Times are tough. With financial resources dwindling by the minute, the movie-viewing public recoils in horror as Hollywood asks them to pay $39.99 for a film on Blu-ray disc. But there are ways to watch those flicks that are more economical. Just in time for cash-strapped film buffs to snap them up, increased bandwidth and processor power are making it practical to stream or download HD movies to living rooms and home theaters.
Sounds good, but there's a catch. Those production studios are holding out on us. Look at the Netflix HD service on the Xbox 360, the super-sharp HDX movies on the Vudu set-top box, HD movies via Apple TV, and you see the same story every time: thousands of movies and nothing on.
The best movies aren't available for download in HD. The studios are protecting their lucrative Blu-ray sales. Doesn't this sound a lot like the record companies when they tried to stop the online digital music juggernaut just so they could keep selling CDs for $16.99?
Follow the Continue link for more.
Movie studios are throttling the online release of their best and newest titles, just at the same moment that broadband connections and PCs can handle HD streaming and downloads. We took a look at the best-selling Blu-ray discs on Amazon, and noticed that only one of the top 10 sellers is available on any download/streaming service in HD. That one movie is Iron Man, pretty much the studios' poster child for online sales, holding it out and figuratively saying, "See, we're offering good movies online." No, you're not. One new blockbuster overshadowing hundreds of third-tier flops (Get Smart, I'm looking at you) and moldy oldies does not an online library make.
Why Are They Doing This?
Content purveyors would like to protect their old business models. They want to keep that Blu-ray and DVD gravy train rolling. Some consumers are enabling this. For reasons I don't really understand, a sizable portion of movie buffs want to collect discs to watch again and again, or to just see their boxes lined up on a shelf. For that, many are willing to pay upwards of $25.99 (or a crazy $39.99 retail price) for Iron Man or Hancock or Dark Knight or Wall-E on Blu-ray, because they can't get those movies in HD quality any other way.
Or Can They?
A peek at one of the many torrent tracking sites shows that every movie that's released on Blu-ray is available for illegal peer-to-peer (a.k.a. BitTorrent) download in pristine 1080p, sometimes weeks before the physical Blu-ray disc ships. And those copyright-infringing downloaders are not the worst problem for 2009, according to Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey. He says websites such as megavideo.com and watch-movies.net are an even bigger threat to movie studio revenue in the coming year.
Worn-out Business Models
It's not just the movie studios that are trying to protect worn-out business models. TV networks are holding back full episodes of series for online viewing or download, protecting syndication revenues that garner billion-dollar profits. At the same time, heavy downloaders are being throttled by service providers such as Time Warner, struggling to conserve bandwidth while also protecting their own pay-per-view movie and pay-channel revenues.
Past is Prologue
Clinging to tired old business models ... standing in the way of technology: Doesn't this sound a lot like the record companies in the early part of this century? They tried to protect sales of their overpriced CDs while the world discovered the lubricated ease of downloading every song ever recorded. For free. Eight years later, record stores have almost disappeared from the landscape, and Americans download twice as many singles as they buy in CD form. Digital downloads of music just surpassed overall CD sales at Atlantic Records. Apple's iTunes continues to sell music for $0.99 a song, an almost-reasonable price that's helping record companies salvage some profit in this new way of doing things.
Downloads on the Upswing
Likewise, HD movie downloads will eventually surpass sales of Blu-ray discs. In the meantime, movie studios can't foot-drag this technology just so they can continue supporting their traditional business model. They must make HD offerings plentiful and reasonably priced; the current fantasy of retailing movies at $40 will not fly. Downloads will happen either way — with studios receiving a fair profit, or left out in the cold while consumers find a free way to do the same thing.
editor@dvice.com
By skullivan at 9:25 PM ON 12/04/08
I know you guys are all about digital downloads but no one is paying $39.99 for BRD's.
The Dark Knight is selling on Amazon right now for $23.99 on Blu-ray and $20.99 on DVD. The price difference between DVD special editions and Blu-ray releases is typically less than $5 nowadays.
I can appreciate that you disagree with the purchasing of discs and favor downloads, but exaggerating Blu-ray prices doesn't make for much of an argument.
The fact is, there is a lot of idealism surrounding HD downloads but obviously the public doesn't have a problem shelling out for Blu-ray's just as they have for DVD's (since the prices are now nearly identical). In that regard, why should studios mess with a formula that works?
Downloading movies is nowhere near as easy or commonplace as downloading mp3's was 8-10 years ago. Especially not HD movies.
Bandwidth is increasing, but even compressed HD films are around 10GB. If they were somehow able to offer the same extras you'd find on a BRD, that would make it a 15-20GB download.
Not everyone has internet access that will support that but anyone *can* buy a Blu-ray player.
I have no doubt movie downloads will be a force someday, but that day is still a ways off no matter how much people want to claim Blu-ray is a doomed format.
By char at 11:05 PM ON 12/04/08
IBM announced today a suite of products that will put Microsoft Office out of business, and it all runs on a blade server on Linux with a cheap/terminal PC on the front end. This is how all content will be consumed in the future, there will be no need for iPod, or anything other than the very cheapest of "internet accessible" device and you will be able to download and consume movies, ebooks, magazines, and all other forms of media. Similar to TV in its initial stages. All it took was a black and white TV and an antenna. Once the "user base" of cheap ports becomes available, all content will conform itself to this lowest common denominator.
All content, all the time, anywhere.
www.contentrealtime.com
By trsim at 9:07 AM ON 12/05/08
Regarding skullivan's comments, I have seen BRD's retailed at $40. They may not be through online sites such as Amazon, but Circuit City (prior to their bankruptcy) and I believe Walmart have offered BRDs for $40. I also believe he has a point that bandwidth is a problem in the States, where not everyone has access to broadband internet, and so I can see the need for disc sales to continue.
I do think Charlie has a point, though, in this article, especially at the end concerning how people will get their movies. I'm sure one reason the movie and music industries will argue for such strong protection and control of the market will revolve around piracy. But piracy is rampant anyways. They may think they are making the noose tighter on piracy but in reality they are only creating the scaffolds for themselves.
I currently live in Korea. I was looking forward to using Hulu's service to stay on top of my favorite TV shows while here. But the service isn't available outside the US right now. Don't get me wrong, Hulu is a great idea and a great service. And I know that they are linked to this blog, so I hope what I'm going to say doesn't come off the wrong way. Because they really need to work on getting video available to others outside of the US. People all around the world are wanting to see what the shows and movies we make, why not take advantage of that? iTunes, another service I love in the States, denied me the opportunity to purchase music outside of the States even though I am a US citizen. There is logic I can't understand. I am willing to purchase a video legitimately, even if the price is a little high (in my opinion), but they will deny me that opportunity - especially in this market??
Again, I love iTunes, but I have to question their pricing arrangements. Maybe that has to do with music and movie companies, but any other product after 5-8 years in service begins to drop price. Amazon is offering DRM free music for $.89/song, yet iTunes is still offering DRM protected music for $.99/song. It was a great deal back in 2003, but especially in the current market those prices should be dropped. Maybe they feel they can do it because people are still buying. But how much more business could they get if they just lowered the price? It just seems to me that many companies today are, as Charlie said, too complacent with running business the old way and not interested in trying to think of business in the new model that the internet community is forcing it to recognize.
By Vic B at 9:30 AM ON 12/05/08
Blu Ray a doomed format? I don't think it ever really caught on yet as a format, IMHO. I for one am not interested enough to go buy a new TV and player just to see a movie in 1080P. And what a green process DLC is. No physical media, no packaging, no shipping (gas, trucks, exhaust), no waiting (or minimal), and no clutter. I can't see how this is not obvious to the studios. The sooner they get with the program the better for them.
By ReeyferMadness at 10:49 AM ON 12/05/08
Well, the deal's the same for them as it was for the record companies. There are 100 people trying to break the protections they build for every person building them. Those people are just as smart, just as resourceful as the people they have building their protections, and they have access to all the same off the shelf stuff to do the job. You CANNOT beat pirates on the internet. Even if you have every ISP monitoring every single connection there will be a way to get around that and pirate content with ease within weeks. The only thing you can do is provide the content even more conveniently at a low enough price and high enough quality that it's not worth the infitesimal chances of getting caught downloading illegal content. The movie companies even have an advantage that the record companies didn't - movies are big bulky files. Most ppl who watch on the net simply go to a convenient streaming service which, while not terrible is definately not HD. DVD image files are massive and slow even w/ good connections and the p2p services won't give you a decent rate unless you have better upload speeds than almost any provider offers. If the movie companies would offer the content online with fast downloads or streaming HD then their sales would make up for the lower prices.
We're going into crappy economic times. They have before them a distribution model which will slash employees and costs, increase sales among the current market share and grab back a portion of the market which has gone to... other means (heh), and probably not hurt the take that much at all (maybe even increase it). CAN YOU PICK UP AN ECONOMICS 101 BOOK, please. :D
By nerd at 12:46 AM ON 12/08/08
All movies are already free, and all in HD. The usenets account for 80% of the bandwidth from ISP's, not a fact that is well published. Comcast is among the front-runners illegally strangling peer to peer torrents, but usenet downloads are SSL, and ISP's can't spy on that kind of data so easily. It's the Internet's worst kept secret, but it explains the monthly bandwidth caps you now get from your ISP, doesn't it.
By peter at 4:01 AM ON 12/11/08
Hey if you want to download your movies that's fine... but I would much prefer blu-ray. I just bought the dark knight on blu-ray for $23. That's not bad at all. DVD's were more expsive than that when they were new. In a few years blu-ray disc will be the same price as DVD's are now.
For me it's about the quality. Are you saying that the video and audio quality is just as good with a download? I want to hear 7.1 surround sound in a lossless format (dolby true HD or dts master audio) and see a picture that is full HD and has minimal compression.
If I want to watch sub-standard movie quality that's what my cell-phone is for. Not for my home theater. Quality is still important.. at least for me.
By bnz at 5:50 AM ON 12/11/08
For me, it is *much* more important to be able to get (preferably in electronic format) "moldy oldies" than hits of the day. Let studios sell this week's (or this year's) blockbusters on physical media only, as long as I can download complete Kubrick or Antonioni (and keep or re-dowload them anytime, of course). The same holds for TV series - I am not sure what are the hits of the day, but I like to have M*A*S*H, China Beach, Homicide: Life on the Street, NYPD Blue, Northern Exposure, Sex and the City, assorted British crime series..., as well as obscure, short-running but interesting ones unlikely to re-run often (like Invasion or Firefly, for example).
By tentaro at 8:35 AM ON 12/11/08
Sorry but for me and I am sure many others..in the long run it might be cheaper to get all the extra stuff to run flawless HD video all the way to the TV but I would rather spend the couple of dollars it costs for a BluRay. Yes some Discs go for $39.99 but not many usually the ones that are 2 or 3 disc sets, mostly discs go for $24.99. Anyway, the money it would cost to get another computer to be a goo entertainment PC is insane and not worth the extra money besides the fact that you can still get regular DVDs, which are not as good up converted as Bluray but not too bad, for $14-$20 still. I think they should make more stuff available online of course but there will always be people in the world who will always want the physical format 1)because it will naturally last longer than a digital copy on a hard drive and 2) some people can't even use the internet or email how will they download movies
By TheDave at 10:07 AM ON 12/11/08
This is the problem I see with Blueray, and it kinda plays into some of the things others have said, most of the movies that are being put out on BLueRay were NOT filmed in HD (These are also the ones being pushed for 39.95). So to me there's no reason to pay the kind of premium that they're asking for the BlueRays. I can see maybe paying 25ish for a special edition multi-disc set but there's no way in hades I'm gonna pay 40 bucks for a single disc republish of an older non-HD movie.
If they bring Blue-Ray prices down to where DVDs are now I'll bite but not till then and one look at the shelves at any of the major electronics retailers on Black Friday, the discs that were all priced on sale at reasonable prices were gone and the rest of them, all prices at 39.95 or higher, were still there on the shelf.
Doesn't mean I'm saying downloads are the way to go because once all the major broadband providers put thier caps in (which they all are doing) it won't be any cheaper to download.
By thek at 1:26 PM ON 12/11/08
Well, it seems to me that streaming video is growing and many organizations want to push this out, this is great except the service providers such as Tome Warner, ATT are now moving to theo modem ways of charginf for bandwidth used. With that type of pricing coming it seems to me that when sevice proviers onnvert to this way of charging I will not be downloading large content movies to watch on interent. It looks like seveice providers are going to pit themselves against increase bandwith.
By Kingpeck at 7:07 PM ON 12/11/08
@THEDAVE: I don't know what you are thinking about, but almost all, if not all films are filmed in.... wait for it.... FILM. Film is amazing, you can pull an even higher resolution than 1080p from it if you wanted to. The only problems you may run into are sharpness issues on older films, but the scanning technique that they use to convert from film to dvd or bluray are exactly the same, just higher resolution. You might be talking about newer films being filmed in digital formats. If you have the right equipment however with film, you can have much higher resolution than digital, but also you have the pitfalls of using film.
As for downloads of movies and stuff, I live in Australia. Our country is backwards in its internet provision. I have to pay 100$ a month to get 20gb+40gb(off-peak) of downloads a month. Thats what, 2-3 movies possible in one month? Thats providing i don't use the internet for anything else. I can only really then buy the blurays of films to watch, which I don't mind so much, I like to see a wall of films.
By DarthRock at 5:07 PM ON 12/14/08
I have to agree with all the above posters. I for one cannot stand commercial TV or Radio. I swear by my 8 dollar a month Netflix account and my 12 dollar a month Sirius account. I download most movies I want to see online, in HD on my laptop... legally, anytime, anywhere, no waste, no mess, no having to store all that crap. Heck, I can hook my Acer to any TV/Big Screen/HDTV and watch them there. BluRay is, IMHO the laserdisc of these times and will be too soon obsolete.