Will iPod movie rentals take off?
Video rental comes to the iPod. Can Apple finally make download video rental succeed for a portable device?
(Credit: Daniel Terdiman/CNET News.com)From an iPod perspective, the biggest announcement from Macworld 2008 has to be iTunes video rentals. Beginning in February, those of you who own an iPhone, iPod Classic, iPod Touch, or 3G iPod Nano, will be able to rent and transfer movies from iTunes. iTunes movie rentals will be priced at $3.99 for new releases and $2.99 for older titles. While I'll have to wait and see how well renting movies in iTunes works, at first glance this looks like a huge win for the iPod.
Only a few competing MP3 players have dipped their toes into integrated video rental services. Specifically, the Archos line of portable video players and the Samsung YP-P2 have an arrangement with CinemaNow, which allows identically-priced movie rentals. While Apple might not be the first to pioneer DRM-protected movie rentals, no one has pulled it off at this scale. The built-in audience of iTunes users and iPod owners provides a staggering amount of leverage for Apple to completely change the way people rent and watch movies. But will it really stick?
From my point of view, Apple's video rental DRM strategy is a big roadblock to people renting movies specifically for their iPod. Apple's rental terms afford users 30 days to decide when to watch their downloaded movie rental, and then 24 hours to finish watching it after the movie has started. For users who are renting movies to watch at home, Apple's rental terms seem adequate, if a little stingy. At home, most of us are free from distraction and will have no problem consuming a movie within 24 hours of starting it. On a portable device, however, I predict that the 24-hour limitation will be very frustrating.
Unless I'm on a transcontinental flight, I have a tough time getting through a full movie on a portable video player. I usually watch half of a movie on the departure flight and half on the return--a scenario that wouldn't work with Apple's proposed DRM scheme. Apple's PR representatives at Macworld touted the ability to start a rented movie on a computer or Apple TV, and later transfer the video to an iPod to finish it on the go. While I'm happy Apple's rental DRM-protection doesn't hamper the transfer of movies between devices, the idea of rushing to finish last night's movie on my morning commute seems needlessly stressful.
Why can't Apple's movie rental DRM simply allow users one complete play of the movie, digested in as many small doses as needed, within a 30-day period? Wouldn't that be a more user-friendly approach? What advantage does the 24-hour restriction afford Apple? Whatever money Apple makes from customers renting a movie twice because the DRM expired, can't be worth the frustration it causes the user.
So what do you guys think? Will an iTunes movie rental make it onto your iPod in the near future, or will the DRM make renting strictly an at-home activity? If Apple's offer isn't perfect, what would seal the deal for you?
- Topics:
-
Prophecy
- Tags:
-
Apple,
-
iPod,
-
iTunes,
-
Movie Rental,
-
Macworld 2008
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Donald Bell
is an electronic musician, a veteran record store employee, and a fearless hardware
hacker. He's also CNET's Senior Editor for MP3 and digital audio.
Jasmine France is
CNET's resident digital audio doyenne, writing and editing product reviews, crave blogs,
and feature stories on all things MP3. And if you need advice on headphones, she's your girl.
8.7 CNET Review - Dell XPS630
Honestly, 24 hours? If I ever even consider using my iPod for watching a full-length movie as opposed to just TV shows, I'm hardly ever have the time to watch the entire thing in one sitting, and end up breaking it up into a bunch of bits and segments. Maybe it's just because I'm a student, but if I do decide to watch an entire movie, I usually don't turn to my iPod's 2.5 inch screen. I think it's unreasonable to be offering a portable device that lets you enjoy that sort of content everywhere, and then limit it to a really narrow time period.
anywho, just my two cents.
People in general these days would rather pay more attention to their stupid cell phone or portable device rather than engage in social conversation or, at least, observe their surroundings.
I'm 21, and I'm saying this. BTW, I'm not poor, I can afford such devices, but I'd rather not be glued to a tiny screen all through my day. Couldn't handle it.
The whole goal of this service, i think, REALLY, is to get people to buy Apple TV's!
They did GREAT with the iPod and are doing very well with the iPhone, but are trying VERY hard to be the FIRST to get Internet-Delivered Video right! I hope that it works, but, I do NOT think it will be as successful as they want it to be because:
1. Most people will have issues wiring the Apple TV to their home network. Those that manage to go wi-fi will have a less than stellar experience.
2. The selection of titles is fairly small (compared to just subscribing to Netflix or Blockbuster)
3. The rights to high quality Interenet-Delivered content are limited due to the major studio windowing scheme.
4. Most people can get the same exact service on their home cable box, and with FREE VOD from many of the cable networks. WIth Apple TV, you have to plop down $230 for the box and pay for EVERY show. There are tons of FREE choices that come with cable VOD now (from HBO, Showtime, etc..).. and the built-in DVR gets last night's show (that I may have missed)
Now, I DO believe it's all about the content. The reason why we got cable TV, is so that we can get MTV, HBO, etc.. If Apple produced good original content (VIdeo Podcasts?) EXCLUSIVELY available via the Apple TV.. well.. now, we're talking..
Thoughts?
I have read several uproarious articles so far about this assumed limitation of one shot at pressing play and done. Seems like someone would have surely just checked the actual website.
The fact that you can rent a movie directly through your TV without using your computer is the big breakthough in my view. People don't like the idea of buying something they cannot own physically particularly if you are only going to use it once or twice - this is different to music. BUT....will people sit on their chair and order a movie through their big screen TV without the hassle of going HMV or Blockbuster? Hell yes. This is about convenience and convenience is always underestimated. This is why it will be successful this time around. People will care less about DRM if their intention is to rent it and watch it at home - especially if it streams in less than a minute after ordering it.
This time Apple TV is a winner (only gripe is that I would have loved them to have included surround sound on the DVD quality movies). They have the most studios and they have the largest customer base.....prices seem reasonable....so it will be a success - no doubt about it this time.
-
by poopster
January 16, 2008 7:55 PM PST
- Why would I want to pay $4 or more for rentals I can get for more than half that price? I can get movie rentals anywhere now. The supermarket, Blockbuster even McDonalds.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10 Comments >>I noticed Comcast even raised their On Demand service to $4.99 for rentals. Digital downloads and on demand is cool, but come on what a crime.