# Movies Now! is now online



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

Looks like the Movies Now! feature is now online. 

The Current movies in-stream 
10,000 BC (HD) Expires 12/26
Cloverfield (HD) Expires 10/30
Fool's Gold (HD) Expires 12/14


To access Movies Now! go to your DVR playlist and press the green circle button and open the Movies Now! folder.


----------



## Vinny (Sep 2, 2006)

alexjb12 said:


> Looks like the Movies Now! feature is now online.
> 
> The Current movies in-stream
> 10,000 BC (HD) Expires 12/26
> ...


What is this, exactly?

Is there an extra cost involved?

Is it part of DOD?

Do all DirecTV subscribers have access?

Any additional info would be helpful.

Thanks


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Cool... Thanks for the heads up alexjb...

Here is some more info on it for you Vinny... http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=131465


----------



## jamieh1 (May 1, 2003)

I see it lets you play the movie, but with a ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO WATCH FOR $4.99. Does it black out in 5 minutes like a ppv?
Ive got it running now, Lets see in 5 minutes.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Woo Hoo! "24 Hour Rental"


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm moving this to the DIRECTV HD DVR forum as I believe that national release users also have this capability (although the tab title still says "Showcases.")


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

Five bucks a piece? All we need is to watch three DVDs through Netflix in a month and we're even.


----------



## wpbond69 (Nov 29, 2005)

We ordered & recorded a regular PPV movie a few nights ago on our HR20. Wife fell asleep half way through, so we stopped. Went to watch the rest the next night, but apparently it was a little later at night then the first night when we started. We were locked out from watching the movie -- what a waste.

I won't be buying anymore PPVs with these new rules. On demand doesn't make it any better.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

While I (sorta) understand the movie house's rationale for a time limit on PPV, I think they went too far. wpbond69's situation is a perfect example. Seems to me that 48 hours or midnight the next night are more reasonable when compared to rentals.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I can't believe Dtv is pushing ppv into our boxes. If they want to push movies I feel it should be gratis. If I want ppv movies I will order them.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The Movies Now! are HD. If you don't have a Blu-Ray player that's a real incentive.

BubblePuppy, this has been in the works since day 1. The movies go on the reserved partition and don't affect your recording space at all.

As far as the 24 hour limit, we've been up and down this issue. It's consistent for all PPV recordings.


----------



## PWenger (Jan 24, 2003)

BubblePuppy said:


> I can't believe Dtv is pushing ppv into our boxes. If they want to push movies I feel it should be gratis. If I want ppv movies I will order them.


I agree in part. I am excited about this, since I am in a dead area where I can't get high speed internet, so I can't take advantage of DOD. However, it would be nice to get a small selection of free stuff with it. But it's early days...makes sense that they would go for the increased revenue first. Maybe a couple Discovery or Nicktoon shows will show up after we get some of that precious D11 bandwidth.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The Movies Now! are HD. If you don't have a Blu-Ray player that's a real incentive.
> 
> BubblePuppy, this has been in the works since day 1. The movies go on the reserved partition and don't affect your recording space at all.


I just noticed 10000 BC in my Showcase. It's a 2.35:1 film, and this version of the film is filling up my 16x9 screen. Yes it's HD but it's not what I would prefer to watch. The Blu Ray version I'm more than positive looks way better than this.


----------



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

Are the movies 5.1 Surround Sound?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

For the same price, I can get 5 movies from Redbox.


----------



## EricBergan (Apr 27, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The Movies Now! are HD. If you don't have a Blu-Ray player that's a real incentive.
> 
> BubblePuppy, this has been in the works since day 1. The movies go on the reserved partition and don't affect your recording space at all.
> 
> As far as the 24 hour limit, we've been up and down this issue. It's consistent for all PPV recordings.


But did they recently increase the size of the reserved partition space?

The reason I asked is that I noticed a sudden jump (~15%) in the percentage of space I was using, even though I hadn't added a lot of new recordings.

eric


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The size of the reserved partition hasn't changed. It's possible that the free space on your DVR changed because of housekeeping routines that take place during a software update.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

man_rob said:


> For the same price, I can get 5 movies from Redbox.


How many in HD? And on a cold, snowy Utah night, I'm not going out for a cheap, non-HD movie. Or to return it. I'd rather snuggle and watch. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

10,000 BC just came out on DVD yesterday. Will these movies be available earlier that typical PPV?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> How many in HD? And on a cold, snowy Utah night, I'm not going out for a cheap, non-HD movie. Or to return it. I'd rather snuggle and watch.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


My upscaling DVD player looks great, (As good as DirecTV HD is, it's no match for Blu Ray anyway.) and you can't throw a dead cat without hitting a Redbox around here. On my way home from work, I can count 10-15 of those boxes. Get one on the way home, drop the next day, all without going 10 yards out of my way.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

man_rob said:


> My upscaling DVD player looks great, (As good as DirecTV HD is, it's no match for Blu Ray anyway.)


Exactly, and for the simple fact that they are stretching 2:35 films, it's not worth the hassle.


----------



## mikey6719 (Sep 11, 2007)

man_rob said:


> For the same price, I can get 5 movies from Redbox.


5 trips to the redbox might cost some people more than 5 bucks in gas money!!
Although I agree it is too much!


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

mikey6719 said:


> 5 trips to the redbox might cost some people more than 5 bucks in gas money!!
> Although I agree it is too much!


Maybe, but around here, they are in every McDonalds, most grocery stores, etc. As I said, I can get to one without burning 10 cents worth of gas, usually it's no extra cost because I happen to need groceries, or whatever.

Hey, if someone thinks a PPV is worth $5. More power to them.


----------



## pdxguy (Aug 9, 2007)

It's all a matter of perspective. For me, I don't have blu-ray, and $5 is worth it to see a newer HD movie. Convenience and the price of gas enter into it. Also, I just think of how it costs me more for popcorn alone if I go to the theater!


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

Netflix is supposed to be raising their prices for Blu Ray Rentals, but I bet the cost would still be cheaper than a PPV HD flick from Direct TV in the long run.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

My advice to y'all is be happy. Way I see it is, when I want a movie, I don't have to think about it. It's there. I don't have to worry about PPV and when it's on next. I don't have to wait an hour so that On Demand can get it down from the network. It's not "theatrical presentation ratio" but you know, everything is shot so it's safe for multiple aspect ratios anyway. If I want a movie, now, it's there. And if I don't, it doesn't cost me anything (like netflix), doesn't take up gas (like going to Blockbuster and finding they're out of stock)... doesn't even take up my recording space like regular HDPPV. How can I lose?


----------



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

Cablevision's High Definition On Demand is the same price as Movies Now! and has the 24 hour limit. So its not completely un-heard of.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

For that matter, the premium HD channels will end up being cheaper than buying HD PPVs for the amount of movies you get, if you don't mind waiting two or three months to see it.


----------



## JonW (Dec 21, 2006)

All the movies that appear are listed as as (Partial) when I click on them, but I'm not spending $5 to find out whether they really work.


----------



## pdxguy (Aug 9, 2007)

man_rob said:


> For that matter, the premium HD channels will end up being cheaper than buying HD PPVs for the amount of movies you get, if you don't mind waiting two or three months to see it.


But that's the point of paying more money, which is to see the movies sooner.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Exactly right.


----------



## vansmack (Aug 14, 2006)

Isn't it great that you all have solutions that are better than the one DirecTV is offering?

And for those that don't have better solutions, DirecTV has a plan for you too...don't feel forgotten.


----------



## EaglePC (Apr 15, 2007)

I stick with my Bluray,Keeping buying Bluray titles from ebay  cheap sealed,new


----------



## seymouru (Feb 15, 2008)

groove93 said:


> Exactly, and for the simple fact that they are stretching 2:35 films, it's not worth the hassle.


I think most of them are cropped, rather than stretched.

Either way, I ain't paying for a film that's been adulterated to appease a mass audience who doesn't like seeing "black bars" on their new HDTV.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My advice to y'all is be happy. Way I see it is, when I want a movie, I don't have to think about it. It's there. I don't have to worry about PPV and when it's on next. I don't have to wait an hour so that On Demand can get it down from the network. It's not "theatrical presentation ratio" but you know, everything is shot so it's safe for multiple aspect ratios anyway. If I want a movie, now, it's there. And if I don't, it doesn't cost me anything (like netflix), doesn't take up gas (like going to Blockbuster and finding they're out of stock)... doesn't even take up my recording space like regular HDPPV. How can I lose?


Well said... I may actually use this every once in a while... I can somewhat tolerate the 24-hour limit on this...


----------



## seymouru (Feb 15, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It's not "theatrical presentation ratio" but you know, everything is shot so it's safe for multiple aspect ratios anyway.


Not everything...

Screen Cap from "Me Without You" (2001)


----------



## wagman (Jul 11, 2007)

Well, here we are again...having a fine conversation about how great America is!

Everyone wants to have it there way, and they want it that way, because, in America, we have a lot of choices.

Ain't it great.

I AM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN....and I can't understand why so many Americans can't even stand America.

Freedom, baby! Freedom of choice.

I never pay extra for the privilege of seeing a movie just because it just came out on video. That's because, if it was worth my time waiting for it, I already paid the premium to see it when it came out at the theater.

Everyone chooses as they see fit, and not one of them (or me) is wrong in doing so. There is a niche for this service, and I suspect it is more expensive because there will not be as many take advantage of it, and it costs to keep a niche market going.

So, blu-ray snobs are just as right as red box slobs.

Just my double Lincolns' worth.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

funny they're on my SD DVR too.... (R22)


----------



## alexjb12 (Nov 28, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> funny they're on my SD DVR too.... (R22)


its also on my r15


----------



## bgullicksen (Oct 1, 2006)

Mine all appear to be partial as well. Since these are delivered via satellite not network I would expect them to be complete.

Does everyone see them as partial and has anyone tried playing them to see if they finish downloading while playing or anything?

Bill


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm moving this to the DIRECTV HD DVR forum as I believe that national release users also have this capability (although the tab title still says "Showcases.")


This is currently available on my R15-300 as well. My expiration dates are different than the ones listed in the OP though. Of course, when I selected one (Fool's Gold), I was prompted if I wanted to purchase for $3.99 as it is an SD version.

I'm not quite sure I understand the concept of pushing movies down to the receiver. Since you can record a PPV movie and the 24 hour window doesn't start until you start watching it, wouldn't that constitute Movies on Demand? In this situation, they are pushing down a limited number of movies that a subscriber might have little or no interest in. That seems like a waste of bandwith to me.

- Merg


----------



## sorahl (Oct 24, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As far as the 24 hour limit, we've been up and down this issue. It's consistent for all PPV recordings.


Stuart, 
I agree, this is the model everyone is using but it is the wrong model. They need to provide a service more convenient and more flexible then grabbing a disc at the blockbuster or via snail mail to return when you want. I mean. you can now get a movie (1 week rental) from blockbuster and keep it for 2 weeks at no extra charge. keep it 4 weeks and only pay a $1.25 charge when you return it.
the 24 hr thing is going to be the death of PPV...


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Folks, let's put this all in perspective ...

Before Movies Now!, you had two choices if you wanted to watch a PPV HD movie on your DIRECTV DVR:

(1) Go to On Demand, start a download it, and wait.

(2) Tune to an HD PPV channel, pay for it, and more often than not, wait.

*With MoviesNow!, there's now a third choice:*

(3) Go to MoviesNow, pick a movie, stat watching. No waiting.

None of your recording space is taken up for movies that appear in MoviesNow!, and on top of that, the beauty of the PPV system is this: If you don't like it, you're not forced to watch anything. Just pretend the tab is not there...


----------



## flipper2006 (Oct 2, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> I can't believe Dtv is pushing ppv into our boxes. If they want to push movies I feel it should be gratis. If I want ppv movies I will order them.


I hope they are pushing via Sat and not Ethernet, i certainly dont need Comcast on my ass for bandwidth issues nor do I want to have an expected slowdowns because of they are 'pushing'.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

flipper2006 said:


> I hope they are pushing via Sat and not Ethernet, i certainly dont need Comcast on my ass for bandwidth issues nor do I want to have an expected slowdowns because of they are 'pushing'.


Yes, the content under MoviesNow! is pushed via the satellite.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm all for others being happy with it and wanting to use it. If it helps D* (and D*'s customers), that's great.

It's not for me though. I haven't paid $5 to watch a movie in over 10 years and don't think I'll start now (especially if it's not 1080p and in the OAR).

I'm fine with my selection of movie channels, 800+ SD DVD's and my Blockbuster Blu-Ray movies coming in the mail every few days. There's always plenty to watch in my house.



Drew2k said:


> Folks, let's put this all in perspective ...
> 
> Before Movies Now!, you had two choices if you wanted to watch a PPV HD movie on your DIRECTV DVR:


I still have 2 choices. MoviesNow isn't an option for me.


----------



## Juppers (Oct 26, 2006)

I hope they clean the crap out of the movies now section. There is NFL junk in there from last fall. I really wish there was a way to delete or hide the stuff in there we have no interest in.


----------



## rustynails (Apr 24, 2008)

I am glad the feature is there if I ever decide to use it. Its doubtfull that I will due to the fact that I don't watch many movies and the 24 hour limit. You guys enjoy it! I would settle for DLB. OOOPS, wrong forum!!


----------



## mfrost (Dec 17, 2006)

I'm glad to see it available as an option but I doubt I'll ever use. it. I'll stick with Blue-ray disks coming in the mail from Blockbuster.


----------



## bgottschalk (Aug 30, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> I'm all for others being happy with it and wanting to use it. If it helps D* (and D*'s customers), that's great.
> 
> It's not for me though. I haven't paid $5 to watch a movie in over 10 years and don't think I'll start now (especially if it's not 1080p and in the OAR).
> 
> ...


I agree - not for me - I'll stick to VOD. But if other people like it and will use it, then great...

I just wish they hadn't told me there was 120GB of my hard drive that I couldn't use...:sure:


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

man_rob said:


> For the same price, I can get 5 movies from Redbox.


I agree. 2.99 would be my breaking point for hd movie


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

Juppers said:


> I hope they clean the crap out of the movies now section. There is NFL junk in there from last fall. I really wish there was a way to delete or hide the stuff in there we have no interest in.


I agree


----------



## drx792 (Feb 28, 2007)

hmm i dont have Cloverfield available under the movies now folder for me...thats strange.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

The movies now will arrive as there is free time on your tuners.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

Great concept for those who choose to utilize it. My suggestions are: let me have that additional 120g's of space and let me delete whatever is pushed that I don't want to keep.


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Yes, the content under MoviesNow! is pushed via the satellite.


Currently. the program guide shows no showing of Fool's Gold in HD. So once you start, how does it finish? There are HD showings of the other movies, but not Fool's Gold until 130AM Thursday. Is there a hidden feed, or will it download from the internet. If not, then what is it going to do? Just stop in the middle?


----------



## bgottschalk (Aug 30, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> The movies now will arrive as there is free time on your tuners.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


So........what you're saying is........

All we have to do is record 2 programs at once continuously 24 / 7 and we won't get these movies downloaded to us... 

Then all we have to do is figure out how to trick the DVR into using that 120 GB for normal recordings...hmmmm.... :hurah:


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My advice to y'all is be happy. Way I see it is, when I want a movie, I don't have to think about it. It's there. I don't have to worry about PPV and when it's on next. I don't have to wait an hour so that On Demand can get it down from the network. It's not "theatrical presentation ratio" but you know, everything is shot so it's safe for multiple aspect ratios anyway. If I want a movie, now, it's there. And if I don't, it doesn't cost me anything (like netflix), doesn't take up gas (like going to Blockbuster and finding they're out of stock)... doesn't even take up my recording space like regular HDPPV. How can I lose?


You get video compressed more and have DD audio. HDM you can get 3x video bitrate and several choices of HD audio codecs. HD video is only half of the presentation, HD audio is needed too.

Are the HR2x capable of HD audio (either bitstream or LPCM) should DirecTV ever have the bandwidth to support more than basic Dobly Digital or is there a hardware limitation?


----------



## V'ger (Oct 4, 2007)

JonW said:


> All the movies that appear are listed as as (Partial) when I click on them, but I'm not spending $5 to find out whether they really work.


Let's see.. If the HD stream is roughly 8Mbps, that is 1Megabyte per second. A two hour movie will then be 7200 MB, or 7.2 GB. Three movies will use almost 22GB of disk space. So I guess they can stay in the previously reserved disk space as long as DirecTV limits the number of HD movies downloaded to a maximum of 5 or 6 (not knowing how much guide data takes, etc).

Given the small size, I bet that the movie will finish downloading the next time it shows up on a PPV channel. At this moment, there are no showings of Fool's Gold in HD, so if you have a partial, then it might not finish until tomorrow, after the next showing.

With DirecTV's propensity to drop HD PPV channels on heavy sports nights, I can't see them not downloading the whole movie to a DVR unless there is a disc space issue.


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

Given the way pricing has gone down for rentals and the many different possible ways to rent a movie. The DTV pricing is way too expensive.

It should be $1.99 for SD and $2.99 for HD. It should also be for 2 days.

Guess I'll just keep going with Netflix. You'd think DTV would want to get Netflix out of the picture, rather then always being in 2nd place. Since netflix started doing ondemand with their Roku box, I just turned all my relatives and friends on to Netflix with that box. With Netflix and Redbox and Netflix watchnow, DTV is about 2 years too late with their current technology and pricing.

Maybe DTV should just give up and partner with Netflix.

BTW.. I live in the middle of nowhere outside of town in Colorado. There are still at least 5 places in my town with Redbox (or similar) systems nearby. 

I can stream Netflix Watchnow. It is SD but it looks great on my 52" LCD. Better then DirecTV SD, but not quite DTV HD. DTV's quality compared to Bluray is sad, also.


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My advice to y'all is be happy. Way I see it is, when I want a movie, I don't have to think about it. It's there. I don't have to worry about PPV and when it's on next. I don't have to wait an hour so that On Demand can get it down from the network. It's not "theatrical presentation ratio" but you know, everything is shot so it's safe for multiple aspect ratios anyway. If I want a movie, now, it's there. And if I don't, it doesn't cost me anything (like netflix), doesn't take up gas (like going to Blockbuster and finding they're out of stock)... doesn't even take up my recording space like regular HDPPV. How can I lose?


The problem is that many people (including myself) already use Netflix. Netflix's watchnow technology is so much better then DTV. I can watch things streaming instantly. On my HR-20, I have to wait a few minutes even for SD stuff before I can start watching so it buffers. The quality of the DTV content (especially on-demand) is poor compared to DVD, Bluray. Netflix SD Watchnow is almost better quality then DTV HD content quality, granted they don't have a lot of new releases on Watchnow, but their library is big and will be bigger very shortly.

I participated in the CE for Ondemand and tried it a few times. I haven't used it in over a month. I use Netflix Watchnow at least 4 times/week. My whole family and most of my friends do too.

You can't lose, really, but DTV needs to know that this type of stuff is "OK", but not cutting edge and not really what people want. People want to watch streaming HD and SD movies with no delay (or a short delay).


----------



## loveshockey (Feb 25, 2008)

seymouru said:


> Not everything...
> 
> Screen Cap from "Me Without You" (2001)


I don't understand this post.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

mogulman said:


> Given the way pricing has gone down for rentals and the many different possible ways to rent a movie. The DTV pricing is way too expensive.
> 
> It should be $1.99 for SD and $2.99 for HD. It should also be for 2 days.
> 
> ...


One thing to remember--DIRECTV also has to meet the movie house demands for pricing. In this case, I am not certain how things work. The providers might set a minimum price or might set the whole price.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jlancaster (Feb 10, 2006)

We do a lot of hdppv and I love this!! The fact that its not eating into my recording time and also not having to deal with "upcoming" in the guide is great.

Great job Directv!!


----------



## kentuck1163 (Apr 20, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> While I (sorta) understand the movie house's rationale for a time limit on PPV, I think they went too far. wpbond69's situation is a perfect example. Seems to me that 48 hours or midnight the next night are more reasonable when compared to rentals.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Tom, as usual, you are right on target. 48 (or even 72) hours would have been a much more reasonable limit. Netflix - a company that would be in serious trouble if these On-Demand movies were $3.99 with a 48-hour limit - has been given a new lease on life.

-Mark


----------



## mstenbrg (Oct 2, 2006)

24 hours is a joke. When you rent a movie from Blockbuster/Netflix you can have it as long as you need to watch it. The price is way to high as well, especially since they do not have to ship you a physical disk. DirecTV won't compete with them with these rules and prices.


----------



## Blurayfan (Nov 16, 2005)

JonW said:


> All the movies that appear are listed as as (Partial) when I click on them, but I'm not spending $5 to find out whether they really work.


They are listed as partial because the showcase the films were taken from was longer. The length of 10,000 BC in Movies Now for example shows 1:49 (partal) and runtime 2:23. However these films are linked to DirecTV on Demand. DirecTV on Demand says *Watch Now* for 10,000 BC and the running tme listed is 1:49. Also the length on the PPV channels shows 1:49. So at least for 10,000 BC it's the complete recording.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

pdxguy said:


> But that's the point of paying more money, which is to see the movies sooner.


You can wait 6-8 months for it to hit PPV, but you can't wait two months more for it to play, in the exact same format, on a premium channel? (Not to mention, when you record it from a premium HD, you are not limited by the watch in 24 hours or lose it plan.) More movies, no 24 hour limit...Premium HD channels are a much better value. DirecTV gets enough of my money.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

seymouru said:


> Not everything...
> 
> Screen Cap from "Me Without You" (2001)


Actually seymouru is right. Most movies are shot without regard to their scan and pan TV versions. Why do you think so many film makers hate pan and scan?



loveshockey said:


> I don't understand this post.


It's to give you an idea of how image of a wide screen movie gets cropped when presented in a full screen version, as with DirecTV's PPV. You lose almost a 3rd of the picture.

With DirecTV's Movies Now! You pay $5, you are only allowed 24 hours usage, and you only get the inferior pan and scan version.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

man_rob said:


> Actually seymouru is right. Most movies are shot without regard to their scan and pan TV versions. Why do you think so many film makers hate pan and scan?
> 
> It's to give you an idea of how image of a wide screen movie gets cropped when presented in a full screen version, as with DirecTV's PPV. You lose almost a 3rd of the picture.


Good explanations, and this is a major bummer for me when it comes to movies not being displayed in their original aspect ratio.

Love the black bars, and respect the black bars for what they do. Even with 4x3 programming, I prefer to have the bars on the side.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

It's another option. I doubt I'll use it all that much because of the price and expiration...but it's a reasonable offering.

Couple of notes:

1. Vudu is now allowing people to extend the "rental" of downloaded movies for a reduced fee. So, you're not locked in to just 24 hours. If that's the case maybe all this drivel about the providers having no choice in the matter isn't really true...or does Vudu have more clout with the studios than DirecTV?

2. Movies Now = Movies NOW, Direct On Demand = Movies Later?


----------



## ansky (Oct 11, 2005)

man_rob said:


> Maybe, but around here, they are in every McDonalds, most grocery stores, etc. As I said, I can get to one without burning 10 cents worth of gas, usually it's no extra cost because I happen to need groceries, or whatever.
> 
> Hey, if someone thinks a PPV is worth $5. More power to them.


I'm with ya. I have a DVD Express machine 3 blocks from my house and can get there on my own 2 feet at no cost. They even send me coupons in my email, so I can usually watch 4 movies for $3. Can't beat that!


----------



## n-spring (Mar 6, 2007)

V'ger;1658228 said:


> Are the HR2x capable of HD audio (either bitstream or LPCM) should DirecTV ever have the bandwidth to support more than basic Dobly Digital or is there a hardware limitation?


The broadcast standard is DD 5.1. I doubt (but "never say never") that any of the broadcast services (DBS or terrestrial) will be able to deliver high bandwidth, loss-less, uncompressed, 7.1 audio. This is why I'll stick with Blu-ray, thank you very much.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

And please do so, please stick with Blu-Ray if it makes you happy. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will benefit from having another choice.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> As far as the 24 hour limit, we've been up and down this issue. It's consistent for all PPV recordings.


That's the typical business model for VOD through cable companies & telcos.

If you're watching when the 24-hour clock expires, you'll be allowed to watch the asset to its conclusion (it's called a "graceful end"). If you try to watch the asset or resume viewing after the 24-hour clock expires, you're out of luck.

Makes sense to me...

Seems to me that DirecTV subscribers complain about lack of features (like DOD) and then complain again when DirecTV tries to roll them out. Apparently DirecTV can't win.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

CorkyMuldoon said:


> That's the typical business model for VOD through cable companies & telcos.
> 
> If you're watching when the 24-hour clock expires, you'll be allowed to watch the asset to its conclusion (it's called a "graceful end"). If you try to watch the asset or resume viewing after the 24-hour clock expires, you're out of luck.
> 
> ...


No, subscribers complain with they roll them out in such a customer unfriendly way, to include so many disadvantages not found elsewhere, while charging a higher price.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

It is your option you make the decision no one is forcing you to use it.
I know I will use it once in a while nice to have the choice.


----------



## jash (Sep 2, 2007)

i don't know who the ass-master was that came up with this 24 hour restriction on content but can someone please drag him out back and shoot him in the f'ing head!

loser!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

jash said:


> i don't know who the ass-master was that came up with this 24 hour restriction on content but can someone please drag him out back and shoot him in the f'ing head!
> 
> loser!


The studios. Tone it down a bit.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> The studios.


True. Content providers, too.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

man_rob said:


> No, subscribers complain with they roll them out in such a customer unfriendly way, to include so many disadvantages not found elsewhere, while charging a higher price.


Thanks for making my point for me.:lol:


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

CorkyMuldoon said:


> Thanks for making my point for me.:lol:


Some of us don't subscribe to the DirecTV Blind Loyalty Pack.  I like DirecTV, but that doesn't mean I have to mindlessly accept everything they do. If people want to shell out $5 for a scan and pan movie on TV, and be limited to 24 hours to watch it, more power to them.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

CorkyMuldoon said:


> True. Content providers, too.


??


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Some of us don't subscribe to the DirecTV Blind Loyalty Pack.  ...


Damn! When did they make that package option available???

I've got to call DirecTV right NOW!


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> ??


Content providers actually "rent" assets to cable companies, Telcos and DirecTV (who don't actually "own" the assets (movies/programs). One of the most popular content providers used by Cable companies and Telcos is TVN www.tvn.com.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

man_rob said:


> You obviously already have it.:grin:


I sure hope so!


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

CorkyMuldoon said:


> I sure hope so!


And thanks for proving my point!:lol:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

It does get a bit tiresome to hear people complain about these issues. If you dislike the price, don't pay it. One of the principle complaints about DOD when it was released was a lack of satellite delivery. DirecTV has provided satellite delivery on some movies. They are charging no more for these satellite-delivered movies than for the Internet-delivered ones. This seems to be a response that was requested.

Some people hate that the studios are pushing for 24 hour limits: OK. Some hate the DirecTV pricing on PPV: OK. If you have these other options be happy with them. It is not DirecTV's responsibility to beat someone else's pricing in limited markets.

If they were taking space away from the user area on the hard drive, I would be the first to complain. But they are using reserved space to try and make some money from people that want to spend it. If you use it, great. If you don't, you lost nothing.


----------



## AFH (Nov 4, 2002)

man_rob said:


> For that matter, the premium HD channels will end up being cheaper than buying HD PPVs for the amount of movies you get, if you don't mind waiting two or three months to see it.


Heck, I don't mind b/c that's exactly what I do. I don't go to the theater except to see maybe one or two movies a year. When a new movie comes out on HBO, Starz, Showtime or Cinemax, I record the HD version and I watch it on the projector. Right now I have 18 movies sitting on my HR20 that came out in the theaters within the last year and are waiting for me to watch them on my own time without any 24 hour viewing period.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

gregjones said:


> It does get a bit tiresome to hear people complain about these issues. If you dislike the price, don't pay it. One of the principle complaints about DOD when it was released was a lack of satellite delivery. DirecTV has provided satellite delivery on some movies. They are charging no more for these satellite-delivered movies than for the Internet-delivered ones. This seems to be a response that was requested.
> 
> Some people hate that the studios are pushing for 24 hour limits: OK. Some hate the DirecTV pricing on PPV: OK. If you have these other options be happy with them. It is not DirecTV's responsibility to beat someone else's pricing in limited markets.
> 
> If they were taking space away from the user area on the hard drive, I would be the first to complain. But they are using reserved space to try and make some money from people that want to spend it. If you use it, great. If you don't, you lost nothing.


Except I won't pay for the overpriced internet delivered scan & pan movies either. Just because we have other choices, doesn't mean we don't have opinions on the topic. I thought we were here to discuss, not just heap blind praise on DirecTV, no matter what they do.


----------



## jake14mw (Oct 5, 2007)

For me, if they were $3.99 and a 48 hour limit, that's when I would consider using it. $2.99 and 48 hour limit and I would use it quite a bit. The 24 hour limit thing is a real problem for me. I'm cheaper than most people though. It's good to have more choices, some people will find this a good alternative for them.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The 24-hour limitation is something that's already been discussed over and over. It's not DIRECTV's decision, it's what they have to do in order to keep studio support.


----------



## sungam (May 10, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm moving this to the DIRECTV HD DVR forum as I believe that national release users also have this capability (although the tab title still says "Showcases.")


Why 'hide' this in the HD DVR forum? The SD DVRs (R15-500s anyway) have them too;-)


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The Movies Now! are HD. If you don't have a Blu-Ray player that's a real incentive.
> 
> BubblePuppy, this has been in the works since day 1. The movies go on the reserved partition and don't affect your recording space at all.
> 
> As far as the 24 hour limit, we've been up and down this issue. It's consistent for all PPV recordings.


Consistency isn't necessarily a good thing -- certainly not in the 24 hour limit case :nono2:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Perhaps not, but perhaps we could focus on the other things about Movies Now, such as, it's Now, it's here, and it's the same price and quality as PPVHD.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Perhaps not, but perhaps we could focus on the other things about Movies Now, such as, it's Now, it's here, and it's the same price and quality as PPVHD.


I really don't think that most people here are complaining that DirecTV is doing them some kind of personal injustice. It's true, DirecTV is just giving us all another option. No one has to take it. It would be interesting after a year or so, to see some statistics if ordering PPV has actually increased with these new option. Because it feels like - for many of us - that what DirecTV is offering, isn't going to be that popular, given all the other non-DirecTV choices these days.

Rather - I think what people are "complaining" about is that we'd like to see something truely cutting edge from DirecTV. Something that finds a way to work with the ridiculous recent studio rules that are being imposed, without significantly hindering the consumer. Something that looks at what Blockbuster, Netflix and Redbox offer the consumer and improves upon it in every way. That would be worth getting excited about. And why not from a company the size of DirecTV ?


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Eich said:


> I really don't think that most people here are complaining that DirecTV is doing them some kind of personal injustice. It's true, DirecTV is just giving us all another option. No one has to take it. It would be interesting after a year or so, to see some statistics if ordering PPV has actually increased with these new option. Because it feels like - for many of us - that what DirecTV is offering, isn't going to be that popular, given all the other non-DirecTV choices these days.
> 
> Rather - I think what people are "complaining" about is that we'd like to see something truely cutting edge from DirecTV. Something that finds a way to work with the ridiculous recent studio rules that are being imposed, without significantly hindering the consumer. Something that looks at what Blockbuster, Netflix and Redbox offer the consumer and improves upon it in every way. That would be worth getting excited about. And why not from a company the size of DirecTV ?


Sure, DirecTV should be cutting edge... they are the leader and should do everything in their power to stay as such. But they're a satellite provider first and foremost. Keeping this in mind, what would you suggest they could deliver that would be worth getting excited about? Successful companies in any industry realize that they can't be everything to everyone and have to work within the boundaries of their industry and their own business model.

Witness: Countrywide. Tried to write a loan for every person under the sun regardless of future ramifications.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Except I won't pay for the overpriced internet delivered scan & pan movies either. Just because we have other choices, doesn't mean we don't have opinions on the topic. I thought we were here to discuss, not just heap blind praise on DirecTV, no matter what they do.


Yes, but you're only discussing one aspect of it. The 24 hour limit is mandated by the content owners. Discussing it ad nauseum on this thread is pointless. The prices are the same as the other PPVHD prices. Again, discussing that in this specific thread is somewhat pointless. The things that are specific to Movies Now are the satellite push delivery to the reserved area of the DVR.

Perhaps we can discuss that aspect instead of the other dead ends. Does wanting to discuss the material specific to this item make me one to heap blind praise on DirecTV?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Everyone needs to remember that MoviesNow! is ALL about moving PPV from a timed schedule to a true on-demand experience, so that DIRECTV can be more competitive with cable. 

Even with the limitations of not being on-demand, DIRECTV has had a lot of success with PPV offerings. 

Cable companies tout the depth of their on-demand libraries for PPV and many of their customers have no problem paying for that PPV.

So ... the market is well established for both DIRECTV and cable customers, and now that DIRECTV has true on-demand for PPV, they are hoping to lure more cable customers.

That's the bottom line - it's about DIRECTV having options and being competitive.

If you didn't use PPV before, this won't affect you at all. If you used PPV before, now you have more options. Everyone wins.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Sure, DirecTV should be cutting edge... they are the leader and should do everything in their power to stay as such. But they're a satellite provider first and foremost. Keeping this in mind, what would you suggest they could deliver that would be worth getting excited about?


I'm only saying that most people who are here "complaining" are only pointing out that what they've offered doesn't work for them and that there are other better options out there. This is good information for DirecTV. But some of the responses I've seen to the "complaints" sounds like a defense of DirecTV when it doesn't really need to be.

As for a suggestion - I don't know. Maybe DirecTV could find a way to determine when the program has been watched entirely before it started enforcing the 24 hour rule. You have 24 hours from when you watched it entirely or 48 hours from when you start watching. Maybe that would statisfy the studios? It would certainly be more reasonable for the consumer.

Or - how about a plan like Netflix's Roku? Maybe one day they'll purchase Netflix?



tcusta00 said:


> Successful companies in any industry realize that they can't be everything to everyone and have to work within the boundaries of their industry and their own business model.


Yes. But it wasn't all that long ago when people wanted to watch local channels and everyone was saying that DirecTV was only a satellite company with limited bandwidth and the idea of offering local channels was a "pie in the sky" fairy tale. Now we have that pie up in the sky in HD.

Today, DirecTV can be coupled with the internet. They are no longer "Just a satellite" company any more.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Yes, but you're only discussing one aspect of it. The 24 hour limit is mandated by the content owners. Discussing it ad nauseum on this thread is pointless. The prices are the same as the other PPVHD prices. Again, discussing that in this specific thread is somewhat pointless. The things that are specific to Movies Now are the satellite push delivery to the reserved area of the DVR.
> 
> Perhaps we can discuss that aspect instead of the other dead ends. Does wanting to discuss the material specific to this item make me one to heap blind praise on DirecTV?


We are discussing it, and not just one aspect. I suggest you go back and reread. If my opinion is that this is not great deal, and there are much better choices and better values, that is my opinion. I have every right to express it as you do to just say "Hurray for DirecTV"!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Eich said:


> I'm only saying that most people who are here "complaining" are only pointing out that what they've offered doesn't work for them and that there are other better options out there. This is good information for DirecTV. But some of the responses I've seen to the "complaints" sounds like a defense of DirecTV when it doesn't really need to be.
> 
> As for a suggestion - I don't know. Maybe DirecTV could find a way to determine when the program has been watched entirely before it started enforcing the 24 hour rule. You have 24 hours from when you watched it entirely or 48 hours from when you start watching. Maybe that would statisfy the studios? It would certainly be more reasonable for the consumer.
> 
> ...


But at their core, that's what they are - a satellite TV provider. I'm certainly not saying that they can't branch out, but their core business is what they excel at and they shouldn't lose sight of it - I love the media share concept and all the other goodies they've been pushing out, but their core business is still TV via satellite.

I'm not trying to defend DirecTV, I'm just trying to understand where some folks are coming from. Your suggestion about the 24 hour rule is fine, but they're still at the mercy of the studios. If I were the studio I'd say "so what's to stop a viewer from watching our movie up to the beginning of the credits and stopping it there to be able to keep it." The 24 hour debate is raging on in another thousand-post thread so let's keep this discussion on topic and go over there to beat that horse.

It seems that some people you just can't please; if DirecTV releases a new service that Joe Couchpotato won't use then Joe is quick to admonish them for not paying attention to what the "majority" of users want. Well, the reality is that Joe Couchpotato is speaking for himself and the way he _thinks_ the rest of the Couchpotatos out there think based on a limited sampling he's seen on dbstalk and his circle of 200 acquaintances. Joe is always part of the majority because Joe wants to be the mouthpiece for the rest of the world. People need to face facts and realize that millions of dollars worth of research is done before a large company does anything. They know what the majority of their userbase wants. They haven't become a 1 3/4 billion dollar a year company by ignoring their target market.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Let's not let this turn into personal attacks, ok? I don't want to close this thread because I think that Movies Now is an exciting thing for some, and if you're not one of them, that's ok too.


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

I think most of the unfavorable responses are around the announcement as a new feature. People generally don't like "features" that require more money to be paid.

I wonder about the bandwidth savings this will have. If you can just send it to the box in off hours and do away with some of the HD PPV channels I think that would be a good thing.

As far as features go ... and I know this is :beatdeadhorse:

How about some DLB ... or even getting my channel list correct would be really nice!

I realize (because I work in software support/DEV) that there isn't one group of people churning things out. But I also know that things can get done when priorities are set. And when PPV and ON - Demand PPV is getting done it's obvious that making more $$$ is where the priority is. And that's understandable to a point. But when you're spending almost $100 a month (not counting what you paid up front) you expect things to work correctly or at least as well as the TIVO it replaced.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The 24-hour limitation is something that's already been discussed over and over. It's not DIRECTV's decision, it's what they have to do in order to keep studio support.


Why is it that Vudu can now offer extended rentals at a reduced cost? Are they disobeying the studios or have they found a way to be a bit more customer friendly?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It's something about the licensing of a "rental" vs. a "pay-per-view". I don't know the specifics of the agreements but I believe it boils down to that.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Why is it that Vudu can now offer extended rentals at a reduced cost? Are they disobeying the studios or have they found a way to be a bit more customer friendly?


I see what you're getting at, Ken, but unfortuntely for your comparison, Vudu is a startup. Startups have to do all they can to get new business and be as customer-friendly as they can... and I'm sure they're paying a premium for it. DirecTV isn't going to war with the studios over it... yet. I'm sure if they see a major drop in revenue from the service then the studios will already be on the phone with DirecTV trying to figure something new out. You're comparing a mature business to a startup. The mature business is going to get all they can out of the margins and to point the finger of blame at them for it is unfair.


----------



## rossgs (Dec 23, 2006)

The real problem is that the movies being offered are all the same basic hollywood junk. Watching say, "300", in HD is not very interesting to most people who didn't see that movie in the first place. What they should be doing is showing more and more independent, foreign and special interest movies over this service rather than just recycling the same PPV stuff they already have. This could be turned into a really different product (read new revenue) for people who actually sit down in the evening to watch a movie and aren't turned off by the 24 hour limit.

Incidentally, I'm not in the slightest convinced by arguments about big companies spending millions of dollars on market research and always being right. That's how we got the Edsel car, Windows Vista, and "New Coke". Anyway, I doubt there will be much take up if you're just going to recycle the same stuff you're already showing elsewhere. 

Rgrds-Ross


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> I see what you're getting at, Ken, but unfortuntely for your comparison, Vudu is a startup. Startups have to do all they can to get new business and be as customer-friendly as they can... and I'm sure they're paying a premium for it.


It would seem to me it would work the opposite way. D* carries a much bigger stick than Vudu. One would think they would be in a much better bargaining position with 16 million plus subscribers.



tcusta00 said:


> The mature business is going to get all they can out of the margins and to point the finger of blame at them for it is unfair.


If your assertion is correct, that the mature business is going to get all the margin they can, you think its unfair for the customer to then point the finger at them? I cannot reconcile those concepts.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

raott said:


> It would seem to me it would work the opposite way. D* carries a much bigger stick than Vudu. One would think they would be in a much better bargaining position with 16 million plus subscribers.
> 
> If your assertion is correct, that the mature business is going to get all the margin they can, you think its unfair for the customer to then point the finger at them? I cannot reconcile those concepts.


You misunderstood what I said. Vudu has no bargaining chip. They are likely paying extra for the extra features (in this case, extended time for the rental).

Anyhoo, like I said earlier, let's let that discussion rage on in the other thread. :backtotop


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> But at their core, that's what they are - a satellite TV provider. I'm certainly not saying that they can't branch out, but their core business is what they excel at and they shouldn't lose sight of it - I love the media share concept and all the other goodies they've been pushing out, but their core business is still TV via satellite.
> 
> I'm not trying to defend DirecTV, I'm just trying to understand where some folks are coming from. Your suggestion about the 24 hour rule is fine, but they're still at the mercy of the studios. If I were the studio I'd say "so what's to stop a viewer from watching our movie up to the beginning of the credits and stopping it there to be able to keep it." The 24 hour debate is raging on in another thousand-post thread so let's keep this discussion on topic and go over there to beat that horse..


Again - I'm just saying that "where people are coming from" is that there are existing services today that are a more attractive option than what DirecTV is offering and there's no reason DirecTV can't get in that mix.

I would think a company the size of DirecTV could work with the Studios to relax the strict 24 hr rule to allow a 48 hour rule if you haven't completed watching the movie. That's not a big deal - another 24 hours if you haven't completed the movie and it makes it MUCH more palatable for the consumer.

DirecTV could also look at a subscription service like Netflix.



tcusta00 said:


> They know what the majority of their userbase wants. They haven't become a 1 3/4 billion dollar a year company by ignoring their target market.


And Microsoft hasn't become a gazillion dollar company by ignoring theirs either. Doen't mean you continue to focus on one thing and limit innovation.

You say their "target market" is satellite TV. I say their target market is the consumer who wants to watch TV and movies and all types of AV content. If it wasn't, they never would have offered Local channels, PPV, DVRs, Internet connectivity, Interactive services, ISP, etc..

That's like saying Apple's target market is the Mac desktop & OS and that their focus should stay there. If they had done that, you would've never seen the Ipod or Iphone.

There's no reason DirecTV can't or shouldn't excel at being a top competitor to Netflix and Blockbuster.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> You misunderstood what I said. Vudu has no bargaining chip. They are likely paying extra for the extra features (in this case, extended time for the rental).


I understand what you mean. That is why D* is exactly where the finger should be pointed at (along with Hollywood).

They appear to have the ability to negotiate for better features for their customer (and would seemingly be in a much better bargaining position than Vudu). If you are correct in your assertion, it appears they have chosen not to because of better margins, at the expense of their customer.

So the mindset of its never D*s fault doesn't fly, at least with me.

But, its their choice, they can do whatever they want, but I simply won't partake in PPV (and have not done so since the 24 hour rule).


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Eich said:


> Again - I'm just saying that "where people are coming from" is that there are existing services today that are a more attractive option than what DirecTV is offering and there's no reason DirecTV can't get in that mix.
> 
> I would think a company the size of DirecTV could work with the Studios to relax the strict 24 hr rule to allow a 48 hour rule if you haven't completed watching the movie. That's not a big deal - another 24 hours if you haven't completed the movie and it makes it MUCH more palatable for the consumer.
> 
> ...


No, I never said their target market is satellite TV, I said that's their core business. Target market is a term used to refer to people who they want to buy that service from them.

And again, let's leave the 24 hour discussion to the other thread. It's right here for those interested: http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=122364.



Eich said:


> There's no reason DirecTV can't or shouldn't excel at being a top competitor to Netflix and Blockbuster.


I agree. I humbly present to you "Movies Now!" the latest offering from DirecTV!


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I see what you're getting at, Ken, but unfortuntely for your comparison, Vudu is a startup. Startups have to do all they can to get new business and be as customer-friendly as they can... and I'm sure they're paying a premium for it. DirecTV isn't going to war with the studios over it... yet. I'm sure if they see a major drop in revenue from the service then the studios will already be on the phone with DirecTV trying to figure something new out. You're comparing a mature business to a startup. The mature business is going to get all they can out of the margins and to point the finger of blame at them for it is unfair.


Other than Ken getting a chance to take a shot at DirecTV, I look at it this way. Vudu is a targetting piece of software. Its whole mechanism is providing streaming video (and streaming content is always treated differently by content holders than recordable content). They have the mechanism to extend a viewing and they worked it out with the holders one way or another.

DirecTV is in a whole lot of ballgames and pretty much attacking them because they don'thave a particular mechanism is a bit tunnel-visioned.

If the Vudu plan works out for Vudu and for the content owners, then we may see a similar mechanism on DirecTV. Right now, what is in it for DirecTV to rework a small portion of their delivery mechanism for something that may or may not work uot? Vudu is a startup and it is more focused. This *is* their business, PPV. And they may have approached content holders on a test platform.

I am *sure* that the content holders are playing the big part in this. DirecTV, Comcast, Dish and the providers are pretty much just the conduit.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Let's not let this turn into personal attacks, ok? I don't want to close this thread because I think that Movies Now is an exciting thing for some, and if you're not one of them, that's ok too.


I honestly haven't any personal attacks in this thread. Seems like a good discussion and good information for DirecTV.

Couldn't they turn Movies now into a subscription-based service like Netflix ?


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> And again, let's leave the 24 hour discussion to the other thread. It's right here for those interested: http://dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=122364.
> !


Agreed.



tcusta00 said:


> I agree. I humbly present to you "Movies Now!" the latest offering from DirecTV!


And hence all the responses in this thread pointing out that Movies Now falls short of other offerings available outside of DirecTV.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Eich said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And hence all the responses in this thread pointing out that Movies Now falls short of other offerings available outside of DirecTV.


And we're back to square one... DirecTV primarily delivers content via satellite (and now internet for VOD). Anyone suggesting that they need to be like the other guys is suggesting that they stray from their core business. Like Tony said above, they have no incentive to try out a program that's not proven to work...


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> And we're back to square one... DirecTV primarily delivers content via satellite (and now internet for VOD). Anyone suggesting that they need to be like the other guys is suggesting that they stray from their core business. Like Tony said above, they have no incentive to try out a program that's not proven to work...


And they should expect many folks will go with the better values when it comes to movie rentals.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> No, I never said their target market is satellite TV, I said that's their core business. Target market is a term used to refer to people who they want to buy that service from them.
> 
> 
> > OK - you say that DirecTV should focus on their core business of Satellite.
> ...


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

raott said:


> <snip>
> But, its their choice, they can do whatever they want, but I simply won't partake in PPV (and have not done so since the 24 hour rule).


Same here.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> And we're back to square one... DirecTV primarily delivers content via satellite (and now internet for VOD). Anyone suggesting that they need to be like the other guys is suggesting that they stray from their core business. Like Tony said above, they have no incentive to try out a program that's not proven to work...


They've already tried out a program that wasn't proven to work. Local channels delivered via satellite. I'd call that a resounding success.

They're already trying out movies now, which is not a proven program. It LOOKS like they're trying to keep up with the Blockbusters and Netflix's of the world. They have the means to be every bit as good.

I'm not suggesting that they be like any other guys. I'm suggesting that like what they did to cable, that they be better than the other guys. And even if they focus on satellite delivery of content, they can STILL be better than Netflix and Blockbuster. Movies now is a good first step.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Eich said:


> tcusta00 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I never said their target market is satellite TV, I said that's their core business. Target market is a term used to refer to people who they want to buy that service from them.
> ...


What inititially drew me into the conversation with you was your statement that you wanted to see something truly cutting edge out of DirecTV...



> Something that looks at what Blockbuster, Netflix and Redbox offer the consumer and improves upon it in every way.


How do you suggest they do that any better within the confines of the infrastructure they already have?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> You misunderstood what I said. Vudu has no bargaining chip. They are likely paying extra for the extra features (in this case, extended time for the rental).
> 
> Anyhoo, like I said earlier, let's let that discussion rage on in the other thread. :backtotop


How is this not on the topic? It is the topic. DirecTV launched a service that makes movies available for viewing at a cost. We're talking about that service.

Hosts and others here continue to state that DirecTV can't offer longer viewing times of content...that it's purely the decision of the studio and that DirecTV has no control over that (DirecTV has never made that statement though)

But...when it is shown that another company offering the same service is somehow allowing longer rentals/license to the content then the story seems to change.

Obviously, it is possible to offer a a VoD/PPV offering for longer than 24 hours because Vudu is doing it (albeit still at an extra cost). Vudu is openly advertising this service so it's pretty safe to assume that the studios know what they're doing. There is no way that Vudu has a better negotiating position with the studios than DirecTV/Liberty.

The reality appears to be that DirecTV (and others), not the studios, has chosen the hard 24 hour limit and do not offer any kind of extended rental option. This is certainly their right, but as consumers we should understand that they could offer more...if they chose to.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> What inititially drew me into the conversation with you was your statement that you wanted to see something truly cutting edge out of DirecTV...
> 
> How do you suggest they do that any better within the confines of the infrastructure they already have?


That statement sounds exactly like what people said before satellite carried local channels or HD. How do you expect them to do it with the confines of their limited bandwidth?

With internet connectivity, they don't have many confines anymore.

I already made one suggestion - that they offer a subscription service to Movies Now. Also, it's for DirecTV to figure out how to beat the competition, not me !


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> How is this not on the topic? It is the topic. DirecTV launched a service that makes movies available for viewing at a cost. We're talking about that service.
> 
> Hosts and others here continue to state that DirecTV can't offer longer viewing times of content...that it's purely the decision of the studio and that DirecTV has no control over that (DirecTV has never made that statement though)
> 
> ...


The topic is not the 24 hour limit, Ken, it's Movies Now.

Your view of reality on DirecTV is that they can do nothing right. I certainly think they have room for improvement, but when it comes to DirecTV and you there seems to be no way they can ever do anything right. :shrug:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

man_rob said:


> I have every right to express it as you do to just say "Hurray for DirecTV"!


My point is that this thread is about Movies Now, specifically. The majority of the discussion is about PPV pricing (not new) and the 24 hour window (not new, not specific to DirecTV). It would be nice to discuss the new item: satellite delivery to the dvr of material, since that was a major complaint when DOD was released.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> The topic is not the 24 hour limit, Ken, it's Movies Now.
> 
> Your view of reality on DirecTV is that they can do nothing right. I certainly think they have room for improvement, but when it comes to DirecTV and you there seems to be no way they can ever do anything right. :shrug:


I can't agree with that at all. Ken wanting improvments in multiple facets of a service subscribed to doesn't mean "they can do no right". If they did nothing right, he wouldn't subscribe at all. And if I thought that about all of my customers, I would a really depressed person. They demand improvements all the time - despite the fact that we do a lot right for them.

And if we can't discuss one part of movies now, which is the 24 hour limit, can we only post things we like about movies now?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Eich said:


> And if we can't discuss one part of movies now, which is the 24 hour limit, can we only post things we like about movies now?


You can discuss it, but then it is about PPV in general and has very little to do specifically with Movies Now.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

gregjones said:


> My point is that this thread is about Movies Now, specifically. The majority of the discussion is about PPV pricing (not new) and the 24 hour window (not new, not specific to DirecTV). It would be nice to discuss the new item: satellite delivery to the dvr of material, since that was a major complaint when DOD was released.


Because the price and 24 hour window are very relevant to the topic. I know some here would like to sweep the negatives under the carpet, not discuss them and pretend they don't exist (or at least make sure D* doesn't get blamed), but the fact is, they are part of the discussion.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Spirited discussion on all sides of a topic is just fine as long as we're all respectful of each other's opinions. So far everyone is staying on the right side of the line. 

I am a little surprised that so many people are so negative on this feature, which costs nothing if unused and has been part of the DVR strategy since day 1.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

As far as Vudu, we have no reason to believe that they will not be forced to adhere to the same 24 hour limit when they are up for renewal. Remember that we saw the 24 hour window appear provider by provider upon renewal.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

raott said:


> Because the price and 24 hour window are very relevant to the topic. I know some here would like to sweep the negatives under the carpet, not discuss them and pretend they don't exist (or at least make sure D* doesn't get blamed), but the fact is, they are part of the discussion.


No one is sweeping anything anywhere - except into the thread that's been beaten to death ten times over... why do you wish to continue this discussion? Are you hoping for some mind-blowing, debate-altering discussion here that you couldn't get in 636 posts over there? :nono2:

Have at it boys, beat that horse some more, I think I saw it twitch a little. I'm with Stuart, I thought the feature was cool until it started getting beaten up. I changed my mind, I think it stinks now.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Spirited discussion on all sides of a topic is just fine as long as we're all respectful of each other's opinions. So far everyone is staying on the right side of the line.
> 
> I am a little surprised that so many people are so negative on this feature, which costs nothing if unused and has been part of the DVR strategy since day 1.


I am as well. I see this as attempting to target only two groups of people. I would think those groups would be happy.

First, there are people that had no problem with the pricing or 24 hour limit of PPV but didn't like waiting for the next viewing window. Second, there is the group that liked DOD but didn't have an Internet connection. This second group was especially vocal at the outset of DOD.

Anyone that had a general problem with PPV pricing or limitations aside from the groups above will still be unsatisfied because this does not address their concerns. At the same time, though, they lost nothing in the process. I would think people would be happier that some had another option and leave it at that.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

gregjones said:


> My point is that this thread is about Movies Now, specifically. The majority of the discussion is about PPV pricing (not new) and the 24 hour window (not new, not specific to DirecTV). It would be nice to discuss the new item: satellite delivery to the dvr of material, since that was a major complaint when DOD was released.


You want to limit the conversation to DirecTV is pre-loading 4 or 5 (edit, it's actually only 3) movies (of their choosing) onto a reserved part of their DVR hard drives. That's a short conversation.

Again, we _are_ talking about Movies Now!, to _include_ it's limitations. Whether or not DirecTV chooses the movies and loads them via satellite, or the end user does it over the internet, it's still not a good value.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Edit: nevermind. I'm done.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Spirited discussion on all sides of a topic is just fine as long as we're all respectful of each other's opinions. So far everyone is staying on the right side of the line.
> 
> I am a little surprised that so many people are so negative on this feature, which costs nothing if unused and has been part of the DVR strategy since day 1.


I actually think the essence of the feature is quite cool. And I'll never use it. That's the problem I have with it. I'd love to use it. It's just too restrictive to justify the cost. There must be a way to make it better. Ken gave a suggestion. I gave a suggestion. Maybe there's something else we're not thinking of.

People are cost conscious these days. Who wants to pay $5 for a movie you might not get to watch entirely? If it's going to stay that restrictive, then it should be cheaper. A LOT cheaper.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

gregjones said:


> I am as well. I see this as attempting to target only two groups of people. I would think those groups would be happy.
> 
> First, there are people that had no problem with the pricing or 24 hour limit of PPV but didn't like waiting for the next viewing window. Second, there is the group that liked DOD but didn't have an Internet connection. This second group was especially vocal at the outset of DOD.
> 
> Anyone that had a general problem with PPV pricing or limitations aside from the groups above will still be unsatisfied because this does not address their concerns. At the same time, though, they lost nothing in the process. I would think people would be happier that some had another option and leave it at that.


My point is, the feature could be improved by reducing the price and eliminating (or lengthening) the window. DOD does not work well for HD because it is not a one-to one ratio. D* could be targeting three groups of people, the third would be those with DOD who want HD but want to watch now (not in an hour).

If there was no window (or a longer window) and the price was reasonable, it would be something I would likely use and enjoy.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> The topic is not the 24 hour limit, Ken, it's Movies Now.
> 
> Your view of reality on DirecTV is that they can do nothing right. I certainly think they have room for improvement, but when it comes to DirecTV and you there seems to be no way they can ever do anything right. :shrug:


Ahh...I see it's time to ignore the topic and just start insulting me.

1. I didn't say there was anything at all wrong with the service. It might not be of great interest to me, but that doesn't make it a bad service. If they use the satellite feed to bring other DoD services (some without a fee) it would be even better...as I've stated in other posts going back to the beginning of DoD discussions on this forum.

2. I'm glad you have reviewed all of my posts and determined that I have never said anything positive about DirecTV...you're wrong, of course...but why let facts get in the way of your posts? I guess I need to put on a DirecTV skirt like several others here in order to have the right to post.

3. The reality is when the 24-hour limit was imposed a number of people here incorrectly stated that this was mandated by the studios that DirecTV had no say in the matter. That really doesn't seem to be the case. DirecTV didn't say that...it was posters here. So, in fact, I was just pointing out that some others here may be incorrect. I didn't toss insults. I didn't claim that they were fan boys....I just responded on that item. I should also note that I spoke of others doing the same thing as DirecTV.

Please just ignore my horrible posts from now on...they're obviously bringing clouds to the sky on your planet.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

gregjones said:


> As far as Vudu, we have no reason to believe that they will not be forced to adhere to the same 24 hour limit when they are up for renewal. Remember that we saw the 24 hour window appear provider by provider upon renewal.


Right. Because DirecTV, an established multi-billion dollar corp. with millions of customers was unable to do a better deal than a start up company? If true, DirecTV needs to fire the guy who made that deal.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Whether or not DirecTV chooses the movies and loads them via satellite, or the end user does it over the internet, it's still not a good value.


I think saying "it's not a good value" is different from saying that it's not a good value for you. I absolutely support your contention that it's not a good value for you; you've proved your point well. However, I think that it will be a good value for some subscribers and as part of an overarching strategy of delivering content multiple ways, it will end up being successful.

That is the point... you have PPV, you have On Demand, you have Movies Now, and you can stream videos from a PC. These are all enhancements that can make the DIRECTV receiver a key part of your entertainment experience.

If you would prefer vudu, Blu-Ray, Netflix, Redbox, etc. that's fantastic, that's what those services are there for. Please do what suits you best.

It's not a one-size-fits-all solution but I do ask you to consider that it could be a one-size-fits-some solution and those some could be quite satisfied.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Eich said:


> I actually think the essence of the feature is quite cool. And I'll never use it. That's the problem I have with it. I'd love to use it. It's just too restrictive to justify the cost. There must be a way to make it better. Ken gave a suggestion. I gave a suggestion. Maybe there's something else we're not thinking of.
> 
> People are cost conscious these days. Who wants to pay $5 for a movie you might not get to watch entirely? If it's going to stay that restrictive, then it should be cheaper. A LOT cheaper.


Exactly my thoughts. The problem is, this site has gotten to the point that anytime you make critical observations of D*, people take offense like you've just insulted their mother.

We always hear how D* reads this site, which tells me that objective critical commentary and discussion is a good thing.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

gregjones said:


> As far as Vudu, we have no reason to believe that they will not be forced to adhere to the same 24 hour limit when they are up for renewal. Remember that we saw the 24 hour window appear provider by provider upon renewal.


Gregjones,

Actually vudu was using a 24-hour limit until recently when they launched the extended rental/viewing option.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Except I won't pay for the overpriced internet delivered scan & pan movies either.


We get your point, you won't use this service. Now let's move on...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Ahh...I see it's time to ignore the topic and just start insulting me.
> 
> 1. I didn't say there was anything at all wrong with the service.


Let me remind you of your post earlier in the thread: 


Ken S said:


> Why is it that Vudu can now offer extended rentals at a reduced cost? Are they disobeying the studios or have they found a way to be a bit more customer friendly?





Ken S said:


> 2. I'm glad you have reviewed all of my posts and determined that I have never said anything positive about DirecTV...you're wrong, of course...but why let facts get in the way of your posts? I guess I need to put on a DirecTV skirt like several others here in order to have the right to post.


I'm just saying that I see a lot of negative posts from you about DirecTV. I'm not asking you to put on a "DirecTV skirt" (whatever that means), but even your signature criticizes them. You used to have a signature that said something about DirecTV's customer satisfaction rate being close to that of the IRS's... just my observation.



Ken S said:


> 3. The reality is when the 24-hour limit was imposed a number of people here incorrectly stated that this was mandated by the studios that DirecTV had no say in the matter. That really doesn't seem to be the case. DirecTV didn't say that...it was posters here. So, in fact, I was just pointing out that some others here may be incorrect. I didn't toss insults. I didn't claim that they were fan boys....I just responded on that item.
> 
> Please just ignore my horrible posts from now on...they're obviously bringing clouds to the sky on your planet.


If it's just DirecTV then why do other content distributors have the same rules coming online?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> We get your point, you won't use this service. Now let's move on...


And we get your point, you will use the service. You should move on as well.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

man_rob said:


> And we get your point, you will use the service. You should move on as well.


Now where did I say I would use it? Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't put any in yours.

I, like you, find it to be a bad idea and I won't use it. But I, unlike you, will not sound like a broken record stating that.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually all are welcome to stay as long as the conversation stays polite and respectful. 

I for one will use this service because I made a bad choice (HD DVD) and have no premium channels. So, HDPPV is my best method for getting HD movies. I would have to get Premier to be sure I got all the movies I want, but there are months that there's nothing I really want, so HDPPV makes economic sense. 

I'll stipulate to the bitrate being lower than Blu-Ray but it's still a lot better than SD, and I do not buy the "theatrical aspect ratio" argument for any movie made after 1986. 

So hey, I'm happy about it! Now they just have to get some movies I really want and that's not DIRECTV's fault.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Now where did I say I would use it? Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't put any in yours.
> 
> I, like you, find it to be a bad idea and I won't use it. But I, unlike you, will not sound like a broken record stating that.


You should put me on your ignore list then.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> Let me remind you of your post earlier in the thread:
> 
> I'm just saying that I see a lot of negative posts from you about DirecTV. I'm not asking you to put on a "DirecTV skirt" (whatever that means), but even your signature criticizes them. You used to have a signature that said something about DirecTV's customer satisfaction rate being close to that of the IRS's... just my observation.
> 
> If it's just DirecTV then why do other content distributors have the same rules coming online?


If you read my posts as closely as you indicate you would see that twice now in this thread I have said that it's not just DirecTV doing this. Perhaps reading comprehension isn't your thing?

No, what you're saying is that I pointed something out and instead of responding you chose to attack me. If you don't like the tone of my posts ignore them. If you're going to respond how about keeping it on topic and away from personal attacks?

I used to have something in my signature that criticized them? You mean when I had their ACSI rating and the IRS ACSI rating? That was a fact taken from the ratings that DirecTV promoted so heavily.

My signature now has my pet peeves...and more importantly to DirecTV my configuration which indicates that I send a great deal of money with DirecTV each month. Is that critical? I want them to be better. I have spent countless hours (by my own choice) helping to debug their hardware and software and helping folks with problems with their service. I guess that's just being negative too.

But then again...what if all of my posts are negative (they're not by a long shot)? If they're accurate and or honest opinions isn't that what a forum is supposed to be about?

P.S. A friend is telling me that Apple has also been allowing for extended rentals past the 24 hours - IF - the person pauses the movie.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Eich said:


> It LOOKS like they're trying to keep up with the Blockbusters and Netflix's of the world. They have the means to be every bit as good.


They have the means -- but do they have the will?

If Netflix only offered pan and scan movies for $5 a pop and demanded you return it after one day, how long do you think they would stay in business?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> So hey, I'm happy about it! Now they just have to get some movies I really want and that's not DIRECTV's fault.


For me and my family those kinds of movies seem to be harder and harder to find nowadays.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Gregjones,
> 
> Actually vudu was using a 24-hour limit until recently when they launched the extended rental/viewing option.


Are the same movies offered via Vudu? Are they offered during the same time period or are they movies that are in a different revenue period? I want to make sure this is apples to apples.

Others, during the 24 hour window discussion, were quick to point out Netflix streaming as a different option. The netflix streaming is of a significantly different quality and offered for movies that are, for the most part, well beyond the PPV timeline.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Ken S said:


> For me and my family those kinds of movies seem to be harder and harder to find nowadays.


Agreed there... just a consequence of getting older, I guess. For what it's worth I've already seen "Fool's Gold", which just happens to be one of the "Movies Now" and I felt it was a waste of my time.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Right. Because DirecTV, an established multi-billion dollar corp. with millions of customers was unable to do a better deal than a start up company? If true, DirecTV needs to fire the guy who made that deal.


DirecTV, Dish and the cable companies all got the same deal. Are they all that bad at negotiations?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

And who chose the movies for the premiere of this service?

10,000 BC (HD) Expires 12/26
Rotten Tomatoes: 9%
Reviews Counted: 130 
Fresh: 12 
Rotten:118 

Fool's Gold (HD) Expires 12/14
Rotten Tomatoes 10%
Reviews Counted: 128 
Fresh: 13 
Rotten:115 

At least this one fares better:
Cloverfield (HD) Expires 10/30
Rotten Tomatoes: 78%
Reviews Counted: 182 
Fresh: 142 
Rotten:40


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Agreed there... just a consequence of getting older, I guess. For what it's worth I saw "Fool's Gold", which just happens to be one of the "Movies Now" and I felt it was a waste of my time.


That would be the best complaint, I think. Who picked those three?


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Agreed there... just a consequence of getting older, I guess. For what it's worth I've already seen "Fool's Gold", which just happens to be one of the "Movies Now" and I felt it was a waste of my time.


im glad you said that, i was going to rent my first ''Movies Now" tonight and it was going to be fools gold:lol:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

man_rob said:


> And who chose the movies for the premiere of this service?
> 
> 10,000 BC (HD) Expires 12/26
> Rotten Tomatoes: 9%
> ...


It took this far down the thread, but we agree here, man_rob. Cloverfield was watchable but not very compelling. I just don't see what convinced them that these three were the top tier.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

gregjones said:


> DirecTV, Dish and the cable companies all got the same deal. Are they all that bad at negotiations?


Please show evidence that all other companies also limit ppv to 24 hours.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Please show evidence that all other companies also limit ppv to 24 hours.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1493629&postcount=19


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1493629&postcount=19


That's one, now just several dozen to go.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

man_rob said:


> That's one, now just several dozen to go.


Read the rest of that thread... been beaten to death already, which is why I suggested we keep this thread to the topic at hand and not the one that's been rehashed over 600+ posts.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/dishppv050608.htm


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

man_rob said:


> And who chose the movies for the premiere of this service?
> 
> 10,000 BC (HD) Expires 12/26
> (...)
> ...


Let's hope it was just bad timing. Can't blame DIRECTV if there aren't any good movies on the PPV schedule this month.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Please show evidence that all other companies also limit ppv to 24 hours.


Per Comcast's website their on demand is only good for 24 hours:

How is ON DEMAND from Comcast Digital Cable different from Pay-Per-View?

Unlike Pay-Per-View, with ON DEMAND from Comcast Digital Cable, you can order a movie and watch it at any time, and as often as you like for up to 24 hours (viewing times for some programs may vary).


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Let's hope it was just bad timing. Can't blame DIRECTV if there aren't any good movies on the PPV schedule this month.


Also on DirecTV PPV

American Gangster
Rotten Tomatoes 70%
Reviews Counted: 194 
Fresh: 153 
Rotten:41

Atonement
Rotten Tomatoes 83%
Reviews Counted: 189 
Fresh: 156 
Rotten:33

Enchanted 
Rotten Tomatoes 94%
Reviews Counted: 145 
Fresh: 136 
Rotten:9

Gone Baby Gone
Rotten Tomatoes 94%
Reviews Counted: 157 
Fresh: 147 
Rotten:10


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

Like or not, I actually think the push is going to be to release movies this way sometimes BEFORE it's available on DVD.

Movies on cable before DVD? - LA TIMES


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Per Comcast's website their on demand is only good for 24 hours:
> 
> How is ON DEMAND from Comcast Digital Cable different from Pay-Per-View?
> 
> Unlike Pay-Per-View, with ON DEMAND from Comcast Digital Cable, you can order a movie and watch it at any time, and as often as you like for up to 24 hours (viewing times for some programs may vary).


Okay, not done yet. Now for all the other cable services, Netflix, as well as other online services.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Are the same movies offered via Vudu? Are they offered during the same time period or are they movies that are in a different revenue period? I want to make sure this is apples to apples.
> 
> Others, during the 24 hour window discussion, were quick to point out Netflix streaming as a different option. The netflix streaming is of a significantly different quality and offered for movies that are, for the most part, well beyond the PPV timeline.


Same movies. Go check out their website www.vudu.com. They offer movies about the same time as the DVD release which is pretty much what DirecTV (and everyone else does).


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

man_rob said:


> Okay, not done yet. Now for all the other cable services, Netflix, as well as other online services.


Go read the other thread. That's where the 24 hour discussion has been happening.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Also on DirecTV PPV
> 
> American Gangster
> Atonement
> ...


Good point. Well, let's things get ironed out somewhat over time.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Okay, not done yet. Now for all the other cable services, Netflix, as well as other online services.


You need to exclude netflix, it's not the same business model. With netflix you get the actual DVD, not a digital copy.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

Ken S said:


> P.S. A friend is telling me that Apple has also been allowing for extended rentals past the 24 hours - IF - the person pauses the movie.


Very similar to a suggestion I made earlier in the thread. I don't mind the 1-time viewing restriction. The problem is I want to be ABLE to watch the entire movie once. With work / family / kids, that's not always an easy option in one night.

You'd think that would be an easy thing for DirecTV or any other major player to negotiate with the studios. You have a 24 hour window from when you complete watching the movie. And something like 48 hours from when you start watching the movie. Your movie availablity stops at whichever comes first.

I think you could define that you've completed watching the movie if your DVR gets to a point that anywhere within 5 minutes from the end of the movie.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> You need to exclude netflix, it's not the same business model. With netflix you get the actual DVD, not a digital copy.


Netflix how has a New subscription service business model. The product is called Roku:
http://www.roku.com/netflixplayer/

HD is coming. Why can't DirecTV offer a subscription-based Movies Now like this ?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> You need to exclude netflix, it's not the same business model. With netflix you get the actual DVD, not a digital copy.


Putting aside the fact that DVDs are digital, from the Netflix website



> Q) Can I watch movies instantly on my PC from the Netflix website?
> 
> A) Yes you can. Watching movies & TV episodes instantly on your PC from the Netflix website is included in all plans. Choose from a separate, smaller library of over 10,000 movies & TV episodes. With most membership plans you can watch as many movies as you want from this library anytime you want - instantly on your PC. This is a bonus to the DVDs you get by mail and is included with your membership at no additional fee.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Ken S said:


> P.S. A friend is telling me that Apple has also been allowing for extended rentals past the 24 hours - IF - the person pauses the movie.





Eich said:


> Very similar to a suggestion I made earlier in the thread. I don't mind the 1-time viewing restriction. The problem is I want to be ABLE to watch the entire movie once. With work / family / kids, that's not always an easy option in one night.


That is interesting, I'm glad Eich quoted that because I didn't see it the first time in Ken's message.

The 24 hour rule was the primary reason I crossed Apple TV off my shopping list, they may have just been added back on.


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

For me... I guess I was just hoping for more from Directv. I am a mostly happy subscriber to Directv service.

Movies Now and DOD are better then nothing. That's true. It still isn't the same as Comcast ondemand. 

I'm hoping that DirecTv has something that is better and/or longer and/or cheaper then the competition. For other parts of DTV service I can say that... DVR... Channel line up.. etc..

For ondemand, DTV is better but still not in the same league as internet watchnow stuff from Netflix and Comcast ondemand.

If they can't provide the same(or better) kind of service because of technical limitations, it would be good if they could do something different to make it seem better... longer time period or cheaper. Otherwise, it is better then nothing, but not good when compared to the competition.. especially when your contract is up and looking to see what else is out there.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

mogulman said:


> For me... I guess I was just hoping for more from Directv. I am a mostly happy subscriber to Directv service.
> 
> Movies Now and DOD are better then nothing. That's true. It still isn't the same as Comcast ondemand.
> 
> ...


Netflix streaming should not be compared. The movie offerings are of significantly less quality both in picture quality and movie selection. I am a big fan of Netflix, but the streaming offering is somewhat limited to older films.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

gregjones said:


> Netflix streaming should not be compared. The movie offerings are of significantly less quality both in picture quality and movie selection. I am a big fan of Netflix, but the streaming offering is somewhat limited to older films.


Did you look at this?
http://www.roku.com/netflixplayer/


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Eich said:


> Netflix how has a New subscription service business model. The product is called Roku:
> http://www.roku.com/netflixplayer/
> 
> HD is coming. Why can't DirecTV offer a subscription-based Movies Now like this ?


The site you gave me is only for the Roku stand alone player. The site says it works with your existing Netflix account. It's not a separate service, just a different way of watching movies in your queue. It's also streaming, not a download. So it's not the same model as DirecTV. There would be no way for them to put a limit on it since it's not being downloaded or recorded. And if you stop watching the movie you have to start again.

Oh, and it only works with your "instant" queue. There might be 100 "instant" titles available, but I doubt the number is that high.

"The Netflix Player acts like a bridge, bringing movies and TV episodes from Netflix to your TV over the Internet. By connecting to your Netflix Instant Queue, The Netflix Player can display the movies you select and play them, or "stream" them, over the Internet at any time."


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> The site you gave me is only for the Roku stand alone player. The site says it works with your existing Netflix account. It's not a separate service, just a different way of watching movies in your queue. It's also streaming, not a download. So it's not the same model as DirecTV. There would be no way for them to put a limit on it since it's not being downloaded or recorded.


So, since there's "no technical way", the movie studios are OK with that ?



RunnerFL said:


> And if you stop watching the movie you have to start again.


Not true according to their website:
"In addition to being able to play movies and TV episodes, you can fast-forward, rewind, pause and *re-start them where you left off *. You can even rate the things you've watched and remove items from your Netflix Instant Queue with a single click of the accompanying remote"

"Yes, the Netflix Player by Roku remembers where you stopped the movie or TV episode and will pick up at that point the next time you begin watching it. You can also choose to re-start from the beginning by choosing "Play from Beginning" on the player, or by rewinding. "


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Eich said:


> So, since there's "no technical way", the movie studios are OK with that ?


Yes, because the whole point of the 24 hours is storing the movie and the viewer keeping the movie indefinitely. The 24 hour rule keeps that from happening and makes you go out and buy the movie instead of keeping what you paid $5 for.

With Roku/Netflix you have no way of keeping the movie so the 24 hour rule cannot apply.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

It is streamed, not downloaded. The Roku device only acts the part of the PC to stream it to the TV. They control the ability for you to stream it again at any time. The picture quality is horrible and the movie selection is even worse. Enjoy.

Just to be clear, I would really like this device to be all the things people want it to be. It just isn't. If the picture quality was comparable and the selection of movies was decent, I would take this route. You can test the quality of the playback from the service with any Windows laptop from their instant queue.

The Roku is a good option for some, but not for me. For me, it is no more likely to get my $$$ than Movies Now (not likely). I do think the competition in the marketplace will make them all better.


----------



## Lyle Thorogood (Jun 27, 2004)

Just curious as if anyone knows how fast these HD movies can be pushed to the DVR? I assume it' s through the satellite and not your IP. Or is it? I really haven't kept up with this service advancement. Just wondering.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

They're pushed in real time, generally in the middle of the night or when you're not using the other tuner.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Stuart,

Do you know if they plan to offer more movies this way...or perhaps to just have that week's DVD releases available?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

justlgi said:


> I think most of the unfavorable responses are around the announcement as a new feature. People generally don't like "features" that require more money to be paid.


The new feature is for a *service* that has been around for a VERY long time that has always required payment, so in that regard, I'm at a loss as to what there is to be upset about. That service is PPV, and PPV was *PAY* per view before the feature was introduced, and now it's available as an option with ON DEMAND PAY per view. The only difference is the delivery method - the idea that payment is required is not new.


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

gregjones said:


> It is streamed, not downloaded. The Roku device only acts the part of the PC to stream it to the TV. They control the ability for you to stream it again at any time. The picture quality is horrible and the movie selection is even worse. Enjoy.


Actually.. I have Netflix Watchnow on my HTPC using a Media Center Plug-in. I can watch streaming or download to my PC. The quality is DVD quality. It is better then Directv SD movie quality, but less then HD. It does look very good on my 52" LCD. Better then some DirecTV HD programming.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

first:
people are complaining that it costs $4.99 for this and a 24 hours limit, now Vudo offers extened time for more $$$ money how is this going to help you if you are not happy with the $4.99 charge in the first place.

second:
i still don't have all 3 movies yet anyone else not have all 3 movies. missing 10,000 b.c. i vote yes for the service.


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

i see nothing wrong with offering the service....i am sure a few folks
will enjoy it....but it is not for me


----------



## marksman (Dec 23, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Oh, and it only works with your "instant" queue. There might be 100 "instant" titles available, but I doubt the number is that high.


While it is true this is not comprised of new releases, between movies and full seasons of tv shows the total number is many times fold larger than 100.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I haven't had time to closely read all the responses, so I'm sorry if I am parroting someone else here.

My opinion is that as long as you accept the already-standing objections to DirecTV PPV, such as time limit, sometimes non-OAR, and not up to Blu-Ray standards, Movies Now! is a great idea. Having PPVs available without worrying about finding them and setting up a recording is a big convenience.

I'm glad DirecTV is doing it.

Obviously, if you already would not watch DirecTV PPV movies, you still won't watch them. But you have to admit that if you did, having them already on your hard drive is a good thing.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Stuart,
> 
> Do you know if they plan to offer more movies this way...or perhaps to just have that week's DVD releases available?


I don't know the release schedules, but my suspicion is that the your DVR will have the latest week's releases on it as much as possible.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Here is a little something from DirecTV I received yesterday:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an overview of the DIRECTV Movies Now service 

Basically, customers with DIRECTV Plus DVRs (R15 and R16 models) and Plus HD DVR receivers (HR20, HR21) (not to forget the new R22 models) now have on-demand access to 10 to 15 of our most popular PPV titles. 

The benefit of Movies Now is customers don’t have to wait for the scheduled start time or download of a PPV. They simply select a title from the Movies Now folder in their playlist and begin watching immediately. 

Movies Now titles are the same price as other PPV titles, and importantly, they do not interfere with the available recording space on a customer’s DVR. 

As a reminder, like other PPV selections, the Movies Now titles are available for viewing up to 24 hours after purchase.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> missing 10,000 b.c.


Believe me, you're not 'missing' anything.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> The new feature is for a *service* that has been around for a VERY long time that has always required payment, so in that regard, I'm at a loss as to what there is to be upset about. That service is PPV, and PPV was *PAY* per view before the feature was introduced, and now it's available as an option with ON DEMAND PAY per view. The only difference is the delivery method - the idea that payment is required is not new.


I don't think upset is the right word. It's more disappointment that this is the best DirecTV could do, but if others like the service, then they should feel free to pay the $5 for each movie they want to watch on TV. Meanwhile, I'll make better use of my entertainment budget.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Please show evidence that all other companies also limit ppv to 24 hours.


I worked for two years for a company that manufactures, installs & configures Video-on-Demand Systems for major cables companies through the US & Abroad. I installed & configured systems personally at many of these companies, including:

Time Warner
RCN
Comcast
Rogers Cable
Eastlink
MTS (Manitoba Telecom Services)
Telus
Cablevision Mexico City
EATEL 
And many others

The 24-hour PPV rental period is typical. In fact, I can't recall any supported cable company or Telco that deviated from the 24-hour model.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

CorkyMuldoon said:


> I worked for two years for a company that manufactures, installs & configures Video-on-Demand Systems for major cables companies through the US & Abroad. I installed & configured systems personally at many of these companies, including:
> 
> Time Warner
> RCN
> ...


Yes, I believe every word I read on a forum without question. No need to provide any evidence to back it up.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Yes, I believe every word I read on a forum without question. No need to provide any evidence to back it up.


OK - great.

Now my credibility is being question. Thanks.

As a previous poster in this thread indicated, "I'm done."

A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.


----------



## Rob-NovA (Jan 10, 2008)

man_rob said:


> Yes, I believe every word I read on a forum without question. No need to provide any evidence to back it up.


Man_Rob, please, give it a rest! We get that you dislike the 24-hour policy. You even have some good ideas how it could be amended and fixed. Unfortunately, it's not really D*'s call, as it is a studio issue (which, yes, could be "negotiated" better).

What's really frustrating is that in this thread, you've already been given several examples of providers adhering to the same rule, and a source where other examples have been provided, ad nauseam. For the thread searching impaired here and here and here and here. Sensing a trend yet?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

CorkyMuldoon said:


> OK - great.
> 
> Now my credibility is being question. Thanks.
> 
> ...


Now how am I supposed to judge your credibility? I don't know you. To me you are just some guy posting on the internet.

I don't understand why the pro $5 per movie crowd is so offended by those who don't exactly think this is the second coming. Buy all means spend $20 a month to get just 1 movie per week. Heck, splurge, and get a 5th movie. I'll take that same $25, and get a couple of dozen movies elsewhere.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Rob-NovA said:


> Man_Rob, please, give it a rest! We get that you dislike the 24-hour policy. You even have some good ideas how it could be amended and fixed. Unfortunately, it's not really D*'s call, as it is a studio issue (which, yes, could be "negotiated" better).
> 
> What's really frustrating is that in this thread, you've already been given several examples of providers adhering to the same rule, and a source where other examples have been provided, ad nauseam. For the thread searching impaired here and here and here and here. Sensing a trend yet?


And others have shown where it isn't true. Besides, while the 24 hour rule sucks, it really isn't my chief complaint. Please get over the fact that some people don't think this is great deal.


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

I don't know who's idea it was to display movies that have been altered to fit the screen (IE., not in their original aspect ratio (OAR)), but they should be pelted repeatedly with empty DVD cases.

The $5 price seems a bit steep, but I'd probably pay it occasionally if they were broadcast in their OAR.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Now how am I supposed to judge your credibility?...


Good question - but you did, anyway.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Please, gentlemen, I'm sure we all have respect for each other, let's show it.


----------



## dsm (Jul 11, 2004)

Sorry, I didn't read this whole thread, but I wanted to mention that the Showcase tab is incredibly slow on both my HR20-700's now. I haven't gone there much in the past so maybe it's been that way, but I think not. Almost every click breaks the 3s response rule. Sometimes it's 6-8s before it responds. For example, scrolling the list or opening the Movies Now folder.

FWIW With the 24hr watch limit and what appears to be a decision to reformat the video, you can add me to the people who will likely never use this feature.

-steve


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Chris Blount said:


> Here is a little something from DirecTV I received yesterday:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


10 - 15 movies? I see 3. But if they go 10 - 15 I guess we can now safely guess that the reserved area on the drive has to be close to 100GB (HD movies running around 5 - 6GB each)


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> first:
> people are complaining that it costs $4.99 for this and a 24 hours limit, now Vudo offers extened time for more $$$ money how is this going to help you if you are not happy with the $4.99 charge in the first place.
> 
> second:
> i still don't have all 3 movies yet anyone else not have all 3 movies. missing 10,000 b.c. i vote yes for the service.


Christopher,

While the $5 is a bit pricey I don't consider it horrid in exchange for convenience, but the 24 hour limit is. Way too often we get interrupted and can't get back to a movie within 24 hours. In that case if I had the option of extending my rental (late fee) I would feel better than just having thrown out $5.


----------



## Rob-NovA (Jan 10, 2008)

man_rob said:


> I don't understand why the pro $5 per movie crowd is so offended by those who don't exactly think this is the second coming. Buy all means spend $20 a month to get just 1 movie per week. Heck, splurge, and get a 5th movie. I'll take that same $25, and get a couple of dozen movies elsewhere.


I really don't think it's a "pro-$5" crowd versus the "bad deal" crowd. The whole point of this particular thread was to announce the availability of Movies Now! and to discuss its delivery mechanism.



man_rob said:


> Please get over the fact that some people don't think this is great deal.


I appreciate that you don't feel this is a good deal. And, I buy a lot of your arguments, as well as the arguments of your fellow supporters. IMHO, I don't really care as much about the price, because for the few times I decide to rent a movie, it's a spur of the moment decision that is being made and wouldn't be facilitated by another source like Netflix, Redbox, etc.

What this thread is all about is how Movies Now! is being delivered and how it fills in D*'s current gap in delivering on-demand content. Are there other companies who do this better? Sure. Is there room for improvement? Always. Just be as equally accepting of the fact that there are others who feel this is an OK deal or provides capability that was not available to others in the past.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Rob-NovA said:


> Man_Rob, please, give it a rest! We get that you dislike the 24-hour policy. You even have some good ideas how it could be amended and fixed. Unfortunately, it's not really D*'s call, as it is a studio issue (which, yes, could be "negotiated" better).
> 
> What's really frustrating is that in this thread, you've already been given several examples of providers adhering to the same rule, and a source where other examples have been provided, ad nauseam. For the thread searching impaired here and here and here and here. Sensing a trend yet?


Rob,

I only disagree with the statements made by some that this is a totally a studio-driven issue. It appears that Vudu was able to find a way to have longer rentals and Apple also allows longer than 24 hour viewing (or so I've seen reported and been told). There may be others as well.

That being the case DirecTV could have offered something similar and the claims that DirecTV has no control over this issue simply aren't true (it should be noted that DirecTV hasn't made these claims). If Vudu and Apple have the contractual right to offer the content for longer than DirecTV, by law, would have to be eligible for similar terms.

Yes, there are other companies that also have the 24 hour limitation but, for the most part, we're all DirecTV customers here so we look to them to do better.

If people want to defend DirecTV's decision to offer the content the way they have that's fine and people can agree and/or disagree, but it should be recognized as a major force in the content creation and distribution business Liberty/DirecTV has a great deal of say of how that content is offered and protected.


----------



## seymouru (Feb 15, 2008)

keith_benedict said:


> I don't know who's idea it was to display movies that have been altered to fit the screen (IE., not in their original aspect ratio (OAR)), but they should be pelted repeatedly with empty DVD cases.


I'm assuming it's coming from marketing studies showing that there are more people who scream bloody murder when they see black bars on their screen than there are people who prefer to watch a film the way it was intended.

On a similar note, this might explain how decisions are made on which films to include in the Movies Now! menu:

10,000 BC (HD) Expires 12/26
Rotten Tomatoes: *9%*
Box office revenue: *$94,784,201*

Fool's Gold (HD) Expires 12/14
Rotten Tomatoes *10%*
Box office revenue: *$70,231,041*

The value of discussions like this should be to show D* that they can actually increase their revenues by moving beyond providing features primarily directed at the masses. It just requires some creativity and courage to make that happen.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

alexjb12 said:


> Looks like the Movies Now! feature is now online.
> 
> The Current movies in-stream
> 10,000 BC (HD) Expires 12/26
> ...


On another note altogether, I am a bit disappointed they are using this service (at least at this time) as a PPV movie option only). I had hoped they were going to look at the top 10 - 15 shows each week and make them available with this method. I would consider that a valuable service especially around the time that new series/seasons premiere.

This type of availability would also help with the issue of DVRs not performing and missing recordings (starting late/ending early) on very popular shows.

So maybe something like them putting up the top 3 - 5 DVD releases of the week and then the top 10 - 15 viewed TV shows.


----------



## rawilson (Oct 9, 2007)

I'll stick with the 99 cent rentals from redbox. $5 for a 24-hr rental is ridiculous.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Yes, because the whole point of the 24 hours is storing the movie and the viewer keeping the movie indefinitely. The 24 hour rule keeps that from happening and makes you go out and buy the movie instead of keeping what you paid $5 for.
> 
> With Roku/Netflix you have no way of keeping the movie so the 24 hour rule cannot apply.


That's what makes the specific 24 hour rule so irritating. So, if their REAL problem is that they don't want you to KEEP the movie -and they really don't care if you watch it 20 times, then why 24 hours? Why not 72 hours, which would be ENORMOUSLY more friendly?

It makes no sense that they don't care if you purchase a subscription service that enables you to stream it an unlimited number of times but you can't purchase a PPV that's good for more than 24 hours. And if THAT's the case, why can't DirecTV offer a subscription service to Movies Now instead of PPV? DirecTV is the one controlling how long the movie stays on your hard drive. So the user doesn't have any control over "keeping" the movie.

And it would be nice to confirm once and for all that the movie studios are the ones requring a strict 24 hour policy. It's ridiculously limiting. PPV and Movies Now would immedately be interesting to me if it was something like 72 hours.


----------



## seymouru (Feb 15, 2008)

Eich said:


> And it would be nice to confirm once and for all that the movie studios are the ones requring a strict 24 hour policy.


FWIW, that's the rationale DirectTV provides, right on their website:



> Major movie studios have required that satellite and cable providers alike may no longer allow their customers to view these recordings for longer than 24 hours.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

seymouru said:


> FWIW, that's the rationale DirectTV provides, right on their website:


So, I wonder if DirecTV could offer a subscription service to "Movies Now" instead of PPV and avoid the 24 hour restriction ?

With movies now, the user isn't recording anything. The user is given permission to view something that DirecTV is controlling.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Ken S said:


> If Vudu and Apple have the contractual right to offer the content for longer than DirecTV, by law, would have to be eligible for similar terms.


But how do you know for sure that Vudu and Apple have secured the rights to allow their customers to have the downloads for more than 24 hours? How do you know they just aren't defying the movie studios and there will be a lawsuit to come out of it?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I had hoped they were going to look at the top 10 - 15 shows each week and make them available with this method. I would consider that a valuable service especially around the time that new series/seasons premiere.


This idea is definitely a good idea.


----------



## seymouru (Feb 15, 2008)

Eich said:


> So, I wonder if DirecTV could offer a subscription service to "Movies Now" instead of PPV and avoid the 24 hour restriction ?
> 
> With movies now, the user isn't recording anything. The user is given permission to view something that DirecTV is controlling.


I'm guessing the studios are more concerned about restricting the timeframe for _viewing_ the recording, rather than who controls the recording process.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Eich said:


> That's what makes the specific 24 hour rule so irritating. So, if their REAL problem is that they don't want you to KEEP the movie -and they really don't care if you watch it 20 times, then why 24 hours? Why not 72 hours, which would be ENORMOUSLY more friendly?


I'm sure if they went with 72 hours instead of 24 you'd then have people complaining that 72 wasn't long enough. You can't please everyone.



Eich said:


> And it would be nice to confirm once and for all that the movie studios are the ones requring a strict 24 hour policy.


That proof can be found here in several different threads.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

seymouru said:


> FWIW, that's the rationale DirectTV provides, right on their website:





seymouru said:


> I'm guessing the studios are more concerned about restricting the timeframe for _viewing_ the recording, rather than who controls the recording process.


If the studios are concerned about restricting the timeframe for viewing, then why can you view a movie on Netflix's service an unlimited amount of times?

I think the issue is like someone mentioned earlier - storage. But with Movies Now, the user isn't storing anything. DirecTV is using the user's DVR to temporarily store a movie, which the user has no control over.


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm sure if they went with 72 hours instead of 24 you'd then have people complaining that 72 wasn't long enough. You can't please everyone.


But you can please a LOT more than they're pleasing now. 24 hours is ridiculous. 72 is workable.


----------



## waynebtx (Dec 24, 2006)

As long as there PPV I will never use it.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

Eich said:


> But you can please a LOT more than they're pleasing now. 24 hours is ridiculous. 72 is workable.


good point... that would at least give you the whole weekend...


----------



## vandergraff (Sep 26, 2007)

Eich said:


> But you can please a LOT more than they're pleasing now. 24 hours is ridiculous. 72 is workable.


I'm OK with 72 but not 24 hours.

If I pay I want to make sure we finish watching the movie.

For this reason we have only rented 1 movie from XBOX Live (in spite of being very impressed with picture and sound) and have rented no PPV's from DIRECTV since the 24 hour rule came in.

With 24 hour rule we'll wait until a movie is on HBO or Starz.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

To each his own, right? I think that's the point here, there are a lot of choices for viewing and you get to pick the one that fits.


----------



## vandergraff (Sep 26, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> To each his own, right? I think that's the point here, there are a lot of choices for viewing and you get to pick the one that fits.


You are right of course.

I should probably not even lobby for 72 hours - if they listen and make a change I might start ordering PPV again or watching Movies Now. Then I'd be paying 4.99 to see a movie which I can see few months later for no additional cost....


----------



## Eich (Jan 9, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> To each his own, right? I think that's the point here, there are a lot of choices for viewing and you get to pick the one that fits.


Sure, completely agree. But my point and I think a lot of other people's point is that DirecTV has some good technology offerings here with DOD, Movies Now and PPV. It would be great if they could find ways to make it more user-friendly and attractive to the masses.

I want DirecTV's DOD, Movies Now and PPV to succeed and be useful to me. Right now, I have my doubts on its popularity with it's current restrictions and it's a no option for me.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> But how do you know for sure that Vudu and Apple have secured the rights to allow their customers to have the downloads for more than 24 hours? How do you know they just aren't defying the movie studios and there will be a lawsuit to come out of it?


Well, I can't be absolutely sure, but knowing how litigious the MPAA is I would think an advertised feature such as vudu has would have been met with a cease and desist/TRO by now.

It could very well be that all vudu is doing is charging their "cost" for additional days of rental rather than the full retail.


----------



## trevorst (Jul 16, 2007)

I hope what I noticed this morning was just a coincidence. When I switched on the HR-21 this morning for my grandson the guide was not responsive and took me over 5 minutes to be able to change a channel. Once it was going again it was fine. I just happened to check the Movies Now/Showcase tab and noticed that another Movie had been downloaded that was not there earlier this morning... i have never experienced a guide that slow with any of our DVR's so I wonder if I interrupted the download and it took 5 mins to react. Anyone else seen anything like this.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

The $5 PPV rental price is a bargain compared with the $12.99 hotel room rental price we noted on a vacation trip two weeks ago. And those movies aren't even in HD.

The only nice thing I can say about the hotel TV is that channel changing is faster...


----------



## vandergraff (Sep 26, 2007)

billsharpe said:


> The $5 PPV rental price is a bargain compared with the $12.99 hotel room rental price we noted on a vacation trip two weeks ago. And those movies aren't even in HD.
> 
> The only nice thing I can say about the hotel TV is that channel changing is faster...


And beer from the fridge at home is cheaper than a beer from the mini bar in the hotel 

Seriously I don't think PPV in a hotel is the reference point here


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

We probably order PPV maybe once per month if that and usually it is a spur of the momment thing.
So the movies now fits my style if what I want to watch is there 
As far as the $4.99 price thats what you pay to see it a couple months early sure I would like to see it lower thats why I only use it once in a while.
As far as the 24 hr limit yes it would be nice at 48 or 72 hrs but I have never had a problem as I always watch at the time I purchase.
And once I watch a movie I delete it as I do not care to watch them over and over again.
So all in all I think its a nice service


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

vandergraff said:


> And beer from the fridge at home is cheaper than a beer from the mini bar in the hotel
> 
> Seriously I don't think PPV in a hotel is the reference point here


Not to mention you typically don't get to see it in HD in most hotels.


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

D* is making money servicing the early HD adopters. Good for them. But, I see Redbox/Netflix ruling the roost for the masses. I had no experience with Redbox until my vacation this year. Walked into a Walmart in a completely different state, inserted my credit card, and rented a DVD for $1. Returned it to the same place, though I could have returned it to any other Redbox location. Pretty neat. Great model for DVD rental.

I see the 24 hour limit and the extreme price (please, don't argue 4.99 as a "deal" for a vldeo rental) as the content providers looking to kill the PPV/DVR model. With a Redbox at grocery stores, convience stores, and mass discount department stores, the PPV model will have a hard time competing. And Blu-Ray will eventually come to Redbox, once Bluray players sell for $99 and Blu DVDs for $10. IMO.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

RCY said:


> D* is making money servicing the early HD adopters. Good for them. But, I see Redbox/Netflix ruling the roost for the masses. I had no experience with Redbox until my vacation this year. Walked into a Walmart in a completely different state, inserted my credit card, and rented a DVD for $1. Returned it to the same place, though I could have returned it to any other Redbox location. Pretty neat. Great model for DVD rental.
> 
> I see the 24 hour limit and the extreme price (please, don't argue 4.99 as a "deal" for a vldeo rental) as the content providers looking to kill the PPV/DVR model. With a Redbox at grocery stores, convience stores, and mass discount department stores, the PPV model will have a hard time competing. And Blu-Ray will eventually come to Redbox, once Bluray players sell for $99 and Blu DVDs for $10. IMO.


i searched redbox's site, farthest it goes is 20 miles, and there isn't one around so redbox isn't for everyone.


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

Christopher Gould said:


> i searched redbox's site, farthest it goes is 20 miles, and there isn't one around so redbox isn't for everyone.


My vacation took me through Utah, Wyoming and Colorado, and I found a fair number of Redbox locations. I actually thought there weren't any in my area (Orange County, CA) , did a search today, and have three locations within a mile or two.

I'm sure there are many areas like yours that aren't served yet. But the model is pretty impressive, IMO. And with D*'s $4.99 price, you can keep your Redbox DVD for 5 days ($1 per day) instead of 24 hours.

Not saying there isn't a market for D*s approach, but they're at a disadvantage in the SD battle, and once BluRay gets economic, they're going to have a big problem charging $5 for a PPV that expires in 24 hours.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

DirecTV's advantage will be at ten PM on Saturday night when there's nothing on that you and your wife want to see.

Redbox and Netflix will be a non-factor on that type of rental.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> DirecTV's advantage will be at ten PM on Saturday night when there's nothing on that you and your wife want to see.
> 
> Redbox and Netflix will be a non-factor on that type of rental.


If it's 10PM on Saturday and nothing is on TV, then my wife and I find something else to do


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

paulman182 said:


> DirecTV's advantage will be at ten PM on Saturday night when there's nothing on that you and your wife want to see.
> 
> Redbox and Netflix will be a non-factor on that type of rental.


That's why I have a DVR in the first place. I've got 280 hours of recorded content on one DVR and 300+ on the other. Any movie I'm willing to spend $5 on, I can watch some of my DVR content and pass by a Redbox on the way home the next day.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> DirecTV's advantage will be at ten PM on Saturday night when there's nothing on that you and your wife want to see.
> 
> Redbox and Netflix will be a non-factor on that type of rental.


Except that Netflix online has 10,000 titles ready to go instantly. Without leaving your house, you can watch as many movies a month you want for less than the cost of 2 PPVs on DirecTV.


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

I think that the $5 for 24 hours is to prohibitive. I can see the point for last minute movie purchases but overall I think that the price and the time limit will be a turn off for most people. 

Many people here have made good points for and against the Movies Now feature. I like the idea and thank D* for trying to do something DOD that doesn't require an internet hookup. Despite this I probably won't use it very often. I'll keep my Netflix. I also took advantage of the 2 for 1 deal Starz + Showtime that I saw on the D* site. Buy either Starz or Showtime and get the other for 3 months free. I'll record a bunch of movies and save them. Will probably cancel the Starz once the fall TV season starts back up at the end of August. 

Overall it seems that it's a matter of personal preference.


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

Brian Hanasky said:


> I think that the $5 for 24 hours is to prohibitive. I can see the point for last minute movie purchases but overall I think that the price and the time limit will be a turn off for most people.
> 
> Many people here have made good points for and against the Movies Now feature. I like the idea and thank D* for trying to do something DOD that doesn't require an internet hookup. Despite this I probably won't use it very often. I'll keep my Netflix. I also took advantage of the 2 for 1 deal Starz + Showtime that I saw on the D* site. Buy either Starz or Showtime and get the other for 3 months free. I'll record a bunch of movies and save them. Will probably cancel the Starz once the fall TV season starts back up at the end of August.
> 
> Overall it seems that it's a matter of personal preference.


Wait until D* automatically deletes any movies recorded from channels you no longer suscribe to... (Nothing that I've heard, just my speculation on what could be coming.) Now that the camel's nose is inside the tent with the 24 hour window on PPV, who knows what restrictions are next?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Good thing we didn't drift back on topic. I was afraid we would talk about Movies Now, for a second. I'm glad we just decided to stay on PPV pricing, rental services only offered in specific metropolitan areas, streaming older movies at SD quality, etc.


----------



## RCY (Nov 17, 2005)

gregjones said:


> Good thing we didn't drift back on topic. I was afraid we would talk about Movies Now, for a second. I'm glad we just decided to stay on PPV pricing, rental services only offered in specific metropolitan areas, streaming older movies at SD quality, etc.


The pricing of Movies Now versus other mediums is off topic? Ok, feel free to discuss Movies Now without discussing pricing or alternatives. Sorry to diverge from the specific, specific topic.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Actually, if were to stick to the specific, specific, specific topic (Movies Now! is now online), this thread would be exactly one post long.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well, I think we've about discussed the topic to death anyway. If you want to discuss PPV pricing or the 24 hour rule, I invite you to visit the DIRECTV General forum. For stories about Netflix, Redbox, or Blockbuster, I would enjoy hearing your further point of view in the OT forum. 

Good night, and good luck.


----------

