon has a similar deal with TiVo.

We'll see how it works out I guess. I've already posted elsewhere what 3 things I think Apple needs to do to make Apple TV successful (aside from its content deals). 1.) Enable its USB port. 2.) Open the Platform to 3rd party vendors like EyeTV. 3.) Lower the price. --Then all this hemming and hawing becomes moot. --The only other big question is HD content... and WHEN.

~ CB

 

[EagerDragon]

Wow this is ridiculous. Does everyone here really want to watch a movie two or three times every time you rent one?

This service will most likely be just like Amazon's unbox video rental service. You DL the movie, have 30 days to push play, and then 24 hours to watch it once you've started it. Thats not unreasonable. I don't think all these: "what if my relative calls right after I started the movie" gripes are realistic at all. So nobody ever goes to see a movie in a theater? Its not the cineplex's fault if a relative calls and I need to talk to them during a movie that I already paid for.... ridiculous.

I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?

Besides I have a family and we don't always have time to all sit down and see the movie at the same time.

You look at it from a different angle than some of us do. Some of us want more than what it is currently available elsewhere. If Apple wants my dollars then it needs to give me more than I can get elsewhere. Why should I change from the other alternatives?

Giving me what others give me is not compelling, it is just a "me too".

 

[GregA]

24 hours starting after the 1st play of the movie kinda makes sense. It's like PPV.

Beyond PPV.... isn't that just like DVD rentals? ie: New releases are overnight anyway. Perhaps you do it differently in the US?

(edit: it would be nice to allow a "late fee" extension for 50% of the original cost, or something)

 

[DaBrain]

yeah, i don't like the 24 hour limit. hopefully they are wrong about that part

If they are going to do this, I would pay at the most $1.99 and it would have to be immediate streaming like netflix does. Not interested in using up my bandwidth, time and hard drive space to d/l movies!

Id rather stick with netflix then. I pay a flat amount every month for xxx movies at a time PLUS I get 1 hour of on line streaming credit for each dollar I pay them monthly.

The only problem I have with netflix is the limited movies available to stream due to the movie companies restrictions placed on netflix.

This deal does not sound good, especially if I have to buy 300 to 400 dollars of hardware besides my monthly ISP bill. Were just gonna have to wait and see.

 

[ClassicBean]

How about we wait until Apple actually makes an official announcement about the service, the terms, and everything else instead of getting all upset about unfounded rumours?

Not sure if you guys heard, but Apple is removing wifi connectivity from iPhone 2.0. Someone said so. It must be true. Discuss.

 

[nimbuscloud]

I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?

Besides I have a family and we don't always have time to all sit down and see the movie at the same time.

You look at it from a different angle than some of us do. Some of us want more than what it is currently available elsewhere. If Apple wants my dollars then it needs to give me more than I can get elsewhere. Why should I change from the other alternatives?

Giving me what others give me is not compelling, it is just a "me too".

Why? Because you don't have to get your lazy tush off your couch in order to rent it with iTunes.

What kinda angle do you want? Not Apple's fault that your family has an odd schedule. Heck, you don't even know if the rumor was real.

 

[nimbuscloud]

How about we wait until Apple actually makes an official announcement about the service, the terms, and everything else instead of getting all upset about unfounded rumours?

Not sure if you guys heard, but Apple is removing wifi connectivity from iPhone 2.0. Someone said so. It must be true. Discuss.

GRRR!!! SNORT!!! I hate Apple, how could they do that?!?!?! THEY ARE DOOOOOMM'DDDD!!!!



Anyway, I agree with you. People need to get a grip until Apple actually announces something.

 

[~Shard~]

A 24-hour rental period is not unheard of. For our VoD service we charge $4.95 per movie and the rental is for 24 hours, and our take rate is extremely high - it is an extremely popular and profitable service. I think Apple would do well to adopt this kind of model. That being said, obviously the longer the rental period the better, however I would definitely not call this approach "garbage" or "unreasonable".

 

[sfhc21]

If Fox and Disney only allow 24 hours to watch the movie, the online rental model will never take off and AppleTV will continue to be just a "hobby" for the Apple enthusiasts.

Apple would probably be thrilled to offer 30 day rentals, but I don't think the studio's would allow it and will continue to make the same mistakes they are already making.

Until the cost is $2 a movie for 7 days once I start watching it (about my cost for a Netflix rental), Netflix still makes the most sense for me, especially with HD DVD.

 

[EagerDragon]

Why? Because you don't have to get your lazy tush off your couch in order to rent it with iTunes.

What kinda angle do you want? Not Apple's fault that your family has an odd schedule. Heck, you don't even know if the rumor was real.

You seem to be taking this personal, You presume to know me and attack me and my family?

 

[xDANx]

what about bittorrent...?

the comparisons to blockbuster are fairly irrelevant. for those potential customers who are less familiar with their computers the itunes rental service is really competing with netflix (or zip up here in canada)...to win it has to be as easy and hassle free to use and similarly priced with no onerous DRM restrictions or it will quickly become less attractive than renting DVDs over the internet.

for people who are perhaps more familiar with their computers i think this service is more competing with bittorrent, a 'competitor' no one seems to have mentioned yet. it'll be much harder to win this one...to compel people to pay for content that they are becoming more and more used to getting for free apple will have to match or beat quality, file size, download speed, and catalog depth. the only real advantage i think apple has here is that the vast majority of bittorrent video content is not compatible with the iphone and ipod. so while visual fidelity is important i think apple's real strength lies in low def portability, mostly because of the total domination of the ipod. i'm curious to see what they do with the apple tv, because right now it seems like a huge waste of money.

as for time restrictions, as long as limits come close to conforming to already established behaviour no one is really going to even notice. if apple screws this one up it means that they really haven't been paying attention. as someone else pointed out, the main hassle with DVD rental is returning them, which is a non-issue with itunes. most people watch their movies very soon after having rented them. give people a week and it should work out. i don't understand why they would start a 24 hour timer once the file is played for the first time...it's just anti-consumer. if the intention is to limit the number of times the download is watched inside the period for which the file has been rented then people will continue to see physical DVD rental as better value. just tell people their rental is good for a certain length of time, let them watch it as many times as they want to, and give people the option of having itunes provide alerts to remind people how much time is left on the rental files.

 

[l8to89]

AppleTV

If Fox and Disney only allow 24 hours to watch the movie, the online rental model will never take off and AppleTV will continue to be just a "hobby" for the Apple enthusiasts.

i think that apple would have to drop the price on AppleTV or offer 5 free rentals with its purchase to get people to start buying it, and that would be the only way i see the rental endeavor working out.

 

[EagerDragon]

the comparisons to blockbuster are fairly irrelevant. for those potential customers who are less familiar with their computers the itunes rental service is really competing with netflix (or zip up here in canada)...to win it has to be as easy and hassle free to use and similarly priced with no onerous DRM restrictions or it will quickly become less attractive than renting DVDs over the internet.

for people who are perhaps more familiar with their computers i think this service is more competing with bittorrent, a 'competitor' no one seems to have mentioned yet. it'll be much harder to win this one...to compel people to pay for content that they are becoming more and more used to getting for free apple will have to match or beat quality, file size, download speed, and catalog depth. the only real advantage i think apple has here is that the vast majority of bittorrent video content is not compatible with the iphone and ipod. so while visual fidelity is important i think apple's real strength lies in low def portability, mostly because of the total domination of the ipod. i'm curious to see what they do with the apple tv, because right now it seems like a huge waste of money.

as for time restrictions, as long as limits come close to conforming to already established behaviour no one is really going to even notice. if apple screws this one up it means that they really haven't been paying attention. as someone else pointed out, the main hassle with DVD rental is returning them, which is a non-issue with itunes. most people watch their movies very soon after having rented them. give people a week and it should work out. i don't understand why they would start a 24 hour timer once the file is played for the first time...it's just anti-consumer. if the intention is to limit the number of times the download is watched inside the period for which the file has been rented then people will continue to see physical DVD rental as better value. just tell people their rental is good for a certain length of time, let them watch it as many times as they want to, and give people the option of having itunes provide alerts to remind people how much time is left on the rental files.

I am not sure about bittorrent in this conversation as it's use is clearly illegal, but I am pro consumers getting good value for their dollars and I am pro competition and the value it brings to consumers.

There are several rental services out there that appeal to different consumers (including also physical DVD rentals). People should vote with their money and get what best meets their needs. If Apple wants the consumer dollars then it needs to offer a compelling reason for people to switch.

I own a lot of Apple products but I like others need to have a compelling reason to get a particular product or service. Just because it comes from Apple is not enough for me.

 

[ks-man]

i think that apple would have to drop the price on AppleTV or offer 5 free rentals with its purchase to get people to start buying it, and that would be the only way i see the rental endeavor working out.

I agree that the main thing people here are ignoring is AppleTV. IF the pricing comes out at $4.99 for a new release this will likely never take off b/c you still need to invest in the hardware to make it a feasible alternative to Blockbuster, Netflix or VOD.

AppleTV currently costs at least $299. That is a lot of excess money to spend to be able to get immediate movie rentals considering you could go to Blockbuster and get the same thing. I think $3.99 and 3+ days is the minimum needed for this to take off. The problem is that the movie studios don't care if you buy an AppleTV or not, it doesn't directly add to their bottom line.

All this being said I don't think we should sell Apple short just yet. I'm sure Steve has an ace up his sleeve come Macworld and if not, they will adapt to make this business at least moderately successful.

 

[SheriffParker]

I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?

Besides I have a family and we don't always have time to all sit down and see the movie at the same time.

You look at it from a different angle than some of us do. Some of us want more than what it is currently available elsewhere. If Apple wants my dollars then it needs to give me more than I can get elsewhere. Why should I change from the other alternatives?

Giving me what others give me is not compelling, it is just a "me too".

5 to 7 dollars? Where did that come from?

Instant watching, not waiting for the DVD to be shipped or having to go out to the store to buy it.

Watch on TV via tv

Works seamlessly w/ iTunes and iPod

 

[theheadguy]

Ask Verizon how much they charge for a ringtone that you can ONLY use as a ringtone.
Apple isn't a non-profit company. Their stock wouldn't be going up if they were.

You seem to be on the attack with a few people here... Don't take people's opinions about Apple personally, cloud. As stated in my post, they like to make a lot of profit (which is the reason their stock price is going up, not merely because they are for-profit). That is why they will not implement a 30-day rental. I'm not arguing for or against it, just saying that profit, not customer satisfaction, is their [main] key to a high stock price.

Take a deep breath and relax. You'll see if the rumor is true soon enough.

 

[theBB]

I can purchase a movie on DVD for 8 to 30 dollars (higher quality than todays iTune downloads) , why would I pay 5 to 7 dollars for a 24 hour rental?

I don't know why you would pay 5 to 7 dollars, either, especially because the rumor says $2 to $5.

People pay $5 to watch a recently released DVD, because they save $10-$20 over purchase price if they are not gonna watch it again.

 

[EagerDragon]

5 to 7 dollars? Where did that come from?

Instant watching, not waiting for the DVD to be shipped or having to go out to the store to buy it.

Watch on TV via tv

Works seamlessly w/ iTunes and iPod

To answer your question:

1) Someone else in one of the previous post mention 5 dollars for new releases and more if more than 24 hours.
2) Some people are willing to pay for instant gratification, others not as much. I can stop at the store on the way home so I am not as driven by the instant gratification tax. I also enjoy the human contact specially if pleasant and knows its product.
3) There are very few Apple TV out there, the cost has to be considered as part of the formula.
4) Most people want to watch their movies on their TV, iPod viewing is nice but not a killer App, and iTunes viewer is also not as popular as viewing in a physical TV.

I agree most people are willing to pay extra for convenience, but this type service would not be the only one that offers that instant gratification, so Apple has to offer something more or their success is going to have some limitations.

There are always a few million people that will just get it because it is Apple, but to get past that point, they need offer more.

Seems most people would rather never interact with other humans and sit on their couch and have everything delivered to them. No wonder porn and dating services do so well, most people would rather not have an intelligent conversation with another person and instead have instant gratification.

 

[ks-man]

What Apple really should do (if they go this route hopefully I will get massive royalties) is partner up with Sony or Samsung (the two largest TV manufacturers) and have tv built into tv sets. This way the cost is rolled into the price of a TV and then you don't need to purchase something separate to transfer your rental to the TV. They even could put wifi and Itunes on the tv and then you don't even need a computer.

Once this is all in place you are paying the same thing as a normal rental but the convenience factor is even better.

On a side note, people around here seem to be outraged by the $4.99 rumored price point. What would people think if new releases were $3.99 for 480P and $4.99 for 1080i and later 1080p? I think Apple and the studios can't get away with that.

So my guess for pricing would be

$1.99 - very obscure titles
$2.99 - mainstream movies over 1 year old
$3.99 - new releases in 480p and 5.1
$4.99 - new releases in 1080i and 5.1 and in the future 1080p and PCM

Just a few thoughts.

 

[MikeTheC]

And I believe thats what the industry wants consumers to do...

And this, by you, is a good thing? You want "all of us" to be nothing more than trained dogs?

Not in my country, and sure as hell not on my watch.

 

[Bosunsfate]

Makes sense if

If I rent I'm only going to watch it once. So, the time limit is really meaningless in my opinion.

What is important is that I can take the rental fee and upgrade to a full purchase. I haven't seen that in the rumor yet, but expect that is there given how it works with music purchases.

All in the all, I think these are good signs. Now if only bandwidth would improve faster because I need my instant gratification. Not, start download, watch movie 6 hours later.

 

[~Shard~]

If I rent I'm only going to watch it once. So, the time limit is really meaningless in my opinion.

This is a good point. I am the same way - I listen to music over and over, however I usually only watch a movie once. If I really enjoy it, perhaps a couple more times, but that's usually it. This is one of the reasons I only own 10-15 DVDs, and of those, have only watched perhaps 5-6 of them multiple times. I chuckle, as I have friends who have hundreds of DVDs and I often wonder how often they actually have watched each one. If the answer is "only once", then why did you shell out $20 for it?

So further to this, I think a rental model makes sense if implemented correctly, and as for a 24 hour time limit, I see no problems with that.

 

[fpnc]

Unlikely to get HD

I think it is highly unlikely that we'll see any HD content. The iPods and iPhones don't support HD and I can't see Apple offering content just for the AppleTV (which under the best of circumstances only does something like half HD -- just somewhat better than a good quality, standard definition DVD).

Unfortunately, I'm sure that the rental terms are going to be dictated solely by the movie studios and they are unlikely to offer anything that would directly compete with either DVD sales or the standard physical-media video rental stores. Furthermore, iTunes Store video quality at its current best is below standard DVD quality which means that you could end up paying as much as you do today (Blockbuster, et. al.) for an inferior product.

Given the above, I'm not expecting anything too exciting when the announcement is finally made. However, my guess at a best-case deal would be:

72 hour viewing period (weekend plus)
Prices starting a $2.99 (higher for new releases).
No improvement over current iTunes Store video quality (1.5Mbps which in a stretch could be termed "standard definition" or "broadcast" quality but which will continue to be below DVD quality and nothing near to true HD).

If this new service can't even do the above then I predict continued "small potatoes" for online video delivery (which frankly is probably what the movie studios really want).

 

[NAG]

Considering the download time it would be nice if it was two or three days though so you could download ahead of time. Or does this limit only apply once you start watching it?