iTunes Movie Rental, Why Apple Missed the Mark
As many of you know, I am a huge Apple fan. I feel strongly that they are the best computer maker out there, that there OS is far superior to others, and that they develop great consumer products. Although I do feel at times Apple's business model (aka greed) causes them to "miss the mark", and that today's announcement of the iTunes Movie Rental service is one of those moments.
I know that there are some of you thinking the same, while others are probably ready to post a comment telling me how great this new service is. But before you do, let me explain my reasoning. To begin with I would like to say that I think movie rentals via iTunes is a GREAT idea, and coupling it with an AppleTV makes Apple one of the first companies to deliver a set top box solutions to instantly rent and watch movies on your TV. I think the support for HD movies is wonderful, and has been a long time coming. I feel that the ability to move a rented movie from my AppleTV, to my iMac, to my MacBook Pro, to my iPhone is revolutionary, and something I will take full advantage of while traveling. I even think that the price points are reasonable, its competitive to what I would pay if I got in my car and went down to my local movie store. So if I am in agreement and support of all of these features, then why do I feel as if Apple missed the mark?
Well simple, most of us these days don't get into our car and drive to the store to rent a movie, we subscribe to a movie rental subscription service. So while I welcome the iTunes Movie Rentals with open arms, I think that without a subscription service that it is not going to be as great as it could be. Adding this would have given Apple the ability to take the movie rental industry by storm. I know that this is something Apple has steered away from with its iTunes Music catalog, and I can understand why. As Steve says "people want to own their music", but as Steve also points out in today's keynote "most of us watch movies once, and renting is a great way to do it, it's less expensive, it doesn't take up space on our hard drive, its a great way to look at movies." But renting movies on a one off, pay-per-movie basis is more expensive, less attractive, and honestly a weaker solution when you look at what the rental industry is currently doing, and how it has transformed over the past few years.
Several years back Blockbuster was the main rental giant, there was also Hollywood Video and a few others, but Blockbuster was the de-facto standard. Then along came Netflix with there online order / mail delivery movie rental subscription service. They didn't need a physical store, there were no late fees, and you paid a flat rate for an unlimited number of rentals per month, true you could only have X amount out at one time, but this was the solution people were looking for. This model was crippling to Blockbuster, less and less people were going to rent movies at a store if they had to watch them within 3 days or pay a late fee. So then came the no late fee policy (which really had late fees, make sure to read the fine print), but people wanted the ease of selecting their movies online and just having them delivered to their mailbox. So Blockbuster followed behind Netflix with an online / mail delivery system. And now you have Netflix offering movies delivered 100% over the internet, and there are rumors they are planning on developing a set top box to get the movies to where people really want to watch them... on their TVs.
So Apple already having the number 1 music download service with the iTunes Music store, has a great place to offer movie rentals. And with Apple already having a device that hooks up to your TV, the AppleTV, this gives them a perfect set top box (Apple TV Take 2). The only thing they are missing is the subscription service. I personally would be willing to pony up $25 even $30 (for HD rentals) a month for an iTunes Movie Rental subscription that allowed me to rent unlimited movies per month, but I could only have up to 3 movies "out" at one time. Even if I didn't own an AppleTV (which I am sure many of you don't) you could watch it on your home computer, laptop, iPod, or iPhone. But with the AppleTV costing only $229, I think many more people would be willing to pick one up, if only for the fact that they now have an unlimited movie subscription service right in their living room. For right around $250 (including the first months service), you would have your own unlimited catalog of movies that you could watch on your TV (now that is a home theater). Call me crazy, but I think every Mac owner that is currently subscribed to Netflix would be interested in doing this, hell I think a lot of non-mac users that are Netflix subscribers, or even no-mac users that don't currently subscribe to any of these services would be willing to do this. I know my parents would, and they don't belong to either group. The ability for my dad to pick up a remote and browse through an entire catalog of movies, selecting the one he would want to rent with only a few clicks (from a very simple remote) would be great for him. But being "old school" and recently retired, he is going to be uninterested to do it at a costs of $4.99 per movie (that already exists in pay-per-view, and he doesn't "believe" in that). Plus if your like me, you sign up for a subscription service that is only a few dollars a month, and you forget about it. Then you just sit down, watch a movie, and never worry with what it is costing you. So with this one move, Apple would have far surpassed Blockbuster and would have just leapfrogged Netflix.
While only time will tell if something like this is really what Apple is has in store for a future release. I personally think that Apple, a company known for being an "industry leader", just gave their 2 biggest competitors (in the movie renting space) an ability to come out with this solution first. So while I still plan on renting movies via iTunes on some occasions, I don't feel it is as revolution of an announcement as it could have been. Thus Apple, as much as I hate to say it... I think you missed your mark.

Comments
Jump to comment form | trackback url
John Williams
01.15.08 9:05 PM
I totally agree that a subscription service would be wonderful. I'd be very interested in something like that. However, there is one key difference in my point of view. I don't think you're taking into consideration what Apple had to do to get the movie studios together on this. Apple has already found out that unless they can unilaterally get everyone to agree on terms, they're not going to be as successful as they could be.
When Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, they showed up to the party with all major labels in tow. When they introduced the Video store, they had very little support with the big studios. It took a long time to get them on board, and sales languished because of it. I think that Apple had to make concessions to the studios with regards of price to get everyone to come aboard. The point, you ask. I don't think Apple set their prices in order to make huges gobs of money. I don't think greed was their intent. I think Apple wants to leverage the content of the movie studios to sell more iPods, iPhones, and now AppleTVs. They understand that content is king and if they can't sew up all of the studios someone will step in to pick up the slack.
With Netflix, there are physical limitations to how many movies you can get in any given month. The prices are set with those maximum limits in mind and people being people (I'm looking at you mike) more than likely won't be super diligent in returning movies as fast as possible to get the full potential from their subscription. Most people will get a few movies and hang on to them for weeks. I don't have any numbers, but I'd guess the average joe with a 3 at a time netflix subscription barely averages 6 movies a month while diligent subscriber can get 12 or more. Netflix banks on your laziness to make more money and because they're buying physical licenses for the content at bulk rate (DVDs), they are negotiating different terms for licensing.
I really don't see this as a Netflix competitor. Not yet at least. I think this is targeting more of the casual movie watchers. I'm a netflix subscriber, and a very diligent one most months. I feel like I get a lot for my money. However, there are aspects that suck. Long waits on some movies, movies that are mangled and scratched, etc. With iTunes, it's sorta like On Demand. I can pick a movie, get it instantly without having to worry about mail issues, disc readability, or availability. At 4.99, it's a dollar less than Comcast for HD, so I'll definitely use it when I can't find anything else on.
Michael Hagel
01.15.08 9:14 PM
John,
I do agree with your above, that this is not currently a competitor to Netflix, nor do i think right now it is meant to be. And I think your correct with that they needed to get all the studios on board, although I do think that they are making a pretty penny off of each movie that rents for $5. So same as you, I will be using this service, when I can't find anything else, but for Apple, whom is known to create revolutionary products, the lack of a subscription service here is far from innovative or revolutionary and thus is why I think the mark was missed.
Olaf
01.19.08 6:25 AM
Apple is a real success.Not already because of the ipod.The color White was trendy again because of apple..
But they have to be careful that they do not overestimate (over a longer view).
If the firm-politics is only to made much profit, it is necessary good to go a little back from the greed , I think.
Olaf
Have your say
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b>
<blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>