What is Digg?64 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32"How do you acquire movies you would like to watch?"
"Yea, well, I download all my movies via BitTorrent."
*flashes badge* "This way, sir." - election, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24focus groups are always wrong. what people SAY they'd do and their actual behavior often contradicts
- AllenS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13But you also have to be aware of the fact that digg's populace may not be representative of the population as a whole. We may be prefer, and be very happy with, downloading media. However, less tech savvy people may prefer the ease and familiarity of their video rental store.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Also, rented DVD = purchased DVD but at a lower price. Just rip your rented DVD and you have it for keeps.
- AJH16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9You mean people don't want to spend the same to rent or purchase a movie online as a huge, "copy protected" file that they have no guarentee will work on their future computers, is almost always lower quality than it's DVD counterpart and is far less useable as they would spend to get a good old fashion DVD that they can use anywhere and can easily transfer to another format when DVD's become outdated, should they so choose? I wonder why consumers would want to pay the same and get half the product.
- apache2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9wow... you have a limit on bandwidth? that ***** blows, sucks to be you
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's obvious because it takes a long time, there's no convenient way to play it on their TV, and they don't want to steal.
- gaberowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7People that want to rent a movie will not buy a movie at the current pricing scheme. People that want to buy a DVD will buy a movie via iTunes or wherever in the near future. I am starting to realize, as I'm sure many are, that you can simplify your life such that you have practically all digital content and no physical content. Moving is so much easier without gobs of stuff. Now if I could just get a t-shirt that washes itself while lying on the floor.
- nauzilus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Nearly half of the online consumers interviewed by ABI said they would never purchase a movie online for download, because they were happy with the status quo."
The "status quo" being what? Rental DVDs or purchased online? As election mentioned "what people SAY they'd do and their actual behavior often contradicts". How many people are going to admit do illegally downloading movies in this day and age?
Not to mention it's only 1,700 people, seemingly from all categories. They say half are happy with the current system? If it's a fair sample, surely half would be about say 30 years old or less. I stipulate the upper half of that age group would on the whole not be actively pirating movies, the lower half not be so adamant to admit pirating movies.
"For the record" I prefer to get my movies from Block buster or go down to Hoyts to catch the latest releases. *cough cough* I also need to see a doctor about my cough. - zirtbow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9I used to buy most movies but then I realized that for about 95% of them I would watch them once and maybe never watch them again. Soon after I realized renting them made more sense and I could buy them later on down the road if I wanted to watch them again. Also I'm pretty impatient... when I decide I want to watch movie X I want to watch it NOW not in an hour or two when my overpriced slow/capped cable modem can download a somewhat worse looking version than a DVD.
- twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I can easily see why people would prefer video rentals and satellite offerings. If they have a really good tv, theres no reason they wouldn't want to use it to its full potential. I know I would.
- leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4How is it that download rentals cost more than physical rentals?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4thats because consumers are idiots that dont know how to work a pc
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -0/+3most people also don't have a connection from their computer to their TV. if more people had a VGA converter that acted as a second monitor, it'd be an entirely different story.
that, and all of the legal download services are ***** that's littered with worthless drm, and are astronomically slower than torrent networks. - m00dc0ntr0l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree, this is like asking people if they'd rather take their gas powered car to work or their solar powered car to work. Of course they'd rather take the gas powered car, because the other is in its infancy. Ask again in four years. Everyone would rather download, it's just that the experience is ***** right now.
It's a stupid question that says more about this instant than anything about the future. - XTrek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Downloads are great, I just value them less. If it's a buck or two for their highly restricted legal movie download/rental then this becomes appealing
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3With the newer HDTVs on the market, we will start to see more and more TVs that are quite capable of being used as computer monitors. In time the market will adjust and cheap computers will become available that are quiet enough to use with it. It will just take a few years for the prices to reach a point where a HDTV and Computer match-ups are common. For now, only the extreme techies will have such a setup..so no surprise that downloads aren't focus grouping well.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When we finally get to fast connections (100 Mbps) that could start a movie in say 15 seconds and settop boxes like that stupid mac thing start to become available and popular, I think most would start to prefer downloads to rentals. For now, it is a niche market and this focus group result shouldn't be a surprise.
- Jaymoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Technology aside... I believe that people prefer rentals/TV to downloads because of the couch factor.
Having a great 30" HD monitor is great... But it's rare for users to have that kind of screen for their computer. People would rather sit back on their couch, and watch the movie on their television.
I gotta admit, when I first got my Xbox modded... EVERY TV show/movie/etc was watched through the Xbox on the TV. I just can't stand to sit at my computer, no matter how great the quality or sound is. I would much rather just sit back, relax, and watch from the couch. - joshualindquist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All about cost to me. I'm not paying more than $5 for anything I'm only watching once, maybe twice. I prefer to download it. Make it a torrent/bandwidth sharing system and charge for rentals. This would discourage people from renting DVDs and just copying them, or downloading them illegally. At least it would for me. Bottom line, no $20 from me for one title. Not happening. I work too damn hard to shell out that kind of cash for a movie that's tossed on an already dead format (pick one it doesn't matter, they're all on their way out including anything "new"). Besides, people can't build movie collections worth having when formats change constantly.
- Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Kuipo
Yeah, but its not all in my face like on my computer. - Cappez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Belgium has some of the worst deals in Europe...not enough competition.
- SniperX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Marked as inaccurate for 2 reasons:
1) It's saying people prefer movie rentals to downloads, but the report clearly states that they asked the people if they PURCHASED video online, which doesn't necessarily indicate that they don't watch downloaded shows/movies.
2) It's still too early to start indicating to the big companies that digital downloads arn't worth the investment, because they are, there's just still too many kinks in their business models. Work those out and the movie downloads will kick in to gear.
Stories such as this FUD are what scare companies away from wanting to invest into new pro-consumer ideas. - xamox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Yeah I would much rather get bundled up, warm up my car, brush the snow off, drive through a ***** snow storm 15 minutes then 15 minutes back home instead of sitting on my ass and pressing a button.
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Video on-demand services will be what kills video rental stores assuming "net neutrality" regulation doesn't prevent ever getting the quality of service capability to do it. It will just be a TiVo style set top box that you select what you want and start watching instantly or cache to the local disk for later.
- badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Remember a few years ago when eBooks were coming out and computers were at an all time high in sales and being accepted into the family home? Remember how they said, "OH NO! Paper books are doomed!"
Yeah...
Same principle at work here. - Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DirectTivo solves my need for a couch. I have hundreds of hours of stuff I have not even watched yet on my upgraded Tivo.
- Haohmaru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I prefer rentals to downloads. No DRM crap and worrying about my HD crashing and then having to pay for the movie AGAIN!
- thedonga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2sorry I think this is way off base, look at how many people use on-demand and ppv.
maybe this isn't truly "downloading" a movie, but.... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yer Id much rather wait 6-12 months for a video to come out on rental than download it overnight the moment it has been released.
- AstroZombie138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think its mainly due to the quality of downloaded movies and lack of widespread PC/TV integration at this point. When systems like Media Center / Myth become the standard and 10mb connections are common then getting the physical media will become a thing of the past.
I equate it to the way we used to send large documents around via fedex. Imaged documents are the standard now and fax is even on the decline. - Cappez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Not everyone lives in the US...not everyone has lightning speed and unlimited downloads...
Until recently i paid more than $35 a month for Internet and had a monthly download limit of
1.5 WHOLE GIGABYTES!!
Yes...that's ONE MOVIE A MONTH!! (and no browsing)
(which was the best deal in brussels) - kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is what I find interesting. Video On Demand is nothing but streamed video from a central and localized server owned by your cable provider. It's a one hop stream which is why it's so fast.
Streaming over the net has to go through MANY hops to finally get to your set top box, or what have you. It's doable but not the fastest method for video. - ECSnorway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I am sure download speed is an issue. I also think there is something to be said for holding, or renting a physical DVD in your hand. People like to pay for objects more than data. (Most people anyway.)
- ECSnorway, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I am sure that scenario represents the majority of rentals. I am surprised you didn't throw in a polar bear to really emphasize your point.
- Insignis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nobody (the masses) wants to sit and watch a full length movie on their PC. I have all my DVDs ripped to a NAS that I stream to my TV. But very few people do that. And if I am going to pay for a downloadable movie, it better be the same quality as a DVD or HD DVD, and I better be able to play it on any device I choose. Since none of that is happening soon, I vote for Movies I can purchase or rent locally or online in DVD format.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even when the platform is eMule or Bittorrent? I know I prefer downloads to rentals ;)
- Cannfodd3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love my Netflix subscription and those little red envelopes that come a couple of times a week, but aren't Netflix even looking to launch a video download service some time soon? I have a feeling they might be able to get it right and they're a big enough market force that the movie studios etc would be crazy to ignore them.
If Netflix can do it and do it so it's easy to use and fast, I'm so there. - isosceles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Conducting research like this is kind of silly since they are asking about habits and actions related to bleeding edge media technology services.
It's similar to asking someone if they would rather go to the store and buy a CD or download it through eMusic before eMusic was created. - BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They've been talking about it for a while but I don't see it as very marketable with no hardware. The people in the best position right now are Microsoft with XBox Live and maybe Sony with the PS3 but I haven't seen their on-line service. TiVo had big potential but they seem to be self destructing.
- Kuipo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Haohmaru
You DVD's don't have their own versions of DRM? And what about the blueray and/or HD-DVD rentals people will be renting soon enough.. those both have just as much DRM as a movie download. No-DRM isn't a good reason for this argument. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1# most people i know - especially the ipod crowd - rent movies via netflix or blockbuster and then rip them.
I think this report is only looking at elder generations that prefer their tvs over the computer. The younger generations like videos online, and they're the ones that aren't getting interviewed because they're in an age bracket that is extremely difficult to sample for interviews (18 and below because of legal issues).
The long tail is clearly evident in music and videos, otherwise you wouldn't see AOL offering those movie downloads. Plus take a look at those tv sites like http://www.freetube.us.tc or www.peekvid.com or http://www.youtube.com - I mean there doing well so there is a demand for these things, to say otherwise is just ignorant. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When someone offers them a set top box with an internet connection that downloads DVD quality movies and plays them on their tv, the video store will become obsolete. Netflix is a success, and video download is the next logical step sice it reduces the latency.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the market demands it, they video services will build the infrastructure. Just like google has server farms around the country, so could a video on demand service. That would reduce the hops and make it more usable.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought everyone had a 1080p tv with a hdcp dvi connection to their computer. Maybe that's just me...
- Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So you would rather wait a couple hours to download a poor copy of a DVD (or camera stolen of a current release), Burn it to a DVD and watch it on your big screen. Oh wait you watch your movies on your 20" (giving you credit) computer monitor sitting in your desk chair.
Seriously, how many people really do that? Or have a computer hooked to to your TV?
Sure, I have the know how to do it but my GF does not, my kids can't. So this would all fall on my shoulders. Nah, I say send the GF to the Rental store, use Netflix or Tivo it off the Satellite Dish. We do the Tivo thing. Everyone in the house knows how to use the Tivo even the 3 year old. - billuverma, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1I personally feel that for legitimate free unlimited movie downloads, vongo is the best place to go. Try 14 days free trial of today's hottest online movie viewing and downloads service – Vongo
http://movies.nitinblog.com/vongo-review
Also check the review of other websites offering unlimited movie downloads at very cheaper rates.
http://movies.nitinblog.com/online-movie-download- ...
don't believe on free stuff, it comes with virus :-). - joshualindquist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1iTV + iTunes Store?
- jonro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I belong to blockbuster.com and I always have a couple of movies that I want to see. I just pop them in the mailbox when I'm done and a new one shows up a few days later. If I want I can return a movie to the local Blockbuster and pick up a new movie instantly. Download services would have to present a pretty compelling product for me to switch. By the way, I only watch most movies once, unlike music that I listen to many times. Now, I only purchase movies that I really want to add to my collection. Now that I'm renting, I've gone from buying about 4 movies per month to buying about 3 movies per year.
- thatrez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the market research firm doesn't know anything. There data is faulty because they don't take into account all the people downloading movies off BitTorrent and FTP sites off the radar who will never pay the same price as a DVD for a DRM infested file that will play 3 times and they cannot download to a DVD or an equally inferior product. If their were services out there that allowed consumers to both have the option of streaming a movie and downloading a high quality version which they can burn to whatever medium with no DRM infestions then no one out there would mind shelling out the 20 bucks for a movie. (they'd probably still just rip and and put it on BT though).
-end transmission- -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is