arstechnica.com — There are a bunch of stories posted on digg about apple readying it's movie download service for 2007. According to this article from ars, the fact is that the service is ready to go, but disagreements on pricing between Apple and the studioes have delayed the launch.
Jun 19, 2006 View in Crawl 4
node3Jun 20, 2006
Being greedy is not considered a very good trait, and leads to stupid decisions which ruin things for everyone. Stupid things like charging $20 for online movie downloads.Seeking profit, benefit, or basically trying to get a good deal, is not a bad thing. We don't call that greedy until it crosses over into the realm either of exploitation (ie. oil profits, price-gauging in disaster zones, etc) or trying to charge significantly more money than seems reasonable in a market (such as in this case).I could really get into a pricing model of $5-$15. $5 for all those old movies that no one buys, $10 as an average price for most movies, and $15 for big blockbuster new releases (dropping down to $10 in a few months).If they want me to pay $20, they will absolutely have to make the movie available within a month of theatrical release (it should be same day, but anytime in the first month could be acceptable). Even a full DVD-quality download, with extra features and all aren't worth it when I can just buy an actual DVD for less.
angelpJun 20, 2006
@flashboca - Considering these so-called "stupid f**ks" are the target audience, it matters greatly what they say and feel since they're going to be the ones purchasing the product. They may not make as much as these studio heads, but they clearly have a better idea of what the Average Joe would want to pay and most people are not being unreasonable.
actorboyJun 20, 2006
Hahaha! Dude! That is so awesome! You took the words Hollywood and stupid and made them into Hollystupid! Hahaha! /sarcasmSeriously, try making your points without the childish name-play -- you might actually get someone who holds a different view to read and consider your opinion. Otherwise, you're just talking to the people who already agree. Kind of a waste of energy, don't you think?
dmannJun 20, 2006
Agreed...They need to realize that an itunes resolution download is essentially a rental. I know, you can keep it and watch it more than once, but only on an ipod or computer... People arent going to buy a film to keep in their collection this way.Then again, there are MANY times I would buy a flick, if there were a library similar to the Itunes one, as something to do on a boring night after getting off work.Studios, learn the itunes lesson, make the price reasonable, and people will pay for the things that they used to steal, out of sheer convenience. Even when the file is lower quality and less versatile, its CONVENIENT.Duh...
teradomeJun 20, 2006
Ha, yes, I had just blogged about why it's idiotic that movies aren't up on iTunes the day before all these stories hit, and I too thought that $5.99 was the right price, considering what it costs to see a movie in a theater in most parts of the country.The point I had made was that studios are looking at this too strictly as an end-product and not as an extension of the movie experience, something that can support both theater and DVD releases as well as gets a modest amount of money from the just-curious-enough who wouldn't have paid for it in the first place.
nsresponderJun 21, 2006
You bring up a good point about the pricing. The RIAA and MPAA think that their choice is between charging 99 cents or two bucks for a song, and between 9.99 and twenty bucks for a movie. What they fail to realize is that the REAL choice is between getting 99 cents for a song, or getting NOTHING, because people will just go find what they want on a P2P network. They've really shot themselves in the foot with the litigation. If's never a good idea to make your customers hate you.-jcr