4 ms·
As one of the comments suggests, this seems doomed to failure. Paying for a streaming version of a movie doesn't seem very desirable, as it's inherently non-por
by Zak 16y ago
As one of the comments suggests, this seems doomed to failure. Paying for a streaming version of a movie doesn't seem very desirable, as it's inherently non-portable. There's a good chance I want to watch somewhere I don't have real[0] broadband. If it's too difficult to do that, I can always find a torrent. This situation does not seem likely to change.
[0] Mobile "broadband" doesn't count. In most places, it is entirely unsuitable for streaming high-def video and will be for several years.
- robin_reala 16y agoEven with my ‘real’ (out-in-the-country 5.5mbit) broadband I’m still not yet convinced by streaming films. Nothing like a stutter to jerk you out of your immersion.
- coderdude 16y agoThat's weird. The net connection at my dad's house is ridiculously bad. You'll be lucky if you can download at 60kb/sec, and this is what they call broadband (AT&T in Yorba Linda, CA). Yet Netflix movies stream without a hitch or a hiccup.
- robin_reala 16y agoUK so no Netflix: I’m basing my previous comment on the TV catch-up services (iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD). Maybe pay-for services commit to better QoS?
- metageek 16y ago>Paying for a streaming version of a movie doesn't seem very desirable Right, that's why Netflix Instant is such a failure.
- DonnyV 16y agoThats because Netflix Instant isn't tied to a chip. It works on many devices.
- codingthewheel 16y agoUm, if Netflix Instant charged users per movie, it would've been a failure. The reason people love Netflix Instant is: one low monthly fee; unlimited, unmetered use of the service. This is night and day different from what Hollywood wants to do, and what Intel is trying to enable them to do: force consumers to buy physical discs, or force consumers to rent from a hardware-enforced DRM'd digital kiosk.
- metageek 16y agoOK, good point.
- SimonPStevens 16y agoThere is plenty of market for streamed movies. My TV provider offers films on demand at £2-4 per viewing. The convenience of being able to watch immediately, and cheaply outweighs the choice of buying the DVD/BR and being able to watch multiple times. Quick cost comparison: 1) Stream it for £4. Film was rubbish. Total cost = £4. 2) Stream it for £4. Film was great. Wait a few months until price falls. Purchase DVD at discount for £5-£10. Total cost = £9-£14 3) After release purchase for £15. Total cost = £15. Of course this depends on the economics of your specific location and the cost differences, but personally I think I spend less in total on films because I very rarely buy physical media until the prices fall. Streaming to a PC fits a very similar market profile, the only difference being it caters to those who build their entertainment system around a PC rather than a regular TV, and I think the lines between those as two separate systems are going to increasing blur in the coming years.
- absconditus 16y agoAmazon has had a video on demand service for quite some time now. It works on Windows and OS X and is supported by several devices like Roku.