I like the idea of movie downloads, but the way the studios have flubbed HD-DVD / Blu-Ray I won't be holding my breath for downloads. Just for the record, here's what's important to me:

1. Quality. Home Theater is here to stay and it's getting better all the time. I didn't invest thousands in A/V gear to watch blocky super-compressed movies. If download quality is not as good or better than disc-based movies then downloads don't offer enough to be worth my time.

2. Ability to archive movies. Before I'm willing to buy even one downloaded movie I need to be comfortable with the idea of buying many. I have hundreds of DVDs. If I'm to buy hundreds of downloads I want the ability to offload them from my PC to make room for newer movies and the ability to restore those archives and watch the movies again.

3. Ability to watch the movies on any device in my house, provided I have compatible hardware. If I have a DVD player for every TV in my house I can watch a DVD anywhere. Downloads should work the same way.

4. Reasonable price. That means less than I pay for DVDs. Forget everything about the convenience of downloads--I can order DVD movies online and they show up in my mailbox without tying up my network or making me responsible for ensuring the whole download completed successfully. Downloads aren't really more convenient, but they can save space, so if they offer the same quality and flexibility of disc-based media for a competitive (i.e., moderately cheaper) price I may be interested.

--

On top of all of these items, it really needs to become practical to use a PC as a home entertainment hub. Higher-end A/V equipment delivers very clean audio & video, while PCs are notoriously noisy. I want the same high-end A/V experience with the flexibility a PC offers before a computer will become my main choice for home entertainment (but I do hope this happens!).

Cheers!
Speleo.

by speleofool (See profile) - April 17, 2006 3:33 PM PDT

If the rest of America (or Europe for that matter) is any thing like me, then this die a quick death. My weekly net flix fix does the trick for me, in fact I dropped HBO because I was getting a better experiance from the rented disks. Now if I really want to see some thing I might go and and buy it, or even,,,, Gasp go to the movies and see it like it should be seen. But will I pay $20-$30 for the "wedding crasher"? NFW

by vidyman (See profile) - April 5, 2006 9:50 AM PDT

Not gonna do it. I tried movie link a while back and the quality leavs you feeling you are watching TV through a keyhole. While I think that WM is about the best way to enforce DRM on video and have any quality to speak of, I'm not going to buy something that is going to tie me to Windows in the future. I also not going to buy something that costs as much as a dvd and has the quality of an animated gif.

by drydenmaker (See profile) - April 4, 2006 7:11 PM PDT

Iff i have a hard copy , it might make some sense..but for download ...that too 20 bucks..makes no sense to me at least...
And how many times u would see a moive..once twice five times..even then it doesnt make sense to buy a dvd if u aint gonna watch it everyday.....its nice to see all the extra stuffonce...but cmon tell me how many time u even saw the titles again....

Its not going to work at all

by sumant_k (See profile) - April 4, 2006 11:16 AM PDT

I can just continue to get my DVD's a little later than everyone else when they go on sale, or get them cheap slightly second hand on eBay. And with these DVD's I will get all the special features and extras that will come with them. I wonder if downloads will come with extra features, commentaries and all that other fluff. I wonder if anyone really cares to waste their money. Remember, if you buy it, people will continue to make it and charge you more for it. Like gasoline.

by sabedavo (See profile) - April 3, 2006 6:30 PM PDT

Not to prod the rumor mills or anything but I'm thinking we could all benefit from Steve Jobs jumping into this pool - we all benefitted from him and apple jumping into music and only letting them charge 99 cents. Hopefully they can get it do to less than a DVD since you are actually getting LESS THAN A DVD.

Honestly, I can just go buy the DVD, download some free software and copy it to my computer - which is legal since it's mine. Wow hollywood just doesn't get it - oh wait nevermind. According to George Clooney they like to be morons "and proud to be out of touch" - ha

by bigmc6000 (See profile) - April 3, 2006 12:35 PM PDT

Printing costs and stamping discs doesn't take up much of the cost. You're talking around a buck for a $20.00 disc.

More money goes into marketing and advertising. The rest gets dumped back to the studios and whatever percentage is leftover is picked up by an A-lister who might have had the good fortune to work up something in their contract.

Thus far, downloading a feature-length film is a gimmick. It seems like the studios are caving to demand, but just so very slightly caving, so they don't get left behind in the proverbial dust.

I'm not sure this would even quality as a first step, though. Lengthy and costly downloads, potentially sub-par quality (especially when stacked up against the new HD/Blue-ray discs) and limited use. What's the appeal here?

Most consumers would do better to overnight a new release from Amazon. Or, better yet, just stick to Netflix and don't bother owning that movie that you'll only watch once every few years.

Until download speeds increase by a notable amount and use isn't so painfully restricted, this is a pointless venture.

by _milo (See profile) - April 3, 2006 12:17 PM PDT

If I was not willing to pay $25 to buy a dvd at wallmart, why would I be willing to spend $25, wait all night for the download, burn it, and then have to watch it on my laptop's 12in screen? I mean really, the only people who would do this are the ones who are too fat and lazy to make it to walmart and by the thing retail. When I see $5 to $10 new releases for download, I might concider it. Till then, I'm keeping up my mpaa/riaa boycott.

by 0wnz (See profile) - April 3, 2006 11:10 AM PDT

so the cost of a DVD is in thecase and art work? screw that between my duped DVDs and that fact that i'm too lazy to put them back in the case, i have 3 or 4 CD books of DVDs. its convenient, i can flip thru them from my couch. i throw the cases away.

Movie companies, here's what i want: ship me JUST the movie sans stupid extras in a slim jewel case with a slip of wax paper with movie title on it. i'll pay you 8 bucks. either that i'll just copy every movie owned by every friend i have - and cut you out completely.

by davaal (See profile) - April 3, 2006 10:14 AM PDT

Does the $20 - $30 movie download from movielink include them mailing me the DVD case and beautiful artwork? I thought the reason DVDs cost so much is the cost of distribution, dvd case, and artwork. If Hollywood were to design a DVD player, they would design a DVD player that links to your bank account and charges you $30 everytime you play a movie you already paid $30 for.

by ecubes (See profile) - April 3, 2006 9:50 AM PDT