Amazon Unbox Video Download Service Launched

Amazon just launched the "Amazon Unbox" video download service, with less than 2,000 titles available for rental or purchase. They are running a promotion where you get an instant $1.99 rebate, so your first TV show or movie rental is virtually free.

Here's a look at the Amazon Unbox video player, which is a free download:

Due to copy protection built into Windows, I wasn't able to take a screen capture of the movie while it was playing. The quality of the movie seemed to be similar to a DVD.

Some initial observations:

The rentals are only good for 30 days, and once you start watching you have only 24 hours or you have to re-rent the title (this is similar to other services such as Movielink).

When you purchase a movie you download two files. One is the movie file, and the other is a smaller file optimized for portable devices.

Unlike Apple's iTunes, you can download a file again if you delete it.

Prices for TV shows are around $1.99, and movies varied widely (the Matrix was $9.88). Rental prices are typically in the $1.99 $3 - $4 range

The majority of movies are available for purchase only, not rental (check each movie listing for the options).

Amazon Unbox is the first download service to offer Star Trek episodes.

You can typically start watching a download in as little as 2.5 minutes (high-speed cable).

You can watch the movie on several different computers through a feature called "RemoteLoad." Apple allows you to play songs on up to five computers, so I think this is a similar feature.

You can only download one movie at a time, but you can change the order in which they are downloaded.

One hour of video takes up approximately 1 gigabyte of disk space.

You can archive movies on DVD, but you cannot play them on a standard DVD player.

The service is only available for Windows XP, and does not support Macintosh computers or iPods.

Here's a link to the Amazon Unbox FAQ.

Here's a chart of estimated movie download times, which can range from 27 minutes to more than 7 hours.

Here's a breakdown of the different types of shows and movies that are available:

It's an interesting product, but faces the same limitations as other movie download services: small selection of content, no easy way to connect to a remote television, and restrictions on burning a playable DVD (DRM).

Thanks to Alan and Dave for sending this in.

Comments

[Aron]

I'd also like to note:

1) Most rentals are 3$ or 4$ not 2$.
2) Most movies for download are not available to rent.

[* Thanks, Aron. I updated the story with the new rental #'s and that many videos are available for purchase, not rental. - Mike *]

I think Amazon will see more success than Cinemanow and Movielink through sheer brand power, despite having essentially the same service.

I think Apple stands a stronger chance of cracking this nugget given their (rumored) focus on breaching the gap to the television. But Apple is not interested in renting from what I gather.

I think it's become clear that the studios are willing to grant their content out to anyone, so long as their restrictive usage and high pricing are adopted. This suggests that Netflix should be able to have a pretty competitive (if also unsuccesful) offering.

There are some advantages for Netflix when they unleash their version:
1) They can offer lower prices since members will be on subscription and they can profit from improved customer retention.
2) On average, downloading will reduce the number of DVDs that are shipped to customers saving Netflix money.
3) Netflix is currently inefficient at supporting new releases. The number of DVDs required at the launch of a new title is high and declines rapidly. This leads to wasted money on idle DVDs after the first few weeks, and the reason that video stores charge more for new releases, which Netflix can't currently do. Netflix may be able to reduce this problem by promoting digital downloads of the newest titles.

I think the key to winning here will be to do what Apple is probably doing, not Amazon: include a link to the television in the solution and market the living hell out of it. However, I'm pretty certain that this is a much harder uphill battle than music was (which as heavily hyped as it is, is actually only 10% of the total music market).

[gir]

At least they were smart enough to do streaming media, which addresses the instant gratification issue. But they didn't figure out how to do streaming media that you can watch *on a TV*, so the appeal is severely limited. And even at $2, the price is only marginally better than a typical video store rental. RedBox is cheaper, provides near instant gratification, is nearly as convenient, and you *can* watch it on a TV.

So this is another also-ran. They'll only see repeat business from technophiles and broadband junkies; a customer base in the thousands. Yawn.

[moviemaven]

Amazon has built in the same fatal flaw that everyone else has built in: restriction to watching only on a PC.

EZTakes has a much better service for movie downloads, even though their selection is much more eclectic. They let you burn DVDs that will play in your DVD player and they support both Windows and the Macintosh!

[Rusty Ramrod]

Besides the requirement for very high-speed Internet access, the biggest hurdle to VOD is DRM. The early adopters (geeks) will simply demand this type of service be DRM free. Forgetting fair use even, reasonable use is imperative and well, reasonable.

Now the chances of no DRM being put on the material in production are low. But once the tools are available that will let users manipulate the material to their individual needs, VOD will stand a much better chance of being successful. Common sense dictates that the success of Blockbuster and Netflix is primarily due to the availability of tools that allow the user to enjoy the content they paid to rent at their convenience and in the manner they wish. Same with iTunes and similar services.

Pricing, of course is another huge issue. VOD costs should be a function of the bandwidth costs to delivery the data (miniscule these days), licensing fees, and a reasonable profit for the delivery service. For instance $10 for the Matrix is ludicrous. Why would anyone pay $10 when they could rent it for a $1 at the local video store?

One side story on the VOD issue is consumer bandwidth use. ISP’s charging $12.95 a month for all you can eat broadband are already cringing at the fact the Sally Saladmaker might start downloading 4 or 5Gig’s a day in contrast to the 1Mb she does today getting her E-mail and looking at photos of her grandchildren. Scaling up for this type of widespread use is gonna be expensive for someone. I’ve read where some ISP’s have already returned to the pay-by-the-meg model of years past. Oh, the horror!!!

[type-cast]

We need to upgrade the web's total bandwidth capacity anyway. We need fiberoptic and BPL, not ADSL and cable. 100 Mbps to every house. At that speed, it'd take about 10 minutes to download a full dual layer DVD. These greedy monopolies have been dragging their feet for years, while we get left crawling along with speeds of 1-6 Mbps, for the most part. There has to be some intervention by the state, or we'll be surfing at these pathetic speeds in the year 2010. Let's unleash TRUE broadband.

[gir]

My township has been talking about bringing in someone to do fiber to the curb and paying for it out of property taxes. They sent out a news letter recently and reported that the local phone company and cable company both objected - on the one hand they said they couldn't compete, then on the other hand said they haven't done it themselves because there isn't any demand for higher bandwidth.

These companies *really* need some competition. Fat, bloated, innefficient, slow to innovate - there has to be huge oppotunities there for someone, and yet there's no competition. It really makes me wonder.

[noe638]

I think the name "Amazon Unbox" is a huge mistake by the people at Amazon. The name conveys they are touting that you don't need a piece of equipment to watch it, but Amazon may at a later date want to provide the same service via a set-top box (how many people want to watch movies on their computer exclusively?).

I think the service should have had a cooler name that just indicated that they are providing digital content in your home.

I can't believe their instructions for watching it on your tv involve and s-video and running your speaker output on your computer to your entertainment system...sounds like fun!

Also, maybe released a little premature...there is very little in the way of a faq or help, Amazon's website even has a help at this url that is not a clickable link...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/help/promohelp.html/ref=amb_link_3187542_1/002-5773425-1190437

Maybe they should slow down and get it right!

[corey3rd]

The Matrix costs the same whether you order the DVD or get it downloaded. What a crock. for the same price, I get a stripped down lower quality version of the film. No rabbit holes. No commentary.

I'm so ready to jump on this bandwagon.

[CJ]

IMHO the comment of gir is right on:

"So this is another also-ran. They'll only see repeat business from technophiles and broadband junkies; a customer base in the thousands. Yawn."

But wait... I'm a technophile and a broadband junkie, but this Amazon "Unbomb" thing doesn't interest me in the least. I only watch movies on my elaborate Home Theater system (as most technophiles would), and don't bother with heavily restricted movies nor use either PCs or those dinky little portable devices for for viewing.

So, Netflix is still the best alternative available...

[Mr. Nethead]

Does anyone know if this service supports subtitles/captions? Some of us have trouble hearing. Every other service I've tried did not offer captions, and thus I had a horrible time hearing quiet dialog. It's true that I could crank the volume to max, but if I do that the normal dialog and all of the music will be way too loud.

[grantlairdjr]

Can you find out if it support caption or subtitle? I am deaf myself -- without it, I won't use this service.

Thanks!

[gir]

A rather biased, but still interesting take on the 'unbox' license agreement.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/15/amazon_unbox_to_cust.html

"Section 3a: ...
If you do not consent to an upgrade that we make subject to your consent, the Digital Content may no longer be viewed on your Authorized Device. ..."

And here you thought you 'owned' the movie you just bought. This to me is one of the scarier parts of DRM - that they can change the rules of the game retroactively long after you make your purchases, and your only recourse is to sacrifice everything you've purchased.