Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Amazon's Online Movie Service 79

Posted by Zonk
from the friday's-right-for-fighting dept.
ebresie writes "According to the NYT, it looks as though Amazon is going to start competing with iTunes movie downloads." From the article: "So far, Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios and Warner Brothers are engaged in the talks, said one person close to the talks who, like the others, asked not to be identified because the negotiations are continuing. Although it is not clear when it might begin, an Amazon downloading service would be sure to send waves through both the media and retail worlds. Players in both industries are racing to offer new ways to give technology-savvy audiences instant access to their favorite shows and songs, in a field crowded with potential rivals using Internet and on-demand technologies. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon's Online Movie Service

Comments Filter:
  • by zubinjdalal (816389) on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:52PM (#14893193)
    ... when box office sales keep declining [slashdot.org]!

    Others are realizing that it's just not worth the effort to rush, pay more and stand in line to watch a movie when they can just download it online or buy it on PPV and watch it in the comfort of their homes a couple of months later.
    • by DrXym (126579) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:37PM (#14893664)
      Others are realizing that it's just not worth the effort to rush, pay more and stand in line to watch a movie when they can just download it online or buy it on PPV and watch it in the comfort of their homes a couple of months later.

      The problem is that to download at anything like cinema quality for home viewing, you're talking about files of many gigabytes. Even discounting bandwidth limits, that's still a lot of hours worth of downloading to grab all of that. And it's not just a problem for the consumer - Amazon or whoever would have to have the hardware to be pushing out tens of thousands of movies in parallel AND still make some money from the service after the studios have taken a cut. You hear the RIAA whinging about iTMS selling 4Mb tracks for .99. Now imagine trying to make money pushing 150x the data for for (say) $6.

      That's a tough proposition.

      So tough in fact that the first casuality of online movies is quality. Broadcast quality takes too much bandwidth. You'd be lucky to get something which was remotely comparable to a DVD or even satellite. You'd be lucky to get something that compares to your average DIVX encoded movie. And of course whatever you bought would also be DRM'd up the ass, ensuring that unless you had WMP with the proper rights, that your movie is as useful as a CD snapped in half.

      • The problem is that to download at anything like cinema quality for home viewing, you're talking about files of many gigabytes. Even discounting bandwidth limits, that's still a lot of hours worth of downloading to grab all of that.

        So what?

        Anyone with a decent broadband connection could download a few movies per night when they are asleep. Who's going to watch more then a couple movies per day? And if you really need them quick, you can download TV quality(320x240ish). Poor resolution on my 25" TV
      • by Anonymous Coward

        You'd be lucky to get something that compares to your average DIVX encoded movie.

        Actually, your "average DIVX encoded movie" is as close to DVD quality as makes no difference. I don't know what you've been watching, but a straight DVD to divx/xvid rip is almost identical, when done right. Your average CAM/TC/TS rip is obviously worse but you would expect that to be the case.

        As for file size, well that is directly related to final quality of course, but I get Battlestar Galactica (45 minutes) in excellent q

        • Actually, your "average DIVX encoded movie" is as close to DVD quality as makes no difference. I don't know what you've been watching, but a straight DVD to divx/xvid rip is almost identical, when done right. Your average CAM/TC/TS rip is obviously worse but you would expect that to be the case.

          I've done several DIVX rips and I don't think the quality is comparable to DVD. It's watchable but certainly not comparable.

        • I get Battlestar Galactica (45 minutes) in excellent quality at around 350 MB.

          I've had occasional problems with the MPEG encoder boards in my MythTV box. There was one episode (Scar) that I've had consistent trouble grabbing from cable, so I pulled it from alt.binaries.tv. NewsHosting [newshosting.com] has a web interface to the binaries groups that saves bandwidth (vs. downloading uuencoded or yEnc'd posts and decoding them). I normally encode video to MPEG-2 at about 6 Mbps (but I usually record at an even higher bi

          • But it's not the grey area sources that are problematic. I personally rip all my movies to Xvid with lossless settings (whether they truly are, I have no idea, but the quality would certainly seem so; no artifacting or image dismemberment to speak of). I'll have files weigh in anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5GB in size, averaging around 2.2GB. While this is no large issue if I were to distribute them over or attain them through P2P, a P2P distribution for legitimate downloads isn't a viable solution for a great
      • as useful as a CD snapped in half.

        Which is still more useful than Aquaman.
      • your movie is as useful as a CD snapped in half.

        You mean I can "cut bitches" with it?
  • Burnable DVDs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:53PM (#14893201)
    In the article they say that customers will be able to download the movies and burn them to DVD. I don't imagine they'll let us download full DVD5 or DVD9 ISOs of the movies. More likely, it will be some highly compressed MPEG-4 variant, along with some Amazon-branded "preparation/conversion" app that outputs a burnable DVD5 or 9 ISO image. Even this sounds like it'd be a bit much for the average computer user to get a handle on. They'd better make sure this whole process is fairly idiot-proof or it's doomed to failure.
    • Almost certainly this will not be exactly what the NYT thinks it means.
      Possibilities include:
      1) Costs so high that people will decide that they'd rather just wait and buy the official DVD because it will have extras or else download it off a P2P network for free.
      2) Use of a lower resolution image that while technically DVD burnable, offers an inferior viewing experience for the consumer. One such option would be to make 352x240 NTSC or 352x286 PAL resolutions available, which are legal DVD resolutions. Su
    • Y99 Dates (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Very offtopic i know, but why does slashdot still use Y99 Dates?

      http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/03/10/1842241.s html [slashdot.org]

      06/03/10 instead of 2006/03/10

      No, using 2006 in the url does not work.

      Are they saving 2 charactors in the database or in the url?
      Perhaps the assuption is that everything here (especially this comment) is worthless in the year 2100?
    • In the article they say that customers will be able to download the movies and burn them to DVD. I don't imagine they'll let us download full DVD5 or DVD9 ISOs of the movies. More likely, it will be some highly compressed MPEG-4 variant, along with some Amazon-branded "preparation/conversion" app that outputs a burnable DVD5 or 9 ISO image. Even this sounds like it'd be a bit much for the average computer user to get a handle on. They'd better make sure this whole process is fairly idiot-proof or it's doome
  • so the business (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <<dadinportland> <at> <yahoo.com>> on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:54PM (#14893206) Homepage Journal
    , and by 'the business' I mean the industry, is finally moving to embrace online services.
    I think they may have been watching the music industry moves and market responses very closly and relized that is not the way to go.

    • ...I mean the industry, is finally moving to embrace online services.

      What do you mean finally? Starz and Real have offered this service for years. MovieLink, too.

      It's not a matter of the film houses waiting for anything so much as it is content providers waiting for the market to grow.

      Movies encoded at decent viewing resolutions are on average 350MB which is totally unreasonable to dowload if you're on anything less than a high speed connection.

      Only about half of the Americans who own computers at
  • by Slipgrid (938571) on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:54PM (#14893215) Homepage Journal
    From TFA:
    If the advanced negotiations are successfully concluded, Amazon's service would position itself in the media world alongside rivals like Apple Computer's iTunes as a place where people go not just to order goods to be sent by mail, but to instantly enjoy digital wares as well.

    I think that Amazon competing with Apple iTunes or Google Video is a bad idea. It seems that Amazon's power is in it's large (physical, not digital) distribution system. But, I think they may be half way to something good. Maybe this would help them compete with the box stores. Say I want to buy a video from Amazon, because it's cheaper than Sprawlmart, but I want to watch the video that night, and not wait for the mail. That would be a great service and Amazon might be able to provide this. Let me stream it tonight, and get the dvd in the mail next week. Will Amazon move in this direction?
    • I had never thought of amazon doing something like that.. It would be great but i don't know if it is going to happen i would sure like for it to that is how http://www.magnatunes.com/ [magnatunes.com] works if you order a cd from them .. it is almost as if the cd is the after thought as they are mainly a buy for download music service. I would love to see amazon do that - now if they could only get a site designer that has a clue.. the more links and things that flash at me makes me want to close the window..
    • "I think that Amazon competing with Apple iTunes or Google Video is a bad idea."

      Competing against Google Video is reason enough to get out of the business...if you have to even compare the service to Google's you've lost the game already. I've *NEVER* used a shittier interface and there was nothing that made me want to even think about putting a quarter in the snack machine because it looked like it'd just get stuck with the rest of the sugary items stuck behind the glass where no amount of shaking was going to get it out.

      iTMS is another story though -- I buy quite a bit of video through this site because I got rid of cable (well, I have 'sub-basic' -- the local channels + comedy central -- though if they knew that, they'd probably take that away too -- its around $10 a month and means I can get clear reception). The iTunes is great to buy from -- its actually far too easy. I've ended up buying a few things that I had been planning on getting physically because they've thrown a few goodies in that made the physical purchase less desirable -- and STILL went out and bought the physical purchase just to have it. What kinda crap is that!!! :-)

      To be honest, I could see Amazon having a better interface than Apple's solution -- the Video Store under iTMS is horrible -- its nothing like that of the music side. Ok, not horrible, but definitely needs to be rethought out. It seems like it was thrown together with the least amount of shoehorning they could do to get the items into the database and our interface. This MIGHT have to do with the fact Apple is rewarding their loyal content providers that served up the content first because its very studiocentric (then again, I wish the music store had a way to search via labels as there are a few independent labels that don't put out that much in the way of content, but what they do put out is consistent across the board -- for example, back in the 80s when I was a gothy industrial kid, I knew that almost anything I picked up from WaxTrax was going to be something that I'd at least listen to for a week or two before picking up the next purchase).

      Amazon's interface for their store is consistent -- its not the greatest, but I can find things without having to switch paradigms every time I want a different type of content. Between Apple and Amazon, this takes up 99% of my online purchases, so I'm pretty satisfied with both regardless.

      As for the suggestion of streamed video w/physical purchase -- I'd love to be able to do that. Amazon HAD been toying with the idea of selling elocker'd items where if you buy a physical book, you could get access to the digital one. I've gotten emails about this from them several times, but I've never found an item that this was possible with...probably the whole MP3.COM Streaming Jukebox thing where everyone sued the company even though they went out of their way to ensure that the listeners had physical access to the content they were streaming (even if you only had access for a few minutes to borrow your friends CDs to add them to your database, that same amount of time could have been spent ripping them and you are right back to where you started). But if they sold a 'rented' streaming video (rented in the terms on the subscription ideas based around online music stores vs. ownership ala iTunes) where the video could be viewed online X amount of times elapsing at time UPS / DHL / USPS tracking claim to have dropped the package off at your residence (or just an arbitrary time of maybe 2 weeks) -- I'd probably stop buying from iTunes and not even be pissed off about the lack of ownership / transferability of the file.

      But all in all, back to your main point -- I think regardless, Amazon could offer the best competition to Apple to date -- so long as they support OS X (and even Linux for the pasty faced kids -- though which variant and will they have to supply the source code along with the de-encryption keys because someone accidentally used GPL3 source!!!). I don't see Google doing anything d
  • by Spazntwich (208070) on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:54PM (#14893216)
    How long until Amazon decides to patent "an online movie distribution system" and sue Blockbuster and Netflix for infringing on their innovative business idea?

    Note: This post is half tongue in cheek, and half legitimate fear.
  • by rlp (11898) on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:55PM (#14893220)
    Be interesting to see if they use BitTorrent or some other P2P swarming technology. If not, I doubt even Amazon has the bandwidth to handle large volumes of video downloads.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:56PM (#14893233)
    ITMS doesn't really do movies yet, funny Amazon will be there competing against them.

    Hopefully they do better than Google. I think they have a better shot at putting together something decent though.
  • People say (Score:5, Informative)

    by endrue (927487) on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:57PM (#14893235)
    that this is why box office sales are delining. I disagree beacuse unless you have a wicked awesome home entertainment setup you are not going to rival seeing a film in a theater.

    Box offie sales are declining because 90% of the films suck. No one wants to pay see that in the theater or pay to download it from Amazon. - Andrew
    • Eh, Probably people that think all the movies suck are just bad at picking movies. I understand everyone has different taste, but there have been some amazing movies in the past year.

      Your probably right that 90% of them suck, but theres an awful lot to choose from, and that 10% is great.

      "You me and everyone we know", "Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind", "Million Dollar Baby", "Sin City", "Kill Bill v2", "Transgender", "Crash", "Brokeback Mountain" all come to me off the top of my head... I think
    • Re:People say (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HairyCanary (688865)
      I disagree beacuse unless you have a wicked awesome home entertainment setup you are not going to rival seeing a film in a theater.

      I agree. To rival the movie theater experience I would have to pop some nasty smelling popcorn, pour cocacola on my floor, install uncomfortable seats, and let the movie continue to play while I take a bathroom break. Oh, and I have to charge myself a ridiculous surcharge for anything I eat or drink during the movie. And lest I forget, I have to invite smelly, noisy, rude pe

    • awesome, say the truth and get modded "Funny"
    • I'm not sure that theatre is a plus to everyone. I'm fine watching movies on my 15 inch laptop, with my Logitech USB headset, at least for some movies. With people talking or being loud and annoying, and the inconvienence of having to be at the theatre at a certain time and watch 30 minutes of commercials pre-movie, I'd say that a 27 inch TV, even at DVD quality, with even relatively inexpensive speakers beats the theater, because it's not with idiots, and it's not $9 a ticket.
    • Most people just want to see the movie, and don't care nearly as much about the quality as the industry assumes. Generally, convenience will trump quality when it comes to consumer behavior - watching it at home will always be more convenient.

      That said, its also worth noting that most people who'd dish out $50+ to take the family to the movies are probably the same people who could afford a wicked awesome home entertainment system anyway.

      The box office decline is multi-causal:
      - The movie theater experience
  • by Alex P Keaton in da (882660) on Friday March 10, 2006 @03:58PM (#14893252) Homepage
    Whomever creates the service that aloows people to watch the downloads easily from the couch, in the living rrom. There is only so long I can watch movies/shows on my computer screen or my little 2 inch iPod screen...
    • Actually, it will be Apple's support of playing on iPods that will ensure that iTunes wins out yet again here. With the Bonjour-enabled Front Row, watching those streaming videos on your TV with a Mac mini (or whatever other Front Row Mac you have hooked up) is a piece of cake.
      • So are people going to buy a Mac Mini (as well as a funky adapter) for every TV in the house, or settle for movies that they can only watch at one location, like TV used to be in the 1950s?

        I think you're overestimating the willingness of consumers to buy video that they don't really have control over -- in the sense it it will only play on a computer or iPod, neither of which is currently a primary outlet for watching movies or TV programming.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      The Mac Mini now includes a remote control, is that a good enough hint?
      • No, probably not good enough. Most people don't want to have their computers hooked up to their TVs. I actually think MS has the right idea with their MCE Windows and the XBox 360, but I'm sure they'll botch it somehow.

    • That's exactly the case, and they'll have some sort of timer that you can only watch it for 24 hours then you have to pay again.
    • Comcast has an "on demand" feature that lets you stream movies and TV shows (some free, some for $) using just the cable box hooked up to the TV. Do they win?
    • That's not a service, that's a _device_.

      And they [svp.co.uk] are already available [itx-warehouse.co.uk] in a variety [svp.co.uk] of forms [bt.com].

    • by loolgeek (717288)
      In Europe, ISP offer what they call quad-play boxes. It is a set-top box, which is basically a DSL modem, running linux. This box is also a WiFi router. DSL in Europe allows 20Mb/sec bandwith. So, ISP offer through such boxes Internet, but also TV (more 180 channels) and telephone (usually free and unlimited, even for international calls, for fix and mobile phone, I know it is crazy). And now they offer also network access through power line.

      This allows the user to put his set-top box close to the TV (
  • I don't feel it's crowded until there's at least one I'm willing to use.

    It has to be at least 640x480 resolution for one thing.

    • I think that this sort of statement is a mistake that technical people are prone to. Most of the market seems to understand that visual quality is a matter that depends on the art in question.

      Few people would want to watch, say, "Lawrence of Arabia" on VHS. "2001: A Space Odyssey" reportedly suffers in the transition from the original 65mm film to 35mm. But who cares about the resolution of "The Daily Show"? To me, that's like complaining that an audiobook isn't presented in lossless stereo sound.

      Most T
      • Well, I happen to have personal experience in the matter. My homebrew PVR captured at 320x240 for a couple years because I was using an 800 mhz computer to do software encoding. Then I got a faster PC and now capture at 640x480. I have to say it is an improvement, even on a TV from couch-viewing distance. If Apple offered 640x480 downloads, I doubt there would be any debate that it's significantly better.
      • You're right.

        I've watched some xvid files of shows that look good enough on my modest rig, only 300mb/hour

  • by chia_monkey (593501) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:06PM (#14893350) Journal
    It will be interesting to see how this pans out. One of the reasons all the other music download services have failed to make a dent in iTMS' market share is because iTunes downloads load right into iTunes (duh) and load quite easily onto the iPods. Now since the iPods own the mp3 market by a landslide, it's no wonder people use iTunes to get their music. Add in the ease of use, simple interface, and decent (ie, acceptabel) DRM and you've got a winner.

    Amazon does a damn good job at selling "stuff". Can they distribute the digital media to the masses in the same way? Which hardware are they going to aim it all at? If Apple is able to get a foothold in the video market also, then why would anyone download video if it's a pain to load onto their iPod Videos? It's all about ease for most of the users out there. Amazon may have a bazillion videos and a decent model, but if the people find it a hassle to put on their favorite player, it's not gonna rock.
    • Yes, implicit [I think] in your comment is the notion of "artificial barriers to entry." I immediately get worried now whenever I see any specific companies negotiating [only] with any other specific companies. If the movie industry sits down at the table with Amazon, then it should be all but required they also sit down with any other legitimate potential partners.

      Apple successfully built a barrier to entry with iTunes and the iPod that is only now just barely being challenged. (Sorry folks, but it's not

      • I think you have stuff backwards. The music companies want a situation where there are multiple vendors. Consumers have buy in large chosen the iPod/ITunes package even when aware of the alternatives. To prove an anti trust violation you would need to prove there is an artificial barrier to entry, that is what in your opinion is stopping people from going Zen Micro/Music Unlimited?

        For me personally there are a bunch of problems:
        1) Windows only software
        2) Yahoo does not have any real invested in this s
        • But we are talking about movies. The motion picture industry has a long history of using very narrow distribution channels, and imposing strict conditions. That is why independent films often are not seen on the "BIG" screens.
          • Well sure but we can't meaningfully talk about the motion picture internet technology since it doesn't exist yet.
            • Are we not talking about the possibility of "Amazon's Online Movie Service?" Were not Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros. (of the motion picture industry) specifically mentioned? How then are we not talking about the internet, movies and their distribution (via Amazon) over the internet? Granted, as someone pointed out earlier, this is a lot of chat about a mere possibility, if not almost only a rumor. :)
    • If Apple is able to get a foothold in the video market also, then why would anyone download video if it's a pain to load onto their iPod Videos?

      It's far from settled that this is Apple's market to lose. My 4-year-old iPaq has a better screen for watching movies than Apple's current offering with the 2.5" screen. We'll see what the next generation player looks like.

      Also, it's not a lock that the point of these services is to download video to mini-players. Sure, if you take the bus a lot or have an hour-long
      • By allowing movies to be burned to DVD (unlike Apple's current offerings), Amazon is allowing you to watch movies:...

        You bring up a VERY good point about how this differs from Apple's iTunes offerings. The point of my comment was based on the original article of how "Amazon is going to start competing with iTunes movie downloads." You helped illustrate how Amazon's offering could potentially be a leader in downloads destined to be burned onto DVDs. Who knows if Apple will offer something similar. Right
  • Were meant to be watched on tv?

    Who wants to watch them on the 3 inch screen of an iPod?
    • > Were meant to be watched on tv?

      You have the choice. If you are on a plane, train or bus, watch it on your iPod.

      If you are at home or in a hotel, get an AV cable and connect the iPod to the TV. You don't need the dock, just a $19 cable that plugs into the headphone jack. It's a 1/8" pin on one side (with 4 "rings") and Right, Left and Video RCA on the other end. And if you already have a 1/8" to RCA video cable, you just have to swap a few RCA jacks for it to work correctly because Apple changed the pin
  • by jaysones (138378) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:18PM (#14893462)
    I ordered a cd 2 weeks ago that was released this past Tuesday. After I pre-ordered it, Amazon let me stream it from my "digital locker" a full week before the physical cd was available. I thought that was really cool and would encourage me to pre-order from them again. I don't know of any service that has a comparable pre-release listening policy.
  • Make it an all-you-can-eat monthly subscription, with files that'll play on OS X and I'll dump Netflix for it.

    Netflix/TiVo were going to offer 'on demand' downloads but it didn't work because the movie corps wouldn't grant the licensing (what a shock!), not sure that it will be any different in this case, but I'm hopeful.
    • I love the idea of unlimited on-demand downloads, but I can't imagine that the MPAA is dying to allow you to watch hundreds of movies for a flat fee, even though most people would only watch a few.

      CinemaNow has a subscription service already, except that they can't get a license for any Hollywood movies. So they offer Hollywood movies as on-demand 24-hour rentals instead.

      Not that CinemaNow is of any use to you -- it's Windows-only.
  • Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tktk (540564) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:31PM (#14893606)
    So why is article this under the Apple section? It's interesting the Apple's "Movie Store" is the one to beat considering that it doesn't yet have one open.

    Amazon shows up enough on /. on its own merits without needing to tied into Apple.

  • Sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by generic-man (33649) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:33PM (#14893625) Homepage Journal
    1. iTunes doesn't sell movies.
    2. The New York Times headline: "Amazon Considering Downloads" (emphasis added)

    So according to Slashdot's Apple section, Amazon.com is considering starting a service that would compete with a service Apple doesn't offer. All we need is some Google speculation ("Google's Online Movie Service in JavaScript") and we've got a trifecta!

  • The first one to offer Jenna Jameson films

    ;o)
  • by babbling (952366) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:14PM (#14894021)
    There's a simple way for Amazon to win this battle.

    - 640x480 videos
    - xvid/MPEG-4 files that DON'T have DRM
    - Reasonable prices (matching iTunes will do - I'd buy from iTunes if it weren't for the DRM)
  • I'm curious as to why Apple hasn't come out with two different file sizes for their movie store - one for the iPod and one for tv. Perhaps they're waiting for front row to really move into the living room. With their emphasis on HD in iMovie, and H.264, to expect consumers to be satisfied buying shows at what, 320x240, is ridiculous. If they offered the option to buy both file sizes at once for the same price as buying one, it would make a lot more sense. It wouldn't make sense to offer the higher-resolutio
  • by SteveX (5640) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:20PM (#14894071) Homepage
    I'd like to be able to subscribe to TV shows through any service, in Canada. Why is it so difficult to bring content available digitally in the US to other countries?
    • Because Apple hasn't been able to release iTunes for hockey sticks yet.

      Seriously, though, it's primarily because of the content providers. In the tape / CD era, geography mattered. So the content providers have distribution agreements with their artists based on the geography - e.g. "We charge $5 US per copy in the US but $6 Canadian in Canada". They also have neat exclusivity clauses like "NBC gets the exclusive rights to air the Olympics in the United States." That means that the BBC can't allow

    • It's the local licensing laws. You don't think Apple would love to open their net to sell to as wide an audience as possible through iTMS?
  • by GodWasAnAlien (206300) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:13PM (#14895001)
    It's quite sad that DRM and "fear of the consumer" has put us in a place that the best way to buy video information uses the postal service as a transport.

    There is a large industry waiting to happen. Waiting for the media industry to loosen its grip and allow consumers to download unencumbered media from official sources at reasonable prices/advertisement. The vast majority of people would not bother with saving a couple cents to avoid paying for audio and video, especially if it's hard/slow to find. Just let the consumer loose a little.
  • I don't care if the Lord Himself does it, what they want to do is bring the Blockbuster to your computer, and then you'll be in a mad scramble to watch it before witching hour, at which time it vanishes into thin air. Anybody going to pay $3.00 for that, at inferior quality? Sure seems like Amazon is going to do Movielink, or some such: crappy, melt-in-your-mouth Windows DRM. (Oh, and by the way, nothing for Macs anyway. None of those services work on a Mac. Instead, the best idea is Netflix. Real live DVD

Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be.

Working...