News Corp thinks you'll pay $30 per flick for on demand HD
By Richard Lawler 
posted Mar 2nd 2006 2:50PM
posted Mar 2nd 2006 2:50PM
That was the gist of a
presentation by News Corp president Peter Chernin Tuesday. He said that consumers with high priced home theater systems
would be "desperate consumers" of such offerings. Apparently his plan calls for "rental" releases
via cable and satellite 60 days after they hit theaters. They think this could create new market for "home
premieres" between the theatrical release and typical DVD windows. So wait, you want me to see the movie in the theater, download it, then buy it on DVD? So instead of producing better movies that people want to come out and see, the movie industry just plans on consumers being willing to pay to see the same movie overandoverandover.....sounds like TNT's weekend lineup.
This plan seems really bad, Philip Swann at TV Predictions doesn't sound too enthused and neither does Henning at HDBlog. Are we all missing the point and there is actually a huge market for this or do you think it will crash and burn?
[Via digg]
Wow, for $30 I can rent a movie and have nothing to show for it? Sign me up, I simply can't wait through another month for the high def DVD. Plus I have all this money I don't want. Here, take some.
Chernin is high. Expect to see some job openings in the market research department at News Corp.
Cocaine is a terrible drug. And when you're sucking it back like candy like this dude it's catastrophic. If I pay $30 for a movie I expect the hooker to come with it. Honestly how do these guys keep their job. He should be fired. Straight up.
Piracy is looking like the only sane option now, and that's just sad.
Ok, they are neither Stupid or Stoned, they just live in New York City... (granted, this can have a similar effect...) but they just have no concept of the real world out here.
I would pay $25 for a movie that was released simultaniously with the Theater version. I already pay $16 for my wife and I to go to the movie. If I could sit on my couch and watch the latest movie in HD I'd definitly pay $25. Hollywood won't allow it though.
Some times I feel like an alien in this world.
What do they teach in economics classes these days, or most diplomas are bought on the internet? It seems very simple to me. Broadband 4th quarter 2005 made the most DSL subscribers, why? Simple $14.95 a month. Wal-Mart the richest company in the world, why? Simple, affordable products. China makes more money selling toys then Russia ever dreamed of making selling weapons. Itunes 99 cents a song you like to listen to thus 1 billion sold so far as apposed to $15 a cd with one hit wonder. Why spend so much time money and effort on DRM, make it affordable piracy minimized to a miniscule. Conclusion, make it affordable more people will buy.
hahaha
um no way at all
$30 to own it sure. To view it even for a 30 day pass? NO WAY
GAWD, these guys are typical arrogrant american corporate management! DUMB AS DIRT!
yes, they're on crack. but what they're really trying to do is build the loss of dvd sales into the 'on demand' price. they must be assuming that the same person who will pay $30 for a movie will also download that movie to their computer and burn themselves and their friends copies. and for $30, they'd be right.
DirecTV needs some new marketing folks. This on top of their move to a leasing-model where you have to pay big bucks up front for the privilege to lease receivers from DirecTV shows that they are wildly out of touch with reality.