Amazon's Online Movie Service 79
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. "
And some people express surpise... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Brutal aren't we!?! (Score:1)
OOPS!
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:1)
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
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:2)
I've done several DIVX rips and I don't think the quality is comparable to DVD. It's watchable but certainly not comparable.
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:2)
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:1)
Which is still more useful than Aquaman.
Re:And some people express surpise... (Score:1)
You mean I can "cut bitches" with it?
Burnable DVDs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Burnable DVDs? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/03/10/1842241.
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?
Re:Burnable DVDs? (Score:2)
so the business (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
FINALLY? Real's been doing this w/Starz 2+ years (Score:2)
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
This could benfit some of their services... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:This could benfit some of their services... (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just a future IP lawsuit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Note: This post is half tongue in cheek, and half legitimate fear.
What distribution tech? (Score:3, Interesting)
iTunes movie downloads? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully they do better than Google. I think they have a better shot at putting together something decent though.
People say (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:People say (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:People say (Score:1)
Re:People say (Score:2)
Re:People say (Score:1)
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
The winner will be: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The winner will be: (Score:2)
Re:The winner will be: (Score:1)
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.
Re:The winner will be: (Score:1)
A DVD player started out expensive -- heck HD-DVD players are starting out moderately expensive. But everyone knew they were going to get cheaper. I don't foresee $100 Mac Minis any time soon, and a $600 box for every TV seems to be unlikely to work.
Much more practical and affordable is some kind of set top box like a MediaMVP [hauppauge.com]. You can buy one today for $100, and it plays music, video, and photos nicely. Of course, Apple doesn't make set top boxes, and their DRM prevents yo
Re:The winner will be: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The winner will be: (Score:2)
Re:The winner will be: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The winner will be: (Score:2)
And they [svp.co.uk] are already available [itx-warehouse.co.uk] in a variety [svp.co.uk] of forms [bt.com].
Re:The winner will be: (Score:2, Interesting)
This allows the user to put his set-top box close to the TV (
Online video delivery a crowded field? (Score:2)
It has to be at least 640x480 resolution for one thing.
Re:Online video delivery a crowded field? (Score:2)
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
Re:Online video delivery a crowded field? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Good Enough" resolution (Score:1)
I've watched some xvid files of shows that look good enough on my modest rig, only 300mb/hour
Re:does anyone else notice... (Score:2)
Re:does anyone else notice... (Score:2)
Re:does anyone else notice... (Score:1)
It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:1)
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
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:2)
For me personally there are a bunch of problems:
1) Windows only software
2) Yahoo does not have any real invested in this s
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:1)
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:2)
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:1)
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:2)
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:1)
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
Re:It's about the media AND the hardware (Score:3, Insightful)
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
I thought videos and movies (Score:1, Insightful)
Who wants to watch them on the 3 inch screen of an iPod?
Re:I thought videos and movies (Score:2)
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
Cool Amazon digital delivery (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cool Amazon digital delivery (Score:1)
Wait till the RIAA finds out, it'll be killed!
in the right direction... (Score:1)
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.
Re:in the right direction... (Score:1)
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)
Amazon shows up enough on /. on its own merits without needing to tied into Apple.
Sensationalism (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
And the winner is... (Score:2, Funny)
Competing, as in, competition? Easy! (Score:5, Funny)
- 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)
Re:Competing, as in, competition? Easy! (Score:2)
Oh, and you forgot to ask for a pony.
Different file sizes!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
The Rest of the World (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Rest of the World (Score:1)
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
Re:The Rest of the World (Score:2)
2006: "NetFlix" transfers movies via Mail carrier (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Not gonna work (Score:1)