Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Wal-Mart Closes Online Movie Download Service

Posted by Zonk on Friday December 28, @01:34PM
from the hard-to-fight-the-flix dept.
eldavojohn writes "A year after opening its movie download service, Wal-Mart has abandoned the endeavor. They claim this is a result of HP's decision to stop supporting its video download store software. The article also notes that, unlike iTunes, Wal-Mart offered variable pricing which attracted a lot of studios. 'The world's largest retailer instead turned its rental service over to Netflix Inc. Wal-Mart still operates a music download service and continues to sell CDs and DVDs at retail stores and over the Internet for shipping by mail.' Is this evidence of the strength of unified pricing in media downloads or just another company being squished by the giant Netflix & Apple?"

Related Stories

[+] Wal-Mart Offers Up Downloadable Movies 217 comments
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?
[+] Close but no Cigar for Netflix Recommender System 114 comments
Ponca City, We Love You writes "In October 2006, Netflix, the online movie rental service, announced that it would award $1 million to the first team to improve the accuracy of Netflix's movie recommendations by 10% based on personal preferences. Each contestant was given a set of data from which three million predictions were made about how certain users rated certain movies and Netflix compared that list with the actual ratings and generated a score for each team. More than 27,000 contestants from 161 countries submitted their entries and some got close, but not close enough. Today Netflix announced that it is awarding an annual progress prize of $50,000 to a group of researchers at AT&T Labs, who improved the current recommendation system by 8.43 percent but the $1 million grand prize is still up for grabs and a $50,000 progress prize will be awarded every year until the 10 percent goal is met. As part of the rules of the competition, the team was required to disclose their solution publicly. (pdf)"
[+] Postal Service Surcharge Could Slash Netflix Profit 268 comments
mikesd81 writes "Boston.com reports that Netflix Inc., the largest US mail-order movie-rental service, may suffer a cut in profits if the US Postal Service starts charging extra to manually sort the envelopes that carry its DVDs. An audit prepared by the Postal Service's Inspector General last month recommended charging one unidentified company 17 cents per envelope for labor costs. Citigroup analyst Tony Wible, who said in a note to investors Tuesday that the company is Netflix, estimated the charge might reduce profit per subscriber to $0.35 from $1.05. Wible advises investors to buy Blockbusters shares because their DVD envelopes don't have the problem (floppy edges that jam the USPS's automated sorting machinery). Netflix says the whole thing is no big deal and they will change their envelopes if necessary."
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Wal-Mart "squished"? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 28, @01:37PM (#21841464)
    Wal-Mart "squished"? I'd like to see that honestly.
  • Cost and lack of extras the reason. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jason Levine (196982) on Friday December 28, @01:37PM (#21841466) Homepage
    I never used the service myself, but apparently, the movies cost $20 each. For that price you could back up to DVD three times, but not to a format that played in a DVD player. Also, you didn't get the extras that typically come on a DVD. So you paid more money, for less content, that could be used in less places. And they wonder why it wasn't successful?
  • Squished? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheebie (459397) on Friday December 28, @01:40PM (#21841504)
    Do they actually think Netflix squished something run by Walmart?

    That's like saying the local burger joint is going to crush McDonalds! Sure, Netflix is a big company, but they're nothing compared to the Wally-world behemoth.
    • Re:Squished? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timster (32400) on Friday December 28, @01:46PM (#21841582)
      Sure they did. In this case, it wasn't even hard.

      Sometimes a big company will try some new endeavor to much fanfare, but not bother to try very hard, assuming somehow that they will win because they are big. When that happens it's easy to take them out. Wal-Mart had no plan here; they just thought selling some videos at terms dictated by the studios might get them some cash. If they ran their retail stores that way, those would fail too, but they put serious effort into their retail stores.
      • Re:Squished? by techpawn (Score:2) Friday December 28, @01:55PM
        • Re:Squished? by mcsqueak (Score:1) Friday December 28, @03:16PM
        • Re:Squished? by mabhatter654 (Score:3) Friday December 28, @03:42PM
        • Re:Squished? by Plaid Phantom (Score:1) Friday December 28, @07:00PM
          • Re:Squished? by innocent_white_lamb (Score:1) Friday December 28, @11:39PM
      • Re:Squished? by orclevegam (Score:1) Friday December 28, @02:52PM
        • Re:Squished? by irc.goatse.cx troll (Score:2) Saturday December 29, @05:36PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Squished? by hedwards (Score:1) Friday December 28, @02:07PM
      • Re:Squished? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Friday December 28, @02:41PM (#21842068)
        "Walmart is large, but it is horribly inefficient"

        I hate my local Walmart as much as the next guy. And individual stores may be inefficient or suck. But the corporation as a whole is extremely efficient. I work in the trucking industry. Walmart is one of the companies that can afford to spend $1000 on an experimental MPG increaser. Whether it be APUs for the trucks, side skirts for the trailers, single tire rears, etc. If engine company X can provide .1 MPG extra per year on average, that's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for Walmart.

        They forced use of APUs on ALL trucks after doing a trial run. At a trucking conference they presented their savings broke even at 16 months. Now a ton of other companies are following their lead.

        I thought I read on /. that they're going to RFID. As soon as Walmart forces RFID, maybe we'll see it everywhere. UPC is nice but old.

        I don't have a lot of nice things to say about walmart, but that they're inefficient isn't one of them.
        • Re:Squished? by markrages (Score:2) Friday December 28, @03:14PM
        • Re:Squished? by sm62704 (Score:2) Friday December 28, @03:36PM
          • Re:Squished? by 0100010001010011 (Score:3) Friday December 28, @04:09PM
        • Re:Squished? by geekoid (Score:2) Friday December 28, @04:15PM
      • this is just wrong.....it can't stand by tacokill (Score:2) Friday December 28, @03:05PM
      • Re:Squished? by CodeBuster (Score:2) Friday December 28, @03:18PM
      • Re:Squished? by fm6 (Score:2) Friday December 28, @03:24PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Squished? by snarkh (Score:2) Friday December 28, @02:07PM
    • Re:Squished? by LMacG (Score:2) Friday December 28, @02:31PM
    • Another Mom and Pop store destroyed by Netflix by elrous0 (Score:2) Friday December 28, @04:04PM
    • Re:Squished? by philwx (Score:1) Saturday December 29, @04:04AM
  • Wal-mart does what it does (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beckerist (985855) on Friday December 28, @01:41PM (#21841514) Homepage
    Wal-mart is successful because it has a very efficient method of physical distribution. This has no baring on their success in digital distribution.
    • That is only half of what Wal-mart does by AHumbleOpinion (Score:2) Friday December 28, @01:55PM
    • Re:Wal-mart does what it does by Original Replica (Score:3) Friday December 28, @02:03PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Wal-mart does what it does (Score:4, Insightful)

      by moderatorrater (1095745) on Friday December 28, @02:13PM (#21841838)
      Let's not forget that Wal Mart was the first to really push a large number of stores in medium-sized cities. My hometown (~10,000 people) has three other comparably sized cities within a 5 minute drive and then one much larger city within a 15 minute drive. All of the other chains were opening stores in the large city 15 minutes away when Wal-Mart opened one in my hometown and one in the larger city. Effectively, this made it so that one Sears had to compete with two Wal-Marts but, since each Wal-Mart targeted a smaller area, only one of the Wal-Marts competed with the Sears.

      I read somewhere that 75% of all KMarts and Sears competed with a Wal-Mart, but only 33% of Wal-Marts competed with a Sears because of this strategy. When you can beat your competitors on price, location, and convenience, you're going to do well no matter what.
    • by LanMan04 (790429) on Friday December 28, @02:45PM (#21842106) Homepage
      Your sig makes me want to kill you. :)
  • It's Walmart (Score:4, Insightful)

    by techpawn (969834) on Friday December 28, @01:45PM (#21841558) Journal
    When the download becomes the same cost as buying/shipping physical media I think most Wal*Marx shoppers would rather have the physical media. Knowing a lot of people who WILLFULLY shop at their "super centers" and also Not so willfully work there, they are generally not the most technically inclined.

    HP Dropping support sounds like a cop out... but a believable one
  • Businesses are NOT swiss army knives (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcsqueak (1043736) on Friday December 28, @01:45PM (#21841560)

    Is this evidence of the strength of unified pricing in media downloads or just another company being squished by the giant Netflix & Apple?"

    I think this is evidence of businesses trying to be too many things to too many people and slowly discovering that no, you can't be everything to everyone. "Jack of all trades, master of none" indeed.

    Focus on a specific market and DO THAT WELL.

  • Outside the Core Competency (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RobBebop (947356) on Friday December 28, @01:54PM (#21841656)

    While hindsight is 20/20... this is a classic example of an "Old media" company failing to adapt to the "New Media" because they didn't have any expertise in the current technology.

    Wal-Mart's core competency is managing their supply chain. They make money by being the most efficient supplier of products that are in local demand. They operate their integrated technological systems marvelously. They don't know jack-shit about the internet and "download-able content". They should partner with Amazon to run their webpage... though that would probably start to enter into an anti-trust area.

  • Too many restrictions... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by log1385 (1199377) on Friday December 28, @01:56PM (#21841672)
    Wal-Mart put some annoying restrictions on their movies. Here's a quote from their FAQ:

    Due to licensing restrictions, you cannot copy or transfer your video files and play them on a different computer.
    What if I want to watch movies on my laptop and my desktop? What if I decide to buy a new computer and can't watch my movies anymore? Wal-Mart should realize that people can just download a movie via P2P and not have to deal with any restrictions like this. I for one and much more willing to pay money for media if I can do whatever I want with it.
  • by Sloppy (14984) on Friday December 28, @02:06PM (#21841766) Homepage Journal

    Is this evidence of the strength of unified pricing in media downloads or just another company being squished by the giant Netflix & Apple?
    If you believe Wal-Mart's explanation, it sounds like this is caused by relying on single source software maintenance. Hey, software users: GPL is for you. It's not a hacker thing.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • It's neither (Score:2)

    by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Friday December 28, @02:09PM (#21841792)
    It's just a dumb business plan.

    Trying to do a downloadable media store without taking the iPod into account is like trying to market an office productivity suite that doesn't read/write MS Office docs: You're doomed to failure from the start.

    If (and this is a BIG if) the movie studios wake up to the benefits of DRM-free downloads like some record labels have, the big winner here could be Amazon.com. They're uniquely positioned to equal, if not better the success that Apple has had. They're platform agnostic (for music, at least), , are known and trusted brand, have a working system for movies in place already (I've found that downloading those free Bugs Bunny cartoons to my TiVo was VERY easy), and have as much juice with the studios as Wal-Mart does.
  • No contract with HP? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NonSequor (230139) on Friday December 28, @02:10PM (#21841802) Journal
    Why didn't Walmart, of all companies, get a contract that insured that HP couldn't bail on them?
    • Probably had code escrow but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday December 28, @03:17PM (#21842378)
      You can't have a contract that compels another company to do something forever, that's just not practical.

      I would bet they did have a code escrow agreement - in the event HP decided to back out of doing the software (which they did) WalMart gets access and use of all the HP source.

      The fact that Wal-Mart is shutting down operations shows exactly what use code escrow is - jack and squat. What is WalMart going to do with a bunch of hacked together HP code, without any of the people who worked on it?

      Plus in general a problem with code escrow is that you can't look at the source before you take it over to see how feasible that proposition really is.
  • by Gavin Scott (15916) * on Friday December 28, @02:11PM (#21841816)

    In a statement, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Amy Collella said the company closed the store after Hewlett-Packard Co., which provided the software running the site, ''made a business decision to discontinue its video download-only merchant store service.''

    Walmart fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never buy any kind of application software from Hewlett-Packard! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

    Seriously, HP has the worst cace of attention deficit disorder of any company I've ever seen. I've spent 25 years watching them announce "the next big thing" only to completely forget about it a year later after having sold it to three big customers (who are then completely screwed of course). Anyone who buys a proprietary solution from them at this point deserves what they get.

    G.
  • DRM is what kills it for me. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by headkase (533448) <pickett.bill@gmail.com> on Friday December 28, @02:23PM (#21841918)
    I refuse to download anything that has DRM on it. Especially considering that right *now* I buy my DVD's through retail channels and rip them myself (my country doesn't have DMCA idiocy preventing that) to the format of my choice. And when I switch around operating systems I don't fall into the trap of "sorry you're unsupported". Buying retail and ripping myself is what suits me best right now. Maybe when online retailers realize that DRM actually does nothing to stop piracy and only pisses off the people who actually do buy the product they'll drop it. And when/if they do drop DRM then I'll buy online instead of retail.
  • Sales force (Score:3, Interesting)

    by abes (82351) on Friday December 28, @02:34PM (#21842010) Homepage
    Someone else pointed out that part of the issue is that Walmart sells DVDs already, and thus they were competing with themselves. I suspect they started the digital distribution because they realized long-term DVDs are dead. Even if a winner is ever found for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, it might be too late now. Not that people won't buy them, but for most movies digital distribution seems likely to become the preferred method.

    However, short-term, DVD is still king. So do they cut into their current sales for an uncertain future (can they really win against the other big-players? .. it's certainly out of their area of expertise), or do they go ahead with their current sales with the knowledge that they'll lose out later on? One thing to consider, their primary market is not exactly tech-savvy, and therefore will likely continue with DVDs for the next 10-15 years.

    Another possible explanation, is perhaps they realized getting into variable-pricing was a mistake. If history gives us any lessons, the media companies are greedy bastards. They don't seem to give much thought into long-term planning. This is one case where the intelligence of Apple really comes through. They realized that unless they could control the prices, companies would try to charge more money than the physical media costs. I suspect after some grace period, in order to save face, NBC will come back to iTunes.
  • Bad Summary (Score:2)

    by LMacG (118321) on Friday December 28, @02:36PM (#21842026)
    Yeah, I know, welcome to /. and all that.

    The line in TFA about turning over the rental business to Netflix relates to something that happened in 2005. Nothing to do with a download service at all. No squishing involved, on anybody's part.
  • by pxuongl (758399) on Friday December 28, @02:54PM (#21842208)
    Wal-Mart initially offered films from $12.88 to $19.88 and individual TV episodes for $1.96 -- 4 cents less than the iTunes store. Wal-Mart's online store sold older titles starting at $7.50, compared with the $9.99 charged by iTunes.

    Many studios have resisted signing deals with iTunes in part because of Apple's desire to sell movies at one price. Studios prefer variable pricing such as Wal-Mart offered.


    what's to note here is that films were offered between $13 and $20 a pop, with older titles at $7.50. When will it occur to studios, in regards to how variable pricing won't work, that if there is no demand for an "older title," then there will be no purchases, even if you sold them at a buck a pop.

    the ones that are in demand, that people want to buy, are being sold at or above the price of a regular dvd! sounds more like the studios are trying to make a download service fail.
  • by east coast (590680) on Friday December 28, @02:54PM (#21842210)
    I can't speak for this service but it irks me to find stuff on iTunes (mostly classical, in my experience) that I can buy for cheaper at Borders on CD than I can from the iTunes store.

    And I have a feeling with CD sales on the decline we're going to see more of the same. Especially compilations that will come in under the 10 USD watermark that will offer more than enough tracks to make it worth getting tracks you don't like for the ones that you do.
  • by Bobb Sledd (307434) on Friday December 28, @03:31PM (#21842496) Homepage
    I know there is a lot of hatred for Wal-Mart. I don't like them and I don't like going there either. But, let me tell you something... I will continue to shop there because their returns policy is crazy-in-my-favor. I have taken back things that were bought well over a year ago. I have taken things back with no receipt, no tags, and they still gave me back what I *said* I paid. I think I have even taken back things that I purchased at another store. As long as Wal-Mart carries it? I seem to get the money back.

    Now try that with Office Max or Office Depot. I have purchased things that didn't work out and when I went to return them, found they only had a 30-day policy -- even with a receipt. WTF?

    Until someone has returns policies like Wal-Mart... I'll keep going because I know I can take it back.

  • Rather than a sign that Apple/Netflix rolled over Walmart, it may be a sign that online movies are simply not the hot item that online music is.
  • Wal-Marts Movie Download Service (Score:1, Interesting)

    by iviagnus (854023) on Friday December 28, @06:41PM (#21844268)
    I'll tell you the reason at least one person (moi) didn't attempt Wal-Marts Movie Download Service beyond the first try . . . it didn't work with my non-IE browser (yes it's in the top three most popular). I expressed this concern to Wal-Mart through email, essentially stating that they should be producing web pages that adhere to W3C standards so that all browsers will work, and got back the standard auto-response. You know, the one that basically states, "We want it to work so we can take all your money and it doesn't, but we don't care if you know the reason it isn't, we'll keep doing it our way just the same." You know, that response.
  • Nonono you got that wrong (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 28, @01:46PM (#21841570)
    You have to at least pretend to be on-topic.

    Like this:

    WALMART ONLINE MOVIES SUX0RZ

    or if you liked the service

    WALMART ONLINE MOVIES SHUTDOWN SUX0RS

    See, that wasn't so hard, was it?
  • by AvitarX (172628) <AvitarX@gmail. c o m> on Friday December 28, @02:47PM (#21842132)
    Really?

    I would think they could save a lot using Chinese distributors and not he studios to get their files.
  • by cashman73 (855518) on Friday December 28, @10:03PM (#21845570) Journal
    It's rather hard to compete when your competitor is bittorrent,... ;-)
  • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.