Apple Is In Talks With Hollywood For Early Access To Movies On iTunes: Bloomberg (bloomberg.com) 51
Apple is talking with Hollywood studios to try and get iTunes rentals of movies that are still playing on the big screen. According to a report from Bloomberg, "some studio executives have been pushing to allow home rentals as early as two weeks after theatrical debuts and are considering a deal with iTunes as one option." Bloomberg reports: The most recent talks are part of longer-running efforts by Cupertino, California-based Apple to get new movies sooner, two of the people said. Such an arrangement could help iTunes stand out in a crowded online market for movies, TV shows and music. While the iTunes store helped Apple build a dominant role in music retailing, the company hasn't carved out a similar role in music and video streaming. Hollywood studios typically give theaters exclusive rights to new movies for 90 days or more before issuing them on DVD or making them available for online purchase. One of the concerns about iTunes is whether it will be a secure platform for delivering movies that are still in theaters, the people said. While Apple encrypts iTunes video files so they can't easily be duplicated, it's possible to use a camera to record a movie playing on a TV screen. A leak of picture that's still in theaters would jeopardize returns for the studios and cinema owners.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's Apple, they'll all be musicals.
Why notSimultaneous release toTheaters and iTunes? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not, of course, talking about an iTunes rental price that remains constant.
It would have to be a price that starts out extremely high -- high enough to more than offset the losses resulting from decreased theater attendance and piracy -- then decays exponentially [wikipedia.org], asymptotically approaching what one currently pays for an iTunes rental.
The studios would definitely be leaving money on the table by saying no to this idea.
The fun part for financial geeks would be to figure out the decay constant that would maximize revenue for a particular title. The rental price for a movie like Titanic, which played in theaters for months, should decay much more slowly than for a movie like Ishtar.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a word for such behavior: Price Gouging.
"Price gouging" is just the free market at work. Movie rentals are far from a necessity, so if you don't want to pay what the market will bear, then don't rent it. Government intervention to prevent "price gouging" is only justified in emergency situations, such as the aftermath of natural disasters, and even then it often does more harm than good. Gasoline shortages after Hurricane Sandy lasted several days longer than necessary because government imposed price controls disincentivized fuel deliveries.
Re: (Score:2)
"Price gouging" is just the free market at work.
Considering significant region-based restrictions, "free market" is not at work here.
If I have to pay a different price (or have no access at all) just because I am traveling to a different country, that is pretty much the opposite of a free market.
Two all-beef patties, special sauce... (Score:3)
If I have to pay a different price (or have no access at all) just because I am traveling to a different country, that is pretty much the opposite of a free market.
Is that true of all goods? On an exchange rate basis, a Big Mac sandwich costs different amounts in different countries. That's why The Economist uses the ingredients and labor in a Big Mac as a product basket [wikipedia.org] to illustrate which countries' currencies are undervalued.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant argument. You are comparing something that has a real-world cost to produce. Movies have almost zero reproduction cost.
Re: (Score:2)
The royalty for the underlying novel, comic book, TV series, etc. may be per unit, as may the royalty for any music used in the movie.
Re: Why notSimultaneous release toTheaters and iTu (Score:2)
Free market not always desirable (Score:2)
Nor is a free market necessarily desirable. A free market applied strictly leads to a tragedy of the commons, where the market produces all copies and negligible original works. But the government interference known as copyright isn't categorically better either, as its current lack of balance leads to perverse incentives producing an equally undesirable outcome: tragedy of the anti-commons.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a word for such behavior: Price Gouging.
"Price gouging" is just the free market at work. Movie rentals are far from a necessity, so if you don't want to pay what the market will bear, then don't rent it. Government intervention to prevent "price gouging" is only justified in emergency situations, such as the aftermath of natural disasters, and even then it often does more harm than good. Gasoline shortages after Hurricane Sandy lasted several days longer than necessary because government imposed price controls disincentivized fuel deliveries. Low prices don't help when the storage tank is empty.
I would say that is mostly due to poor planning on the part of officials. When Hurricane Matthew was bearing down on Florida back in October, the state of FL bought up extra gas supplies and kept them at a safe distance but on hand and ready to deliver to troubled areas. Did gas stations run out of gas before / after the storm? Yes, they did. But the state had their trucks out to those gas stations often the very same day. With satellites and what not, a state has days and days to decide whether or not
Re: (Score:2)
It's a protection racket by the cinemas, most chains will refuse to show any movie that doesn't have an exclusivity period. As long as they stay united on this and only B-movies can survive on a direct to TV/DVD budget, nothing will change. It's pretty obvious they'd all lose business if they let competitors enter the market, so they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Except if people know they can own a movie in just two short weeks and be able to watch it in the comfort of their home, they will not pay the $30+ to go to the movie theater.
You are assuming the movie rental would be under $30. I remember recently reading an article on a similar topic which estimated the cost of an in-home rental for a major movie still in theaters could be around $40-50. This is primarily to ensure going to the theater is still the cheapest option, and only those who really need the convenience would view from home.
Re: (Score:2)
... when you factor the fact that THE FULL FAMILY (or a bunch of friends) can watch the movie for the price of one and save $$$ on food & drinks.
Aaaaand, that's the reason it WON'T be the price of a normal movie ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that's the reasonable way to do it. It makes great use of statistical mathematics and economics. It's also terribly practical, and would appeal to most consumers. Therefore, this is not what they will do.
Surge Pricing (Score:2)
“Demand is off the charts! Rates have increased to get more dime to the movie biz.”
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not, of course, talking about an iTunes rental price that remains constant.
It would have to be a price that starts out extremely high -- high enough to more than offset the losses resulting from decreased theater attendance and piracy -- then decays exponentially [wikipedia.org], asymptotically approaching what one currently pays for an iTunes rental.
Wait, wait, wait. I'm not into itunes and all this shit but what the fuck? You guys are renting digital content now? Worst of both worlds eh?
Re: (Score:2)
They definitely won't do that, unfortunately. Around here movies at the cinema cost the same if you see them on the first day or weeks later. It's probably hurting them, e.g. how many more people would have seen Suicide Squad on the big screen if the price had been reduced after the bad reviews were out? How much more would they have made if Ghostbusters was a little cheaper on the opening weekend, allowing people to realize that it wasn't as bad as the internet rage machine suspected it would be?
Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am in the same boat.
The last movie I saw in the theater was the new Harry Potter thing... and only because I went with my sister and her kid. At least I only paid $5 (they live in the boonies so, somehow theater prices are cheaper there... I am guessing real estate costs are the factor).
Before that.... I don't remember. Though I have been to see several Fathom events in the last year (Rush and Rifftrax).
There is just nothing to get excited about unless this is all still new to you (ie you are young or hav
Re: (Score:2)
iTunes is just terrible on dialup. Apple apparently doesn't give a damn about early adopter cities like Seattle.
I'm no fan of apple and especially iTunes but it's really not their fault that Seattle is still trudging on dial up. You might as well complain that ford doesn't cater to horses.
Re: (Score:2)
Specious security argument (Score:3)
"One of the concerns about iTunes is whether it will be a secure platform for delivering movies that are still in theaters, the people said. While Apple encrypts iTunes video files so they can't easily be duplicated, it's possible to use a camera to record a movie playing on a TV screen."
Yeah, that never happens in a movie theater...
Re: (Score:1)
So they have reason to worry, but IMHO they should embrace it, stop spending huge amounts of money trying to create content protection schemes that simply don't work and make the life of people who actually spent money to consume more difficult, and acce
No thanks. (Score:2)
This is going to increase crowd density in the theaters that survive. Hundreds of theaters will close because there won't be enough new movies to come out to be theater draws, and thousands maybe tens of thousands of jobs will be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
now at $29.99-$59.99 for a 24 hour rent and apple only keeps about 1-2% of.
Apple Exclusives (Score:3)
Are why I stopped doing business with the company.
I for one welcome our Netflix Originals overlords (Score:3)
If you make movies available for decent price on a wide selection of platforms, pirates will be those who are unlikely to be your customers anyway. Current attitude make pirates out of parents who can not justify $100 for babysitter, tickets, gas, parking and a small popcorn just to watch a two hour non-kid movie. Longer term, folks will just find something on Netflix/Amazon/HBO rather than taking legal and malware risk digging up torrents. And never go back to traditional studios that make them wait months to rent a movie everyone is talking about.
I am not even considering gazillion games and upcoming VR entertainment that is competing for the same leisure time as movies.