iLounge

1

$9.99 is too high. I wouldn’t pay that for a movie that is 320 x 240. No way.

Posted by ort on June 19, 2006 at 6:57 AM (PST)

2

Agreed. Any value comparison starts with the status quo, which here means CDs and DVDs.  If someone tries to sell me content that is simultaneously (1) lower resolution, (2) has fewer features, and (3) does not come with a built-in storage medium, i.e. the factory-pressed optical disc, it should sell at a substantial discount vis a vis the CD and DVD.

Posted by Gitzlaff on June 19, 2006 at 7:06 AM (PST)

3

The cowards *G*

Thing is, with video people are much more likely to notice that they are paying good money for crap quality than with music. Crap video will not sell well. Better make it *at least* DVD quality, and *cheaper* than physical DVDs. In fact I’d much rather download a movie for $2-3 and be entitled to watch it for 48hours (or longer if I decide to pay extra) after first starting it. With movies, rental is a nice thing. I’d still get the really good ones on a physical medium.

Posted by Bad Beaver on June 19, 2006 at 7:19 AM (PST)

4

10 dollars for an Ipod Movie, too expensive. I can buy dvds for 10 bucks.
The reason itunes music became a hit was because the songs and albums were cheaper then their CD counterparts.
A full length movie should be $4.99 max and thats for new releases older movies should be $3.99.

Posted by roger767 on June 19, 2006 at 7:38 AM (PST)

5

However, it should be assumed that the quality of the video is going to be greater. Whenever a video iPod comes out, it will be at a higher resolution and likewise you would hope that iTunes video content, especially full-length movies would be sold at that higher resolution.

Whether or not it would be a high enough resolution to warrant a $10 price tag, we will see.

Unfortunately, iTunes is driven by teens, almost entirely, and they will buy the movies at $10 at the current pathetic resolution and there is nothing that we can do about it.

Posted by divigation on June 19, 2006 at 8:05 AM (PST)

6

RE: $9.99 is too high. I wouldn’t pay that for a movie that is 320 x 240

FYI - The iPod can be connected to a TV for viewing.

Posted by Jimmy Davies on June 19, 2006 at 8:22 AM (PST)

7

The ‘next’ iPod will probably have a larger screen, and hopefully then films will be worth it.  The movie portion of the G5 iPod is a large excercise in toe-dipping, because it’s easier to gain rights with a product and a content system, and it’s hard to push a product fully geared towards video with no content.

As for teens driving iTunes, I think they are simply more prolific iMix-makers, and tend to buy the same thing more often (not me, of course).  Not their fault, you’d probably buy James Blunt if it was marketed to you too.

Posted by Ethan on June 19, 2006 at 8:47 AM (PST)

8

FYI - DVDs have a resolution of 720 x 480, so 320 x 240 would look bad on a standard TV set, and would most likely be unwatchable on an HDTV.

Posted by Galley in Greenville, SC on June 19, 2006 at 8:50 AM (PST)

9

Simple - if the studios won’t sell films for less than you can buy the DVDs, Jobs should just include the feature to rip DVDs into iTunes as easily as you can rip CDs. It’s already not hard for techs, but if ‘the masses’ could do it, it would weaken the studios’ positions while not impacting the sales of iPods. I’m sure he could put ‘just enough’ DRM into it (i.e. tie the ripped file to the account doing the ripping) to stave off the DMCA.

Posted by PhilB on June 19, 2006 at 9:18 AM (PST)

10

Don’t forget the video ipod that is expected, and that people are paying 25 for psp movies

Posted by Jonathan Keim on June 19, 2006 at 9:50 AM (PST)

11

I don’t think $9.99 is too expensive for an iPod-compatible movie download. I’ve watched some DVD-ripped movies that were pretty good quality when my iPod was hooked up to my TV. Not DVD-quality, but still pretty good. I think 9.99 would be a decent-enough discount from the regular price of the DVD to make some loss of quality worth it, assuming they really maximize the quality of iPod-capable video. Also, considering the convenience of downloading and the portability of the iPod, I think 9.99 is appropriate. Furthermore, I don’t see them pricing movies much lower than full music albums, which are mostly 9.99.

Posted by Jason on June 19, 2006 at 9:54 AM (PST)

12

People really buy UMDs? Nooo, they don’t.

Posted by Bad Beaver on June 19, 2006 at 10:00 AM (PST)

13

do you seriously want movies downloads to be at $4.99??? you must be on drugs if you think new release movies will be at that price! renting, maybe. making a movie costs way more than a lousy album by some lousy band (and you buy it at $9.99). and dont forget all the taxes and fees. you should thank the gods if you will be able to get the $9.99 deal. at any rate, squinting at that tiny screen for a whole movie time is unhealthy

Posted by slam on June 19, 2006 at 10:25 AM (PST)

14

I dont think I will ever BUY a movie on iTunes.  9.99 is to expensive for that quality. And downloadable movies are something completely different from music. They need other usage and business models for movies.

However I would love to RENT movies on iTunes. That would bring Apple the big money and boost sales of movies (DVDs) at the same time.

Posted by Christopher Alexander on June 19, 2006 at 12:40 PM (PST)

15

I’ll never, EVER pay Apple for compressed, DRM’d movies locked to quicktime.  *Ever*

Posted by stark23x on June 19, 2006 at 12:42 PM (PST)

16

anyway, i will never pay for quicktime (which is required for playing movies in full screen).

Posted by Christopher on June 19, 2006 at 12:56 PM (PST)

17

“And downloadable movies are something completely different from music.”

To right. You don’t watch movies as much as you listen to music. So I’m not going to pay $10 for a movie I’ll maybe watch once. I’d much rather buy a DVD that I can watch on my TV in good quality, and also share with friends.

Posted by adam on June 19, 2006 at 1:11 PM (PST)

18

i wont pay for a subscription to music, but i would for movies, i seldom watch them more than once so it would make sense to follow the netflix model here

Posted by khyberny on June 19, 2006 at 1:14 PM (PST)

19

Christopher, to my knowledge there are plenty possibilities to play Quicktime content fullscreen, iTunes being one of them. I’d also trust Apple not to release a true movie service without fullscreen

Posted by Bad Beaver on June 19, 2006 at 1:21 PM (PST)

20

Honestly, I dont see why 10 bucks is that bad. and i would totally be like “hey man, wanna watch… idk, shrek… on my ipod?
wow, u ogt movies on that thing?

and so forth

Posted by QWER on June 19, 2006 at 2:31 PM (PST)