Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Wal-Mart Offers Up Downloadable Movies

Posted by Zonk on Tue Feb 06, 2007 07:02 AM
from the guess-who-i-don't-shop-with dept.
An anonymous reader slipped us the link to a C|Net article on another downloadable movie offering, this time from retail giant Wal-mart. Stinging from their loss to Netflix in the online DVD rental business two years ago, they are coming out swinging with this service. They've made arrangements with all six major Hollywood studios, and (the article theorizes) will likely have highly competitive prices. With Apple's dominance of this particular market, there is still no guarantee whether Wal-mart will have any success with this program. The biggest problem, commentators note, is that there is no guarantee Wal-mart's service will draw customers into their stores: the issue that ultimately caused them to scuttle the DVD rental service. What do you think of a major retailer getting into movie download business? Will the company be able to outmaneuver Apple and Netflix the same way it has done with other retailers in the past?

Related Stories

[+] Netflix Now Offers Instant Online Movie Streaming 247 comments
An anonymous reader writes "If you're the owner of a video rental store, it may be time to start thinking about getting into a different business, according to ZDNet. Netflix, the online movie rental service, is offering a new feature that allows its subscribers to instantly view movies and TV shows on their PC. From the article: 'Following a one-time, under-60-second installation of a simple browser applet, most subscribers' movie selections will begin playing in their Web browser in as little as 10 to 15 seconds. Movies can be paused and a position bar gives viewers the ability to immediately jump to any point in the movie. In all, the instant watching feature requires only Internet connectivity with a minimum of one megabit per second of bandwidth.' These movies are in addition to the standard DVDs you can have at home, it should be pointed out. You can see a demonstration of the service at the Hacking Netflix blog." Only a small percentage of customers have it available at the moment, but they hope to roll it out to everyone within six months.
[+] Video on Demand From the Public Library 89 comments
ye oulde library lover writes "In light of the recent story about Wal-Mart and movies on demand, readers should know there is a free service available from some public libraries that lets you download movies and tv shows. The service is just beginning, so selection is pretty mediocre, but the sponsors, Recorded Books and PermissionTV, make some big promises. If your library ponies up the dough for the top service, you will be able to download movies on the same day as their dvd release. All you need is a library card. You can see one of the early adopters — Half Hollow Hills Community Library in the library's blog. Look for MyLibraryDV."
[+] Apple: Can Music Survive Inside the Big Box? 90 comments
_randy_64 writes "In a story that ties in nicely with a recent discussion about the possible reprieve for Net Radio, the Wall Street Journal asks Can Music Survive Inside the Big Box? The article discusses how the 'big box' stores (e.g. Wal-Mart, Best Buy) are cutting back on space and acceptance of music CDs. With 85% of music sales still coming from CDs, maybe this is another thing to push the music industry towards better online sales models? 'Thanks largely to aggressive pricing and advertising, big-box chains are now responsible in the U.S. for at least 65% of music sales (including online and physical recordings), according to estimates by distribution executives, up from 20% a decade ago. Where a store that depends on CDs for the bulk of its sales needs a profit margin of around 30%, big chains get by making just 14% on music, say label executives who handle distribution. One of these executives describes the shift as a tidal wave.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Security (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nerdfest (867930) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:05AM (#17902750)
    If they can provide as good a security model for protecting identity and financial information as Apple, they've probably got a shot. With the record of other brick and mortar stores lately though, they've got an image that needs a little polish though.
    • Re:Security by marto (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:16AM
      • Re:Security by networkBoy (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:22AM
        • Re:Security by nuzak (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @03:14PM
          • Re:Security by networkBoy (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @06:33PM
    • Re:Security (Score:5, Interesting)

      by geeber (520231) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:32AM (#17902888)
      I think the bigger problem is price. At least for myself, I want to treat a download as a rental - get the movie quickly, watch it once and forget about it. However, according to the article, in order to keep the studios happy they have to charge a similar price to what the movie costs in stores (almost $15 for Superman Returns, for example). So you pay way more than a rental, but you don't get the cool packaging and liner notes that you would get if you bought it in a store. What is the advantage here?
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Security (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:18AM (#17903242) Homepage
        What's the advantage of most things they pump at us? I'm waiting till the studios figure out that they could pack boxsets on fewer discs using blueray/HD instead of just upsampling and wasting space. Nothing ruins the fun of watching a series than having to change DVDs every couple episodes (though maybe the getting up and changing the disc bit is how they force us to remain so uber physically active?)

        Tom
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Security by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:45AM
          • Re:Security by tomstdenis (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:19AM
            • Re:Security by jonnythan (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:38AM
              • Re:Security by tomstdenis (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:55AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Security by ppp (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @01:39PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Security by tomstdenis (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:28AM
              • Re:Security by Sandman1971 (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:42AM
                • Re:Security by tomstdenis (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:45AM
                • Re:Security by saboola (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:59AM
              • Re:Security by tomstdenis (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:44AM
                • Re:Security by beckerist (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:42AM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Security (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:37AM (#17904070) Homepage
          I've always thought the studios were braindead. I think most people would buy 2 or 3 CDs a week if they only cost $5. Instead, they make them cost around $15, so I'm lucky if I buy 1 a month. Most CDs aren't worth that much. It's even worse with downloads. Why would you pay $11 for the downloaded album, when you can get the CD for $15? iTunes don't really cost anything to distribute, so they should make it smart, and charge $.25 for a song. Absolutely nobody would pirate music because it just wouldn't be worth their time. People would be buying them like hotcakes, and the studios would be making even more money. But instead they inflate the price to the highest number they think anybody would pay, and make very few sales compared to the number of people who actually would like to have a copy of the song.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Security by tomstdenis (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:49AM
            • Re:Security (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Itchyeyes (908311) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:08AM (#17905398)
              That's pretty much the crux of economics. Different people are willing to pay different amounts. You can shout till you're blue in the face how you'd buy more if it only cost less, but it won't make much difference. If they lowered the prices on DVDs and CDs then they would certainly gain more customers. Doubling their customer base doesn't help any though if it means cutting margins by any more than 1/2. CDs and DVDs are both massively profitable items. I imagine that the prices are very carefully calculated to yield the maximum amount of profit (feel free to correct me if anyone has statistics to prove otherwise).

              In contrast though, I would say that downloadable videos and songs are nowhere near their ideal price. The biggest problem is all this DRM and poor quality drastically reduces their worth to consumers. As an alternative to current options, they're abysmal. Take a look at Walmart's store here. I haven't seen many details, but it's pretty safe to assume that these will not be burnable to DVD, will not play on anything other than the PC they're downloaded on, will likely be fairly heavily compressed, and will be DRM'd to hell. Given even one of those conditions is true, why the hell would I pay the exact same price as a DVD for one of these downloads? At least iTunes gives me some break on the price. This store will be dead in the water from the first minute and we'll just here more croaking from the **AA execs about how they can't compete with illegal downloading.
              [ Parent ]
              • Re:Security by ShimmyShimmy (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @04:55PM
            • Re:Security by tomstdenis (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:05AM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Security by truthsearch (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:41AM
            • Re:Security by CastrTroy (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:56AM
              • Re:Security by JazzLad (Score:1) Wednesday February 07 2007, @05:01PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Security by Grimbleton (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:55PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Security by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:48AM
      • Re:Security by Endo13 (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:42PM
      • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Security by QuickFox (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:20AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not if it's like their stores. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KingSkippus (799657) * on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:07AM (#17902758) Homepage Journal

    Will the company be able to outmaneuver Apple and Netflix the same way it has done with other retailers in the past?

    Not if Wal-Mart takes the same attitude with online movie downloads as they do with their stores.

    Wal-Mart has always been about one thing and one thing only: Dirt cheap stuff. They might as well make it their slogan: "Wal-Mart, where you get Dirt Cheap Stuff(TM)." You can see this attitude in their stores with cluttered aisles, severe lack of cashiers, poor treatment of employees, etc. People have unfortunately been willing to put with this this because, well, they want dirt cheap stuff.

    The online movie download business isn't about dirt cheap, it's about customer service. The people who use it aren't poor; they're at least middle-incomers with computers and high-speed access to the Internet. If Wal-Mart tries to go dirt cheap on this service, they're going to get eaten alive in this space.

    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by kmac06 (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:16AM
    • Are you a parrot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shivetya (243324) <(shivetya) (at) (archonon.com)> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:23AM (#17902840) Homepage
      because if you aren't you sure do imitate one.

      I get so tired about hearing how wal-mart supposedly abuses their employees. Look, I know people who work there and they don't have any qualms. Some are students working there (because 24hr operations offer flexibility) and others just because they don't look elsewhere.

      While people love to rant about the items Wal-Mart sells how do these same people explain the grocery sections? Same brands as the big supermarkets at significantly lower prices. Heck I can find similar names in their department side of the operation as I can at the mall and save money.

      Which brings me back to the online experience. Customer service isn't the real issue, its ease of use, selection, and then cost which will make or break their service. Other than end user billing issues the downloading side shouldn't be that big of a problem. I don't think that the majority of users out there have sufficient bandwidth for high quality downloads.

      Why should Wal-Mart get into this? Easy, because it has such a low cost of operation. Pay for bandwidth, the servers, and that is a lot less than a B&M existance. They will still have lots of DVD in their stores but when people finally give up buying DVDs Wal-Mart probably hopes to be established enough to get that business.

      I still don't see why people think Apple's service is that great. iTunes is good, but the series and movies are not the quality I would pay for, especially at the price some of the offerings are. A friend told me that the XBOX service is the best way to go but I doubt I will buy a 360 just for movie downloads.

      So Wal-Mart gives us a new option. The more the merrier. The free market is a much better decider than other approaches. If Wal-Mart succeeds then they will do so because they deserve it. If they fail, that also is their fault as well.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Are you a parrot (Score:5, Insightful)

        by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:52AM (#17903008) Homepage Journal
        But how Wal-Mart treats employees can and does affect the tax payer. Case in point, Wal Mart got into a lot of trouble over stating that many of their workers in Maryland would be better off on the state's(tax payer funded) insurance than on Wal-Marts(Walton funded) insurance. Another even more reckless point is that Wal-Mart stated that inclimate weather is no longer an excuse for being late for work. How many white collar employees that weren't in critical(and thus usually better compensated compared to their peers) roles would accept this? It also puts everyone else in danger. While obviously there are exceptions, I would wager that more often than not Wal Mart employees tend to drive less reliable cars that are less likely to have snow tires and they are less likely to have (good) car insurance. So what happens if they are rushing to work after dropping the kids off in bad weather and they wreck because they were trying to satisfy Wal Mart's unreasonable demands. They may cause loss of life to themselves or others, they are more likely to cause significant property damage that they cannot pay to recompensate, traffic may get snarled, the police may have to spend money getting them out of there. Everyone BUT Wal-Mart loses, and yet it is Wal-Marts policy. They would rather see this happen than give someone an hour or two of overtime while they are covering a shift for someone who cannot make it into work. That is how Wal-Mart's policies towards employees hurt everyone.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Are you a parrot (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Undertaker43017 (586306) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:13AM (#17903798)
          Most Wal-Mart store employees are not white collar employees, so comparing them to what white collar employees may or may not expect isn't a fair comparison. Most blue collar employees are expected to be at their jobs at a certain time or they get docked pay, that's way it is, if you don't like it, find a job you can make it to on time or better yourself and move into a white collar job, where the expectations MAY be less.

          As for the weather making them late, maybe they should plan better. I have never had snow tires (even though I could easily afford them) on my car, and I'm not involved in accidents or late for work when it snows, because I plan ahead and leave earlier. BTW, most of the accidents I see in the snow are caused by idiot SUV drivers that think they are invincible in the snow, but forget that ultimately you have to stop that beast. I would be surprised if a majority of Wal-Mart employees are driving $30K+ SUVs.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Are you a parrot by Ahayuta (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:58AM
        • Re:Are you a parrot by kabocox (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:37AM
        • Re:Are you a parrot (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Chmcginn (201645) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `ranarubga'> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:53AM (#17903600) Journal
          Do you have children? Have you ever tried to take them to day care and/or school an hour, or even half an hour, early?
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Are you a parrot by vertinox (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:12AM
        • Re:Are you a parrot by pkulak (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:39AM
        • Re:Are you a parrot by nine-times (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @01:13PM
        • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Are you a Wal-Mart manager? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by KingSkippus (799657) * on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:01AM (#17903068) Homepage Journal

        I get so tired about hearing how wal-mart supposedly abuses their employees.

        Then we agree, because so do I. Although my solution isn't to ignore it happening and rationalizing that it's okay because people obviously work there, it's for us to try to get them to stop.

        While people love to rant about the items Wal-Mart sells how do these same people explain the grocery sections? Same brands as the big supermarkets at significantly lower prices. Heck I can find similar names in their department side of the operation as I can at the mall and save money.

        The same way I explain their stores. If you don't mind digging through misplaced stuff to find what you're looking for, putting up with aisles that are three feet wide, standing in line for half an hour because there are only two cashiers, and don't have any questions about what you're shopping for because the people that work there ignore you and have no clue what the hell they're selling just so you can save a few cents on your Charmin, then Wal-Mart is a great place to shop.

        I have too many incidents of unhappiness at Wal-Mart to recount them all here. The two that stick out in my mind were when I needed a few simple items one Saturday afternoon before Christmas several years ago. I walked in and saw two--two!--cashiers open, and people lined up too far to see. I would have been in the store at least an hour. I walked out, drove ten miles to the Target down the street, and haven't been to a Wal-Mart since. The other time was when I sprained my ankle and needed an ice pack and Ace bandage. Wal-Mart was the closest store to me (a mile or so away), so I drove down there, hobbled in, and hobbled back to the pharmacy section. A worker there who was stocking shelves literally watched me as I painfully limped up to her and said that my ankle was sprained, and I would appreciate it if she'd help me find the ice packs and Ace bandages. She pointed away and said, "I think it's two aisles over, maybe three," turned her back to me, and went back to putting the stuff on the shelves.

        So yeah, you could say that I seriously doubt Wal-Mart will be able to do anything like run an online movie business competently, and even if the movies are, as I said, dirt cheap, I won't be using it.

        Customer service isn't the real issue, its ease of use, selection, and then cost which will make or break their service.

        Newsflash, ease of use and selection are part of customer service. Cost will be a factor, but I seriously down that the target market (no pun intended) for this service will be looking for movies that cost $2.95 to download instead of $2.99. They'll be looking for the stuff that Wal-Mart truly sucks at, stuff like, as you mentioned, ease of use and selection.

        Why should Wal-Mart get into this? Easy, because it has such a low cost of operation. Pay for bandwidth, the servers, and that is a lot less than a B&M existance.

        Well hell then, let's all get into the movie download business, since it's so cheap! You're forgetting the cost of developing and maintaining the software, marketing, and guaranteeing a certain level of service and uptime. These kinds of things are not cheap. If Wal-Mart takes their typical attitude of trying to do it on the cheap, you'll have software that is excruciatingly painful to use, lots of system down time due to back-end hardware and software issues, non-existent customer service and support for the mass of e-mail complaints that will pour in, and other such problems.

        So Wal-Mart gives us a new option. The more the merrier. The free market is a much better decider than other approaches. If Wal-Mart succeeds then they will do so because they deserve it. If they fail, that also is their fault as well.

        I don't propose anything different. I'm with you on this, let them compete in the ma

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Are you a parrot by whathappenedtomonday (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:04AM
      • Re:Are you a parrot by Gr8Apes (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:38AM
      • Re:Are you a parrot by p0tat03 (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:40AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re: "poor treatment of employees" by GPS Pilot (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @06:48PM
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by Lumpy (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:31AM
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Threni (635302) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:38AM (#17902920)
      > The online movie download business isn't about dirt cheap, it's about customer service.

      Don't be a dweeb. I want cheap downloads. I don't care about service, nor about the condition of the stores. I'm going to buy movies online from the cheapest supplier because what you'll be downloading will be *exactly* the same, no matter where you get it. I'm paying for it via a credit card so I don't care if the company goes bust or is dodgy - it's not my money on the line.

      Can you provide me with a single credible reason for ever going with a company other than the cheapest one for online movie downloads?

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by bouis (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:04AM
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xzvf (924443) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:32AM (#17903372)
      $19.88 download of Windows only crippled move. Not a deal. No extras, worse quality. Sounds like the Amazon movie thing. They appear to be trying to protect DVD margins when they should be trying to do what Wal Mart does best. Revolutionize the distribution chain to gain advantage. 1. DVD's take up a lot of floor space in stores. $$$ 2. Holding DVD inventory. $$$ 3. Physical Security. $$$ Use online distribution to cut costs, allow real physical copies that can be used in standard DVD players, and create a way people can buy DVD's in store (burning and cover art printing kiosks). Give people more for less, otherwise it will fail.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by cain (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:46AM
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by kabocox (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:10AM
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by Didion Sprague (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:11AM
    • In Store Downloads? by zotz (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:32AM
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by Brad Eleven (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:36AM
    • Re:Not if it's like their stores. by ksheff (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @05:09PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Apple vs Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zouden (232738) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:10AM (#17902774)

    With Apple's dominance of this particular market, there is still no guarantee whether Wal-mart will have any success with this program.
    I'm not so sure of Apple's dominance. I'd like to see some statistics about this market, but I got the impression that the Xbox 360 HD Download service is very popular- possibly more than iTunes?
    This'll certainly start to change when the AppleTV comes out, though.
  • Link (Score:3, Insightful)

    by giorgiofr (887762) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:10AM (#17902778)
    Am I the only one who lands on this article "Who really won during the Super Bowl?"? Is the link wrong?
    • Re:Link by kernelpanicked (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:41AM
    • Re:Link by physicsboy500 (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:44AM
    • Re:Link by ZeusAndHades (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:06AM
    • Re:Link (Score:4, Informative)

      by grimwell (141031) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:33AM (#17903386)
      And for an added bonus the link to Wal-Mart's video store within the story is broken.

      Article link [com.com]

      Wal-Mart Video Store [walmart.com] note: the site renders horribly in Mozilla & Firefox... at least for me.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Link by MadAhab (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @03:05PM
  • corrected link (Score:5, Informative)

    by swissfondue (819240) <swissfondue@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:10AM (#17902780)
    The article can be found here [com.com]

    Walmart will also be selling TV series. They have more studios signed up than Apple, mainly due, I think, to Walmart's caving in to the Studios demands (same pricing as DVDs).

    • Re:corrected link by suyashs (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:19AM
    • Thanks by rinoid (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:53AM
      • Re:Thanks by QuickFox (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:14AM
        • Re:Thanks by rinoid (Score:1) Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:51PM
    • Re:corrected link by Dhalka226 (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:59AM
  • Rent 10 (Score:2)

    by mrmeval (662166) <mrmeval@NOsPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:18AM (#17902812)
    Get some trivially cheap item in the store free. Or get points good for money off stuff. Or....

    Kroger sold gas with 3cents off thinking people would enter the store. Bwa Ha Ha Ha...Now they don't give us poor scum anything off.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:24AM (#17902848)
    ... why the !&^!%# would anybody buy the virtual DVD?? This assumes people can't rip the physical object themselves - they're betting on people who pony up for fast internet links but don't use Google?? Oh, and don't own a DVD player.
  • WalMart vs. Netflix (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KaOsx42 (1024539) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:28AM (#17902862) Homepage
    I don't think that Walmart has a chance - Netflix and Blockbuster have the long tail. If WalMart is banking on only the 'major studios' they're missing the point - selection, selection, selection.
  • why? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:28AM (#17902866) Homepage
    everyone who gets into this space has to deal with "competitors" who offers a better product at the best price(free). That isn't really a position I would think a business would want to be in.
    • Re:why? by Aladrin (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:16AM
  • history has taught us (Score:4, Funny)

    by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @07:43AM (#17902962)
    It will succeed, just like Wal-Mart's DVDs-by-mail rental service.
  • There are already so many customers going to wal-mart, that even if the service is only used by a small fraction of their customers, it would still be a massive amount of people. That's the magic of wal-mart... super high volume!
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:20AM (#17903252)
    As usual with large chains, it doesn't matter if some product is successful. What matters is whether they consider the share they got in the market as meaningful, and whether they consider the market meaningful. It can be a loss maker, even for years to come, if they consider it a "future market" they will keep it rolling. And since it's "content via internet", it's by that very nature already something pretty much every beancounter considers a future market.

    Personally I'd say let's wait and see what DRM they include and whether it's breakable. If it is, it is a market. If it's not, it's not. Simple as that.
  • ...and (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Konster (252488) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:21AM (#17903262)
    Poor people shop at Wal Mart because they have to. The stores suck, the employees suck, everything sucks about Wal Mart.

    One thing they are missing is that very few basic broadband packages offer enough download size per month to allow stuff like this to take off. Most ISP's offer 5GB-10GB a month for their basic packages, which isn't nearly enough for Wal Mart to make money off of anything.

    Wal Marters will try this for a month, then get utterly shafted on usage fees then forget about it. The rest of us already have other venues to get movies.

    Wal Mart would have to price this at $1.99 to get any movement, they won't price it at that level; any level they do price it at will suck and no one will care.
    • Re:...and by Paulrothrock (Score:3) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:35AM
      • Re:...and by Aladrin (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:41AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Agreed... by msimm (Score:2) Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:44PM
  • Wal-Mart you say? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:25AM (#17903296)
    So, how did their music download business? Have they made a dent in iTunes yet? Or a scratch, perhaps?
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:25AM (#17903302) Homepage
    Wal*Mart is unlikely to make this work, because (whatever you think of them) their excellences are not in innovative use of technology. What they are good at is business deals that look good to their suppliers but turn out to benefit Wal*Mart in the long run... and in ratcheting down their suppliers' prices.

    How is Wal*Mart going to make their downloadable movies so much cheaper than the competition that they'll be able to drive the competition out of business? Force their IT department to outsource their movie download servers overseas?

    And on the Internet everything is nearby. When a brick-and-mortar Wal*Mart succeeds in killing off the local small-town businesses, the local residents are faced with the choice of shopping at the local Wal*Mart or driving a long distance. On the Internet, even supposing that (say) Wal*Mart drives Amazon UnBox out of business, you're not going to have to drive ten miles to shop at the iTunes store.

    The only way I can see Wal*Mart winning is if they use their famous muscle to pressure the MPAA into allowing their products to being delivered without DRM, and with the capability of burning a DVD. At the moment, the Wal*Mart video download website seems to be showing me such badly scrambled pages that I can't read how it works, but I don't think that's the way it works now.

  • Business Strategy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hey! (33014) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @08:53AM (#17903596) Homepage Journal
    Note how the business strategy is all about exclusive deals, about locking others out of content.

    This makes business sense, but the problem here is that unlike in the old days when you shipped content to a news stand or bookstore, it is possible to scale a content delivery business indefinitely. Not cheap, but if the consumer is paying the fare for bandwidth, it is feasible.

    The problem I see here is that it creates a situation ripe for a natural monopoly to emerge. If you get exclusives with enough studios, you cripple your competition. I'd love to download movies to iTunes, but so far they've only been able to sign up Disney. So it's nearly useless to me.

    This can create a situation where a magnate like Rupert Murdoch can gain incontestable control over a significant slice of mainstream culture. That is bad. The organization controlling distribution will eventually control the point of view people are allowed to see in movies and other media.

    This is why we need copyright term limitation. Either we take steps to restrict the freedoms of business to make deals like this, OR we strengthen the commons by expanding the public domain OR we accept control by a single entity over the bulk of information we have available.

  • Apple dominance? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Random BedHead Ed (602081) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:02AM (#17903696) Homepage Journal

    With Apple's dominance of this particular market, there is still no guarantee whether Wal-mart will have any success with this program.

    Apple dominance? While it's a fair bet that they sell a lot more movies through iTMS than any other vendors sell through through similar services, this industry is still extremely young - too young to declare a dominant vendor so early in the game. Let's table this and take up the discussion again in two years, when the positions of Netflix, Apple, Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Target, and other future players will be more clear.

    Now if you'll excuse me I have some torrent downloads to check on.

  • The superbowl (Score:1, Redundant)

    by babbling (952366) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:05AM (#17903732) Homepage
    Am I the only person who noticed that the link goes to an article about "who really won the superbowl"?

    Correct article. [com.com]
  • People in Stores (Score:2)

    by hhawk (26580) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:07AM (#17903744) Homepage Journal
    The comment was that the older service didnt' get people into the stores.

    My thought is they get enough people in the stores.. but they need to get more people to their web site, to use their various e-services. For example, you can upload digital photos to their site and they will print them and mail them to you.

    It seems that offering downloadable movies will appeal to the "net" segment of the population who would be much more into sshopping on their web site, etc.

    If they offer affordable movies I would certainly give them a shot and it would make me more loyal to the brand.
  • It Might be worth it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nathgar (995959) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:17AM (#17903836)
    Four things have to happen for me to even try it.
    The price is right for my preceived value of the show/series/movie.
    I can play it on my DVD player and computer.
    I can watch it any number of times.
    It's offered in widescreen format.

    Bonus: If they offer extras with the download like outtakes/deleted scenes and such from the movie.
  • Good Idea (Score:2)

    by techsoldaten (309296) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:22AM (#17903884) Homepage Journal
    1) Sell downloadable DVD movies at a loss to American consumers while competing against Apple the 800lbs Gorilla.
    2) ...
    3) Profit!

    M
  • Summary of comments (Score:5, Funny)

    by amyhughes (569088) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:25AM (#17903926) Homepage
    1) blah blah DRM blah blah
    2) blah blah I'm smarter than wal*mart blah blah
    3) blah blah wal*mart sucks blah blah
    4) blah blah the link is wrong blah blah

    You're welcome.

  • by AmbianceForce (995764) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:36AM (#17904046)
    This isn't something too new for WalMart. They have been doing music downloads for almost as long as iTunes has been around, and WM sells tracks cheaper than Apple. Advantage? Maybe, maybe not. One thing's for sure, for me to spend an hour waiting for a large download (or overnight for an HD movie), then the price better be significantly lower than buying a physical DVD in the store. I can drive to WalMart and be back with the disk in 30 min. Not only that, but I don't buy movies brand new, I get previously viewed DVDs from the rental store. Buy it for half price and it's guaranteed against scratches and defects (free replacment or money back). Bottom line for me, unless it hits a price-point on par with a previously viewed, it isn't worth the time to download.
  • bad link to c/net (Score:1)

    by gemtech (645045) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:44AM (#17904134)
    that is all I have to say.
  • System Requirementrs (Score:3, Informative)

    by JoeCommodore (567479) <larry@portcommodore.com> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:49AM (#17904214) Homepage
    What are the minimum system requirements to download a movie or TV episode?
    Switching to Konquerer I was able to browse a coherent page layout and locate these system requirements:

    Wal-Mart Video Download Manager
    - Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Vista (32 bit only no Macintosh or Linux).
    - 256MB of RAM or higher
    - 4 GB of hard disk space
    - A sound card
    - Speakers or headphones (if you want to play a movie or TV episode on your PC)
    - An internet connection (broadband recommended)
    - Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher
    - Microsoft Windows Media® Player version 10 or higher (version 10 is preferred for syncing to portable devices)
    - .NET 2.0 or higher
  • by NavyTim (1060580) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:58AM (#17904324) Homepage
    Interesting that Wal-Mart will have movies for d/l, but no allow a user to put them on the Zune (all 3 people who own them are upset), the PSP (isn't that what Handbrake is for), or that other player that 'some' own known as the iPod. If d/l a movie is only good for the PC / Laptop, then they miss out on the generation today that takes it all with them. Given the limits of Windows Media Player, and the upcoming Apple TV, this is yet another 'news item' that will prove they are missing the boat on the iPod generation. In addition, most movie studios were not entering into deals with iTunes for fear of Wal-Mart. Now that they will offer d/l's, the movie studios have no reason not to allow iTunes as well. Given the amount of $ Disney, etc is getting from iTunes sales, they will go for the bottom line = profit. NavyTim ; www.navytim.com
  • Image Problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Paulrothrock (685079) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @09:59AM (#17904354) Homepage Journal

    The people who do movie downloads are fairly well off. They've either heard about the societal costs Wal*Mart is creating, or view people who shop at Wal*Mart as inferior. They've been trying hard to overcome this but with little success. If you ask a fashionista to shop at Wal*Mart, you'll likely be met with laughter.

    If they overcome this, they'll have to let people understand why it won't work with their iPods. Unless they can work with Apple or the MPAA to come up with a different iPod-compatible system, it's not going to be very popular.

  • by Eivind Eklund (5161) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:00AM (#17904370) Journal
    Let me link you all to Wal-Mart partners with studios in download deal [com.com] on CNet.com, originally from The New York Times [nytimes.com].

    Eivind.

  • i don't rent a lot (Score:1)

    by phrostie (121428) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:37AM (#17904880)
    i tend to buy movies and rarely rent.

    if they give a better selection than what is in the stores, then it might be helpful.
    if it's something i can download and burn, that might work, but other wise i have no use for it.
  • blockbuster, wal-mart, and who knows else could benefit from a "no-internet" download service where you take your thing (laptop/usb harddrive/set top player/xbox) in to the store and snarf movies from the store's intranet at 100mbt/1000mbit. the store downloads movies and then sells them to you. there would be far fewer costs (intranet webserver + NAS + ecommerce app). the stores themselves may only need DSL internet connections.

    you could even ship the movies to the store on a drive or disc to save on internet costs.

    if i could go into the store and get super cheap movies (saving the draconian DRM discussion for another day) onto a drive in minutes rather than days then ultra-convenience might just rule over price, brand name, and quality.

    i think that the super fast no-net option will be the saving grace of the brick and mortar shop when it comes to selling software, movies, and music. the stores can save shelf space for merchandise that cannot be downloaded, the retail chains can save fortunes on not hauling pressed discs around the country in trucks, and blockbuster, walmart, and the rest will finally have an edge over net-flix and iTunes.

  • Why would anyone use these services? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BrianRoach (614397) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @11:52AM (#17906194)
    From TFA: "Download prices will be $12.88 to $19.88 on the day of the DVD release; older movies will start at $7.50"

    I don't get it. I really don't.

    Why would I, as a consumer, pay the same amount of money as a real DVD at the store for an inferior product (DRM restrictions, lower resolution, etc)?

    I then have to download it (time, bandwidth). Comcast still enforces their 40Gb per month limit ... so I also just used up 10% of my monthly internet access to boot! I could drive to walmart (there's one 2 miles from my house, surprise!) and buy the thing in the amount of time it takes to download it.

    No thanks, I'll keep renting and buying real DVDs. Maybe once we all have the equiv. of FIOS and they either price the inferior product accordingly or offer the same product I can buy in the store, I'll think about it.

    - Roach
  • Bandwidth (Score:2)

    For me, bandwidth is a problem. People in my neighbourhood have caps if they use cable broadband. And that includes me.

    For me, selection is a problem. Ever since Blockbuster started with the their "new" keep the movie for too long, and you bought it policy, they don't seem to be restocking old popular movies.

    What I would like is something similar to the Kodak photo kiosks already in WalMart stores. A kiosk that allows me to browse songs and movies, with short samples. When I find content that I like, it will transfer to media, and bill me. It would have to burn DVDs and CDs, and produce cover art. It would be nice to produce MP3 and MP4 for portable players directly as well (at a much reduced cost) and write to flash media and USB media.

    If something like a media content kiosk is produced, the next step would be to open the content delivery "on-line" as well (I imagine that there would be a repository, or repositories of material to be sent to the kiosks).

    Just dreaming...
  • by Kyle_Katarn-(ISF) (982133) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @10:29AM (#17904766)
    Yeah, I can't even view the page. There's all sorts of overlaid crap on the left side, and I can't read anything. Though I did make out something about "Unsupported Operating System"... (SuSE 10.1 for the record)
    [ Parent ]
  • by danlock4 (1026420) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:43PM (#17907208) Journal
    Ever heard of the IE Tab [mozdev.org] extension for Firefox? ...if you use Windows, of course. :-)
    [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by jmrives (1019046) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @01:26PM (#17907936)
    Oddly enough, I am able to view the website using Safari. But, as others have pointed out, trying to view the site with Firefox is impossible.
    [ Parent ]
  • 9 replies beneath your current threshold.