Studios to Join Disney Movies Anywhere Platform? (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

There wouldn't be any lights to keep on. It wouldn't exist after this change - it would just morph into the new service.

Right, but like I'm saying, just because they're saying it'll morph doesn't mean that it'll be simple for me or other users to access their existing libraries.

At my house, I have an Oppo Blu-ray player that has an app for Vudu; users cannot add new apps to this machine. I also have the older Apple TV that doesn't allow you to add any additional apps; it can only use the ones it came with. Between these devices, I am able to view 100% of my UV titles and 100% of my iTunes titles. Again, I am not able to add, change or customize the apps that are present on these devices.

If a new service were to be created tomorrow and the old ones discontinued, even if there were no issues with transferring my titles into the new service, I'd have no way to access them without buying a new device. That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Cranston37+]

Right, but like I'm saying, just because they're saying it'll morph doesn't mean that it'll be simple for me or other users to access their existing libraries.

At my house, I have an Oppo Blu-ray player that has an app for Vudu; users cannot add new apps to this machine. I also have the older Apple TV that doesn't allow you to add any additional apps; it can only use the ones it came with. Between these devices, I am able to view 100% of my UV titles and 100% of my iTunes titles. Again, I am not able to add, change or customize the apps that are present on these devices.

If a new service were to be created tomorrow and the old ones discontinued, even if there were no issues with transferring my titles into the new service, I'd have no way to access them without buying a new device. That doesn't seem right to me.

In your case you would be fine - you wouldn't need any new apps. The new service uses KeyChain, which iTunes and Vudu both use.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's good to know. Patrick, for what it's worth, I'm very appreciative of you taking the time to answer my questions/concerns, and I sincerely hope that any complaints I have at the service don't come across as complaints about you!

On the other hand, and not to complain for the sake of complaining but to maybe shed a little light on why none of these platforms have been home runs... I'd consider myself pretty knowledgeable about home theater, discs, streaming platforms, etc. I'm the guy in my friend and family group that gets tasked with recommending and setting up new electronics purchases and all of that. I don't know everything but I'm not your average Joe Sixpack either. I understand what UV is and that Vudu is the program I use to watch UV titles at home, since I don't have access to another UV app. I understand how to use iTunes. But this news was a little baffling to me, and it wasn't immediately obvious to me that this would be an update to what I already have, and not a replacement that would require me to rebuy equipment and content. The people coming up with these programs aren't making their messaging as clear as they could, and in an era when a Joe Sixpack can buy a hacked Amazon Firestick for like $40 and have unlimited free access to high quality bootlegged-but-indistinguishable-from-the-original material, the studios can't afford to make this stuff seem complicated, even for a moment. Because for the average consumer, they don't feel that they're stealing if they download or stream something illegally. (Heck, I had a hard time recently convincing a friend that it even was illegal. He legitimately bought his Firestick, and felt that since he paid for the device, that must cover anything viewed on it. To me, that's crazy -- if you bought a VCR in the 80s, it didn't mean you owned every rental video you watched on it -- but he was saying that out of genuine belief, not to troll me or play dumb. My friend bought the thing on Amazon, and he couldn't really wrap his head around the idea that a device he bought legally could be used to do something illegal, anymore than changing the channel on your cable box would be considered illegal.) The studios aren't in competition with other legal services, in my view - they're in competition with the free, easy to use, not-entirely-legal services and devices.

So while I welcome any service that comes closer to bringing all studios and movies under one roof, one app, one device, the way that a DVD player can play movies from all studios, I think it's really important for them to make it very user friendly and to have their wording be extraordinarily clear and simple.

 

[Cranston37+]

That's good to know. Patrick, for what it's worth, I'm very appreciative of you taking the time to answer my questions/concerns, and I sincerely hope that any complaints I have at the service don't come across as complaints about you!

Not at all!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It is a shame that Disney couldn't just sign onto Ultraviolet in the first place. Ultraviolet+Vudu has been pretty much perfect for my needs.

 

[Cranston37+]

It is a shame that Disney couldn't just sign onto Ultraviolet in the first place. Ultraviolet+Vudu has been pretty much perfect for my needs.

...or that the other studios couldn't have just signed onto KeyChest in the first place, as they seem to be doing now...

(to be fair)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's an online version of the whole HD-DVD/Blu-ray thing all over again, except it's neverending. Apparently MGM, Paramount and Lionsgate are not onboard with this new service, so if thats true and remains the case, this is yet another service that doesn't work as well as it should.

I don't get why these studios don't understand that there needs to be one program, one format, one universal way of working, otherwise the entire thing is sunk for mass adoption.

If you buy a DVD player, you know you can play any movie ever released on DVD. The average consumer doesn't need to stop and remember what particular brand of player he has, or where he bought it from, in order to know how to pick out a DVD that will work with it.

Digital needs to be like that too. To use the example of my friend from the earlier post, he's got an Amazon FireStick. For him and people like him, if there's a program that legitimately allows him to purchase movies and access those purchases, regardless of studio, that works easily on that device, he might be on board. But if it becomes a matter of, "If you want something from Warner, open program A, and if you want something from Disney, open program B, and if you want something from Paramount, open program C, etc.," I don't think most ordinary people will feel like signing up for multiple memberships, even if they're all free. It's too much of a hassle, particularly when they can just open Program X (or whatever the hacked software is called) and have access to all movies from all studios without the slightest bit of hassle.

 

[Cranston37+]

It's an online version of the whole HD-DVD/Blu-ray thing all over again, except it's neverending. Apparently MGM, Paramount and Lionsgate are not onboard with this new service, so if thats true and remains the case, this is yet another service that doesn't work as well as it should.

I wouldn't look too far into the Paramount/MGM thing. The thought is they just haven't done any of the backend work for their movies to start showing up on the MA list yet. That's the only reason people initiatally said they are not on board...

(that list can be seen here)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IwwBHRJ6ky_hF_svtT2zyqfZowwB8fLSvswkdixOJxY/htmlview

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

...or that the other studios couldn't have just signed onto KeyChest in the first place, as they seem to be doing now...

(to be fair)

I don't know, I don't see one studio refusing to join the commonly adopted platform and all of the other studios refusing to utilize the holdout studio's proprietary platform as equivalent. Is there something about KeyChest that makes it superior technology to UltraViolet, or is it six of one and half a dozen of the other?

 

[[email protected]]

I'm thinking when UV started Disney's deal was either dead or dying...They re-started later, that's when they should have just joined UV but I'm thinking Disney and Apple had another deal in the works. They were never going to support UV.

 

[Cranston37+]

From what I remember reading, DMA vs UV had a lot to do with costs and DRM implementation.

Since UV had a much larger scope than that of a digital locker (the entire DECE had to be funded with its meetings and committees, the CFF was created and funded even though it was dropped) the studios had to keep more per purchase, and the retailers (like iTunes) didn't like that. DMA was just a digital locker, plain and simple, so it's much cheaper.

There was also something in UV's underlying tech about how DRM had to work, and guidelines and rules regarding the formats it used, that weren't acceptable for the retailers. DMA supposedly was built to allow retailers to choose DRM and video formats that work for them.

In the end, things shook out the way they did because iTunes and Amazon and Google saw KeyChest as the superior digital format, and they just won...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Gotcha. So the carrot for the other studios in this case is greater online retailer support.

 

[Cranston37+]

Gotcha. So the carrot for the other studios in this case is greater online retailer support.

Exactly.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

It's a new digital locker, not a new streaming provider, so whatever movies you own would transfer to your existing services, i.e. iTunes, Vudu, Amazon Video, Google Play, etc. The new digital locker has not even been announced yet, so there is no indication that it will not be explained properly when it is. I have no doubt that Paramount will be on board when it is launched. It is based on KeyChest technology, so we already know how it works. Disney Movies Anywhere, also based on KeyChest, has been hailed as a great service with very few outages or issues. Once your titles are all available in MoviesAnywhere, there will be no need for UV, except for Disc to Digital.

 

[Sam Posten]

Exactly. If it works like DMA does even a UV non fan like me will be all over it.

 

[David Deeb]

I may have overlooked the answer, or maybe I'm misunderstanding. But really is it just the studios that have to be on board with one format? I mean, you can buy movies now from Vimeo, Facebook and YouTube and other independent retailers.

Will purchases from these digital retailers work with this? (And there will continue to be more digital retailers as more and more filmmakers sell their films this way. Netflix or Redbox could even add digital sales one day).

If not, then it seems like the "neverending" situation that Josh references above.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It's a new digital locker, not a new streaming provider, so whatever movies you own would transfer to your existing services, i.e. iTunes, Vudu, Amazon Video, Google Play, etc.

Once your titles are all available in MoviesAnywhere, there will be no need for UV, except for Disc to Digital.

I know the service hasn't been announced yet, so I'm not expecting there to have an answer yet for how this will work... but what about the movies in my UV locker? I have several hundred titles in my UV locker. If Movies Anywhere is going to be a competing technology to Ultraviolet, I see no reason to assume that these companies will play nicely together. And, if Movies Anywhere is somehow able to put a stake through Ultraviolet, then what happens to my UV locker? Does my "ownership" of those titles disappear if the studios withdraw or shut down from the service?

I just see no explanation or mechanism for how my UV locker titles would become Movies Anywhere locker titles. That doesn't seem like a thing that would be happening.

I have no doubt that Paramount will be on board when it is launched.

I don't think it's safe to assume that Paramount (or the other holdouts) will come to the table -- Disney never came to the UV table, and MGM has only very limited UV support. Whether or not those decisions made sense at the time are kinda besides the point; there's clear and obvious precedent that when a new digital service is announced that the studios don't all automatically line up to support it.

 

[Cranston37+]

If Movies Anywhere is going to be a competing technology to Ultraviolet, I see no reason to assume that these companies will play nicely together. And, if Movies Anywhere is somehow able to put a stake through Ultraviolet, then what happens to my UV locker?

MA is not a competiting technology to UV, it's a replacement for it. Your UV titles would simply become MA titles.

I don't think it's safe to assume that Paramount (or the other holdouts) will come to the table... there's clear and obvious precedent that when a new digital service is announced that the studios don't all automatically line up to support it.

There's no reason to think Paramount is a "holdout" at all. Their movies just haven't shown up as being MA enabled in one Vudu database yet (only 6,000 out of 20,000+ have been) which is probably just because this is still being built. People taking that to mean Paramount is a "holdout" is a stretch.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Here's hoping

 

[[email protected]]

UV/Vudu already works great (for me) I think there is more to lose here than gain, wait and see i guess.