Video rentals have become more and more convenient over the years. In the stone ages (i.e., the early 1990's), renting a video meant making a trek down to the local video shop – a Blockbuster if you were lucky. Netflix revolutionized video rentals in the late 1990's using a typical web 1.0 business model: bring in customers via the web, use snail mail to deliver the goods. As a result, people could rent and return DVDs much more conveniently; only a trek to the mailbox required. The business of sending videos through the mail was a simple concept, but it was indeed a killer app. With no late fees and a buffet-style ordering protocol, millions of subscribers found that in addition to being convenient, Netflix was economical too. It was a no-brainer to use Netflix.
Now with the power of Web 2.0 the trek for video rentals is becoming shorter and shorter...just a few steps to a remote control or computer. Services such as Amazon's Unbox and Apple's iTunes deliver content on demand to your computers. Cable companies deliver movies straight to your TVs. But these services all have faults: Cable's on-demand selections are limited only to specific recent releases, Amazon's Unbox and Apple's iTunes don't send movies to your TV's.
Enter Vudu. By all accounts (see links below), Vudu is a well-executed device and service. The upshot:
- movies available for rental (~$3) or purchase (~$20)
- movies can be searched by genre, title, director, etc. in a well executed, easy-to-use interface
- movies start playing instantaneously in better-than-DVD (but not HD) quality
- requires high-speed internet connection
Sounds great, right? Killer app, right? Well, no. And it's not because of the limited movie selection, which is a problem that can be fixed. The problem is an economic one: Vudu costs $399 up front just to get started. That's about 2 years worth of Netflix or about 100 movie rentals at your neighborhood shop. Suddenly the trek to your mailbox or to the corner video store doesn't sound so bad, eh?
Vudu according to Gizmodo
Vudu according to NY Times
No comments:
Post a Comment