"iTunes movie service" in the offing? We think not.

AppleInsider has the goods on a survey distributed this week by market research firm Coyote Insight, which digs for input related to a potential “iTunes movie service.” The fictional video download service described early in the survey would provide access to “1,000 movies on-demand” which can either be downloaded to your computer and then to your “video iPod” or played-back to your TeeVee if connected to your computer. The survey explains that this service would require a broadband connection and allow subscribers ($10/mth just like Vongo) to download films through iTunes and view ‘em as often as they like. And yeah, those commercial-free films would begin playing while download continues in the background. Otherwise, films can be purchased for about $13 each – but without the ability to burn to DVD. Of course, anyone could have commissioned the survey, and we think it's pretty likely that this was put together by some outfit that is just using the iTunes name in its research because it clicks with consumers. Regardless, the service described in the survey never mentions the potential resolution of the films for download. Hey Coyote, listen up. If your survey is real, we ain’t gonna drop $13 green for a 320x240 flick (current resolution of iTunes videos)  for playback on our hi-def rig, dig? After all, this is the “year of HD” right? Oh wait, that was last year.

[joshua @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:47AM]

lol @ $13

they can't be serious

[munboy @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:59AM]

Anybody could of hacked up that webpage. Hell, I could of done it in my sleep. Some words on a webpage, throw some images of movie posters on it, voilla! You have every mac fanboy crying wolf...

Could AppleInsider have put their name ANY bigger on the image? I understand they don't want others to take credit for it, but come on. Make the watermark smaller. And lighter.

[felix @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:08AM]

the page www.apple.com/movies/ returns a 403 forbidden page and not the usual 404 error page.

[Derek Hagen @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:46AM]

I won't commit unless Apple provides:
-Downloads, not subscription
-$2 or so a pop. The movie studios don't provide anything physical so there's no good reason to charge much more.
-Transferable to DVD. If I can't HAVE it, I don't want it. I'll go somewhere else.
-At least 640 p wide, 1024 preferable.
-Tons of movies from 1930 on.

[Tom @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:49AM]

I received this same survey. It was sent to all Vongo subscribers. The first part of the survey went into Vongo UI, problems, likes, dislikes, etc. The second half asked if you had a video ipod, would you like to see movies on the video ipod, and would you like to see Vongo added to the iTunes music store.

In the Vongo FAQ it mentions that there is no support for the iPod because of Apple not bending to Vongo's will. They ask people to contact Apple to get them to allow for subscriptions in their DRM.

I'm sure this survey is just being used by Vongo to gauge support for a subscription service inside of iTunes, so they can take it to Apple. "But Apple, 95% of our respondants said they'd like to have a video subscription service in iTunes! Let us be that service! Pretty please?"

[kenny @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:51AM]

hmm this would go with the Mac Mini possiblly?

[terrin @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:53AM]

It does not take a genious to figure out an Apple branded video service is coming. First, Apple just bought a huge 150 million state of the art data center (it paid less), which would be needed to pull this off. Second, Apple is suing Burst, which is interfering with Apple's ability to distribute video online.

My guess is once Apple clears up the matter with Burst, we will see a whole bunch of new Apple video related announcements. I also guess the lawsuit is messing with Apple's planned announcements.

[Dman @ Mar 2nd 2006 11:58AM]

"I'm sure this survey is just being used by Vongo to gauge support for a subscription service inside of iTunes, so they can take it to Apple. "But Apple, 95% of our respondants said they'd like to have a video subscription service in iTunes! Let us be that service! Pretty please?""

Then Apple can say, "Excellent, we'll get 95% of our competitions customers when we launch our movie store. Thanks!" Everyone wins!

[Nick @ Mar 2nd 2006 12:15PM]

#4, Derek: Are you !@#$ing insane? $2 for something that would be at least ten times the size as the average song iTunes sells? That you can copy to DVD at full resolution? As long as we're dreaming, I want a harem of beautiful women at my whim, a cluster of G5's, and to not have to confirm every post I make to Engadget.

[A.H @ Mar 2nd 2006 12:16PM]

It's a bit funny how Apple is becoming one of the most romured and talked company around these days - iPod, iTunes, Mac Mini Intel duo core..


A.H

[puh_fifer @ Mar 2nd 2006 12:35PM]

Hey, anyone here with Vongo try it on their projector. The rep said it's not really made for projector, their resolution is something like 520x360, but I assume it's all digital, so it cant be that much better/worse than my analog adelphia channels at 640x480.

Any ideas?

[Uncle @ Mar 2nd 2006 12:48PM]

Hey munboy,

It's "could've"...not "could of".

[J @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:12PM]

I'm assuming for this to be viable you have to be able to download the file in the time it takes you to watch it. that way you can't start watching it without delay. So given current broadband speeds, what is the largest resolustion that would work?

[Andy @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:14PM]

Who cares?? I'm done worrying about Apple's future plans. Show me what they have today.

[molly @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:34PM]

its fake, because no one would want to pay $13 to watch ella enchanted...
look at the list of movies on that screenshot, its stuff like Sky High and Hidalgo.

[A-Pow @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:48PM]

Fake. Very easily put together.

[Dan @ Mar 2nd 2006 1:48PM]

1.) The Resolution Isn't That Great
2.) How Much Will Old Movies Be? $13? You can get 13 old movies on eBay or Half.com for $13.
3.) You can sign-up for NetFlix, get tons of movies sent to your home, and just convert them yourself - for free, with Videora.
4.) The studios aren't producing additional items.
5.) The only work being done is that each movie has to be converted one time. So, that could take a few hundred people a couple of days to complete (does that justify $13?)
6.) 30 Minute Show = $2 / 120 Minute Movie = $13???

[slow news day @ Mar 2nd 2006 2:32PM]

Digital movie delivery is on the way, mark my words. Movie studios will figure out they can make more profit by bypassing the theaters and retail outlets all together.

[surveytaker @ Mar 2nd 2006 2:44PM]

I can confirm that this survey's for real. I took the survey on Monday or Tuesday of this week as a member of market research web site. They also had a question about whether or not 'free content' such as 'animated bunnies re-enacting classic movies in 30 seconds' would add to the experience.

When I took the survey, they mentioned the possibility of being able to download new release movies not for $13, but $16.95. That's just nuts.

Yes, the survey looks ghetto and anyone could have mocked it up, but as a frequent web survey taker, they all look like that. I think they make these the final projects of "Learning HTML" classes.

So, believe it or not, this is, in fact, real.

[a guy with vongo @ Mar 2nd 2006 3:17PM]

I would say that this is vongo because almost all of the movies that are listed in that picture are already on vongo with a couple of exceptions. Why would movies like raising helen be on the list because there is no one that could ever call that their favorite movie or ever justify paying $13 dollars for it new when you could easily find the title cheaper in other places. I do enjoy the service and am really welcopming the era of full digital distrobution and the convenience that it will bring.

[Edtekker @ Mar 2nd 2006 4:15PM]

Resolution in iTunes is not restricted to 320X240. That's just the level of resolution that Apple is using right now because that's the resolution of the iPod. As far as I can see, there's technically no reason that DVD-quality or HD-quality content couldn't be added today. There just hasn't been a reason to yet.

[Josh @ Mar 2nd 2006 4:35PM]

Isn't it time to ditch the name iTunes?

[Ben @ Mar 2nd 2006 5:47PM]

Seriously... I'm not an apple fan. I've never owned an iPod and I never plan to. However, if they were to do video on demand (in a better way than the services already provided on the 'net) I would probably be up for using it. However, more than 2 bucks would probably keep me away. (If I can rent it for that much, why would I want to pay more than that?)

[Martin @ Mar 2nd 2006 9:56PM]

Anyone who thinks it will be possible for $2 a movie needs to get their head checked. It means that studios need a minimum of 10 million downloads to make their money back on an average movie. Studios make vastly less money from selling downloads directly, because they lose the two-tiered system of customers paying for it first in theaters and then again on DVD (which has cost them a lot of first-run money in the first place). They will give in kicking and screaming once they see that customers demand it, but if they charged so little then the whole studio system would fall to pieces. It would be nice to see it for $2 but you're delusional if you think it will ever come to pass. $10 a movie will probably be the minimum.

[o rly @ Mar 2nd 2006 10:16PM]

$13? Not that bad, considering you have idiots that already pay $2 or more for 30 minutes of a TV show at 320x240 or even $2 for a 4 minute music video. These are the same morons that would probably pay $13 for 320x240 90 minute movie that look like crap on their computer screen, and can't be copied to DVD.