Why Hollywood Snubbed Steve Jobs at Macworld
Filed under: Tech Stuff, Distribution, Home Entertainment, Movie Marketing
Last week I attended the Macintosh love-fest known as Macworld Expo and was one of the thrilled spectators at the infamous keynote where Apple honcho Steve Jobs told us all about the new iPhone and Apple TV. As I looked around the crowded room I noticed several people that I recognized -- including a couple of TV execs and Disney CEO Robert Iger. At the time, I also wondered at the absence of other movie studio execs. Usually, when Jobs announces something big, as he did with the iPhone and its deal with Cingular, he brings out a bigwig from the company in question to talk about it and say how great it will be working with Apple -- as he did with Cingular CEO Stan Sigman.
So, I found it strange when Jobs announced that Paramount was joining Disney and allowing movies from the studio to be sold on iTunes and nobody from Paramount came out and say anything. In fact, when I approached some people I've known for years who work at Apple and asked them what the deal was, I was told that most of the "Hollywood types" had chosen to attend CES instead of Macworld. At the time, that answer seemed to make sense. Later, after thinking about it more, I wondered if Hollywood's absence was somehow deliberate and maybe even meant to send a message to Apple and Jobs? Well apparently, according to this article over at Business Week, it wasn't really CES that kept Hollywood away from Apple and Steve Jobs's keynote -- it was money.
In the article, the author asks the question "What does Hollywood want from Steve Jobs?" The answers are not too surprising. First, they want more protection for their films. They don't like Apple's digital right management (DRM) scheme and think its far too liberal to allow users to share their movies with as many as three other iPod users. In their ideal world, execs feel that users should pay separately for each device they watch movies on and this would be controlled by a more restrictive version of DRM -- something that Apple has, so far, refused to implement.
Even more importantly, Hollywood execs think that Jobs and iTunes charge too little for their movies. At iTunes, new movies are $14.99 and older ones are $9.99, in clear competition with stores like Wal-Mart and Target which sell titles for several dollars more. Naturally, both Wal-Mart and Target are not very happy about this and have made their feelings known to Hollywood execs who, of course, need to listen to these giant retailers -- especially as a major part of their profits are from DVD sales at these stores.
In spite of all the issues and problems, I feel certain that at some point Jobs and Apple will win over the studios just as they did with the music industry. It won't be easy but Jobs has an uncanny ability to take ideas that most people balk at and turn them into business gold. He did it with the iMac, the iPod and iTunes, he can do it with the movie studios and selling movies online too. Although, with increasing competition from Microsoft and others online movie sellers, he better hurry it up a little.









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-17-2007 @ 4:25AM
Roger Smith said...
iPhone is available with Cingular ONLY!? And what if I am stuck under contract with a carrier OTHER than Cingular but still want a iPhone?
Well, the only solution I could fine was http://www.Cellswapper.com - they get you out of any cell phone contract!
Reply
1-17-2007 @ 9:43PM
GhaleonQ said...
I fully support the movie executives (they're correct here) and, therefore, disagree with your conclusion at the end. An album is fundamentally different from a film, whether the comparison is by format (songs versus entire movies), method of experience (aural versus aural/visual), length (short versus long), and on and on. Also, *points to "The New Yorker" article* it's hard to generate positive word-of-mouth for movies with awful viewing devices.
Reply
1-17-2007 @ 11:01PM
manpan said...
I'm glad Steve Jobs is refusing so far to make the DRM limitations stricter. In an ideal world there would be no DRM at all. See "Privately Hollywood admits DRM isn't about piracy" http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8616.html
According to this article and it is sensible Hollywood companies are just using copy protection to intentionally revoke the fair use rights of its customers so they can then sell them back to the customer later. I buy a movie on VHS I should be able to timeshift -- its perfectly legal and doesn't cost me anything I just have to have a movie I bought on VHS and a good converter to swap a VHS movie from analog to digital and then rip it to DVD rather than buying it again on DVD.
With DVD if I want to take a movie and play it on my iPod why buy the same movie again just to play on a different device? I should be allowed to change the format. Hollywood is trying to create demand for products that don't exist by creating new revenue streams to resell the same content over and over again. Instead of developing and marketing new movies that are better and certainly affordable they force us to buy the same movie over again.
I wasted $79 to buy the original Star Wars Trilogy on DVD when I had the Special Edition on VHS. I could have used that $79 to buy another set of movies I do not own. Why upgrade my existing video collection for a fee when I can do it for free and save the money to buy newer movies. I'm not cheating the movie studios exactly -- I can pay them for another movie I don't have already and convert my existing movies myself to the newer format.
I hope they don't increase copy protection in movies on iTunes. If they do I won't buy anymore from the iTunes Store.
Reply
1-19-2007 @ 3:34PM
The Jeremy said...
The Hollywood studio execs were more interested in CES and cementing Blu-ray as the next-gen format war winner than to attend a MacWorld Keynote which mainly focused on the iPhone and the Apple/Cingular (ahem, AT&T) partnership.
Reply