iTunes Movie Rentals to be Announced at WWDC?

[TheAnswer]

I don't know if the rumor is true or not, especially since lately AI and TS seem to be at odds about all the hardware news at WWDC, but here is what I'd like to see:

1. Streaming of movies now in theatres at least at DVD quality.
2. Streaming rentals of movies out of DVD at a little better resolution than we have now.
3. The option to purchase a DVD or HD quality version of a movie we have just watched the streaming rental of, with the ability to burn a copy.

 

[SiliconAddict]

meh. I already have Blockbuster's online rental. If I want to take something with me on the go I rent it, rip it and away I go. Yes this has more instant gratification but I'm a patiant person so meh...for those who aren't on a Netflix or Blockbuster plan I can see this as being nice...as long as its priced right.

 

[bigmc6000]

Interesting Point

Over at AI one user made a good point about how WWDC in '04 Steve spent quite a bit of time talking about iPod and iTMS - user guessimates around 25%. So I guess that kinda beats down the argument that WWDC has always been "Mac" only...

 

[theBB]

You cannot rent an HD movie from Blockbuster or Netflix, so what makes you think "Apple has to offer HD quality". There is no need to have better quality than competitors while also providing more convenience.

What is so wrong about stereo sound? A lot of people use the speakers of their TVs for the sound of a movie. Most movie do not really take advantage of sourround sound that much, where you feel like the sound is coming from the left or from behind etc. You might as well use your 5 speakers in stereo mode.

$2 per rental ain't gonna happen. That's a pipedream. If movie indutry is licensing movies to Movielink for $4-5, it is not gonna let Apple do this for much lower prices. At that price it would be much more expensive than Netflix and with a much smaller library, so my subscription will have to stay. I can only use Apple's service as an add-on, when I really want to watch a movie, but Netflix DVD is still in the mail. Besides, I would have to get a Mac mini for the living room. Well, the cost just keeps adding up.

 

[macFanDave]

To quote Steve Ballmer, of all people. . .

WWDC is about "developers, developers, developers, developers!"

What I have heard about Leopard and the Mac Pro is so exciting, I don't want to see them upstaged by iPod/iTMS movies news. I haven't even seen much on the Intel version of Xserves, so I can expect that I might see some news on that issue.

I hope to hear the iPod and iTMS news, but at a different venue.

 

[suzerain]

I disagree: people already spend time/gas/money DRIVING to a video store to rent something that become worse than useless: you have to drive again to return it Or, with Netflix you just have to mail it, but the wait is days--much longer than a download.

If people still drive to the video store to rent movies, then why are Blockbuster et al. going out of business? Everyone I know uses Netflix, not stores, nowadays, unless they don't have a computer, in which case iTunes is not their target market anyway.

I don't see online rental cutting into, like, BitTorrent, personally...if that was the point of the iTunes Store (to provide an alternative to pirating).

Rentals are stupid...what if something comes up and I can't watch my movie within the alotted time? I'm just screwed, then?

That's why the Netflix model is brilliant, though saddled with a delay...you can watch the movie whenever you want.

 

[JosiahPB]

I couldn't imagine movie production companies letting first run movies be downloaded before the DVD's come out. I would much rather go see it as a social thing then watch it in my own home.

 

[rlreif]

this is positive to me

i was worried that it would only be sales... i never want to own movies, and the very seldom exception, i want to own in a better quality than what we get from itunes... they would have gotten zero business from me in movie sales, but for rentals i will use it all the time

 

[Cooknn]

I used to be so eager for this to happen. I dreamed of Hi-Def movies on demand with iTunes music store karma. As far as rent vs buy - I see that alot of people are upset with the rental model for movies. I'm in the other camp. I don't want to own my movies. I want to watch them, then move on to the next flick when it's convenient. That being said, unless Apple can deliver Hi-Def movies to my HDTV I'll just wait for my forthcoming Playstation 3 and rent Blu-Ray titles from NetFlix. By Q1 '07 there should be a lot more movies for Blu-Ray ...and the karma with NetFlix isn't so bad I guess

 

[Cougarcat]

Rentals are definitely the way to go. I've only seen the Lost episodes I've downloaded once. They're just eating space on my hardrive. And if there were streaming theatrical releases, well, I'd be in heaven. I'm pissed that A Scanner Darkly isn't playing in my area, but I've watched the first 25 min. at IGN.com in HD. I'd definitely spend $1.99 to escape expensive tickets and annoying people.

According to MOSR, rolleyes: ) 10.5 will include some sort of "rewards-based" BitTorrent system. rolleyes: ) But if the Movie store also used bittorrent, it would make more sense to announce it at WWDC.

 

[Doctor Q]

Rentals are definitely the way to go.

I think rentals are sometimes the way to go. If I want to watch a movie once, a rental is perfect. If I want to watch it 2 or 3 times over many years, I might as well rent it more than once. But I want to watch it many times, month after month or year after year, I ought to own a copy, to save the expense and trouble of renting it. I already have both choices in "hardcopy" format. I'd like to have both choices online too, as conveniently as possible.

 

[swingerofbirch]

I couldn't imagine movie production companies letting first run movies be downloaded before the DVD's come out. I would much rather go see it as a social thing then watch it in my own home.

Wow. Different worlds. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people. I would pay top dollar to see first runs without going to a theatre.

Plus where I live we don't even get a lot of movies. It took months for us to get Brokeback Mountain, and there's no telling if we'll ever get Strangers with Candy.

 

[jmsait19]

A major consumer announcement at a developers conference? Not gonna happen. End of story!

ThinkSecret hasn't been right about anything since they got in trouble over leaks.

maybe so. but the lawsuit has been dropped now. maybe they are feeling ok to say the right things now...

 

[kingtj]

re: prefer them streamed??

Ick! Absolutely not! Streaming video is unreliable and inconsistent. It may work well for shorter movies, where the computer can download enough of the movie ahead of time in the buffer to ride out any brief slowdowns or halts in traffic .... but there's little chance a 2 hour + movie would stream to you without any hiccups at all. I've got 6mbit DSL at home, and I run into these problems just because of other computers on my LAN trying to download updates or what-not while I'm watching a movie stream. It's got to be much worse for people with 1.5mbit DSL or even 3mbit, which are much more common.

Not only that, but where there's the ability to actually download content (protected or not), there's the possibility of it being saved permanently. Regardless of "legality" - I like leaving as many options open as possible. Projects like JHymn allowed removal of DRM on iTunes music ... so something similar could allow it for downloaded movies.

I'd rather them just be streamed if it is indeed going to be rentals.

 

[boncellis]

I think rentals are sometimes the way to go. If I want to watch a movie once, a rental is perfect. If I want to watch it 2 or 3 times over many years, I might as well rent it more than once. But I want to watch it many times, month after month or year after year, I ought to own a copy, to save the expense and trouble of renting it. I already have both choices in "hardcopy" format. I'd like to have both choices online too, as conveniently as possible.

Totally agree. Supposedly Mr. Jobs "lost" this round of negotiations...I wouldn't be surprised if he ceded that point to the studios because he knows something is around the corner. One possibility that jumps to mind is competition between studios to be the first to provide pay-to-own content.

This is just the ground floor--not if, but when it happens.

 

[KingYaba]

This rental thing sounds stupid. Secondly, whats to stop some of us from figureing away out to kill the timed life of hte movie files so we can keep it forever. (seeing if we are downloading them)

There will be more pirates than ever if apple does movies. I can think of so many ways.

Even if they are streamed, I know ways to keep the movie.

 

[Macnoviz]

If people still drive to the video store to rent movies, then why are Blockbuster et al. going out of business? Everyone I know uses Netflix, not stores, nowadays, unless they don't have a computer, in which case iTunes is not their target market anyway.

Then you can't know that many people, I think you're forgetting there are still people outside of the US, and over here there still is a huge unexplored market for movie rentals. There are no companies that provide services like Netflix, and stores rule the market. If Apple uses the iTunes name for Movie Rentals, it will be a succes in Europe, either way.

 

[hyperpasta]

Over at AI one user made a good point about how WWDC in '04 Steve spent quite a bit of time talking about iPod and iTMS - user guessimates around 25%. So I guess that kinda beats down the argument that WWDC has always been "Mac" only...

He did, but he didn't show a single new product. He simply recapped the announcements made in the weeks before: iPod+BMW and AirPort Express.

 

[hyperpasta]

Rentals are stupid...what if something comes up and I can't watch my movie within the alotted time? I'm just screwed, then?

Actually, other online movie rental services serve up "frozen" movies. You can keep a frozen movie for a month without it expiring. To watch it, you must "thaw" the movie. Then it expires a week later. In this way, you can download a movie when convenient and watch when convenient... not much pressure at all. Simply thaw the movie when you're ready to watch.

The only way I see this being announced at WWDC is if it ties in with Leopard's rumored BitTorrent feature. However, this doesn't make much sense, since what will Tiger/Panther/Windows users do to get movies?

 

[Doctor Q]

Supposedly Mr. Jobs "lost" this round of negotiations...I wouldn't be surprised if he ceded that point to the studios because he knows something is around the corner. One possibility that jumps to mind is competition between studios to be the first to provide pay-to-own content.

In the meantime, Movielink already offers rental and purchase options, and I read that they will also be allowing you to burn your own DVDs, although I don't know the details.

This is from their site:

 

[rockstarjoe]

Here is how it will work (I think)

Why not offer both a subscription and an a-la-carte system? The rental movies could be cheaper, lesser quality and last for only a certain amount of plays/days while the ones you buy to own can be of higher quality, more expensive and you get to keep it.

I think you are on to something here. I believe it will work like this:

!) Rent a movie from the ITMS and it will download (not stream) to your computer. It will be in a less than DVD quality format, most likely in whatever format plays on 6G ipod. Let's face it, the 6G ipod and the iTunes Movie service will both be announced at the same time, and that time is not WWDC. The movie sales will drive 6G ipod sales, therefore they must play on 6G ipods, therefore they will not be DVD quality.

2) Movies will have a limited number of plays, rather than a limited number of time to view. Or, alternately, you will pay-per-view (literally).

3) The movie rentals will be cheap (under $5). If you like the movie you will have the option to buy the DVD. Buying the DVD through iTMS will "unlock" the rented copy of the movie on your hardrive, allowing you to own it forever and also to burn it to DVD if you choose (although, again, it will be in less than DVD quality). The real copy of the DVD will be full price plus shipping and the hard copy of the DVD will arrive in the mail a few days later. It will be the same as the retail copy.

This means money for Apple from movie rentals, plus money for Apple from 6G ipod sales (and perhaps Mac Minis if Frontrow gets added in to this), plus money for the BIG STUDIOS for the rentals AND the DVD sales.

It is a win-win-win for the consumer, Apple, and the movie studios... thus I think this is the only way it will happen. What do you guys think?

 

[kevmbpro]

To Be Sung to the Tune of "Send in the Clowns"

Bring on the PORN!!!
bwahahahahaa!!!

 

[mozmac]

I have mixed feelings about this. The only way I see this really becoming big is if Apple releases a Mac Mini media center. By so doing, Apple will catch a huge market of people who say, "What do you want to watch tonight?" How many times have you been in this situation. You've looked at all your movies, which you've seen at least three times each, and decide that you don't have anything you want to watch. Would if, from your remote, you had a whole movie store IN YOUR HOME? That's right. Who needs to go to Blockbuster or wait for NetFlix. Just point, click, and...hello, movie. You get to keep it for a few days.

This will only work, though, if it is that easy. If people have to figure out their own way to get it to the TV, they will simply go get the DVD from Blockbuster, because the player is already hooked up to the TV. If Apple wants to make it in the movie business, they need to build something that is meant to hook up to the TV right OUT OF THE BOX.

I'm excited to see it!

 

[jaxstate]

About darn time. I'm glad it will be a rental service. I rarely watch a movie more than once, and this will keep the priced down. Anything over 4 bucks per view isn't going to work.

 

[Doctor Q]

Movies will have a limited number of plays, rather than a limited number of time to view. Or, alternately, you will pay-per-view (literally).

I rarely watch a movie exactly once straight through from start to finish. I might back up to see a scene again, skip the boring parts where there are no car chases or spy gadgets, pause to answer the phone and then back up because I missed a few seconds, stop because it's been 15 minutes and I feel the need to visit MacRumors and then start again the next day because I forgot I hadn't finished the movie, watch the opening scenes again after the final credits because it's fun after you know secrets you learn later in the movie, and so on.

So what constitutes "one play" of a movie?