Not only is the iTunes music experience a less-than-desirable one (as the author asserts the audio quality is not great), but now downloadable movies from Apple and Amazon are of low quality. However, this does not stop either from charging more for the download than buying the DVD, doesn't allow you to burn your download to DVD, but in Amazon's case the file you downloaded is gone from your system after 24 hours! Not only is portability removed, but now users have to deal with a low-resolution issue and temporary files that cost more than the 'permanent' DVD bought from a store? How is this fair to the consumer in any way? The author states the following regarding the shortcomings of the poor resolution:
A recent article suggested companies engaged in downloads of this nature justify charging more for the download because of 'greater convenience.' But who is this more 'convenient' for? The industry of course! The industry only has to host the file at a website, but does not have to pay for buying the media, does not have to supply a case, does not have to pay a graphic artist to design the cover art nor has to spend any money on packaging. Therefore, the cost should be significantly lower, in direct proportion to what the company no longer has to spend.
Also, the article mentions the kinds of movies offered for downloads are quite limited, meaning this will not convince consumers en masse to buy downloadable movies'”especially where video quality suffers or one has to buy or use proprietary equipment just to see it (read about this problem in our forums, regarding a service called Vongo), or where users choose to download to their computer, to not enjoy a 'permanent' file, or could be left with the file, but not able to watch the movie in question because the company who provided the movie rescinds the license from the service.
The link above proves the point that just because a service looks appealing, that there may not be hidden 'catches,' so it pays to research the possibilities and to be fully aware of any limitations beforehand. Even assuming there was no DRM on movie files in this service, such a site at least indirectly supports the DRM concept (very limited portability) by tying the user to a proprietary format, with no guarantees on being able to enjoy one's purchase at any time and even where you can transfer it to a 'portable device,' who would want to see a movie on such a small screen? Hopefully the restrictions of this magnitude will make consumers demand better, have more people join the campaign against DRM to fully restore consumer choice so that full portability without restriction will again become the norm.
Source: Audiophile Audition
