Fox and Disney iTunes Movie Rentals, 24 Hours Only?

[ipodG8TR]

Too much for too little

However, Apple has to start somewhere and with the movie studios not playing nicely I wouldn't be surprised if Steve had to settle for now. Once he proves itunes rentals have legs he can come back to the negotiating table in 6-12 months.

For me, rentals would have to be much more competitive. I can literally drive 2 minutes to a grocery store that rents DVDs from a vending machine for .99/day including new releases. Can't get much better than.

I would support Apple though for $1.99/day if the quality was on par with DVD. No one seems to mention that DVDs come with many extras you don't get on the digital versions. Not that big of a deal for rentals because who really watches them anyways. But for purchases, the add-ins make a difference.

Apple should always offer the option to buy the movie minus the rental fee as an upsell. Kind of like the complete my album deal they did with purchased songs a while back -- except the offer shouldn't expire so quickly.

Ideally, I would like $1.99/7-day rentals transferrable to any Apple device. $2.99 would be acceptable for new releases if the quality was HD.

Eventually if the studios don't play along, Apple should include Handbrake like functionality with iTunes (or iMedia) and protect themselves by having the user click a user agreement indicating they understand that "backups" can only be made for content they own. Show the studios that if they refuse to offer content at reasonable prices, consumers will resort to taking what they were willing to pay for.

Can't wait for MWSF. Just hope that there are a few surprises in store!

 

[MacFly123]

Really? I would think people like yourself would be in the minority, but perhaps I'm mistaken... Whenever I have rented a movie I have only ever watched it once, and know many people who do the exact same.

Regardless, Apple cannot cater to everyone, since obviously everyone has different needs and wants when it comes to this type of service. It will be interesting to see the details once they are released.

I think anyone like myself that has a decent size family knows that when you rent a movie it is going to get watched at least a few times before it is returned because not everybody in the family always watches it together the first time. And if its good then they wanna watch it again in a couple days anyway.

 

[MacFly123]

Eventually if the studios don't play along, Apple should include Handbrake like functionality with iTunes (or iMedia) and protect themselves by having the user click a user agreement indicating they understand that "backups" can only be made for content they own. Show the studios that if they refuse to offer content at reasonable prices, consumers will resort to taking what they were willing to pay for.

Can't wait for MWSF. Just hope that there are a few surprises in store!

I agree. But as I've said before in the other forums, I want iTunes to rip DVDs as what I call a "Digital DVD" or a disk image with nice cover art that plays with menus, the movie, and the extras just as if you put the DVD in your computer. Why aren't more people seeking that??? That is what I really want whether they sell it like that online or I rip my DVDs into my library

 

[madmax_2069]

now that i think about it, i dont think it would be good to have a set amount of time for a set amount of money and have that as the only option. like only have a option for 24 hours for $1.99.

i think it could be allot better to have multiple prices for the length of time you would want it for.

like
$0.99 for 24 hours
$1.99 for 48 hours
$2.99 for 3 day's
and so on and so forth

maybe a dollar more then what i said, this is how i hope Apple will do this

i think that could appeal to more people that way then with only one set option. that way someone that only wanted to watch it once could get the 24 hour rental and people that want to watch it more times then what 24 hours would allow one to ( due to work, or other things).

 

[Mydel]

now that i think about it, i dont think it would be good to have a set amount of time for a set amount of money and have that as the only option. like only have a option for 24 hours for $1.99.

i think it could be allot better to have multiple prices for the length of time you would want it for.

like
$0.99 for 24 hours
$1.99 for 48 hours
$2.99 for 3 day's
and so on and so forth

maybe a dollar more then what i said, this is how i hope Apple will do this

i think that could appeal to more people that way then with only one set option. that way someone that only wanted to watch it once could get the 24 hour rental and people that want to watch it more times then what 24 hours would allow one to ( due to work, or other things).

I like your idea. I think its pretty cool. I would definitely support it. I think most of us will just download and watch. In the other case I think most of people just buy DVDs.

 

[Cleverboy]

now that i think about it, i dont think it would be good to have a set amount of time for a set amount of money and have that as the only option. like only have a option for 24 hours for $1.99.

i think it could be allot better to have multiple prices for the length of time you would want it for.

like
$0.99 for 24 hours
$1.99 for 48 hours
$2.99 for 3 day's
and so on and so forth

maybe a dollar more then what i said, this is how i hope Apple will do this

i think that could appeal to more people that way then with only one set option. that way someone that only wanted to watch it once could get the 24 hour rental and people that want to watch it more times then what 24 hours would allow one to ( due to work, or other things).

This is how RedBox works. If Apple did this, it would be a NO-BRAINER. Absolute NO... BRAINER. Crazy money for all involved.

~ CB

 

[SheriffParker]

$2.99 for 3 day's

Get that apostrophe out of that word!

Either that, or explain who is this Day and what they are possessing!

 

[fpnc]

Come on now, if Apple sells/rents HD content through the iTunes store, it will certainly be in a format compatible with the AppleTV.

Let's review... the AppleTV does 720p but only at 24fps and at limited bitrates. However, it can not decode 1080i and in fact the AppleTV's 1080i output comes from 960x540 source but at least it offers 30fps. If Apple does offer "HD" content I'd be pretty certain it would be in the 960x540 format (faster downloads, wider compatibility). All in all, I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to call the AppleTV true HD. In any case, I can't see Apple offering two different formats for the rental content (one for iPods/iPhones at the current standard definition, and the other for the AppleTV in an "HD" format).

 

[illitrate23]

Rdf

i know there's an incredible 230 negative posts for this topic, but just waiting MWSF08 - i'm there'll be some incredibly brilliant side to this that we're all missing and we just need Steve and his RDF to get us on board

 

[crazycat]

This system will only work for me if i had time to trigger the 24 hour countdown. A 3 to 7 day window to start watching the movie which triggers the 24 hour countdown will work for myself.

 

[diamond.g]

I don't see them leaving out older AppleTVs, especially since they can already play 720p HD. I've never heard of anyone not being able to play properly encoded (i.e., 720p, 24fps, etc.) on their TV.

Most, if not all, DVD players do a 3:2 pull down to fix the fact that most TV's have no idea what to do with a 24fps signal. If you have a PS3 force it to 24fps and try to watch a BD movie (or a DVD movie as well I think). You should get a blank screen unless your TV accepts a 24fps input.

I think he really means "high definition" straight up. It's fairly RIDICULOUS to have a high resolution picture and NO surround sound in the audio track. It's not as if AAC doesn't support 5.1 either. Hopefully they'll sort this out along with closed captions and language options.

MP4 supports AAC's version of 5.1, and it also supports 1 main and 1 secondary sound stream. The secondary sound stream can only be 2.0 though. It also supports subtitles. So movies could at best have 2 languages spoken and one in subtitles with the current MP4 container. That would mean that movies from Apple would not have director commentary...

Movies are shot at 24 fps anyway. That's what really bugs me. I can see 24 fps, so movies always look jittery to me. Being in a theater is like going to watch a strobe light in my face. At least they blur the frames together when they move to NTSC TV on DVD's. When they pan the camera in these new "reality" movies it makes everything so blurry you can't read anything anymore. I only go for the immersive experience.

I actually think the blurring that 3:2 pulldown causes stinks. But there isn't a whole lot you can do unless your TV supports 24,30,60 (25,50)fps.

Let's review... the AppleTV does 720p but only at 24fps and at limited bitrates. However, it can not decode 1080i and in fact the AppleTV's 1080i output comes from 960x540 source but at least it offers 30fps. If Apple does offer "HD" content I'd be pretty certain it would be in the 960x540 format (faster downloads, wider compatibility). All in all, I'd say that it's a bit of a stretch to call the AppleTV true HD. In any case, I can't see Apple offering two different formats for the rental content (one for iPods/iPhones at the current standard definition, and the other for the AppleTV in an "HD" format).

I wouldn't call 960x540 HD. As long as AppleTV can do 3:2 pulldown correctly, or your tv supports 24fps then I would hope Apple would just encode two different versions. One that is HD (1280x720) and the other that isn't (whatever max rez the iPhone/iPods support). As shown with XBL, 720p movies with 5.1 surround sound are no bigger than 5GB and have pretty good quality video (as much as can be expected with up to 5mpbs bitrate) and pretty good sound (although I think the DD is only 384kbps).

For those that want 1080p downloads, well bless your hearts. You have more patience to wait for a download to complete than most. With the doubling of pixels I am pretty sure the bitrate would have to be raised to somewhere in the neighborhood of 10mbps. That should have movies sitting at 9 or 10 GB in size. Of course it would also have to be encoded with CABAC (to maximize quality with higher compression), which currently AppleTV doesn't support, nor does it have the power to.

 

[shyataroo]

If you guys want to get around the 24 hour thing just have one of those screen recording things running in the background while you watch your movie, when the movies done so is your screen recording you edit what you don't want out and ba-da bing ba-da boom you gots yourself a semi-legit copy of (insert movie title here)

 

[madmax_2069]

Get that apostrophe out of that word!

Either that, or explain who is this Day and what they are possessing!

spelling/grammar error, sorry Mr. teacher i do better next time's


Oh and BTW nice going off topic, you correcting my errors has nothing to do with the OP's topic, which made me go off topic to tell you this

Thank you

 

[BenRoethig]

The one time rental conditions are very similar to other online video services. Vongo charges $3.99 for a new release and has the same 24-hr window. The problem is that they don't seem to want to offer the more practical and popular subscription option.

 

[Maccus Aurelius]

And this is all based on what Variety expects?

I expect the Easter Bunny to file my taxes for me.

 

[DisturbedLen]

Rental with a purchase credit would be nice. I wonder how this will compare to Directv On Demand... I would really like a subscription "on demand" tv service. The only problem with all of this is the unpublished download limits by most ISPs.

If this is a hit, I wonder how long it will take before the ISPs like Verizon start crying and cutting off service because their users are "abusing" their internet connection.

I have Directv, but my internet service is through the cable company. They will start to get pissed off if I start renting movies. It's bad enough that I don't have cable tv through them. And they charge me an extra $10/month because of that!!!

 

[SheriffParker]

spelling/grammar error, sorry Mr. teacher i do better next time's


Oh and BTW nice going off topic, you correcting my errors has nothing to do with the OP's topic, which made me go off topic to tell you this

Thank you

Here, try this... it looks like you might need it.

 

[jasonklee]

buck per days seems great.

one day, maybe they'll release flicks simultaneously on the net and in theaters.

 

[madmax_2069]

Here, try this... it looks like you might need it.

[snip]

its not that i lack one, i just been bashed so much cause of i lack in this area, and tend to get rather heated that someone will go off topic just to point out spelling and grammar errors in a post and add nothing useful to a topic.

as i said before i lack a since of humor about that. i am starting to get to the point of telling people like this what to go do with themselves.

if they have nothing useful to post about they don't even need to bother posting at all. its not like you could not make out what i was saying.

and sorry again for straying off topic

 

[Cleverboy]

Movie downloads won’t move the needle on Apple’s stock. TV and movie downloads are over-hyped and won’t deliver to the bottom line. People will end up preferring advertising-supported small-screen content and disc-based delivery for their TV’s. This preference will not go away as we transition to a BluRay or HD world.
Read more at:
[--SHAMELESS PLUGS--]

This is fairly laughable, and its amazing that people can repeat it with a straight face. You should stop and check your premises. Your premise is that people will migrate to ONE major outlet for content, and be satisfied with viewing it from a web browser. I could possibly agree with you under a very shakey series of requirements, but as trends currently go, these requirements are unlikely to happen.

Here is the problem. People will begin looking for a NEW way to get content, that replaces DVDs in accessibility and value. The content needs to be multi-channel (multiple studios), and needs to integrate with playback on a multitude of devices.

DVDs are purchases that exist as PERMANENT property of the consumer. New offerings like Hulu DO NOT compete directly with DVDs, as they represent "streaming" content that users cannot watch on devices not maintaining that constant connection, AND are not equipped to playback "Flash". This is a HUGE divide between how people wish to use content.

Companies like Apple, TiVo, Sony and Microsoft have begun the battle for the BOX many years ago. Whosoever wins the war of the supreme set-top box, will rule the world. These set-top boxes will pull content directly from the Internet onto a local hard drive. The main problem has been delivery mechanisms. Apple is counting on iTunes to be a ubiquitous delivery mechanism for a range of consumer devices, and has so far been successful with this strategy. With Xbox 360 and XBox Live, Microsoft has targeted its XBox 360 platform as an ecosystem. Schizophrenically, Microsoft has dashed hopes of unity by created a wholly separate track with its Zune system as well as powering yet a third track by providing the underlying DRM technology allowing companies like TiVo, Amazon, and Netflix to get into the game in limited ways. Meanwhile... Sony and its PS3 are in left field beating itself over the head with a wooden mallet.

iTunes is the ONLY cohesive ecosystem enabling content delivery to consumers across a broad range of devices for different purposes (albeit devices from one manufacturer). They are the virtual embodiment of the consumer experience most people are expecting as we move further into the 21st century. Moreover, Apple's line of products can be made compatible at any time with other standards as needs dictate. iTunes isn't relegated to simply being a STORE either. It is the delivery nexus for all of Apple's next generation gadgets. As Apple brokers deals with studios, DVDs and HD discs themselves may allow consumers to obtain "iTunes compatible" versions of films they purchase.

The more studios lose track of reality and believe that offerings like "Hulu" compete with iTunes, the more they will lose touch with the changing and multifarious nature of the modern consumer. The will encourage widespread piracy and lose millions and millions of dollars as the entire world of personal technology, moreso than not, passes them by.

~ CB

 

[CWallace]

With Xbox 360 and XBox Live, Microsoft has targeted its XBox 360 platform as an ecosystem. Schizophrenically, Microsoft has dashed hopes of unity by created a wholly separate track with its Zune system as well as powering yet a third track by providing the underlying DRM technology allowing companies like TiVo, Amazon, and Netflix to get into the game in limited ways.

It may be more a "throw it on the wall and see what sticks" strategy. Try different delivery modes, see which one grabs the most interest/share, and then migrate everything over to it.

Microsoft is also known to take a long-term view when it comes to entering a new market. The early IE editions were absolute dogs, so even bundled with the OS, people sought out alternatives. However, later ones eventually became capable enough to keep most users from seeking an alternative.

So even if Microsoft's current offerings are inferior to the iTunes experience, it will likely only get better over time. On the plus side, this will drive iTunes to evolve, itself.

 

[Cleverboy]

Microsoft is also known to take a long-term view when it comes to entering a new market.

I'd love to believe that, but they are losing a tremendous amount of kenetic energy by these fits and starts. Clearly numerous personalities at play within Microsoft, and an overall vision is being lost.

The early IE editions were absolute dogs, so even bundled with the OS, people sought out alternatives. However, later ones eventually became capable enough to keep most users from seeking an alternative.

I think the "v.3" parable with Microsoft is mostly something people graft/retrofit onto the past more than its a reflection of it. Follow the IE story further out, and you'll see how they made a HUGE late-stage mistake by saying that the next IE will ONLY be available as part of the next version of Windows. They then spent years in stagnation, thinking they'd effectively stomped out the competition. IE holds marketshare more through entrenchment and OEM distribution, not innovation or convenience.

Microsoft did something special with the XBox. They improved it with the XBox 360. Now they're trying to reproduce that with the Zune. Unfortunately, instead of taking advantage of their XBox success, like they should have... something made it important for them to try to make Zune stand on its own. Their Windows Media Player environment was abandoned for a piece of software they call "Zune", and their Media Center functionality has finally been somewhat "freed" from the shackles of a separate operating system version with Vista (athough you still have to get the "right" version).

Why doesn't Microsoft drink its own kool-aid. Look at the parallels...

Microsoft: Windows Media Player/Zune, Windows Media Center, XBox 360, Zune
Apple: iTunes, AppleTV/FrontRow, AppleTV, iPod

If Microsoft made it so that Zune used the same marketplace as the Xbox 360, you could transfer movies and songs between them, you could install FREE "media center" software on Windows XP/Vista, and Windows Media Player was the universal software that connected it all to your computer... Microsoft would crush Apple like a steam roller.

As it stands, I can't fathom buying ANYthing in Windows Media DRM, whether its video or music. I have NO IDEA where I'd be able to play it 1 year from now, even if I'm buying hardware that says its Microsoft DRM compatible... I have to read details closer. It's a horror show. It's not "progress" or "trying things out"... its stagnation and chaos.

Meanwhile, Apple happily makes commercials like this, and my heart melts.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/ads/
It's on your computer, it's on your iPod, now its on your TV.
--And now, its also on my phone!

To me, it really looks like Apple is the one with the long term strategy.
Microsoft is making things up as they go.

~ CB

 

[GregA]

There are very few Apple TV out there, the cost has to be considered as part of the formula.

That's one reason I'd like to see a DVR option built in.

With the switch to digital, I need to buy a set top box (or new TV). If AppleTV was a digital set top box, DVR, AND rented videos from Apple, that would be very appealing and much more worthwhile.

However... Apple may stick with creating a new standard. And today's AppleTV doesn't work with my current TV anyway, so it wouldn't fit my need. Ah well, we will see soon! (hopefully!)

 

[GregA]

as long as Fox/Disney are the only providers this will continue as a "hobby".

Ultimately AppleTV needs all the studios involvement.

However, if Apple can make a simple way of getting to movies, at an attractive price point, they can make some real waves. For instance, I should be able to watch "AppleTV Trailers" restricted to films available in my own country
1) for rental. Or
2) to purchase
(or 3 - to watch at my local cinema).
etc.

They need a way of keeping people in the ecosystem.

 

[pamon]

I can see a 24 hr model from when you start to end it and a 3-5 day period on the time you download it to start it. So download it today, start it tomorrow and finish watching it the next day. That's far than enough time for 90% of the public.