• 'Pay-by-size' for films in future
    14 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27223622#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa[/url]
I know it sounds silly as a concept, but the pricing structure sounds fairly reasonable. I'm paying $5 every time I want to watch a movie on-demand right now, I wouldn't mind it being cheaper. Then again, I don't watch enough movies to care. I have Netflix, Redbox, Amazon Prime, and Hulu Plus. That keeps me busy. Also, can't most HDCP-compatible screens report their size as well as their resolution and model number? That would handle the screen size aspect.
This seems like something that an exec would come up with, but then it actually turns out to be almost technically impossible to implement in such a way that people won't be able to get around the pricing model and pay less for watching things on a larger screen. This is why these sorts of things should be put together by systems analysts and UI designers and not dreamworks executives.
So in 10 years time everyone will plug their smartphones into televisions
[QUOTE=meppers;44685247]So in 10 years time everyone will plug their smartphones into televisions[/QUOTE] 144p will return to be the standard.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;44685329][t_img]http://images.anandtech.com/galleries/2472/SlimPort-04.jpg[/t_img] 1080p 60fps[/QUOTE] Let's see how long your battery lasts :v:
[QUOTE=dingusnin;44687501]Let's see how long your battery lasts :v:[/QUOTE] If you're plugged into a TV, I think you can manage plugging into a wall.
Uhh, this is retarded. Why does it matter what size screen you watch a movie on? Who came up with this and how did it make logical sense to them? What difference does it make if I watch a movie on tablet or on a 32 inch lcd?
It will be okay if, you know, it can't be more expensive than it currently is, for 1080p, and it can go only lower from that. But we all know if it happens, it won't be for the consumer.
From the thread title, I thought that this would be about download size.
I saw the title and though "size" was supposed to be "length". And thought "oh boy, can't wait for them to somehow stretch a crappy comedy to 5+ hours to charge more for it".
[QUOTE=Zyler;44685163]This seems like something that an exec would come up with, but then it actually turns out to be almost technically impossible to implement in such a way that people won't be able to get around the pricing model and pay less for watching things on a larger screen. This is why these sorts of things should be put together by systems analysts and UI designers and not dreamworks executives.[/QUOTE] Just sell lower resolutions for a cheaper price it already happens with HD, this change isn't really a big one.
Or maybe just sell them by video resolution, not screen resolution and none of that SD HD crap, and CERTAINLY none of that $15 crap. Honestly, no matter the size, I couldn't see myself paying more than about $8 for a movie. But I'm thinking: $3 for 720p $5 for 1080p $7 for 2k and up And make the rental period like 3 days or something, to compete with the crazy low rates you get from Netflix and Redbox. One of the main reasons I almost never do the VOD thing is because the rental period is typically 24 hours. Or, hell, make the rental period only count total viewing time (enough for, say, 3 rewatches) so I don't even have to stress about it. I just think for what you usually get, VOD is a total ripoff at the price they ask. I'd rather just go rent a Blu Ray from Redbox/Safeway or whatever than pay an extra $5 or so for the same movie, but with more restrictions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.