iTunes movie rental fire gets a poke: Warner Bros, Fox, Disney, Paramount and Lionsgate all on board?

Rumors have been swirling that Apple will be offering movie rentals over iTunes for weeks now. Now it would appear that Warner Bros have joined Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Lionsgate and Paramount in the initial launch. This, according to sources speaking anonymously to Bloomberg. The announcement is expected to be made on January 15th according to the report, presumably during Jobs' MacWorld keynote. Both new releases and older titles will rent for $3.99 for 24 hours. Bloomberg's sources also indicate that Fox may join as a supplier of movie downloads. While the details may change, an iTunes rental service announcement on Tuesday seems a near certainty given the recent multi-source, confluence of data.

[Via Appleinsider]

[scinman @ Jan 9th 2008 2:04PM]

I'm all over this one! I'm dying for an AppleTV bump and a rental announcement at MacWorld...

[smi1ey @ Jan 9th 2008 2:07PM]

geez, that seems a bit pricey. i mean, i can drive to the video store and pay less than that for a new release, and that's with gas costs included! i suppose you're paying for convenience? i mean, at least give us more than 24 hours...

[Nick @ Jan 9th 2008 3:22PM]

i dunno about where you are located but where I live its $3.99 for a DVD + gas + them not having the new release in stock even though its one of their "guaranteed in stock" movies.

[Ireland @ Jan 9th 2008 6:10PM]

No prices are certain until that bald guy stands up and stage and says so, until it happens it's still technically a rumor.

[fupresti @ Jan 9th 2008 2:13PM]

$3.99 seems outrageous when I can visit my local grocery store and rent a brand new DVD for 24 hours for a buck.

[The Pepto Pimp @ Jan 9th 2008 2:36PM]

You missed the point despite the fact that you nailed the point. Rent a movie without getting off the couch...

[Jeff @ Jan 9th 2008 2:40PM]

I can do that with Netflix, have better quality, portability, no time limit, and pay less.

And I guarantee Netflix will have a larger library of streaming movies than iTunes has downloadable titles, by about 100 times.

[Jason @ Jan 9th 2008 3:26PM]

I thought the same thing. Can't wait for the rent-offs we'll be seeing soon after launch that compare the ITMS rentals to walking 4 minutes to the corner store for $1 new release rentals.

$4 is $3 way too much for 24 hours.

[scinman @ Jan 9th 2008 3:36PM]

There's no way I can get a movie for less than $4 after driving to the store right now - that price is just fine by me.

As for Netflix, not everyone watches enough movies per month to make a subscription service worth it.

[Scott @ Jan 9th 2008 4:00PM]

Scinman:
Netflix's cheapest monthly subscription is $4.99 a month. A whole $1 more than a SINGLE 24-hour rental from this itunes rental service!

"Up to 2 rentals a month - up to 1 movie out at a time with 5 hours of time to watch instantly for a flat monthly fee of $4.99."

So for $1 more you get a movie or two for an entire month vs 24 hours, and you can actually take it to a friends house or where ever in full DVD resolution.

I'm not sure I know anyone that doesn't watch at least one movie a month.

[scinman @ Jan 9th 2008 4:07PM]

hmm... I always through NetFlix was something like $15 a month.

[Ordeith @ Jan 9th 2008 5:42PM]

They make the Xbox Live video marketplace seem like a bargain.

[Andrew @ Jan 10th 2008 5:27PM]

The problem is netflix RARELY has any new movies... I subscribe and i am yet to find movies i really wanna watch much less new movies

[tcc3 @ Jan 9th 2008 2:13PM]

How popular has redbox been? Isn't that a dollar per day? Blockbuster is about $4 for 3 days still right?. This should have better selection and be more convenient, but $4 is a bit much.

[WedgeTalon @ Jan 9th 2008 7:54PM]

I don't know how well Redbox has been doing on a whole, but from personal experience (even after using way more free rental than they probably would have liked), I actually spend more on movies with redbox than I ever did at Blockbuster, etc. That's because it is so incredibly easy to justify a $1 purchase.


For me, $1 is overpriced for a download. I can easily stop by redbox at least 6 days out of the week, for a total extra time cost of 10 or so minutes. And that nets me a full quality dvd. I can't do that with itunes. To make it the same no-brainer purchase that redbox is, it would have to be $0.25 to $0.50 for 24 hours.

[jagowar @ Jan 9th 2008 2:13PM]

$3.99 for non hd is pretty bad imo (assuming its not hd.. if it is the pricing is great)... dont see too many people using it past the first month.

[jamma @ Jan 9th 2008 5:47PM]

It won't be HD, if it is, then most people will only have an hour left to watch it by the time they've downloaded it

[zachary miller @ Jan 9th 2008 2:16PM]

I wouldn't pay 4 dollars for a water downed movie for a single day. Maybe a week I would. I don't think Apple would price them that high for such a short time. Redbox is 99 cents per day, that will be something apple has to compete with.

[StalkerZERO @ Jan 9th 2008 3:48PM]

I think I could tolerate the 24 hours IF and only IF they also let people download high definition titles. To blazes with blu-ray and hd-dvd!

[SteveJ @ Jan 9th 2008 2:17PM]

I can't believe they'd limit it to only 24 hours. For me that just wouldn't work and I can't believe I'm alone in watching movies on my iPod Touch during a train/bus commute that means taking 2 or 3 days to watch an average length movie. Aren't we who this is suppose to be for?

[snitch @ Jan 9th 2008 2:19PM]

i just hope that rentals would be for more than 24hour so that i can taken them with me on business trips, or at least that they offer a subscription services if not. i dont see apple TV getting revise though because they hardly added anything to it, and the freaking thing is aluminum already i do see them adding tons of content to it, but remember what steve said last year that by this year end they wont be using anymore plastics, so i see a new airport extreme base station made of glass of aluminum and maybe new headphones and some other stuff

[BobbyW @ Jan 9th 2008 2:31PM]

Agreed, 24 hours is too short. I'm most likely to take the movies on a long flight, and I'd like to have one for the return flight. This needs to be 7 days.
I don't understand what they're afraid of in giving you only 24 hours. How does making it a week hurt them??

[Jeremy K. @ Jan 9th 2008 2:22PM]

What format will the movies be in?

[KC @ Jan 9th 2008 2:22PM]

Just goes to show, even with all this BluRay/HD DVD talk, the future is streaming media. As bandwidth and compression get better we will all just stream our media. This compounded by things like writers strike, Netflix streaming, and YouTube. Everyone with a big TV more then likely have a media PC or Xbox 360 connected and are streaming the media they want rented or not.
There is no more room in our lives for physical media. Look what the iPod did for Cd's.

[Zoesch @ Jan 9th 2008 2:27PM]

It did what? You can still buy CD's, in fact lots of people with iPod's still buy CD's.

Call me when ADSL2+ level broadband is ubiquitous, cheap and uncapped... in the meantime physical media will continue coexisting with downloadable media

[shanoboy @ Jan 9th 2008 2:43PM]

I agree with KC. Digital media is overtaking physical in a lot of areas. Sure there will always be people who want a physical copy of their digital media, but that number is shrinking.

The only apparent downside to streaming media is a lack of HD content for our HDTVs and a lack of high speed broadband for everyone in the country. Look at a country like South Korea where super high speed broadband is abundant. I wonder how much physical media they're selling these days?

[Jeff @ Jan 9th 2008 2:48PM]

KC:

About 90% of all albums are still bought on CD. Music downloads have a lot of hype right now but why do you think all the majors are now dropping DRM? Because downloads are still an infinitesimal part of the market, despite the hype and misleading stats. People always make a big deal saying things like "download sales have doubled!" which means nothing when you're starting from nothing. Ditto for "we've sold 1 billion songs!" or whatever, which again means about 100 million album equivalents, or about 1/5 of what the industry sells in CD's every year - even now.

The iPod hasn't killed the CD, and downloads will not kill Blu-Ray. Especially not iTunes, which does not have a popular interface into the TV yet. Apple TV has sold about 400,000 units, which should tell you how many people are interested in downloading anything from the internet to the TV. Most people are not the Engadget crowd; most people have a hard enough time even figuring out how to hit the "eject" button on their DVD player. And they buy whatever the salesperson tells them to buy; that's going to be Blu-Ray from now on, not Apple TV.

[scinman @ Jan 9th 2008 3:43PM]

@ Jeff - Consider the fact that the ApplTV not selling could be related to content. Adding rentals to iTMS would only make it more lucrative to own. Also, they've been adding more and more HD video podcasts that are all free. If Apple can get the catalog out there, people will have a reason to buy the hardware. Sorry, but people just aren't going to buy an AppleTV to play Movies they bought on iTMS at $15 bucks a piece - it's too expensive.

I'm waiting until MacWorld to see if the AppleTV gets a bump, but I'll be purchasing one soon.

[Otsego_Undead @ Jan 9th 2008 2:25PM]

I'd be down with a monthly fee and no time restraints.. Oh wait that's netflix. I love the idea, but it its got to have a better competitive Advantage than convenience.

[Mike @ Jan 9th 2008 2:28PM]

Fail.

[larry @ Jan 9th 2008 2:42PM]

Apple.

Offering people the same shitty stuff at an outrageous price!

gotta love em

[Scott @ Jan 9th 2008 4:09PM]

I don't see how this translates across their entire product range. 99 cent songs are ok (consider that your cell phone provider is trying to charge you $1.99 for an inferior copy of the same thing), but this $3.99 for 24 hours is DOA.

[Andy S. @ Jan 9th 2008 2:45PM]

The limited-duration rental period is a load of crap, and is my primary beef with Microsoft's XBL movie store as well. Netflix lets me rent multiple movies for as long as I want, and allows me to watch them over as long a time period (and as many times) as I like, at a price that is more reasonable. Yes, it takes a day (sometimes two) for the next movie in my queue to get to me, but it's not really a big deal.

If Apple and MS really wanted to compete with Netflix, they'd give up on this limited-rental garbage and figure out a competitive system. Maybe something that allows you to "check out" a set number of movies, and lets you watch them for as long as you want, but doesn't let you obtain any additional movies until you "check" a movie back in? Perhaps a system that calls home to verify that the user is authorized to watch the movie?

Sure, we're talking about layers upon layers of DRM here, but if it's a rental and not something I'm *purchasing* to *own*, I don't really care, as long as it doesn't affect video or sound quality.

[shawn @ Jan 10th 2008 1:11PM]

Netflix is eventually going to all-download as well. (Hence the "Net" bit in their name.)

Netflix downloading only works with Microsoft Windows. If you're using OSX, Linux, or another *nix, you're out of luck.

Apple's download will work on Microsoft Windows or OSX (but not Linux or even pure BSD Unix.) To use it, you will need to run iTunes and possibly purchase one of those underwhelming AppleTV boxes.

We use Netflix. It costs about the same as signing up for HBO per month; we can watch all of the good stuff you can get on HBO (Rome, Deadwood, etc) plus all the movies, including indy flicks and small-market movies. When Netflix goes all-digital and we can no longer make use of it, at this point, our only option is Torrent. I would imagine we rent roughly 10 discs per month, which would make Apple's $4 offering prohibitive.

[Thataboy @ Jan 9th 2008 3:05PM]

I love Apple, but this simply will not do in a world with Netflix.

[Student Driver @ Jan 9th 2008 3:09PM]

Wow, so Warner is joining the same people in iTunes that it did for Blu-Ray. Coincidence?

[Mike R @ Jan 9th 2008 3:10PM]

Get real. $3.99 for 24 hours!!! Redbox. On my way home from work. $1 for 24 hours for an actual DVD.

[bradwjensen @ Jan 9th 2008 3:11PM]

Then people can just do screencasts and record their screen while watching the movies! ha

[h8rain @ Jan 9th 2008 3:16PM]

$4 is too much, because Blockbuster is like $4.80 for Blu-Ray and that is for like a week. (Yes I do have to get off my but to get it). Needs to be like $2.

Now the bigger question is when the timer start? Time of purchase? Finish of download? First time the file is viewed?

This is where the 24 hrs comes into problems. If time of purchase say your internet is crappy and it takes like 3 hours to download. Or even worse, your internet craps out. If finish of download, what if you have crappy internet and you started it that morning, and when you got home you forgot about it? Well there goes $4 out the window. I would hope that it is when the file is *first* viewed. That way people with slower internets (or bad memory's) don't get punished. The other problem with 24 hrs is falling asleep. I can easy stay awake for a movie, but my wife falls asleep during movies alot. She generally finishes a movie a day or two later. 24 hours is just too short.

Now I have ranted on for something that is not even concrete, but if it comes into existence like this, I will rent as many movies as I have purchased from iTunes, 0! The price is just not justified. Call me cheap, but I don't generally buy full albums either, if I can pick them up for like $12. I do however buy a lot of single songs. That is where I love it. $1-2 for good songs vs $12 for album. Now if I want the whole album (say Clapton Chronicles which is $10 on iTunes and $10 for the actual CD at Target), I will just buy the actual higher quality DRM FREE, pre backed up copy. Movies/TV have the same problem. I can buy it on DVD for almost the same price (Weeds Season 1 is $20 on iTunes and $25 for freaking Blu-Ray). I think if I don't have a physical copy it should be at LEAST a third of the cost ($15 CD should be $10, $10 CD for $7 and use the prices at reasonable places like Target, not RIP YOU OFF music stores in the mall).

[gb @ Jan 9th 2008 3:30PM]

So in reality, this is just Video on Demand. Which I'm fine with. Netflix is great and all, but if I'm bored and want to watch a movie right away, I'd rather not have to go to the video store. So for the same price and time as InDemand, I can view the same movie, and probably a wider selection. In most cases, movies I want to see several times I'll just buy. For a movie I want to see once, 4 bucks for 24 hours is totally fine by me. It's better than the current itunes model of $14 to buy. I think this is a smart move. I'm much more likely to use itunes for movies now.

[Scott @ Jan 9th 2008 4:09PM]

Except you can use your Netflix subscription to *also* do video on demand, giving you everything Apple is providing, and then some, for $1 more!

I would educate yourself on the rental market before you accept paying $4 for a 24 hour rental.

[David S. @ Jan 9th 2008 3:31PM]

$3.99 for 24 hours is competing against your local cable company's "On Demand" video service - not Block Buster, RedBox, or NetFlix.

That said - Apple - or rather the studios that are demanding $x from Apple - are idiots if they think they should be competing against the cable companies. As someone said earlier - what if you want to take the movie on a weekend trip and watch it over the course of several days?

My guess is, Apple will also offer an unlimited-time subscription service that will be a better deal than individual downloads, but lock you into a $20-$25/monthly fee in order to get it.

My pick - whatever DRM they use will be cracked within the first week and utilities made available to remove the time limits.

[Jim @ Jan 9th 2008 3:33PM]

Not meant to compete with Netflix. It's all about spontaneous purchase. How much is PPV? THAT is the target competition. And this is all speculation and baby steps. If anyone things this is not the future of mainstream content distribution then go to sleep for 5 years.

[Scott @ Jan 9th 2008 4:09PM]

Not meant to compete with Netlfix? How do you explain this then?
http://www.netflix.com/WatchNow?lnkctr=mhWN

[Jim @ Jan 9th 2008 4:39PM]

Scott, I meant the physical mailing of DVDs by Netflix. However, the Netflix PC downloading service is not so attractive either. Firstly, its PC only - can't display on a TV. Secondly, its not portable. Thirdly, its $24 a month to get the 24 hour rental. In fact, that's the max time that Netflix allows you to keep a movie downloaded to your PC. The lowest time is 5 hours. I actually don't think the time limit is so important. In essence, these services are for instant gratification, not future planning. Jobs said that he didn't think people wanted to rent music. I bet he appreciates that most people are quite happy renting movies.....

[sk8rpro @ Jan 9th 2008 3:48PM]

You know, I'm just going to wait this off. I'll pretend this 3.99 price is only rumor and wait until the price is officially announced.

I'll also keep my fingers crossed.

[StalkerZERO @ Jan 9th 2008 3:52PM]

What are the odds that Apple will also announce that those same titles in the rental service would also be high definition if available?
Please let it be so Jobs! :(

[Alex Padilla @ Jan 9th 2008 4:03PM]

This simply will not do. Personally, I'd rather see Apple and these companies add to the movie "purchase to own" download section. Have you seen the titles you can download? Not impressive, imo (though there are admittedly good films to get).

[StalkerZERO @ Jan 9th 2008 4:29PM]

Yeah but you know that Apple isn't in control here right? Its those idiotic movie companies. I suppose I can tolerate this plan if and only if they include high definition downloads. But I suppose this would be hoping too much right? :(

[Muu @ Jan 9th 2008 4:45PM]

$3.99?

If they can offer 720P or better...