Video On Demand: Ebert's Opinion (1 Viewer)

[Craig Cunningham]

Link Removed
Do you agree?

 

[StephenT]

He couldn't be more right. His e-books comments are dead on too. I don't see VOD ever taking off, at least not with current technology.

 

[Bergan Peters]

I completely agree, but then again, I think Robert Ebert is a genius. He reaffirms a lot of the thoughts I have about the demise of small town america. I think he is dead right in thinking that the world will NEVER accept this as a solution, EVENTUALLY they will be able to deliver DVD quality movies over the net (Legally). Even HD quality movies will someday be available on demand, but that time isn't now, and in the interim this IS a modern day divx, and divx was a SHAM, and a bad idea. But I think that the trailer for "How High" demonstrates that even bad ideas will get their time of day.

 

[Matt Butler]

Ebert is correct. I love that guy!

 

[Phu Vo]

Wow! He couldn't be more right.

 

[Ted Lee]

he's right on the money. besides, what kind of quality can you realistically expect from a downloaded movie. maybe in the future, but right now the idea seems silly.

 

[Cees Alons]

His analysis is 100% correct (again), I think.

Cees

 

[Brad_W]

Not only is he right, but his comparisons to Divx are exact and justified. Also, I think more people have phone lines than cable or DSL at this time, so his remark about 56kbps holds true for "most Americans." His insight about the "movie-going experience" that comes with video renting is also true: I'd rather spend that 40-60 minutes that I could be downloading one movie on picking out 2 or 3 DVDs. Plus, who would want to pay 6 dollars for a downloaded movie that you can only watch on your computer, when you can rent one movie for half the price? I know you "own" the movie with that 6 dollars, but only on your computer.

 

[Dave F]

I think he is correct about movies, but off the mark on e-books. There is a market there, but the current prices are waaaaaaaaay too high. There's no way that I'll spend over $15 for a temporary copy of a book that can only be read on a proprietary reader that will be obsolete in a few years.

-Dave

 

[AaronMK]

I agree with his prediction of the demise of internet VOD systems, but not with all of his reasoning. He fails to realize the importance of physical media. When reading a book for pleasure, there is a lot to being able read it off of a printed page.

Simarly, with movies, there is something to be said to watching movies off of a physical medium. There is Being able to watch and own movies with no strings attached, no depedence on servers, without them self destructing, etc. It is these traits which make me dread Video On Demand. It is too much like having corperate entities watchin the movie over my shoulder.

 

[Steve_Ch]

>>but off the mark on e-books

 

[CamiloCamacho]

I think the VOD have no present, but only for movies. But there are certain things where you only can get over the net. For example, a PPV event will only be avalaible on the US (Ex. WWF event) now with the net, you can see it over the world.

Otherwise, if i have to pay 6US$ for a movie, i better go to half.com buy a used DVD for only 2US$ more (*or less with a coupon) with:

-Better quality (Video and Sound)

-I will have it forever!!!

 

[Dan Hitchman]

DIVX all over again is right! And also, you think we're having studio troubles over OAR and video/soundtrack quality right now on DVD??-- look out when VOD gets rolling! J6P will love this!
I won't buy into it. There certainly is something to be said for having physical objects in your video and book library. It may be the pack rat in our genes.
Dan

 

[Todd Hochard]

I'm not so sure I agree with everything said. I think this form of VOD (I wouldn't even use the term VOD- I'd prefer broadband PC films, or some such) needs to be done as simply a proof of concept. The details of storage, delivery, reliability, etc. need to be worked out by the studios, so why not at this stage, rather than when we want HD-VOD?
This is not a new concept. SightSound has been doing this for a couple of years. I tried it- it's a neat concept, but all the points that Ebert made are valid- I don't watch movies on my PC, and the quality sucks.
However, the concept of TRUE VOD are very intriguing. Imagine a full HD (for most titles, SD for lesser known) library (meaning 10000+ titles) at your fingertips, available for viewing at anytime, for about $5 a pop, with a browse-able front end (a la DVD Profiler, perhaps?) A box, not unlike your cable box, connected to a broadband (50Mbps, min, into your home) network, with a HD to buffer the film. TiVo control of the film while watching, with a 48 hour standard rental at $3.99, 7 day at $5.99.
Would you forgo a collection to have something like this? I probably would- it would save a lot of my software cost. I have several hundred DVDs, purchased at about $20 each, and most of them have been watched once.
This is the model I think they need to pursue. Of course, the studios won't, simply because they are short-sighted. Consider, if you will, how many (Fox, Disney, Paramount) had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the cash cow that is DVD.
Todd

 

[Michael St. Clair]

However, the concept of TRUE VOD are very intriguing. Imagine a full HD (for most titles, SD for lesser known) library (meaning 10000+ titles) at your fingertips, available for viewing at anytime, for about $5 a pop, with a browse-able front end (a la DVD Profiler, perhaps?) A box, not unlike your cable box, connected to a broadband (50Mbps, min, into your home) network, with a HD to buffer the film. TiVo control of the film while watching, with a 48 hour standard rental at $3.99, 7 day at $5.99. Would you forgo a collection to have something like this?

No, I would not. Because legal rights always change (and various egos do), things go out of print/availability, and this isn't going to stop with VOD. If there is something you really like, you better physically grab it before it goes into legal limbo or somebody decides to recut it for a 'special edition' (and possibly ruin it).
Secondly, if HD VOD comes out, you can bet all the 4:3 movies will be cropped top and bottom, and all the 'scope movies will be panned and scanned.
No thanks!

 

[AaronMK]

Would you forgo a collection to have something like this?

No, I wouldn't. True, if I paid for a rental each time I watched a movie in my collection instead of buying, I would have spent a lot less money. However, I do not regret for a second not taking the rental route for titles I have purchased.

For many movies, it is worth it for me to have an ownership that does not imply viewing restrictions, and one that cannot be taken away or changed, even if the title goes OOP, the format becomes obsolete, legal issues, director wants it modified, etc.

However, a high quality VOD system would be a great substitute for the current rental system.

 

[george kaplan]

Would you forgo a collection to have something like this?

Not only no, but NO, and more importantly HELL NO.

I want to own my movies to watch when I want, for as long as I want with no additional fees ever. This is the old DIVX argument, at least for me. Ownership. If you own the original Star Wars on ld, do you think you could replicate that on VOD? Jingle All The Way is being pulled out of circulation because of legal entanglements. In a VOD world it would be unviewable. Now, what if Citizen Kane underwent that? Or Rear Window? No thanks.

To all the owners of content who are drooling at the thought of pay-per-view only, be careful. You may find yourself serving fries alongside Richard Sharp.

 

[Todd Hochard]

I suppose in my mind, which apparently is a naive view, that it wouldn't be TRUE VOD if I couldn't watch whatever I wanted. Nothing is perfect, of course, but I'm speaking of a catalog as big as currently available DVDs. In my version of VOD, the title would be put into the library, and that would be that. Multi-generation digital copy protection, new versions would have their own file, etc, so I could get to see Han shoot first. Think of it as an entire public library in your home- none of it is actually yours, but you can check out and view whatever you like.
Of course, this is a utopian view that won't ever happen, for a few reasons:
1. There are too many greedy studio folk, that would rather hoard and control their product, instead of making money from it. Good business, I guess.:rolleyes
2. There are too many Napster-style consumers who would rip off a system like this, so they could get their "physical" copy for $5 or less.
There are problems on both sides of the fence. I just posted my view of what I thought should be. I'm not so naive to think that it will ever happen. I think most consumers fear change too much.
Todd

 

[Steve_Ch]

>>I suppose in my mind, which apparently is a naive view, that it wouldn't be TRUE VOD if I couldn't watch whatever I wanted.

 

[Emmett Maguire]

Movies are available now online. Let's say a friend downloaded planet of the apes, jp3, american pie 2, rush hour 2 and the score. This was months ago when they first came out. The only title watched was rush hour 2. The "friend" feels that is is a waste of time watching a movie on a monitor even with klipsch 4.1 speakers when there is an excellant 6.1 system available. He has already rented rush hour 2 and the score which both came out today. This is not throwing out money but an appreciation for the benefits of a good system where even marginal movies are raised a notch by quality production.

Regards

Emmett