Disney sells 4 million movies and over 40 million videos on iTunes -- amounts to nothing
By Thomas Ricker 
posted March 13th 2008 10:31AM
posted March 13th 2008 10:31AM
Disney announced that it sold 4 million movies and between 40 to 50 million videos on iTunes since 2006. That's huge, right? Not really. In fact, analysts expect those numbers to amount to just $123 million ($1.44 earned per video, $14.50 per movie); pennies in comparison to Disney's $35 billion in annual sales. In fact, it's roughly 10% of the $1 billion in digital revenue Disney hopes to achieve this year. A clear reminder, dear readers, of just how Type-A we really are. The typical Wal-mart noob still doesn't download their video and music -- hell, they can't even figure out Linux.
...but that might actually be a FAIR comparison. no one wants that.
furthermore, would comparing Profits make sense? They're comparing the $1.44 earned per video to what exactly? the $29.99 per DVD sold? Are they also counting the costs of producing, shipping, etc. they have to spend on physical media? of course not. So even if they WERE talking about revenues of JUST their media, it still wouldn't have an relevance.
This isn't a "fair comparison" really looking at the benefits, it's just some nonsense trying to marginalize the perceived impact that the iTunes Store has had.
I never download anything from iTunes because I'm a genius, and own a Zune. And I don't know how to use Linux. *cries
Last time I checked, most Linux users can't figure out Linux.
I hate Walmart more than most, but I assure you, they do not have a monopoly on ignorant technophiles.
Yes we do. Everyday I go to work and tell people that yeah that computer is great for what you need it is for is fact for that. (most people shopping at wal-mart for a computer aren't looking for state of the art here.
I can't download any movies or tv shows cause I'm still stuck with dialup. Go yell at the telecom companies.
I don't get it...you guys frequent this site, have the time to read these articles, and I would have to guess most of you 'bashers' on this article don't like change.
Well la-de-la...tough shit.
The future is changing, and the writer of this article is correct when he used "wal-mart noobs". Meaning - the common folk will still be coughing up for DVDs, Blu-Rays, and all kinds of crap for kids. The point is due to costs going up on everything-fucking-thing. They have to cut costs somehow. Whether it's to reduce, or eliminate overhead costs, or to score brownie points via environmental concerns on reducing plastic, CD/DVDs...read this text carefully...
YOUR FUCKING COMPUTER CAN DO EVERYTHING!!!
You don't need to buy a god damned CD player, a god damned DVD player, or a Blu-Ray player, and all kinds of cool funky home theatre related hardware. I don't give two shits about getting flamed, but I"m ashamed that the 'bashers' here will check out this site, balk at the articles when in fact you guys are slow to change, and haven't grew a brain stem realizing that you can save money by simply upgrading your computer to handle whatever it is you want to do. Store all your music on it, movies, porn, whatever the fuck floats your boat.
Point is, we're still in the present, and learning to prepare for the future.
Won't be long before you bashers will be paying, and downloading movies at $5 a pop. Beats renting, and trying to find a decent working torrent to amuse yourself.
I'm surrounded by twits.
OK, find me a legal digital copy of Sgt Peppers, or ZOSO, etc... Having trouble? Yeah, that's right, a lot of things aren't available digitally.
I do get your point, computers can do a lot, digial is cheaper than physical. But trying to argue that buying a computer for digital distribution downloads will somehow save you money is not entirely true.
Downloading a CD's worth of audio gets you a handful of files which may or may not have DRM, will have lower audio quality, is less readily playable, can't legally be loaned to friends, and will cost about the same as buying a CD.
Movies are even worse. Sure, I admit it costs about 2 bucks more for a DVD, but I get a higher quality video. The only movies I buy are movies that I absolutely love such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Those movies I want in the best possible quality available.
On to renting: Downloading movies at $5 a pop? Where? Are these permanent and DRM free? If so, I'm sold! But if you mean temporary playable movies then it's certainly no savings over how I rent. Netflix costs me $15 a month and I probably watch about 25 discs a month for that. Let's see... that's 60 cents per movie.
The problems with iTunes are multifaceted. First, the price is too high. Few people are going to pay as much for an iTunes movie as Wal-Mart charges for the hard copy. This leads to the second problem: Storage.
The fundamental problem with iTunes (and even Apple TV) is that it requires files to be stored on a user's hard drive. If you wanted an iTunes movie collection of any significant size, you will be running into storage issues very quickly. I don't know about you, but I do not want to allocate a large part of my hard drive just so I can watch The Little Mermaid whenever I want.
Furthermore, the time it takes to download an iTunes movie is simply ridiculous. I can run to Blockbuster and be well into a movie by the time iTunes completes my download.
Lastly, Apple’s DRM technology is a joke. Any kid with a pension for thievery can easily break the coding and pirate the content. While this is obviously bad for Disney, the end cost of such operations is absorbed by the selling price, which is raised to compensate for the loss.
The only solution I have found is the solution that is soon to be offered by DreamStream (www.dreamstream.info). The company claims that its technology can live-stream HD quality content without processing delays. This alone would be a huge development, but DreamStream also encrypts the file with a 20 round, 2048-bit encryption, which rests light-years beyond the current standard of 128-bits. The end result, it seems is that people will be able to watch, but not steal, anything they want, whenever they want to, and we will not have to store it on our hard drives. Within the next two months, DreamStream is launching a new service called Gum.bo that will be the fist use of the new technology.
If DreamStream catches on, Apple TV is screwed.
A small chunk of the $35 billion, yes, but it is otherwise $123 million that would not have otherwise been had, but for the simple fact that they uploaded video.
Also, there was certainly a point where DVD's in relation to VHS cassettes only amounted to some proportional (in relation to the industry) and subsequently nominal (in relation to company revenues) amounts, much like downloads today.
Sure, we're slow on the uptake, but for a variety of reasons, downloads are a lot more intimidating to the consumer than what equates to inserting a short, round peg into the correct hole and pushing anywhere from two to sixteen buttons (depending, of course, on what I call the Apple:Other ratio).
This amount will definitely change for the better. That's a lot of movies moved for not a lot of overhead. That's a very good thing.
Digital downloads aren't worth it. You can't resell them. It's much harder to lend them to a friend, if it's possible at all. In the US some ISPs seem to be moving backwards and limiting monthly bandwidth usage. They're usually more expensive, especially rentals.
"The typical Wal-mart noob still doesn't download their video and music -- hell, they can't even figure out Linux."
So so so very true. You haven't lived until you have explained that ipod doesn't mean every mp3 player made, or that don't want a linux machine because they wont be able to figure it out.
15 Dollars for just watching a film from itunes? Thats ridiculous. Here in India u can buy a dvd for just 6 dollars and oh rent a dvd for a half dollar and to talk about cds i bought spiderman3 cd for just 1.5 dollars just like many others.(and they arent pirated discs. I buy only original)