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.
Lionsgate Movies Added To iTunes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My guess is that at least one other studio has inked a deal and will be announced the same day Apple announces the widescreen iPod.
I would not be surprised to see at the announcement:
* the widescreen iPod;
* The Beatles full album catalog, videos, clips, TV specials, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band" (Universal), "A Hard Day's Night" (Disney or UA, hard to tell), and "Help" (UA)(The UA titles are probably controlled by Universal.);
* Universal Pictures joining the movie store with mostly titles that are 2 to 10 years old like "Gladiator," "American Pie" and "The Bourne Supremacy";
* possibly 20th Century Fox joining the movie store.
Conventional wisdom is that Sony/Columbia will be last and come (if at all) kicking and screaming. But they see the writing on the wall, so maybe they've wised up and come to Apple to work out good terms for promoting upcoming titles. Buzzing the new "Spiderman" or whatever makes more sense for Sony than pretending they have a strategy for competing with the iPod.
hm...what resolution are these film in? isn't it 640x480!? the least I need is 720p otherwice it's of no real use...
and still - there are lots of torrent-trackers around to access the latest/most movies.
and still - there are lots of torrent-trackers around to access the latest/most movies.
[The Blair Witch Project
I had to laugh when I saw this listed. I was at Half price books the other day and saw the Blair Witch boxed set, which had both DVD's for $8.00. Which is of course, still too much money for those movies.
I had to laugh when I saw this listed. I was at Half price books the other day and saw the Blair Witch boxed set, which had both DVD's for $8.00. Which is of course, still too much money for those movies.
baby steps
this will be a slow process but it's good to see studios like lionsgate jumping on... we really just have to wait for all the media distribution software companies to evolve (read: one or two prosper while the rest die). there's too much clutter, inconsistency, and insecurity in the online marketplace outside of apple.
this will be a slow process but it's good to see studios like lionsgate jumping on... we really just have to wait for all the media distribution software companies to evolve (read: one or two prosper while the rest die). there's too much clutter, inconsistency, and insecurity in the online marketplace outside of apple.
When the Lionsgate CFO leaked this deal last August (thereby leaking Apple's plans for a movie store), many people thought Steve would ban them from the store forever. Guess that didn't happen.
I share your sentiment. iTunes movies still seem a little pointless to me until they start to sell HD res movies. Especially with
TV on the horizon. I can't image how awfull the iPod sized movies will look streamed via to a HDTV.Until Apple start to sell HD movies, I won't be purchasing either movies or the
TV, as I just don't see the point of the whole product release. However once they do - I'm heating up my credit card! lolI am however, loving bigger catalogues, will no doubt push the release of HD movies - 720p at least.
Until Apple start to sell HD movies, I won't be purchasing either movies or the
Is there any significant IT reason Apple couldn't start doing this immediately? Apple loves a good but-wait-there's-MORE feature, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see an announcement of the first HD title at the next major press event. Plus, downloadable HD should basically be the killer app for this thing.
If the current
TV's processor just can't handle the compression -- which I kind of doubt -- the 2G TV would probably land in time for Christmas and support HD. I really see this as more of a easter egg, though, than a 2G feature.
I share your sentiment. iTunes movies still seem a little pointless to me until they start to sell HD res movies. Especially with
Until Apple start to sell HD movies, I won't be purchasing either movies or the
I am however, loving bigger catalogues, will no doubt push the release of HD movies - 720p at least.
Didn't Jobs say that the
TV will up-convert videos to near 720p quality if one is using an HDMI cable?Some thoughts
Anybody notice on foxnews.com there's an interview with the guy that runs Apple Records, in which he says that now that they've worked out a deal with Apple, that the entire Beatles catalog will soon be available online? He also specfically mentions that there will be no exclusive deals with any one store. I haven't seen this on any of the Mac sites.
The Walmart store has all kinds of movies online, but only some of them are available for download. There was an article recently on the Register that mentioned that everytime they looked for a major film, it was not available to download, but only to purchase through the mail. Since Walmart is already the biggest movie retailer and already sells through the mail, that was easy to put in their store.
I went to one of our larger local retailers here last week and looked at TVs. Every single one of them were advertised as HD televisions, but not a single one of them was capable of displaying 1080i or 1080p. The closest they got was upsampling to 1080i. The highest native resolution they had was 720p.
Anybody notice on foxnews.com there's an interview with the guy that runs Apple Records, in which he says that now that they've worked out a deal with Apple, that the entire Beatles catalog will soon be available online? He also specfically mentions that there will be no exclusive deals with any one store. I haven't seen this on any of the Mac sites.
The Walmart store has all kinds of movies online, but only some of them are available for download. There was an article recently on the Register that mentioned that everytime they looked for a major film, it was not available to download, but only to purchase through the mail. Since Walmart is already the biggest movie retailer and already sells through the mail, that was easy to put in their store.
I went to one of our larger local retailers here last week and looked at TVs. Every single one of them were advertised as HD televisions, but not a single one of them was capable of displaying 1080i or 1080p. The closest they got was upsampling to 1080i. The highest native resolution they had was 720p.
I'm sure online films won't entirely kill off DVD sales. I'm sure some people would want the special features on DVDs. Though online sales MAY kill off DVD sales enough to make DVDs not worth making.
Is there any significant IT reason Apple couldn't start doing this immediately? Apple loves a good but-wait-there's-MORE feature, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see an announcement of the first HD title at the next major press event. Plus, downloadable HD should basically be the killer app for this thing.
If the current
I'm sure one reason Apple doesn't sell HD movies is just size. I downloaded a few movies, each being about 2 hours long. Each one was over a gigabyte. Even on a cable/dsl modem, that takes a while to download, not to mention what it's like for dial-up.
This is the deal breaker for me
ive never wanted to download any of their movies but now that they have lionsgate on their side i can cancel mydigital cable (since they havent rolled out on demand yet) and just watch the 40+ bluray's i own and have itunes movies (on demand) and save some money
lionsgate is by far my absolute favorite film company
all there films are twisted weird adult mind set titles
they are the ones who make saw, ju-on, total recall, stargate, terminator 2, crank, rambo first blood, american psycho, young guns, resivoir dogs
just to name a few
you are almost guranteed to never get a teen flick from lions gate
which is great
if it says lionsgate on the back its bound to be a classic
but thats purley my opinion and may differ from the views of others
two thumbs up Apple
ive never wanted to download any of their movies but now that they have lionsgate on their side i can cancel mydigital cable (since they havent rolled out on demand yet) and just watch the 40+ bluray's i own and have itunes movies (on demand) and save some money
lionsgate is by far my absolute favorite film company
all there films are twisted weird adult mind set titles
they are the ones who make saw, ju-on, total recall, stargate, terminator 2, crank, rambo first blood, american psycho, young guns, resivoir dogs
just to name a few
you are almost guranteed to never get a teen flick from lions gate
which is great
if it says lionsgate on the back its bound to be a classic
but thats purley my opinion and may differ from the views of others
two thumbs up Apple
Yes, although some might disagree.
Walmart has handed the keys to the studio and let the studio dictate all terms (pricing, distribution, and title availability).
On the down side, Walmart is clearly in this as a spoiler, not as a true market competitor, aiming instead to keep their in-store DVD empire vital instead of fostering a whole new market. Thus, you see that prices are essentially equal to the real, tangible DVD prices (not sure if WalMart or the studio gets the extra profit from not having to manufacture and distribute physical media). Thus, you see that many/most titles you search for lead you to a link to order the DVD only, not a download link.
Some (many) might argue that signing with Walmart in this manner is, long term, quite detrimental to the studios. Then again, both the record and motion picture industries have been known to favor short-term profit or even stagnation over investing for long-term success.
I don't think the iPod will drive iTumes movie sales either.
TV, quite possibly. People want to watch movies in their home theater setup, period.Fundamentally, though, I'm not so hot on Apple's current movie offerings either. They still cost too much (even if $9.99 were an across-the-board price) for what you get (down-resolution, compressed video; stereo sound instead of 5.1 or greater; no extras; no dvd insert even) and are too difficult to pipe to the living room (having to spend multiple hundreds of dollars for a new set top box with only this functionality doesn't seem like it will take off). Spicing up the
TV might help in the latter regard, but I think really we'll need another round of industry concessions before downloads really become mainstream. And we have barely even started this first round!
sync hole
What you and the poster you quoted are kind-of, maybe missing is that the iPhone is designed to be mostly platform agnostic -- i.e., that the majority of owners may be Windows users. As I recall it's already been revealed that (initially at least) only Mac users will be able to sync contacts stored on their computers leaving Outlook users out in the cold.
Were Apple to try to expose the iPhone contacts syncing function to Windows (and Linux) users (assuming accessing Outlook data would not instigate a massive lawsuit from MS), they'll have to add software to non-Mac computers. They could possibly do this in several ways.
1. Add a separate syncing program which would probably be bundled with the iTunes/QuickTime amalgam that already angers some Win users (there is a way to download iTunes without Q.Time, but newbies and luddites are unlikely to figure it out).
2. Add the same functionality WITHIN iTunes as an applet that could be activated (with user approval) when iTunes detects that an iPhone has been docked to the computer. This could be something like what Apple has in mind.
3. Apple might use the same approach to serve its base of Mac corporate users who depend on Entourage (also not supported in any iPhone announcement I've seen).
4. However for some of us, this is all "sound and fury signifying nothing." (Shakespeare)
Mac Users like me with multiple computers who use online systems like gMail and Yahoo to manage our mail and contacts won't have to bother with sync at all. I found having multiple copies of mail -- some on one computer and some on others -- was a logistics nightmare, and after getting my first Mac I soon abandoned BOTH Outlook and Apple Mail and have never looked back, being quite satisfied with my combo of GMail and Yahoo Calendar (which nicely sends multiple text message reminders at user specified times before scheduled appointments).
Finally we dedicated FireFox users -- both cross-platformers like me and Mac only users who love the rich load of add-ons and extensions available on FF can only hope Apple will someday allow us to use our browser of choice on our Apple Mobiles, errr, iPhones...... ....that's what I would call "opening the iTunes/iPod/Apple Mobile ecosystem."
What you and the poster you quoted are kind-of, maybe missing is that the iPhone is designed to be mostly platform agnostic -- i.e., that the majority of owners may be Windows users. As I recall it's already been revealed that (initially at least) only Mac users will be able to sync contacts stored on their computers leaving Outlook users out in the cold.
Were Apple to try to expose the iPhone contacts syncing function to Windows (and Linux) users (assuming accessing Outlook data would not instigate a massive lawsuit from MS), they'll have to add software to non-Mac computers. They could possibly do this in several ways.
1. Add a separate syncing program which would probably be bundled with the iTunes/QuickTime amalgam that already angers some Win users (there is a way to download iTunes without Q.Time, but newbies and luddites are unlikely to figure it out).
2. Add the same functionality WITHIN iTunes as an applet that could be activated (with user approval) when iTunes detects that an iPhone has been docked to the computer. This could be something like what Apple has in mind.
3. Apple might use the same approach to serve its base of Mac corporate users who depend on Entourage (also not supported in any iPhone announcement I've seen).
4. However for some of us, this is all "sound and fury signifying nothing." (Shakespeare)
Mac Users like me with multiple computers who use online systems like gMail and Yahoo to manage our mail and contacts won't have to bother with sync at all. I found having multiple copies of mail -- some on one computer and some on others -- was a logistics nightmare, and after getting my first Mac I soon abandoned BOTH Outlook and Apple Mail and have never looked back, being quite satisfied with my combo of GMail and Yahoo Calendar (which nicely sends multiple text message reminders at user specified times before scheduled appointments).
Finally we dedicated FireFox users -- both cross-platformers like me and Mac only users who love the rich load of add-ons and extensions available on FF can only hope Apple will someday allow us to use our browser of choice on our Apple Mobiles, errr, iPhones...... ....that's what I would call "opening the iTunes/iPod/Apple Mobile ecosystem."
I can't believe the studios embraced UMD like they did, but are being so timid about iTunes.
Of course then again, they got to sell a product that was more expensive than the comparable DVD's had didn't have bonus features. I guess I can see why they liked it.
Of course then again, they got to sell a product that was more expensive than the comparable DVD's had didn't have bonus features. I guess I can see why they liked it.
Well - rah rah. Good for you guys in the US. Still no movie content for us here in the UK
Move here, I did
720p and 480p, Apple?
But if it is 720p how is it going fit on my iPod? Will I have to download twice? Re-encode? Buy twice?
But if it is 720p how is it going fit on my iPod? Will I have to download twice? Re-encode? Buy twice?
Closed Caption
This sucks. Everything sucks so bad right now. They still hadn't support subtitles or closed caption yet. I am very disappointed in this.
Boo on Apple and iTunes.
This sucks. Everything sucks so bad right now. They still hadn't support subtitles or closed caption yet. I am very disappointed in this.
Boo on Apple and iTunes.
That was me. Yeah, I understand why Apple did what they did. And it does make sense, from that perspective. When they announced the first iPod with photo features, it felt weird to me that you use iTunes to sync your photos from iPhoto. From a "correctness" point of view, you should either use iPhoto to do that, or use another app totally external to both (e.g. iSync). Of course, that's pretty inconvenient from a usability point of view.
It's the same thing now, just even more so. From a semantics point of view, it seems silly that a program called iTunes is the one that is syncing your calendars, contacts, photos, etc. to your phone. With the iPod you could argue that the majority of what you're doing is transferring music, so using iTunes makes sense. But with the phone, "tunes" is a secondary feature. But since iTunes is on everyone's desktop already, it makes sense for usability.
What would maybe make sense is to borrow the concept of the media browser (like how all iLife and iWork apps can access your photos and movies in similar-looking windows). iTunes would use one to help you sync your stuff to the iPod or iPhone, but you'd also have access to it in iPhoto, iCal, etc.
I would hope that the functionality of iSync is just built into the background services of Leopard. It would just work.