7 ms·

I'd love to know why movies are so incredibly expensive on iTunes, and whether anyone's experimented with pricing movies at €5 rather than the current price of

I'd love to know why movies are so incredibly expensive on iTunes, and whether anyone's experimented with pricing movies at €5 rather than the current price of €12+. At 5 Euro, for me the price is an instant purchase, no thinking necessary. Not so at €12 or more. I hope it's not the case, but I wonder whether there are so few people that pay for movies at any price that the studios have concluded it's just not worth it, and so keep the higher prices. Or, alternatively, there are enough people that do buy at the €12 point, again not making it worth the time to lower the price. In conclusion: trying to work out pricing points hurts my head.

sjs382 14y ago
I agree. I "rent" 3-4 movies using Amazon Instant Video every month at ~$5 per pop. Every time I do, I think "do I really want to spend $5 on this?" and I'll often just go watch whatever is recommended on Netflix (or if it's just me, SportsCenter) instead. $2 is definitely the "instant rental" price point for me. And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. (For reference, I use a Roku)
- corin_ 14y ago
  > And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. Why not? Are you happier if they instead say "Rent for $4.99" and nothing else? Most products come in multiple price points, do you also dislike the fact that there are cheap/expensive models of computers, cars, TVs...
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    I would be happier. It would mean they're not trying to play tricks with anchoring and they can't easily push the price up even higher later. They wouldn't have people "compromising" with the $4 version or being tricked into thinking $5 is suddenly a 'deal' because it's only a dollar!! more.
  - sjs382 14y ago
    I would, yes. As it stands, I only see the lowest price for each movie (and I'm not interested in this lower price). I'm only interested in the "HD" price, and getting to that info takes an extra click to the movie's info screen (and then I need to go back to the listing screen once I've seen it). This might sound like "white people problems" but it's annoying and hurts the experience.
    - corin_ 14y ago
      The entire subject is somewhat "first world problems", so ignore that. So really your issue is with UI, maybe they could allow you to change which price point is shown to you? Because reducing down to a single price point, sure it might be good in that they're playing less mind games, but if you end up paying higher prices it surely isn't a good change.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    Roku's Amazon interface is terrible with pricing. In the browse view the CTA I get is "Purchase from $2.99!" But when you click into detail, it's actually: rent in SD for $2.99, rent in HD for $4.99, buy for $19.99. I don't really care that much, but I can see how it comes off as scammy. If it wasn't Amazon doing it, I think a lot more people would have a problem with it.
- chollida1 14y ago
  > And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. As perhaps a reason why they'd do this. Some of us are on bandwidth caps. Watching/downloading too many HD movies can put you over your monthly cap pretty easily. I actually like that they give the user the choice.
  - jonny_eh 14y ago
    Sure, but why charge more? Just offer a "max resolution" setting. The true answer lies in price discrimination.
    - chollida1 14y ago
      > Sure, but why charge more? Well twice the resolution in 2 axis is 4 times the pixels, which means higher costs. I think it's reasonable. > The true answer lies in price discrimination. Actually its a mix of both, price discrimination and costs. No need to be so negative.
      - Firehed 14y ago
        The bandwidth will cost less than twenty cents extra, probably far less (based on a rough estimate of S3 bandwidth costs, starting $0.12/GB down to $0.05 and under at scale). Because of peering agreements, it could actually be free. Yes, I realize there's more to it than that, but the cost difference is tiny at Apple's scale. It also feels... scammy. "For just 25% more, you can have the version that doesn't suck!" That kind of attitude does not make me want to do business with them. Of course, this is just as much the fault of the last five years of TV marketing talking about how awful anything SD is, when in practicality it's more than adequate unless you have an absurdly large screen.
tjtrapp 14y ago
I would buy movies on iTunes if the prices were more reasonable. US prices are typically $20 to buy and $5 to rent. I would buy movies if they were $5. To rent, the price would need to be closer to $0.99.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  US prices are typically $20 to buy and $5 to rent. It's just madness. I want to think about what film I want to watch, not about whether I'll spend the money. The ironic thing is that my monthly spend would be somewhere around 40 or 50 Euro if the prices were at stupid-la-la-thinking-land levels. Somewhat of an improvement from the big, fat €0 as at present.
- greghinch 14y ago
  Which is exactly why Apple never made Apple TV more than a hobby product, they have never been able to win the battle with the studios (who see the record labels as getting "screwed" by iTunes) budge on the price point. The sad fact that I think we'll have to come to terms with is that, while the music industry was able to be more or less coerced into charging fairer prices for digital content, the studios aren't going to ever go for it and so we won't see an evolution there until the existing players are replaced. Netflix starting to produce their own content is a good first step, let's hope it continues.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    The studios already charge fair prices for digital content. The $5 DVD rack at Target is great. Sales at Amazon and other places can be even better. They just make sure it isn't convenient to get that fairly priced digital content. A certain amount of this is expected. The high fixed and low marginal costs of their product makes some price discrimination natural. The problem, as I see it, is that they're trying to hold onto the existing forms of discrimination rather than thinking through what makes sense from first principles now that digital distribution is an important part of the picture.
harshreality 14y ago
You're not the only one with a headache. Trying to work out pricing for intellectual property that's inherently a monopoly is like reading entrails. It's whatever you say it is. It's pricing based on psychology, rather than pricing based on traditional microeconomic pricing principles (like cost + x%) which are driven by competition.
- toyg 14y ago
  If you believe any "traditional microeconomic principles" are used to set any price in 2013, you're deluded. Today, a price is what the market will bear, and nothing else.
- mtgx 14y ago
  Unfortunately, when something has legal monopoly and the monopolists are unwilling to change prices, the only way to skirt that monopoly is through "piracy". And this goes beyond the entertainment industries.
  - camus 14y ago
    no it's not , it is through regulation, which is not done by the people supposed to do it. Piracy is illegal , it would be like saying , since i cant afford these shoes i must fight "monopoly" by stealing them ... uber stupid. There are a lot of independant filmakers out here , that sell their films for less than the itunes prices , why dont you support them if big hollywood studios are so evil ? Same thing for music, people download the last PSY or lady gaga , but cant support emerging artists that are ready to sell their art for far less than any itunes download...
    - greghinch 14y ago
      > it would be like saying , since i cant afford these shoes i must fight "monopoly" by stealing them more like "these shoes are overpriced so I'm going get the pattern and start making my own copies of them and share them with my friends". you aren't affecting someone else's possession of something when you pirate it, you are just not paying the owner for a copy. the argument is around how many of those pirated copies actually represent lost sales (and most people who've looked at the issue and aren't in some way employed by the entertainment industry think it's probably a slim percentage) as for supporting independents, while what you're saying is probably true for music, independent TV and film as a whole just haven't reached anywhere near the quality. the instances in those mediums of high quality content produced independently are still very much the exception. in music, independents have been producing as good or better than the major labels for a long time.
benologist 14y ago
I would buy a lot more movies if they were < $10 for the HD version. My wish list has dozens of movies that I'm just waiting to be on sale. The other thing that bugs the shit out of me is they don't have an upgrade path from SD to HD or whatever's next. That and for some reason the apple tv uses an independent wish list for some crazy reason. They make it easier to buy movies, then they make it stupid to find the movies you want.
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  I think $10 sounds ok for HD. SD should be around $5. I think one of the reasons the don't price lower is rentals. If they charged what I suggest I guess it would severely cut into the revenue they make from rentals on iTunes.
  - benologist 14y ago
    Yeah $10 is alright, between the packs and the sales that's about what I pay anyway. Digital rentals look like a scam to drive purchases, there's no reason they should even exist anymore just sell us a film or a subscription.

sjs382 14y ago

I agree. I "rent" 3-4 movies using Amazon Instant Video every month at ~$5 per pop. Every time I do, I think "do I really want to spend $5 on this?" and I'll often just go watch whatever is recommended on Netflix (or if it's just me, SportsCenter) instead. $2 is definitely the "instant rental" price point for me. And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. (For reference, I use a Roku)

corin_ 14y ago
> And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. Why not? Are you happier if they instead say "Rent for $4.99" and nothing else? Most products come in multiple price points, do you also dislike the fact that there are cheap/expensive models of computers, cars, TVs...
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  I would be happier. It would mean they're not trying to play tricks with anchoring and they can't easily push the price up even higher later. They wouldn't have people "compromising" with the $4 version or being tricked into thinking $5 is suddenly a 'deal' because it's only a dollar!! more.
- sjs382 14y ago
  I would, yes. As it stands, I only see the lowest price for each movie (and I'm not interested in this lower price). I'm only interested in the "HD" price, and getting to that info takes an extra click to the movie's info screen (and then I need to go back to the listing screen once I've seen it). This might sound like "white people problems" but it's annoying and hurts the experience.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    The entire subject is somewhat "first world problems", so ignore that. So really your issue is with UI, maybe they could allow you to change which price point is shown to you? Because reducing down to a single price point, sure it might be good in that they're playing less mind games, but if you end up paying higher prices it surely isn't a good change.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  Roku's Amazon interface is terrible with pricing. In the browse view the CTA I get is "Purchase from $2.99!" But when you click into detail, it's actually: rent in SD for $2.99, rent in HD for $4.99, buy for $19.99. I don't really care that much, but I can see how it comes off as scammy. If it wasn't Amazon doing it, I think a lot more people would have a problem with it.
chollida1 14y ago
> And please none of this "Rent for $3.99 or rent for $4.99 in HD". Just give me one price and the best quality version that you can. As perhaps a reason why they'd do this. Some of us are on bandwidth caps. Watching/downloading too many HD movies can put you over your monthly cap pretty easily. I actually like that they give the user the choice.
- jonny_eh 14y ago
  Sure, but why charge more? Just offer a "max resolution" setting. The true answer lies in price discrimination.
  - chollida1 14y ago
    > Sure, but why charge more? Well twice the resolution in 2 axis is 4 times the pixels, which means higher costs. I think it's reasonable. > The true answer lies in price discrimination. Actually its a mix of both, price discrimination and costs. No need to be so negative.
    - Firehed 14y ago
      The bandwidth will cost less than twenty cents extra, probably far less (based on a rough estimate of S3 bandwidth costs, starting $0.12/GB down to $0.05 and under at scale). Because of peering agreements, it could actually be free. Yes, I realize there's more to it than that, but the cost difference is tiny at Apple's scale. It also feels... scammy. "For just 25% more, you can have the version that doesn't suck!" That kind of attitude does not make me want to do business with them. Of course, this is just as much the fault of the last five years of TV marketing talking about how awful anything SD is, when in practicality it's more than adequate unless you have an absurdly large screen.

tjtrapp 14y ago

I would buy movies on iTunes if the prices were more reasonable. US prices are typically $20 to buy and $5 to rent. I would buy movies if they were $5. To rent, the price would need to be closer to $0.99.

mootothemax 14y ago
US prices are typically $20 to buy and $5 to rent. It's just madness. I want to think about what film I want to watch, not about whether I'll spend the money. The ironic thing is that my monthly spend would be somewhere around 40 or 50 Euro if the prices were at stupid-la-la-thinking-land levels. Somewhat of an improvement from the big, fat €0 as at present.
greghinch 14y ago
Which is exactly why Apple never made Apple TV more than a hobby product, they have never been able to win the battle with the studios (who see the record labels as getting "screwed" by iTunes) budge on the price point. The sad fact that I think we'll have to come to terms with is that, while the music industry was able to be more or less coerced into charging fairer prices for digital content, the studios aren't going to ever go for it and so we won't see an evolution there until the existing players are replaced. Netflix starting to produce their own content is a good first step, let's hope it continues.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  The studios already charge fair prices for digital content. The $5 DVD rack at Target is great. Sales at Amazon and other places can be even better. They just make sure it isn't convenient to get that fairly priced digital content. A certain amount of this is expected. The high fixed and low marginal costs of their product makes some price discrimination natural. The problem, as I see it, is that they're trying to hold onto the existing forms of discrimination rather than thinking through what makes sense from first principles now that digital distribution is an important part of the picture.

harshreality 14y ago

You're not the only one with a headache. Trying to work out pricing for intellectual property that's inherently a monopoly is like reading entrails. It's whatever you say it is. It's pricing based on psychology, rather than pricing based on traditional microeconomic pricing principles (like cost + x%) which are driven by competition.

toyg 14y ago
If you believe any "traditional microeconomic principles" are used to set any price in 2013, you're deluded. Today, a price is what the market will bear, and nothing else.
mtgx 14y ago
Unfortunately, when something has legal monopoly and the monopolists are unwilling to change prices, the only way to skirt that monopoly is through "piracy". And this goes beyond the entertainment industries.
- camus 14y ago
  no it's not , it is through regulation, which is not done by the people supposed to do it. Piracy is illegal , it would be like saying , since i cant afford these shoes i must fight "monopoly" by stealing them ... uber stupid. There are a lot of independant filmakers out here , that sell their films for less than the itunes prices , why dont you support them if big hollywood studios are so evil ? Same thing for music, people download the last PSY or lady gaga , but cant support emerging artists that are ready to sell their art for far less than any itunes download...
  - greghinch 14y ago
    > it would be like saying , since i cant afford these shoes i must fight "monopoly" by stealing them more like "these shoes are overpriced so I'm going get the pattern and start making my own copies of them and share them with my friends". you aren't affecting someone else's possession of something when you pirate it, you are just not paying the owner for a copy. the argument is around how many of those pirated copies actually represent lost sales (and most people who've looked at the issue and aren't in some way employed by the entertainment industry think it's probably a slim percentage) as for supporting independents, while what you're saying is probably true for music, independent TV and film as a whole just haven't reached anywhere near the quality. the instances in those mediums of high quality content produced independently are still very much the exception. in music, independents have been producing as good or better than the major labels for a long time.

benologist 14y ago

I would buy a lot more movies if they were < $10 for the HD version. My wish list has dozens of movies that I'm just waiting to be on sale. The other thing that bugs the shit out of me is they don't have an upgrade path from SD to HD or whatever's next. That and for some reason the apple tv uses an independent wish list for some crazy reason. They make it easier to buy movies, then they make it stupid to find the movies you want.

k-mcgrady 14y ago
I think $10 sounds ok for HD. SD should be around $5. I think one of the reasons the don't price lower is rentals. If they charged what I suggest I guess it would severely cut into the revenue they make from rentals on iTunes.
- benologist 14y ago
  Yeah $10 is alright, between the packs and the sales that's about what I pay anyway. Digital rentals look like a scam to drive purchases, there's no reason they should even exist anymore just sell us a film or a subscription.