6 ms·

I found the selection of digitally rentable movies on iTunes and Amazon (not the streaming services, the pay per rental one’s) to be pretty good. If you are wil

I found the selection of digitally rentable movies on iTunes and Amazon (not the streaming services, the pay per rental one’s) to be pretty good. If you are willing to pay to rent (ie the blockbuster model), I think either has a much larger and better selection than blockbusters ever had.

adrianN 7y ago
Blockbuster used to cost a Euro per day. 1.50 for new releases. Renting something from Amazon costs 3.99, about as much as buying a used DVD. I don't think that's a fair price.
- darrenkopp 7y ago
  Maybe that is what rentals at Blockbuster cost at the end of their run (or before they were super popular). I used to go to a wonderful local movie store for $0.99 - $1.99 rentals because blockbuster was $3.99+ a rental. Granted, that was for 5 days, but Blockbuster was definitely pricey in it's prime. Disclaimer: pricing is just based on one suburban area in the United States.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    My childhood video store had a 5 movies for $5 for 5 days deal. But that's easier with a back-catalog oriented clientele.
- adventured 7y ago
  Or often worse than $3.99 on new releases. Alita: Battle Angel is $5.99 to rent in HD right now on Amazon. Redbox is charging $2.12 for all Blu-ray releases on disc, including Alita. Their streaming version is also $5.99 in HD. Hard to imagine running those kiosks 24/7, maintaining them and stocking them is cheaper than serving up a stream version. They're no doubt charging $5.99 because they're confident that they can command it based on convenience (laziness factor). $3-$3.50 for a new release in HD is around the edge of reasonable in my opinion; and $1 to $2 for everything else.
  - lallysingh 7y ago
    Don't the kiosks charge late fees? Isn't that where the money was in the rental business?
    - adventured 7y ago
      I'd have to assume they make a nice kicker from it. They add an identical rental fee each day. So if you roll it over past the return time, they re-rent it to you basically. I know someone that owned a rental chain (the old style physical stores) in the 1980s and early 1990s. At any given time 15-20% of their sales came from late fees. Also interesting is that VHS tapes once cost $70-$100 ($40-$60 wholesale; $55 in 1984 is $140 today), so there was a serious investment and risk in renting them out to customers at the time. Stores typically purchased the tapes outright from the studios back then (so you can imagine the VHS tape inventory costs); more recently many independent stores switched to a shared revenue model, where they didn't have to front cash for inventory.
  - Mathnerd314 7y ago
    Part of the kiosks being cheaper is copyright; Redbox can buy retail discs if they have to, so they have a lot more leverage in licensing.
- freddie_mercury 7y ago
  Since Blockbuster went bankrupt charging €1 and €1.50 it should be pretty obvious that's not a fair price either. Blockbuster was losing $1 billion a year charging those prices.
  - csande17 7y ago
    > Blockbuster was losing $1 billion a year charging those prices. Blockbuster was also running bricks-and-mortar stores, and buying physical DVDs, and replacing them when they broke/wore out/weren't returned. A digital "rental", on the other hand, has basically zero marginal cost.
    - slyall 7y ago
      OTOH Blockbuster paid for the DVD once and got to rent it out as long as it lasted. How much do itunes/Amazon have to pay to the studio every time they rent out a movie?
      - scarface74 7y ago
        It has to be close to the price they are a charging since every VOD store charges the same. I would think of that weren’t the case, someone would charge less.
rabidrat 7y ago
Scarecrow Video in Seattle had a huge selection, more than any other video rental place. A small, independent video store was able to compete in a local market with the giant chain, and they did pretty well for themselves. I wonder how feasible it would be for a small, independent streaming service to even exist these days.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  FWIW, the past tense isn't needed: Scarecrow Video still operates, five years on as a non-profit. Reckless Video is also still in operation at Roosevelt and 90th in Maple Leaf.
  - aaronbrethorst 7y ago
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow-project https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow...
- derekdahmer 7y ago
  What value would they provide in a world where it only costs $5 to instantly stream almost any movie ever created directly to your TV? Location and inventory are now irrelevant, and recommendations are instantly accessible on the web. Viewing devices typically have multiple rental provider options. The only things left to compete on are be bitrate and price.
  - apatters 7y ago
    > a world where it only costs $5 to instantly stream almost any movie ever created directly to your TV Wait, where is this world you speak of? I have a Netflix streaming subscription and it's way inferior in terms of selection to when I used their DVD mailing service ten years ago. But it sounds like you're renting individual titles. I am a bit of a movie buff into old and slightly obscure titles so I went to Google Play and tried three of my old favorites from the 1990s off the top of my head. None of them were available. (I didn't even try the truly obscure stuff.) On the other side of the market, Avengers: Infinity War is $10 to rent on Google Play! Where is this place I can go where they have everything and it's all $5?
gnicholas 7y ago
I have been annoyed that on several occasions I wanted to rent a movie and iTunes only had it for purchase. I agree that iTunes has a decent selection, but I have basically zero interest in "owning" (renting for my lifetime, or the lifetime of the iTunes store, whichever is shorter) movie downloads from iTunes.
kjaftaedi 7y ago
Are there any other decent options available? I am not interested in giving money to Amazon due to how they treat their warehouse workers, and I'm not interested in trying to get itunes to run on linux.
- jaredklewis 7y ago
  Though I haven't used it personally, Google Play Store looks to have a pretty large collection as well.

adrianN 7y ago

Blockbuster used to cost a Euro per day. 1.50 for new releases. Renting something from Amazon costs 3.99, about as much as buying a used DVD. I don't think that's a fair price.

darrenkopp 7y ago
Maybe that is what rentals at Blockbuster cost at the end of their run (or before they were super popular). I used to go to a wonderful local movie store for $0.99 - $1.99 rentals because blockbuster was $3.99+ a rental. Granted, that was for 5 days, but Blockbuster was definitely pricey in it's prime. Disclaimer: pricing is just based on one suburban area in the United States.
- ethbro 7y ago
  My childhood video store had a 5 movies for $5 for 5 days deal. But that's easier with a back-catalog oriented clientele.
adventured 7y ago
Or often worse than $3.99 on new releases. Alita: Battle Angel is $5.99 to rent in HD right now on Amazon. Redbox is charging $2.12 for all Blu-ray releases on disc, including Alita. Their streaming version is also $5.99 in HD. Hard to imagine running those kiosks 24/7, maintaining them and stocking them is cheaper than serving up a stream version. They're no doubt charging $5.99 because they're confident that they can command it based on convenience (laziness factor). $3-$3.50 for a new release in HD is around the edge of reasonable in my opinion; and $1 to $2 for everything else.
- lallysingh 7y ago
  Don't the kiosks charge late fees? Isn't that where the money was in the rental business?
  - adventured 7y ago
    I'd have to assume they make a nice kicker from it. They add an identical rental fee each day. So if you roll it over past the return time, they re-rent it to you basically. I know someone that owned a rental chain (the old style physical stores) in the 1980s and early 1990s. At any given time 15-20% of their sales came from late fees. Also interesting is that VHS tapes once cost $70-$100 ($40-$60 wholesale; $55 in 1984 is $140 today), so there was a serious investment and risk in renting them out to customers at the time. Stores typically purchased the tapes outright from the studios back then (so you can imagine the VHS tape inventory costs); more recently many independent stores switched to a shared revenue model, where they didn't have to front cash for inventory.
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  Part of the kiosks being cheaper is copyright; Redbox can buy retail discs if they have to, so they have a lot more leverage in licensing.
freddie_mercury 7y ago
Since Blockbuster went bankrupt charging €1 and €1.50 it should be pretty obvious that's not a fair price either. Blockbuster was losing $1 billion a year charging those prices.
- csande17 7y ago
  > Blockbuster was losing $1 billion a year charging those prices. Blockbuster was also running bricks-and-mortar stores, and buying physical DVDs, and replacing them when they broke/wore out/weren't returned. A digital "rental", on the other hand, has basically zero marginal cost.
  - slyall 7y ago
    OTOH Blockbuster paid for the DVD once and got to rent it out as long as it lasted. How much do itunes/Amazon have to pay to the studio every time they rent out a movie?
    - scarface74 7y ago
      It has to be close to the price they are a charging since every VOD store charges the same. I would think of that weren’t the case, someone would charge less.

rabidrat 7y ago

Scarecrow Video in Seattle had a huge selection, more than any other video rental place. A small, independent video store was able to compete in a local market with the giant chain, and they did pretty well for themselves. I wonder how feasible it would be for a small, independent streaming service to even exist these days.

techsupporter 7y ago
FWIW, the past tense isn't needed: Scarecrow Video still operates, five years on as a non-profit. Reckless Video is also still in operation at Roosevelt and 90th in Maple Leaf.
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow-project https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/644154729/the-scarecrow...
derekdahmer 7y ago
What value would they provide in a world where it only costs $5 to instantly stream almost any movie ever created directly to your TV? Location and inventory are now irrelevant, and recommendations are instantly accessible on the web. Viewing devices typically have multiple rental provider options. The only things left to compete on are be bitrate and price.
- apatters 7y ago
  > a world where it only costs $5 to instantly stream almost any movie ever created directly to your TV Wait, where is this world you speak of? I have a Netflix streaming subscription and it's way inferior in terms of selection to when I used their DVD mailing service ten years ago. But it sounds like you're renting individual titles. I am a bit of a movie buff into old and slightly obscure titles so I went to Google Play and tried three of my old favorites from the 1990s off the top of my head. None of them were available. (I didn't even try the truly obscure stuff.) On the other side of the market, Avengers: Infinity War is $10 to rent on Google Play! Where is this place I can go where they have everything and it's all $5?

gnicholas 7y ago

I have been annoyed that on several occasions I wanted to rent a movie and iTunes only had it for purchase. I agree that iTunes has a decent selection, but I have basically zero interest in "owning" (renting for my lifetime, or the lifetime of the iTunes store, whichever is shorter) movie downloads from iTunes.

kjaftaedi 7y ago

Are there any other decent options available? I am not interested in giving money to Amazon due to how they treat their warehouse workers, and I'm not interested in trying to get itunes to run on linux.

jaredklewis 7y ago
Though I haven't used it personally, Google Play Store looks to have a pretty large collection as well.