MercuryNews.com: Video-on-Demand "Unexciting"

The more I hear about video-on-demand, the less excited I am about the technology. The studios make too much money on DVD sales to mess with it, so they're crippling the video-on-demand and movie download services by limiting selection.

MercuryNews.com has a story about video-on-demand technology, which has so far been "unexciting." Netflix says that they will provide a movie download service, but don't expect much when it's released because of the limited availability of movies approved for download. Comcast, who has 15 million digital subscribers, is having trouble selling video-on-demand movies, which typically are avaiable weeks after the DVD release:

Because the library of recently released movies, which usually cost $2.99 for a 24-hour viewing window, remains small relative to video stores, they are far from the most popular titles on the menu. The most popular features by far are free titles, which can include hundreds of older movies and thousands of other shows, from music videos to home-improvement instructional videos.

Do you use video-on-demand from your cable company or a movie download service like MovieLink? Do you like it?

Comments

[Bill]

The problem with VOD is that they're not HD, and they're rarely even letterbox. It's not worth the convenience to have to watch a crappy cropped movie.

[Jeff]

I use OnDemand for HBO series stuff, and that's essentially it. Even then, I'd much rather wait for the DVD set of the series than try and fit my viewing into the timeframe they offer.

It could be good, but the offering needs to be really, really wider.

Also, your comment thing thinks my URL is invalid.

What Bill said, plus in my area (southeast) Time-Warner charges over $5 per VOD movie. Outrageous.

[JimF]

Before I was a Netflix subscriber I used to order VOD movies from Comcast. Now there is no need to pay the extra fee for a movie I could just bump up in my queue.

[Double-oh Steven]

I don't watch a whole lot of TV; I am a more casual user. Maybe a couple hours a week. But when I do decide to unwind with the TV, there's always something on, thanks to On Demand. I can always find at least one movie I want to watch from the premium channels, or a series episode, or something from the discovery channel. It's nice to have it, but not ground breaking like DVR.

[firefighter]

We have Comcast "On Demand" in our firehouse and it gets used almost every night. We don't usually get the new-release movies, but we often watch the older stuff, series, etc. It's easy to stop and start when we get calls, or pick up where we left off next shift if the evening gets too hectic.

(And yes, we pay the cable bill ourselves.)

DRM is unexiciting. Plus, I hate TV. most of the movies they show are pan & scan. Rarely letterbox and probably never anamorphic. Why watch crap on TV when you can get superior quality from DVDs? 500 channels, nothing on.

Television is the opiate of the masses.

[Keycrusader]

I can't wait until the studios realize that there are more ways to make money on their products. When the music industry was hit by iTunes, did people stop buying cd's in the stores. No! When movies become availabe ( in a good format ) to download, people will buy them. I will still pay more for the extra features on the dvd from the store for select movies, but there are a lot of films and shows that I would love to own, but don't care if they are on my computer or on a dvd. Get with the program Hollywood! You could make a lot of money by just offering the same product in a downloadable form for a bit less than the dvd in the store. plus you don't have the production costs of the dvd case and the dvd. Cheaper and easier for everyone.

Just dont' give it to me in an iPod video format as my only option. I'd like to watch it on my big screen with my surround sound please.