Why won't movie studios follow the iTunes model for movies?

VuDu or Amazon is who I use for 24 hour rentals these days. VuDu is pretty damn good for new stuff and give you options for streaming in SD, HD or 1080p with the pricing being $3.99, $4.99 and $5.99 I think (or maybe everything shifted down $1). They also have a $.99 movie of the day every day.

I just want to know why I can put a cd in my computer and rip it to iTunes, but not a dvd.

quote:

---

Why won't movie studios follow the iTunes model for movies?

---

Who says they aren't?

quote:

---

But of course it's not on netflix instant

---

I don't think you're very familiar with the iTunes model. iTunes is not an all you can watch for $8 subscription service. Unforgiven is available digitally for purchase or rental. You can buy it from iTunes for $10. You can buy or rent it from Vudu for as little as $3 or as much as $20 depending on SD/HD and rent/buy LINK

If you want more movies on a subscription basis then the cost of NetFlix has to go up, and frankly I don't understand why they haven't gone in that direction. People would pay $30+ a month for NetFlix if they had enough selection.

quote:

---

In the interim, I strongly encourage piracy to help force their hand.

---

So a business creates a product you want, but they won't sell it to you on YOUR terms, so you say lets steal it and blame them because they won't do what you want. Makes sense.

I don't disagree with you, that it seems like they could make it available for streaming rental for the same price as old VCR rentals, but that they don't is not a justification to steal it, sorry.

ETA: the iTunes model for music is just a new tech version of the old music model of buying singles. Before CD's people often bought single songs on 45's.

quote:

---

So a business creates a product you want, but they won't sell it to you on YOUR terms

---

Right.

quote:

---

so you say lets steal it and blame them because they won't do what you want. Makes sense.

---

Yep.

And I have no problem with that whatsoever.



I have little sympathy for industries that don't understand their market.

quote:

---

the iTunes model for music is just a new tech version of the old music model of buying singles. Before CD's people often bought single songs on 45's.

---

Not for $0.99 or $1.29 a song and they didn't get to pick and choose exactly what songs they wanted.

quote:

---

So a business creates a product you want, but they won't sell it to you on YOUR terms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Right

---

so if a store is closed when you want to buy something, is it ok to break in and take it.

quote:

---

And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

---

Maybe I'm confussing you with someone else so I apologize if so, but aren't you an anrcho-capitalist? Since when is stealing someone else's property ok? That's a selfish and dangerous mentality.

quote:

---

I have little sympathy for industries that don't understand their market.

---

Did it ever occur to you that maybe its YOU that doesn't understand the market? Maybe it's not profitable for them to release the movies the way you want? Typically if there is a better more efficient way of doing business there's a competitor that doing it a certain way. Yet here there is not? Why? Maybe its because they are stuck in their ways or maybe because it's because they can't make enough money to justify the costs. If they can't make a profit, they aren't going to do it and just because some are willing to pay doesn't mean it is profitable.

quote:

---

Not for $0.99 or $1.29 a song and they didn't get to pick and choose exactly what songs they wanted.

---

45's were roughly $1-$2, which adjusted for inflation is much higher. I assume the cost of printing and distributing 45's was much higher and technolgy greatly reduces that cost and makes it possible to buy any songs, not just the ones that were released on 45, but even in the 80's, if a song was still in print on 45, you could order it from some places.

quote:

---

First, people have no patience, we see where this is headed and wonder why we can't just skip to the end already

---

I agree that's the big problem. but just because its possible, doesn't mean it's profitable or profitable enough to justify the costs. Usually you'd have a competiting company or even subsititute product, but that's not possible here, it's a unique product. If someone wants to watch Unforgiven, he has to go to the people that made or own that movie. I'd like to see Song of the South again, but Disney will never release it on home video in the US. That does not justify breaking in to their vault.

quote:

---

I don't condone piracy, but this is the attitude today's consumer has and going to war with your customer is just not good business, especially when they seem more than happy to go to war with you.

---

I think it's still a relatively small segment of the customer base that is willing to steal. That tech savy customer base is grossly over represented on a forum like this. There are plenty of movies I've wanted to see that are not on Netflix, I don't go steal it though, I just watch something else.

quote:

---

I think the film and TV industry really fears a Netflix type streaming service where you pay $10 per month for unlimited access, and that's why they did everything they could to frick Netflix over.

It wasn't so much that, as the fact that once Netflix established the market and pioneered the field, the movies and studios wanted to do streaming themselves, and charge what they wanted for it.

---

Right, shockingly they want to make money. $10/month is nothing. I don't think I even watch all that much and I'm paying less than $1 per show. That's fine for older shows, but how is that remotely profitable for new content that costs millions or $100's of millions to make in the case of big movies?

quote:

---

Second, it's not an ideal free market. The barriers to entry are so high that it limits competition which puts the sellers at an advantage over the buyers

---

This is really a separate issue and i agree. In the case of cable, the gov't has made it difficult for competition. Satelite providers had to fight to get access and then to be allowed to show local stations. That's a problem of cronyism. Still, no one has offered a la carte programing. They all over packages. is that because they can't offer a la carte? Is if because the networks won't agree? Or is it because it would be too expensive?