Steve Jobs fighting for $9.99 iTunes movie downloads?

He could be just trying for smoother ad copy for all we know, but Stevie J has been quite the staunch defender of the flat 99 cents per song, $9.99 an album, and $1.99 a TV episode price points we've come to associate with the iTunes experience. Now, according to Forbes, Steve Jobs is supposedly bumping heads with movie studio execs, trying to set a flat $9.99 price for digital movie downloads -- a feature that Apple purportedly will launch by the end of the year. The offer, which pays studios a 70 percent wholesale rate -- the same offered for TV shows -- has been "flatly rejected" by studio execs, who want the ability to price their popular movies higher than other titles. "Insiders" are saying that Apple is showing some signs of weakness, and might succumb to a $9.99-$19.99 range, but we can't think consumers would quite jump at that "deal" with QVGA versions of pics that were once purposed for the big screen. That is supposing that Apple will stick with QVGA, but it still seems a little silly to pit even a VGA $20 download against a $25-$30 HD DVD or Blu-ray disc. Call us old fashioned.

[Eli @ Jun 19th 2006 4:01PM]

What about people who don't have HDTVs, or want to watch on their iPod Video 2 or their portable video player?

[Adam B. @ Jun 19th 2006 4:05PM]

In the long run it becomes cheaper for someone who must have their movies on the go to get a PSP, a Netflix subscription and then use a program to get the files to the desired format, then transfer them over to the PSP.

[daaper @ Jun 19th 2006 4:07PM]

a little silly? why would I spend $20 for a DRM'ed copy that I can only play on my computer/iPod when I could just buy the DVD and play it in any DVD player I choose or shrink it down to put it on my PMP if I need to?

[p-diddy @ Jun 19th 2006 4:09PM]

In the long run it becomes completely illegal for someone who must have their movies on the go to get a PSP, a Netflix subscription and then use a program to get the files to the desired format, then transfer them over to the PSP.

gg, copyright infringement.

-p-

[bigshynepo @ Jun 19th 2006 4:10PM]

Well...I would suppose those people would rather spend the 19.99 on their DVD then on their 2"x2" QVGA video? I mean, if they have enough money to buy both a DVD and iPod version, they damn well have enough to get an HDTV Setup and a next-gen media player.

I think buying a whole movie at that price point for a tiny PMP is stupid. What studios should be doing is selling their DVD and Blueray/HDdvd in retail stores with an enclosed version of the PMP movie(on a flash stick, on the disc, download link) so consumers have both versions right off the start. That would allow for even more market penetration and perhaps even allow them to raise DVD/BD/HD prices a smidgen.


------------------------


*Does a dance on the grave of the MPAA*

[bored @ Jun 19th 2006 4:15PM]

it would also be easier and cheaper to just torrent the movies already converted to ipod format..

but its not about whats cheaper or easier for engadget readers.. its about whats easy for the average consumer and itunes has got that part down.. 9.99 seems reasonable, but anything more than that will be too high imo

[JinKazama @ Jun 19th 2006 4:16PM]

Attention movie execs, I repeat...ATTENTION Movie Execs...has Steve Jobs not proven that he knows what he's doing when it comes to downloadable contect?

At a $9.99 flat rate you will sell infinitely more that your idiotic 9.99 to 19.99 range. Every new DVD is 10 bucks at Wal-Mart the week it comes out why would I pay anymore for a dowloadable version? When I can rip that to my ipod or PSP?

Steve needs to stick to his guns...at a 9.99 flat rate for movies with appropriate line out jacks and battery life, you can put me down for a pre-order right now.

At 10 bucks for old movies and 20 bucks for popular and/or newer movies Stevie and the movie execs can kiss my grits. I will continue to rip movies to my multimedia devices.

[Evan Watkins @ Jun 19th 2006 4:23PM]

This is a bad idea. I can't believe people are still paying $.99 per song especially when they may be scaled down to mp3 or other version. Now we may pay $10 for a DRM restricted flick...what happened to cutting costs with technology. Song costs should be half what they're charging and any DRM video that restricts you to QVGA or your PC should be $5- NO MORE. Our records used to cost so much because of production, but CD duplication trimmed that cost drastically, what happened to cost reductions here...and now this carries over to digital media... the media industry is outrageous.

[Todd @ Jun 19th 2006 4:24PM]

Lots of speculation in the post, but yeah I believe Jobs wants 10 buck movies for downloading....EXCEPT PIXAR films, which will be twice as much as any other studio offering.

Also, I never thought of the whole tiny VGA screen for $19.99 vs. 30 bones for a HD DVD price comparison thing - thats pretty smart!

[Scabies @ Jun 19th 2006 4:28PM]

Soon theyre going to go to Blockbuster and realize that every DVD in the store (minus new releases) is $X for a week. Even Battlestar Galactica, which sucked. Even Titanic, which sucked but made a ton at the box office.

We dont see scaling at the rental, we shouldnt see it at the retail. Especially if they all get shrunk down to QVGA and are stripped of special features and 5.1 (+) audio.

I love how Hollywood thinks only in shades of green... *vomit*

[p-diddy @ Jun 19th 2006 4:31PM]

Note: Daaper's solution is not illegal. Netflix + copying is. Owning + copying is not.

-p-

[Heriberto Lopez Jr. @ Jun 19th 2006 4:41PM]

$9.99 seems fair and all since Apple has to pay for the bandwidth, but anymore than that is unacceptable. For $19.99 I'm better off buying the DVD/Blu-ray version.

Besides @ $9.99 the studios make so much more money since they don't have to pay for manufacturing of the discs, box art, and the cases

[Wonderboy @ Jun 19th 2006 4:42PM]

I will never understand people's desire to download a movie at less than DVD quality... It limits usage too much.

I've got my PC hooked up to a 42" HDTV... no way I'll ever download a lower-quality movie. If I want to watch something on my ipod or psp, I'll down-convert... but if I buy a QVGA version I can't up-convert.

[Andrew @ Jun 19th 2006 4:45PM]

is there a free dvd to ipod program out there

[Wonderboy @ Jun 19th 2006 4:47PM]

Andrew... check out Videora's Ipod Converter.

[Reality Check @ Jun 19th 2006 4:47PM]

This would be the perfect model....IF the download quality was HD, and I could do it through an Apple media center PC.

[Kevin @ Jun 19th 2006 4:48PM]

I know that the .99 song and 9.99 album is the standard, but how has it come that some albums are 11.99 or 12.99?

Also, what is the deal with partial albums with 23 tracks, and they leave off track 6 or something, so that you have to pay the .99 per song, rather than the cheaper album download. I've made it a point not to buy any where I can't buy the whole album, but it sucks that I can't get all of the music that I want because they are wanting to make an extra few dollars.

[SilentSpectre @ Jun 19th 2006 4:48PM]

I sense a new iPod by year's end with enhanced video capabilities.

[The Jeremy @ Jun 19th 2006 4:49PM]

I prefer the rumor that was floating around last month that Apple was negotiating with the studios to include iPod friendly files on their Blu-Ray titles so that consumers would not have to resort to "ripping" titles so that they'd play on their iPods (legally).

[Chris Clark @ Jun 19th 2006 4:50PM]

I agree with Steve Job's price point ideas. I feel that this would only work if it were in the price range of $9.99. Nobody would pay (well, maybe a few schmucks) $20 for a movie download when you can buy the DVD at that price. Especially since shrinking it down to a quicktime file is really not that hard. Movie studios need to look to the UMD movies for evidence of that. They are failing because they were too expensive (ie-practically the same price as a DVD, sometimes more).

So, if any movie studio executives are out there, I say this to you again, it will not work unless it's a considerable discount from buying the DVD. I would say a healthy compromise would be to make most downloads $9.99 with some new release and/or popular titles $12.99 or something like that.

[bob @ Jun 19th 2006 5:00PM]

remember how in the name of convienience society accepted mp3 even though it is lower quality, maybe the same will happen with video, i dont mean the piss poor current itunes resolution, but certainly not HD, we will see, im sure they know what they're doing! if the DRM is as open as the current itunes music version id be happy - so you can burn a 'back-up' dvd

[Pete Avila @ Jun 19th 2006 5:03PM]

Forget it ill just purchase quicktime Pro and rip movies to my Ipod. Thanks movie execs thanks for nothing!!

[LittleJoe @ Jun 19th 2006 5:04PM]

If Im not getting packaging...
If Im not getting a hard copy...
If the playability is restricted...
It the quality is not as high...

there is no way in hell Im paying the same price for an iTunes movie as a store bought copy.

[Jeff @ Jun 19th 2006 5:07PM]

The music industry got wise and realized that an attractive price point meant more money in their pockets and less illegal downloads. The movie industry would be wise to follow suit.

[Chris Clark @ Jun 19th 2006 5:14PM]

Another dimension to consider is that this could be paired with the new Video iPod product, which, could connect to any television source for a near 480p experience. That might change the justification for some to pay a little more than $9.99 but not too much.

[David Baxtin @ Jun 19th 2006 5:19PM]

heh, I think even at 9.99 I will still go with a Blu-Ray version. Why would I buy some crappy qvga or a res a tad higher in a eco-closed DRM format?

I'll pass.

[balagan @ Jun 19th 2006 5:27PM]

I agree with bigshynepo. That way people would continue to buy DVD's and be given the incentive not to rip/decrypt them. Give them the option of downloading between 9.99 - 19.99 for the qvga version or buy the dvd and get both. The advantage is they now have a hard copy in case they lose there ipod or other device, break it, or their computer dies...etc. If they find they are not selling enough via download then change the pricing on the fly. I know people may not like this idea, but it makes sense from a business standpoint.

[r @ Jun 19th 2006 5:28PM]

To p-diddy,

Both copying a DVD from Netflix and copying a DVD you own is illegal... that includes copying a DVD you own to shrink it down to play on a PSP or an ipod. Circumventing CSS protection is a crime regardless of ownership.

[David Muszynski @ Jun 19th 2006 5:42PM]

"Note: Daaper's solution is not illegal. Netflix + copying is. Owning + copying is not."

Actually, both are illegal. Using a program to strip the Macrovision and CSS encryption even on a DVD that you own is illegal. Stupid and moronic yes, but alot of laws are.

[Sean @ Jun 19th 2006 5:45PM]

r: not every dvd has CSS on it. I own several DVDs that aren't CSS encrypted.

[p-diddy @ Jun 19th 2006 5:55PM]

Dear r, and David, you are correct. Circumventing CSS is in fact illegal. My apologies for any confusion. In my haste to promote fair use and denounce piracy, it slipped my mind that DVDs are CSS encrypted (whereas CDs are not).

Mea culpa.

-p-

[Rik @ Jun 19th 2006 5:55PM]

Sean,

those unprotected (and generally region free) disks are *far and away* in the minority. Anything released by a major studio will be encrypted and thus illegal (although hardly difficult) to rip and re-encode.

RikF

[Long @ Jun 19th 2006 5:57PM]

p.diddy wrote "Note: Daaper's solution is not illegal. Netflix + copying is. Owning + copying is not."

p.diddy, you are wrong about owning and copying is legal. I am summarizing, but search it yourself, it states in the copyright protections, that copying a dvd is ok if it is 100% copy. So if you alter such as reducing the movie to fit on you ipod, psp, or even a single layer dvd is illegal.

[Rik @ Jun 19th 2006 5:59PM]

Long,

it is completely legal to copy the disk. However it is illegal to break the encryption, a necessary step in duplicating the disk, whether you want to make a 100% perfect reproduction or to re-encode for another format.

RikF

[uraslacker @ Jun 19th 2006 6:02PM]

Hmmm...let's see. Overpriced movies to go with overpriced music? I think I'll go the "arguably" illegal route, thank you very much!

The media/entertainment companies really should start passing their manufacturing savings to the consumer. I would like to see around $0.25/song and around $2.99/movie, since that still leaves them with a pretty decent markup to work with...

Cheers,

uraslacker

[az1324 @ Jun 19th 2006 6:34PM]

The whole entertainment industry has to realize that its old business model is on the way out the door. All these big corporations get so used to their profits that they begin to think its their right to make money rather than their reward for doing something useful for consumers. Meanwhile progress is paying the price. Sorry to break it to you, big wigs, but you're going to have to think of something new if you want to stay on top.

[Torontoguy @ Jun 19th 2006 6:38PM]

Let's see...say I setup an Internet 'store' that allows you to sell items you have made. The catch is that *I* set the price...It doesn't matter how much YOU think it might be worth...I set the price and, since it is too much trouble for me to evaluate the value of each item so I pick a figure that guarantees me a profit and requires that everyone comply with my demands.
This is what Jobs appears to be doing.
What if eBay set a standard fixed auction price of every item without regard for value or the seller's desires?
Isn't there anybody who can tell this guy where to stick it?

[kerunt @ Jun 19th 2006 6:46PM]

There are a bunch of web-sites selling music for $0.99 - $1.99 per album, or $0.09 per song. Why would anyone use iTunes?

Here is an example: www.allofmp3.com

The site/server is located outside the US (this one is in Russia, actually), so you are "importing" the products you purchase. This is 100% legal, google it if you don't believe me.

As for buying QVGA movies for $9.99+ ... Is this a joke? I'll pay $5 for an official, DVD quality movie download. Attempt to charge me $5.01 and I'm going either torrenting or to my local WalMart for a hard copy. Ridiculous.

[thomas_h @ Jun 19th 2006 7:03PM]

And here in Europe, we STILL cant download tv shows from iTunes. great for those of us with video iPods. for the love of Steve, whats taking so long ? has'nt tv show downloads been avalable on itunes for like a year or something in the us itunes store ?


: (


COME ON APPLE.

[Tom @ Jun 19th 2006 7:11PM]

What people have to realize is that if Hollywood gets its way ($9.99-$19.99 pricing) PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING TO BUY THEM. They are in the industry to make money. I agree that they should be no more then $9.99 especially if they are not DVD quality, but if they do it their way, PEOPLE WILL STILL BUY THEM. Just like people buy crappy alternatives to the iPod that have 5gb of storage for $300, people don't care how much stuff is really worth and will pay whatever an executive ceo tells them its worth. People are just too lazy in the US to care. Whether they have the money or not they will spend it, using the magic of credit cards.

[jake @ Jun 19th 2006 7:44PM]

I won't pay $9.99 for a movie, if I need to pay that much rather buy or rent DVD then rip.

$4.99 is highest I'll pay!! How about you guys?

[voodoo @ Jun 19th 2006 9:57PM]

For all you ppl who says you'd rather pay for the new HD-DVD or BluRay disc, good luck trying to rip that my friends - of course DRM can be broken, it just unlikely it will be in the near future, and by then Steve Jobs would have the portable market cornered

[Dman @ Jun 19th 2006 10:10PM]

I love Apple as much as the next fanboy but I have to say I've stopped myself from download music iTunes due to the quality of AACs. 128 is fine for now but I have a feeling in five years my purchases will sound flat and obsolete.

Same goes for video. Especially with HD coming around, paying for a low-quality video just won't cut it for most consumers. Apple needs to at least provide DVD-quality, the UMD format failed for similar reasons.

And would a bit torrent-type service help work around the bandwidth issues?

[tank @ Jun 19th 2006 10:56PM]

voodoo, yes but regular DVD's will be around for quite some time and they are easily ripped. I still need to see HD-DVD/BlueRay side by side with a regular DVD before I'm sold because the source material is the same. Until the movies are filmed at 1080p, I'd be surprised if HD-DVD/BlueRay will be much better than DVD.

Has anyone here actually seen them side by side? If so, is it worth the extra money?

[dingo @ Jun 19th 2006 10:58PM]

Is there a way to start a Poll on Engadget that asks the question:

How much would you pay for a movie download through iTunes?

4.99
9.99
19.99

I'd love to see those results. Maybe the results can give the "Steve" some leverage.

[Ben18 @ Jun 19th 2006 10:58PM]

I got a magazine that had a free video on itunes if you entered some code on itunes. Perhaps for everyone to make their own profits, you should be able to buy a movie, get some sort of code inside the disc ( a one time use code or something) and be able to pay $4.99 for the ipod version or something similar. That way you have purchased the DVD or Blu-Ray disc, then rather than fighting copyright protection, some discs are pesky and time consuming, you can get a nice ipod formatted copy for 5 bucks. I personally would go for this. I used to work for a video store and I 'might' have ripped a fortune of movies, but god it was so time consuming. Actually, it was worth about 5 bucks of my time :)

[Chris Clark @ Jun 20th 2006 12:03AM]

Tank, I've seen both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray side by side with standard definition, and the answer to your question is really, it depends.

The picture quality is very noticeably different for both formats (in my opinion, Blu-Ray looks a little better). Although, if you have a DVD that's being upscaled to 1080i then it's less of a difference.

My answer to you is that it will eventually be worth buying the new format, whichever it may be, but wait. Wait until a clear winner has been determined, wait until there's more content for both, and wait until the price has gone down. In my opinion, the picture enhancement is great enough for a nominal investment, but not $500 or $1000.

[Kapila Wimalaratne @ Jun 20th 2006 12:16AM]

I could care less about movie downloads. If I want to see a movie, I'll rent the thing on DVD and watch on my TV.

I want the iTMS to offer video content that I want:

* Let me upload my own home movies (and download movies created by other people). i.e. Enable niche markets.

* Educational video: dancing, massage, cooking, language, etc. instruction

* More TV shows and music videos

Kap

[Ben Hobbs @ Jun 20th 2006 2:12AM]

So we will be paying not only for the internet access and processing power to download but also the storage space to save it to (HDD/Ipod), be limited to one copy on one machine and it plays only on the ipod at 320x200 resolution, all for the price of a normal DVD.

where do I sign up?

[John Doe @ Jun 20th 2006 3:40AM]

Ain't no way in HELL would I EVER pay anything above $10 for a digitally downloaded copy. The movie industry deserves to be gutted by pirates. Greedy bastards.