Warner, Paramount, Disney, Fox, Lions Gate to Join iTunes Rentals

[pgwalsh]

I think AppleTV is key.

Rentals will succeed if the following happens

1) Big selection
2) Reasonable price ($2.99 is better than $3.99)
3) Fast downloads with no ISP throttling!!
4) At least 720x480, True 5.1 surround. This is what most people watch.
5) 24 hours to watch after starting to watch, not after downloading.
6) Ability to buy it directly from AppleTV, no need to go to computer. No need to even own a computer.

I'd never do it with 720x480. I think you need to have 720P which is 720 x 1280. It should also be NTSC at 60Hz. Of course you need surround sound and preferably in a Dolby or DTS format.

I think 24 hours is silly when you can rent a movie from a video store and have it for a week or keep it for a long long time with Netflix. I think it should be 7 days or so, but that depends on what the average download time is.

I think they should be selling the movies at this price. Let people burn them on DVD or Blu-ray at home.

 

[gvegastiger]

Apple has to have something up their sleeve with this to lure people away from On Demand. With the information we have no, it doesnt give any advantages over what is currently available while offering the disadvantage of having poorer quality and requiring an investment in equipment.

 

[dubhe]

This doesnt make sense on so many levels. There's already a great solution for watching movies immediately without leaving your home. Its called On Demand and most cable companies carry it. It costs slightly less or the same and its for 24 hours once you start it and its higher quality.

What in the world about this announcement provides people with an incentive to switch from using On Demand to going out and purchasing an Apple TV and getting less quality for the same price from iTunes and waiting for it to download before you watch it.

Jobs has to know that this is going to fail. This has to got to be a trial run so there will be more bargaining leverage with the studios.

I agree with your point, as a Sky digital customer I have access to movies on demand 24-7, however it doesn't come cheap and you have to watch it at set times. If you could download to your appletv or mac, and watch it at your leisure it might be more appealing. Being able to take it on the road would also be a bonus as I travel a lot, maybe download a movie to a iPod touch for the flight or train? Still, this wouldn't be every day.

I'm sure Jobs has a different angle on this, he generally knows what he is doing.

 

[jettredmont]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) BlackBerry8820/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/179)

Sorry naysayers, but:
- the pricing is competitive with cable + satellite on-demand pricing
- Apple can only offer what the studios will negotiate with them

A key skill in negotiating is knowing when to leave the table. You let your prediction be known, refuse the poor terms, and let them know that you wish them the best with the next sucker who comes in and sits down. Then, you come back in six months after they've found their pyramid schemes and arbitration designs were all fundamentally flawed, and you have their complete attention. Then you offer them a new deal, more heavily slanted in your interests than what they'd refused previously, and tell them they can take it or leave it.

Apple used to be good at this. Insanely, obnoxiously, scarily good at this. I wonder why they would settle for the deal described here, if indeed they did?

 

[sminman]

Maybe you will get a total of 24 hours to have it.

So...

Thirty minutes here, and hour there and then once the video reaches a total of 24 hours then it gets deleted or inactive.

Or after watching it, you get rid of it allowing you to get another movie on your list. This would be a nice subscription service plan.

 

[kkat69]

I really like this convenience. I have VOD but don't like that they don't have releases timed with when the new movies come out. It usually takes a few weeks before it's on there.
If Apple gets new releases the day they come out then it'd be flippin awesome!

I only snipped a bit of your post but you put the point in place. I am on similar thinking levels.

I do however think people are going overboard. 24hrs is the same price COX, Comcast, Adelphia, Charter all charge for VOD for 95% of their recent movies. This iTunes deal is NO DIFFERENT! Quality you say? We're not even sure what the quality will be so people are getting worked up for nothing. To short? B!tch at those cable companies and not just Apple then.

I'm no fanboi but did anyone ever stop to think this IS NOT Apple's idea? Seeing as how Apple had to give in to overpricing movies because the big name companies want to make up for lost DVD sales, this is probably the same scenario. "We'll let you rent out our movies but we don't like your pricing scheme, here's what we suggest and this is what we're willing to live with" and the 2 come to a deal and the 3.99/24 was the only thing that would bring everyone on board.
Look at it this way, if THIS was the case, at least Apple is trying to make it happen and pave the way for cheaper later down the road. Someone has to get the party started and at least they are doing it. Your other alternative is Apple saying "Sorry iTunes users, we're not gonna do it" then people would be complaining yet again and blaming Apple "why won't you do it, everyone else is."
Give and take people. I for one don't have the need to use this service but I'm happy to see it happen. These companies will realize that the world IS in fact going digital and physical media, though it will be around for a while still, is becoming less in demand. Personally I like owning the dvd's if it's something I want to hang onto. Otherwise, 3.99 for a family of 4 is pretty cheap.

Break it down:

3.99 for a movie
.79 for popcorn
.50ea or less for drinks
ability to pause for bathroom breaks
we can all watch in our pj's (can't do that in a theatre, well ok you can but some people be pretty upset)

Sounds good to me. if you don't like or agree with the service, I must have missed the fine print that says we're all obligated to use it. This service is an option. I love options. Option to watch/rent on iTunes, option to get a digital copy when I buy the movie so I'm not handbraking a copy, option to rent at BB or Netflix, option to hit up WalMart to buy the movie or option to not use any of the above and just read a book.

 

[zioxide]

These better be at least 720p with 5.1 AC3 surround sound... otherwise it's pointless and I'll stick to a regular dvd/blu-ray or a torrent.

48 hours would be better.. that way if you started it one night but didn't finish, you'd be able to finish it the next night. 24 hours would be cutting that close.

If not, then this is a ****ing joke and I hope it flops like the AppleTV has (partially because it requires an HDTV but then all the content is SD.. worst idea ever)

 

[jettredmont]

I'd never do it with 720x480. I think you need to have 720P which is 720 x 1280. It should also be NTSC at 60Hz. Of course you need surround sound and preferably in a Dolby or DTS format.

Close. Generally, horizontal resolution (aka "vertical lines of resolution") is conventionally listed first: 1280x720 is "720p". 720x480 is "480p" (I'm assuming progressive), and is DVD resolution.

Note that current iTunes video is, last I checked, capped at 640 horizontal (640x480 for full-frame, 640x360 for 16:9 format movies, 640x220 or so for super-widescreen 1:2.88 format movies). This is significantly less resolution than DVD (by a factor of 1.25 or so), and a whole lot less than 720p HD.

More important than the physical number of pixels on the screen, though, is the compression used to achieve that number of pixels. A highly compressed 1080p signal can look substantially worse than an uncompressed 480p signal!

That particular bit is really hard to quantify until we do a head-to-head comparison.

Good points on audio. Surround sound is critical in properly enjoying many movies. Apple would need to include a 5.1 or larger mix into their audio to compete there.

 

[jettredmont]

I do however think people are going overboard. 24hrs is the same price COX, Comcast, Adelphia, Charter all charge for VOD for 95% of their recent movies. This iTunes deal is NO DIFFERENT! Quality you say? We're not even sure what the quality will be so people are getting worked up for nothing. To short? B!tch at those cable companies and not just Apple then.

To put it quite simply: we expect better of Apple than of Comcast, COX, and Charter.

AppleTV is widely (and crushingly to my heart) regarded as a failure of a device so far. This is not because it hasn't sold well, nor because it hasn't offered something just as good as the competition. It is because it has not lived up to Apple's standards. Fairly or not, that is the bar by which Apple is judged.

Apple is capable of transforming whole industries. It has in the past, and we expect it will do the same again. Being just another vendor with a sorta-adequate device or service is perfectly acceptable for COX. With a name like that you couldn't hope for much more. But, for Apple, that is abject failure.

 

[manu chao]

24 hours?

Why not "once"?

Will the 'set clock forward when you rent' trick work?

Apple could force a time synchronizing during a download. You still could disconnect from the net and set the clock backwards after downloading.

 

[kironin]

So let me get this straight. I am expected to pay to watch a movie download for $4 ? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .....

For $9/month I can watch 9 hours of movies a month on Netflix and rent as many DVD's as I can watch one at a time. Just watching 1-2 DVD's a week puts me way ahead on this one.

Not in a million years am I going to pay half of what it costs to watch on the big screen in a movie theatre and only be given a 24 hour window to do it.

 

[pgwalsh]

That particular bit is really hard to quantify until we do a head-to-head comparison.

I'm going to assume if they start doing movies for things other than the iPod or iPhone then they'll use H.264 and it would only make sense to offer HD in 720P or 1080P. If not, then I'd probably stick to regular DVD rentals and continue to use my Oppo player until I buy a Blu-ray/HD-DVD player.

I'm hoping Apple beefs up the AppleTV and gives it some much needed improvement including the ability to rent Movies in HD and DVR capabilities as well as the ability to surf the web etc.

 

[chasemac]

We will find out soon enough about this rental thing, but the 24 hour $3.99 is just not worth it to me. The DVD is the best option for me.

 

[tjcampbell]

Too expensive.

 

[DaveTheRave]

Any idea how of how big the download would be? This would be good to have when you're stuck on an airplane for a few hours. They show the worst movies. It would be nice to have an alternative on an iPod. The problem is it might be too big for my 4 gig Nano...

 

[Elbon]

I like it

The possibility of an iTunes movie rental service is appealing to me. Here's why:

- I don't want to subscribe to Netflix. I don't watch enough movies, and I don't want to wait for delivery.

- I don't currently have a Blockbuster (or any other video store) close by, and I live fairly close to a major metropolitan area. Thanks to options such as Netflix and VOD, video stores are on the decline. I had pretty much stopped renting videos before the stores closed, anyways, thanks to the ridiculous late fees.

- Standard-def DVDs look just fine on my 720p HDTV. HD content would be nice, but it is certainly not necessary. I also have a 5.1 surround sound stereo, but I only have the front speakers hooked up. The sound is good enough for me.

- The selection will most likely be better than cable VOD and will hopefully be more persistent. Also, rent-to-own is not an option for VOD but could be for an iTunes service.

- AppleTV has other uses (photo slideshows, music library streaming, etc.). I want access to this via my entertainment system in my living room. None of the other options provide this.

- Renters will presumably be able to watch content on iPods, not just AppleTV. This is either cumbersome or simply impossible with the other options.

 

[stompy]

...appears to be the exact same thing as Amazon's Unbox:

"...you will have a limited period of time in which to begin viewing it. That period is 30 days unless otherwise specified .... After you begin playing an Amazon Unbox Video, you will have 24 hours to complete viewing it. After these expiration times, the Amazon Unbox Video will automatically be deleted from your computer or TiVo DVR. ."

Amazon's pricing is generally $3.99 per movie (some are $2.99).

So, it's no surprise that Apple is following this approach.



--DotComCTO

I think you've pinpointed the exact terms. Assuming this is how it plays out, will it be because Apple follows Amazon's lead, or because the studios dictate the prices (can't give Apple better terms than Amazon or they'll ruin us )

 

[bommai]

I'd never do it with 720x480. I think you need to have 720P which is 720 x 1280. It should also be NTSC at 60Hz. Of course you need surround sound and preferably in a Dolby or DTS format.

I think 24 hours is silly when you can rent a movie from a video store and have it for a week or keep it for a long long time with Netflix. I think it should be 7 days or so, but that depends on what the average download time is.

I think they should be selling the movies at this price. Let people burn them on DVD or Blu-ray at home.

You do know that NTSC is an analog format not digital. You also know that it is 480i (640x480i). Once you go 1280x720p it is digital, not NTSC. That is why Bluray and HD-DVD have not NTSC or PAL. It is just pure 1080p24.

Most people don't rent HD movies yet. There are a total of about 2 million HD capable players right now connected to HDTVs. How many people do you think have a setup that is capable of displaying HD movies. The only way to watch will be through AppleTV or using a Media Center PC/Mac. How many of these do you think is hooked up to a HDTV. May be 2 million. However, there are millions of people that may be interested in renting. Apple is generally not going cutting edge immediately. They don't want to cater to a small niche.

I know AppleTV sold about 400k units. Even if Apple starts the rentals with 720x480 (I hope it is not stuck at 640 for horizontal resolution), it might satisfy those people that are buying movies right now. I just hope true surround sound comes out soon. However, even quicktime cannot play it by default. So, unless Apple comes out with a big Quicktime update and iTunes update, I don't even see DD 5.1 available yet.

 

[isoS]

Amazon Unbox and Tivo have been doing what this service will probably do, but they have variable pricing -- some stuff is $2.99, and they have deals on certain releases (some new) that offer 99¢ rentals. You get 30 days to watch, but only 24 hours once you start watching.

The big downside: it's not HD. No big deal if you're watching on your laptop, but if you're watching on an HDTV, that kind of sucks. I rented "Hairspray" for 99¢ just to test the service out, and it was okay -- on my 42" LCD HDTV I would say it looked worse than a DVD but better than a VHS tape. For a movie I didn't care much about, it was fine. But if you're watching action, something epic, or something where the cinematography is a big part of the experience, this is no way to watch a movie. I love Apple, and would love an easy way to rent movies instantly from the couch, but this system/service won't work until it's comparable to the discs you can get from Netflix or Blockbuster and the on demand content you can get from your cable operator. I don't think people want to watch features on their computers (I know I don't), and I don't think people will buy an AppleTV just for this -- sadly, XBox already has the clear edge here, given their game library and their 720p Live Video offerings.

Solution: Apple buys Nintendo and merges the AppleTV with the Wii (they already look like cousins!).

 

[elppa]

Apple, please show some reasonably priced rental love in the UK,

$3.99 / 2 = £1.99

HOWEVER, this is apple - my guess £2.99

UK? We'll 8 movies to download… in two years time.

I bet those all-american TV shows at DVD prices are flying of the (virtual) shelves of the iTunes Store.

A lot of it is not Apple's fault though. Legally wrangling, economics and human greed all play a part in this whole mess.

 

[milo]

Wait, wait a sec. You're suggesting using an iPod to watch iTunes Rentals on your home theater in lieu of AppleTV??? That'll be great, why didn't I think of that? After iTunes finishes compressing the movie down to fit the iPod screen and then your iPod outputs it at 480i or 480p with stereo audio!!! Totally worth it.

My point is merely disputing all the "you can't watch on TV without aTV" comments. I'm sure aTV would be great to have, but all the people insisting it's absolutely necessary are wrong.

Considering that's the current resolution available from the iTunes store (iTunes doesn't have to rerender the movie), and that the aTV only puts out stereo audio, I don't see why the suggestion is so outlandish.

And I do this all the time. While real 5.1 would be nice, on old fashioned NTSC the picture quality isn't visibly worse than DVD.

What in the world about this announcement provides people with an incentive to switch from using On Demand to going out and purchasing an Apple TV and getting less quality for the same price from iTunes and waiting for it to download before you watch it.

I don't know if it's an incentive for people with VOD to switch, but VOD doesn't appeal to me because I can only get it with cable, which has a monthly fee. Even if I bought an aTV (which I don't even need to do), it wouldn't take long for the cable costs to exceed what the aTV cost. Also, VOD doesn't have the selection of the average download company, does it?

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely advantages to VOD. But there are disadvantages as well.

People need to realize that not everyone has the same needs, just because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean it won't appeal to someone else. All the "but XYZ is cheaper, so it has to fail!" arguments are like saying that it's stupid for the grocery store to sell a 16 ounce jar of mayo because the gallon jug at Costco is a better deal.

Ah, yes. And Unbox is setting the market on fire, too!

I don't think that's really the point...if apple is charging the same as Amazon, that means that it's probably because that's where they can both afford to set the price based on what the studios charge, right? Apple can't charge $1.99 per rental if the studios demand $2.75 per viewing, right?

And one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that companies renting actual plastic DVDs have the option of buying a copy for $15 and making pure profit once they've got $15 worth of rentals out of it. Unless the studios are willing to take a tiny royalty, it's impossible for a download service to compete with that.

 

[citi]

Most people don't rent HD movies yet. There are a total of about 2 million HD capable players right now connected to HDTVs. How many people do you think have a setup that is capable of displaying HD movies. The only way to watch will be through AppleTV or using a Media Center PC/Mac. How many of these do you think is hooked up to a HDTV. May be 2 million. However, there are millions of people that may be interested in renting. Apple is generally not going cutting edge immediately. They don't want to cater to a small niche.

I'm trying to follow you but your statements make no sense. Sure there may be only 2 million or so HD capable stand alone units sold, which I think is a little low. I would like to know your source for that, you haven't considered your PS3 Player which is BluRay by default and Xbox with the very inexpensive HDDVD add on drive. This alone places HD higher on the food chain the your analyst. Which is why XBOX Live HD rentals are doing so well. Why would people rent them if they didn't have HD TVs?

Also, the average household is more likely to have HD displays because HD content was avaible over the air for free via traditional top of the house antennas and of course then came satelites and cable tv before HDDVD and BluRay became common terms. Your facts may be a little outdated.

 

[ro2nie]

Apple could force a time synchronizing during a download. You still could disconnect from the net and set the clock backwards after downloading.

Why not record your mac's screen with SnapzProX or iShowU and save it as a mov file that you can play whenever you like

 

[kkat69]

To put it quite simply: we expect better of Apple than of Comcast, COX, and Charter.

AppleTV is widely (and crushingly to my heart) regarded as a failure of a device so far. This is not because it hasn't sold well, nor because it hasn't offered something just as good as the competition. It is because it has not lived up to Apple's standards. Fairly or not, that is the bar by which Apple is judged.

Apple is capable of transforming whole industries. It has in the past, and we expect it will do the same again. Being just another vendor with a sorta-adequate device or service is perfectly acceptable for COX. With a name like that you couldn't hope for much more. But, for Apple, that is abject failure.

So what your saying is if all those companies won't give the videos the way Apple wants them, Apple should abandon the idea? Say Apple says "We'll need these video's in XXX format for this to work", Fox-"No, if the users want it in XXX format they can pay more or go buy the dvd" we should expect Apple to say "well then we won't do this and we're gong to abandon the idea"

I for one would rather suck it up with 'reasonable' quality at first until the idea catches on. No need to invest to much in something that may or may not take off or be overrun by another service.

It's all about the all mighty dollar and Apple has and is investing some but the real people to stand to loose or gain are the movie companies that count on certain sales.

Hey I'm just being objective here and trying to see what could be a potential reason rather than be a h8r and doing the "It's Apple's fault" thing. It may or may not be them. At least it's happening and again, no one is forcing anyones arm to partake in the service.

While I leave this thread I must reiterate, To anyone who takes offense to anything I say I only have one thing to say - "if what I say offends you then it probably applies to you."

 

[currentinterest]

Prediction

Here is what I think it will be:

1a. 720p, view while downloading (won't have to wait)
1b. $3.99 good for 24 hours from download start because of #1a.
2. Lower quality iPod/iPhone size videos for purchase at $3.99, DRM like music; same as comes on DVD. (Perhaps lower quality videos, for rent for less, but doubt it.)
3. New Blue Ray Apple TV.
4. Software update for old Apple TVs.

A massive hit.