MacDailyNews does the math, misses the point
MacDailyNews ran down some numbers in the format war and scored a knockout punch for Apple (shocking, right?). Here's how it plays out: Blu-ray has led HDM sales over HD DVD and racked up 6 million discs to date, but the iTunes movie store has moved 7 million units in even less time, beating out both HDM formats. Fanboyism (and bad puns) aside, that's comparing apples and oranges -- let's not go mixing the HD with the non-HD. We're no Apple haters (far from it), and we even think downloadable HD content is the future; but it's a future that hasn't arrived just yet. Let's wait and see what sort of HD download numbers Apple nets -- we've got a suspicion the Apple TV-only restrictions will yield significantly lower numbers than seen up until now. Additionally, is it meaningful to compare iTunes' HD rental-only figures with HDM sales?
Filed under: Industry, Blu-ray, HD DVD, Other hardware
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Junkie @ Jan 22nd 2008 11:48AM
And I wonder if this would be the same if Apple had an HDDVD or Bluray drive.
steedums @ Jan 22nd 2008 11:49AM
We should add in all HDM rentals then, netflix, blockbuster
DrXym @ Jan 22nd 2008 12:10PM
Downloads probably work great for rentals. You'd have to be out of your mind to buy movies for download especially if they're locked to some arbitrary cross-section of devices.
Evan @ Jan 22nd 2008 12:28PM
No more cooked numbers, I can't take any more of this!
JimC @ Jan 22nd 2008 1:14PM
I don't care how they spin it, to get the same quality as a blu-ray (or even HDDVD) the time it would take to download a proper movie would be counted in the days if not a week(s) on a *good* home broadband connection. Who wants to deal with that? For rentals, streaming compressed less than lossless quality is ok, but not for purchasing. If I want to own a movie, I want the physical media and be able to take that media with me...
severian00 @ Jan 22nd 2008 1:17PM
Apple is going after XBL Marketplace not Blu-ray. You can't compare rentals versus purchases. $6 dowloads vs. $30, gosh wonder why they've sold more. Give Blu a another year and this will settle itself. There is room for both business models. Just because you can buy a DVD doesn't mean that Netflix and Blockbuster can't survive. And before you go there, Blockbuster is dying because of On-Demand, and Netflix. The apple downloads may even hurt them more than Blu.
Larry @ Jan 22nd 2008 2:03PM
I don't know I think the comparison is decent one. Steve you maybe right that you can get a more accurate comparison between AppleTV downloads, but I would love to see how well Microsoft is doing with their Marketplace downloads.
Steven Kim @ Jan 22nd 2008 2:24PM
severian00 -- I agree there's room for all the players in the game right now. It will be interesting to see how physical media vs. digital distribution works out in the near and long term as well.
Larry -- I'd like to see the Microsoft numbers as well!
rip @ Jan 22nd 2008 2:45PM
Yeah but did they include Wal-Mart numbers? I think not. ;)
David S @ Jan 22nd 2008 3:38PM
What might be interesting is some metric of download vs HDM on the same device- like comparing HD DVD on the 360 vs XBL downloads on the 360, and Blu-Ray usage vs Sony's download service on the PS3.
People who believe that downloading is the way of the future I think discount the pain of DRM. How popular is Video On Demand when compared to Blockbuster and Netflix? As long as DRM remains as restrictive as it is, I don't see downloaded video becoming popular. As a consumer, I can do more with a DVD I get from anywhere than any of these download services, so why would I jump in line to be gouged by the likes of Microsoft, Apple, UnBox, or any of them?
riverside_guy @ Jan 22nd 2008 3:52PM
Funny, a year ago I posted in numerous places that the HD format war WOULD propel the possibility of HD movie downloads far faster than if there HAD been no war. No one seemed to listen.
Still, Apple is 100% NOT stepping up to the plate as well as it COULD. They have NOT made it particularly clear that you can ONLY pay an extra buck for the HD rental IF you have bought the TV hardware. I have a 1920 x 1200 monitor and HD looks totally fabulous on it... but I can NOT rent a HD movie unless I also buy the device.
Depending on exactly how you analyze cost, you MUST at least amortize the cost of the device; a fairly standard practice is to spread the cost over 3 years. Figure 7 bucks/month (gotta include tax and I'm in a 8.625% city/state). So if you rent one HD movie each month, you are paying 12 bucks per rental.
This is a HUGE "discouragement" to HD downloads. Yes, many would add all sorts of other reasons (4-5-6 hours to d/l... forget it); clearly, for now, impulse buying isn't such a great option (remains to be seen how streaming goes, I think not so hot, way too many folks think 3 Mb/s down is hi-speed, but that will NEVER stream a HD movie).
FWIW, I don't really have that issue, I am willing to actually plan a tad ahead and download the thing a day or two before.
doug @ Jan 22nd 2008 7:13PM
iTunes downloads at "near-HD quality"? Not exactly. oI had the opportunity to watc a 'Lost' (Season 3) I downloaded from iTunes and then a 'Heroes' on HDDVD. no comparison - the Lost looked good, but with an abundance of compression artifacts. The Heroes looked ... incredible.
I think downloads will be a big player in HD content rental - especially TV shows - but I think physical media have a long future when it comes to building a movie library.
Sammyfan @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:49PM
I understand all of the above but I think the bigger point is that there are more iTunes copies, and so more potential, out there than HD and BD combined. BTW, my Handbrakes of DVD's in H.261 weigh in at 2-3GB and the compression looks terrific. They are "only" DVD quality and I understand that HD content will be larger but when I'm getting Software Updates regularly at 40-ishGB I don't see a problem ahead.
Nice Mii, Steven!