businessweek.com — I wonder if the $14.99 would allow you to keep the Movie or if it's a 'timed' service. The announcement is expected by mid-September, with prices of $14.99 for new releases and $9.99 for older movies. I would have to guess is that there would have to be a new hardware product to go with such an announcement too.
Aug 31, 2006 View in Crawl 4
spancaSep 1, 2006
That's far too expensive given you've got bandwidth costs to cover as well. If they're going to offer decent quality as well as the extras that a DVD of essentially the same price, the price would want to be a fair bit lower than US$15.Then there's the DRM...
clabbergrrlSep 1, 2006
One of Apple's biggest assets is their affluent and gullible customer base. They'd be nuts *not* to monetize that.
omaryakSep 1, 2006
$14.99 makes keeping a large library of movies unaffordable, but it is cheaper than a DVD.
robdavySep 1, 2006
"It just shows that the media company just charge what they get away with, and they're getting away with to much IMO."A company charging the most they think the market can take? GOD FORBID!!!! It's called capitalism people
winmac96Sep 1, 2006
Burn it to a DVD or not, those blank DVDs you just bought paid a good portion to the MPAA as royalties assumed on each disc.@DavisTheDiggerThis notion did not prevent Apple allowing you to burn songs bought from iTMS to a CD and be re-ripped anywhere. The same rule should also apply to DVD burning or this $14.99 won't fly.
enjourniSep 1, 2006
The MPAA is drinking kool-aid. I could stand AAC from iTMS since it's fairly close to CD quality. But there is no point in paying $15 for a stripped-down DVD. I'd rather crack a bought DVD and put in on the iPod.
nealvSep 1, 2006
This account has been closed by the user
inkswampSep 2, 2006
Let's see. I make a factual post that someone doesn't want to hear and it gets dugg down (I've seen many, authoritative articles about the quality of iTunes music and it's not nearly as bad as some of you scream about) and yet this comment which is demonstrably incorrect gets modded up:> It is DRM infested s**t that can only be copied a limited number of timeIf you've ever read the extent of what can be done with DRM, you'd recognize that iTunes is far from "DRM infested". Additionally, you can copy an iTunes track as many times as you want. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Don't bother answering because you and I both know you don't. You don't know what you're talking about. Typical. We're seeing the gradual Fark-ing of Digg. This is going to become a place where people spew opinions and smart-ass comments and scream in defense of their point of view regardless of its value instead of something worth reading or something meant to inform. Congrats on adding to the noise.