Vudu it better not cost more

[craiggers88]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

Goodness! Without a person like you jeffpn, how does the internet go on without knowing true knowledge! I mean, with all this "I am better than everyone" notion, and "I won't take other peoples idea's about a situation EVEN after asking for them!"



You asked for facts, I gave facts. You asked how I feel Vudu will stand, and I clearly stated they will not go under. Way to read. It's ok, I'll keep my popcorn from the trolls, but just sit back.

Everyone here is stating "opinions", and so did I. However, I am the only expert here? WOOT! Thanks for the confidence booster jeffpn! =D

[jeffpn]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

It's a real shame Vudu doesn't employ a person as smart as you. I don't know how they'll ever survive.

You do understand that Vudu has access to information that is not public knowledge, right? I've seen plenty of customers claim to be more knowledgeable than the companies they criticize. Yet I've never seen a company representative make the points the self-proclaimed 'experts' make.

Vudu will survive without your expertise. If you have suggestions to improve their service then by all means, make them. Just don't go pretending that you know better than they do on how Vudu must conduct business in order to survive. It's a tired little tactic I've seen far too often. And personally, I find it a bit insulting to the company.

[craiggers88]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

Sure. Why is it that you're the one who knows that, and Vudu and the studios don't? Sorry, I don't believe you. Convince me. Show me facts instead of conjecture to back up your statement. Give me your forecast. How long will Vudu survive before your projected demise occurs? All these marketing experts, and not one is employed by Vudu. How unfortunate.

Have some copy pasta facts

--The Real Cost of Netflix Streaming is the Movie, Not the Bandwidth
http://gigaom.com/video/the-real-cos...the-bandwidth/

"Netflix spent $66 million in the second quarter 2010 to license streaming titles for its Watch Instantly service, compared with just $9 million that was spent in the prior-year period."


--Streaming Bandwidth Calculator for Streaming Bandwidth Usage
http://www.netromedia.com/pricing/calculators.aspx
If 1000 people (which is easily obtained in a month) watch 2 hours of HDX videos (at most [on my calculation simulation] 1128kbps [High Quality & Detail (Video)]), that costs Vudu a Total Usage: 29448.51 GB Per Month. Nearly 29500 GIGABYTES OF DATA A MONTH.

So taking the knowledge of 29500 GIGABYTES OF DATA PER MONTH with 1000 users, would you rather (as a company) sell a One and Done Physical Disc where they don't care about little 2 year old Timmy watching Finding Nemo 3,000 in a week or dare to spend 29500 GB of Data/Month at a lower price than what it would cost a disc.

--Bandwidth Pricing Trends: Cost To Stream A Movie Today, Five Cents: In 1998, $270
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_b...-1998-270.html
However, not everything is bad about it all. Reports do show that overtime, as the internet gets faster and more technology increases, the price of viewing a movie is getting cheaper by the year. Netflix though is $8 a month, Vudu you can get away with only buying ONE movie and watching a million times for a small nominal fee. The insight showing that it does cost money to stream (as nothing is free), the more you watch the movie, the less money in return Vudu makes on the item (because of bandwidth costs). If you watch a movie once per year or better yet, once per 5 years, Vudu made a killing. But if you buy the Lion King for your two year old and they won't let you turn it off (and you also cannot download it because Vudu is on your bluray player and it doesn't have local storage), it has to be redownloaded everytime you attempt to watch it. Downloading does not cost you (as a consumer) anything, but it does cost Vudu (as a supplier). This could also be an insight on why Ultraviolet wishes to charge people per year for their services. UV wishing to charge to use services has been a rumor since it's creation, however there are hints of "small fee for usage" and websites hinting on a 1-3 year timeline.

--Ultraviolet Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.uvvu.com/faqs.php
"What are UltraViolet Rights? UltraViolet Rights are the guaranteed minimum benefits that you, as a consumer, get with every UltraViolet movie or TV show at-no-charge above the original purchase price. UltraViolet Retailers and UltraViolet Streaming Services may, over time, charge additional fees for additional benefits (such as additional downloads or more streaming). For more information, click here."

Now why would there be a... fee.. for streaming and downloading? Oh yeah.. bandwidth costs, durr. Depending on the website. If it is a site like Vudu (where you can buy/rent movies), Vudu is making ends meet with financial situations, but if a site like Flixster (to my knowledge) plays UV movies with no financial income, well, a fee will probably be introduced because streaming is not a free deal.

---
Ugh I really didn't want to do your research, but if you can't "think" bandwidth is not free, then you need to open your eyes.

IMO, that is why Disney movies cost so much, because people plan on watching them over and over and over again. How many times will I watch Battleship? Probably once more in my lifetime. A good kids movie like Aladdin? Probably over 300 more times (especially when I have kids).

A disc is a one and done deal. It costs to produce it, ship, and market. Then its over.
Digital Owning via a streaming website such as Vudu is not a one and done deal as it could potentially cost (varying of the movie / of the person watching it) more than the physical disc.

Is this why the prices are so high on Blurays? Maybe, maybe not.
Will Vudu lower the price on new Blurays releases? No

Stop being cheap and understand the mechanics of online businesses. You can refute this, but I am not doing any more research and I won't reply back as the trolled response of :

Sure. Why is it that you're the one who knows that, and Vudu and the studios don't? Sorry, I don't believe you. Convince me. Show me facts instead of conjecture to back up your statement. Give me your forecast. How long will Vudu survive before your projected demise occurs? All these marketing experts, and not one is employed by Vudu. How unfortunate.

really made me laugh. If you can't see that maintaining a streaming website doesn't cost more and more money a year, then you can stick to buying physical copies.

[aaronwt]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

Are people streaming the movie several times a day, every day for months? It doesn't cost a lot to stream a movie. And you average person is not watching the same movie day after day after day after day. The movie would need to be streamed many, many, many times for them to lose money.

[jeffpn]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

In the long run, they lose money by having a streaming option

Sure. Why is it that you're the one who knows that, and Vudu and the studios don't? Sorry, I don't believe you. Convince me. Show me facts instead of conjecture to back up your statement. Give me your forecast. How long will Vudu survive before your projected demise occurs? All these marketing experts, and not one is employed by Vudu. How unfortunate.

[craiggers88]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

I think you guys are forgetting one main point though. It's streaming from a server. That takes bandwidth, which in the long run costs MORE than a physical disc. A physical disc is a one and done deal, but downloading can cause a lot of stress on a system, which would result in more money. I personally don't mind the prices as if the cost is higher than the actual disc with the code, i'll buy the disc. But I also understand WHY the cost is more. In the long run, they lose money by having a streaming option

[shadow316]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

I'd like to add that, in every article I've read since UV started, the studios have made it very clear that they don't want people to stop buying physical discs. They have been using digital copies, and now UV codes, as the cherry on top of the sundae for years now to keep people buying DVDs and Blurays. If VUDU, Amazon or iTunes prices were that much lower, most people WOULD stop buying physical discs and the studios would get exactly what they don't want.

Like many people have said in this thread, I would not pay the price for an HDX movie here on VUDU or anywhere else when it's the same price or lower than Bluray. Still...there are times when these movies go on sale, and TV seasons too, and the price is too good to pass up. This is when I tend to buy more digital only movies. But like the poster before me points out, obviously people are willing to pay prices that I'm not, so why not charge them?

[jeffpn]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

You seem to have a wealth of knowledge there. Why do you think Vudu sells movies at the prices they do? It's because people are willing to pay those prices!! If you think Vudu is not making money at those prices as you claim, then they may as well ask a million dollars for every title. People wouldn't pay that either. Of course Vudu is selling those titles at those prices. It might be more thsan you are willing to spend on it, but other people will, and do. Vudu is in the business to make money, and I'm sure they are. This forum is full of pricing experts. Too bad Vudu didn't hire anyone who knows how to sell movies. It's just like the $95 football jersey. I would never pay that much, but that's what they sell for at the shops in the stadium. Obviously people are buying them.

[nycomet]

Re: Vudu HDX prices are too high

The studios do not set the prices for the films. You can compare prices on iTunes and Amazon Instant Video, and they are often lower on Amazon.

You're saying Vudu is setting the prices for the HDX files it sells? If that's the case, Vudu is shooting itself in the foot by charging MORE for an HDX file than the cost of buying the actual Blu-ray release.

I want the Indiana Jones HDX digital bundle, but $67.99 is waaaaaay over priced. One would think that a "bundle" would provide a significant discount for purchasing all four Indiana Jones in one HDX set. In my opinion, Vudu should have offered the Indiana Jones digital bundle for $40 ($10 for each movie). The Jurassic Park Trilogy should have been priced at $30 for the digital bundle. Individually, Vudu could sell them for $14.99 a pop.

Vudu offers two Abbott and Costello HDX files I would love to own, but not at the asking price of $17.99 each. I would buy Abbott and Costello Meet The Invisible Man and Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy for $9.99 each at most.

If Vudu wants to become a successful breakout streaming/downloadable HDX service, the prices MUST be lower than the price of in-store and online blu-ray sellers. Even Walmart (Vudu's parent company) sells blu-ray discs at highly competitive prices.

Vudu's high price point for HDX files will eventually bury Vudu.

No one will pay more for an HDX file when a blu-ray disc is cheaper.

[echopulse]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

The studios do not set the prices for the films. You can compare prices on iTunes and Amazon Instant Video, and they are often lower on Amazon.

[nycomet]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

I think he means that when we buy digital-only, there is no cost of physical packaging and production, so it could/should cost less.

I agree with the comment above. Vudu didgital files should be priced less because there is no packaging disc manufacturing costs involved. However, I suspect it's the studios that determine the asking price of the digital files.

Vudu prices for HDX movies often costs more - sometimes A LOT MORE - than the price to purchase a blu-ray of that same movie.

That means I am not going to purchase the Vudu file. I will get the blu-ray instead.

If Vudu prices were 20 to 25 percent LESS than a blu-ray, I would be swayed to buy more HDX files.

That being said, I did purchase 5 of the Bond HDX files that were on sale this weekend for $9.99 each.

Vudu will get my money only when they offer a decent sale price.

I will never pay Vudu $67.99 for the Indiana Jones Digital Bundle!

[Speedaddict81]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

I think he means that when we buy digital-only, there is no cost of physical packaging and production, so it could/should cost less.

[vudun8]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

HUH!? "no costs"?

"physical product": as in producing a physical DVD disc or case etc.

[E55KEV]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

HOWEVER, we do know that there are no costs associated with making and selling an actual physical product,

HUH!? "no costs"?

[vudun8]

Re: Vudu it better not cost more

I agree that we obviously do not have a full understanding of all that goes into the agreement vudu has with the film companies or the profit margin etc (and I think we are all undervaluing the convenience of having your movie collection in the cloud with you wherever you are, which is a HUGE plus for me)...HOWEVER, we do know that there are no costs associated with making and selling an actual physical product, which in turn should allow companies more flexibilty with pricing. The other side of this is that I think we can all agree that UV is the production companies big push to come into the digital age, which would help them to regain some of the ground lost to piracy, streaming services etc. It seems to me that if they have all agreed to support this service, they should work together to do whatever they can to make this a viable option for the consumer. I do think that selling these pre-releases for $15 a pop is a HUGE step in the right direction and we should all support this, showing the production companies that they can still make a profit at a lower price point. The problem is that a lot of people have already been scared away by all of the launch issues with UV that they will need to be patient enough to allow people the time to rediscover this great digital service now that its ironed out many of its kinks.