×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

DreamWorks Animation CEO: Movie Downloads Will Move To Pay-By-Screen-Size

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the uh-huh dept.

The Media 347

Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of Dreamworks Animation, speaking at the Milken Global Conference in California, opined that the future pricing model for movie downloads will revolve around screen size. In his view, larger screens will incur larger download prices. As he says, 'It will reinvent the enterprise of movies.' Unclear is how physical dimensions, rather than just resolution matrix, will be determined. Will we soon be saying 'hello' to screen spoofing?" Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP? Aside from the implication that this would mean more DRM (and seems pretty unworkable, but with the rise of locked bootloaders on even x86 hardware...), the prices he predicts seem alright: "A movie screen will be $15. A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stretch that anus! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881195)

Bend over and take it boys! Hope your anus is been pre-stretched!

Re:Stretch that anus! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881381)

Bend over and take it boys! Hope your anus is been pre-stretched!

RIP the blu-ray. It has everything going for it, plus you don't get fucked by the MPAA's new disfunctional economic model.
Yeah it's illegal. Oh well we can't have it all now can we ?

LETMEWATCHTHIS (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 7 months ago | (#46881575)

Primewire AG is the way of the future.

Projectors? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881205)

Will they be able to tell how far away I have my projector from the wall?

Re:Projectors? (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 7 months ago | (#46881273)

I'm sure that would fall under the most expensive category, just to be "safe."

Pay per pixel? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881645)

I think basically, he's proposing pay per pixel. If you have a phone-sized screen, you have lower resolution, and they aren't sending you as many pixels.

Re:Pay per pixel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881803)

accept when you have a 1080p display. at 5 inches or 40 inches. 1080p is the same number of pixels.

Re:Pay per pixel? (5, Informative)

darkshot117 (1288328) | about 7 months ago | (#46881827)

Except more and more phones are higher resolution then most HDTVs already. A lot of people will have a 55 inch TV at 1080p but a smartphone with 1440p at least in just a few years. So paying per pixel or per size is pointless as neither tells you anything...

Re:Pay per pixel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881857)

Phones (and tablets for that matter) already are using 1920x1080...

Re:Pay per pixel? (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 7 months ago | (#46881897)

He explicitly says "pay for the inches you watch". Furthermore, my current phone is 1080p, same as my TV. There are 4k phones in the works right now (despite the questionable quality gains). There are still movie theaters in my area that are limited to essentially 1080p. Pay per pixel does not produce the market that he is describing.

Or.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881207)

Or they'll all continue to be free..

A computer will be $X (1)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#46881219)

and then every other screen will play it for free.

Re:A computer will be $X (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881247)

Torrents will always be free. Fuck Jewlywood!!

Re:A computer will be $X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881313)

One person's computer will be $X, everyone else's will be free.

Re:A computer will be $X (3, Funny)

postbigbang (761081) | about 7 months ago | (#46881347)

Watch the cost of 4K cameras soar as a direct result.

Oh, excuse me, I'm the flight attendant I've noticed that you're breathing more than the other passengers. We're going to have to charge you for that.

Oh? No more limit on your credit card? Step outside, please.

Good luck with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881227)

it will be like 99c songs on iTune. Not that I ever paid 99c for a song. There will be plenty of ways around it. but still, if it's pushed to the masses the lazy masses will bite. This is how you shake the masses of change.

Er..."pricing is alright?" (2)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 7 months ago | (#46881249)

wouldn't they really want to charge on # of viewers? (no one cares about size of screen anymore; my kids watch everything on their tablets)

also, $2 seems pretty high for a movie in the days of Netflix...

Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881403)

I hope you're not one of those "it's not the size; it's how you use it" guys.

Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46881425)

wouldn't they really want to charge on # of viewers?

Long term, they absolutely want that.

If they could, when you pop in a DVD, you'd submit your credit card to pay for the view, and charge according to the number of people in the room.

They want all sorts of things where they keep gouging us for the price and keep their revenue stream constant.

But, they might find people suddenly saying "to hell with that", and go read a book.

And, of course, the book publishers want the same damned model where you pay to re-read your book, because clearly owning books and not compensating the publisher every time you read it is theft, right?

And, since they basically pay the lawmakers to give them what they want, I won't be at all surprised if the assholes at the *AA manage to make it law that every time I watch a DVD I bought I have to pay them, and also pay for screen size, and also pay for # of viewers.

This push to make IP and copyright laws drive everything we do is eroding our concept of property, and turning it into a rent-every-time model. And, I'll stop watching before that happens.

Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" (2)

click2005 (921437) | about 7 months ago | (#46881605)

I was thinking the Kinect2 would be perfect for charging based on # of viewers. :)

Re:Er..."pricing is alright?" (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46881659)

Well, speaking only for myself, I will never own a Kinect 2, because I refuse to connect my video game console to the interwebs.

Precisely for crap like this. I'm not installing an always on camera in my living room. Not now, not ever.

value scales with screen size (3, Insightful)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 7 months ago | (#46881255)

this makes sense based on my own experience. I get a lot more value from a movie in my home theater than I do from watching the same movie on my phone. So if I have to pay $5 to watch it on my big screen tv, I'm not going to pay $5 to watch it on my phone!!! The post implies that katzenberg is making an arbritrary technical distinction. in fact, what he's saying is that customer value scales with screen size, and the price should too.

Re:value scales with screen size (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881351)

And people likenthis idiot is why the rest of us are buttfucked by DRM. These little sheep love to be fucked up the ass for Miley Cyrus CDs and junk movies.

Re:value scales with screen size (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881387)

Well, I'm probably not going to pay $1.99 for my phone either :-)

Re:value scales with screen size (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881467)

The Pirate Bay gives me 1080p that plays on all my screens for free. Fuck Jewlywood!

Re:value scales with screen size (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881471)

You're a complete and utter unsalvageable idiot.

I get more value from watching movies in the room where we have a nicer sofa. I paid for it, and I'm not planning to pay the electricity company more because "I enjoy the lights there more".

Re:value scales with screen size (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 7 months ago | (#46881519)

So by your reasoning you should pay $1.00 for a song you will listen to on your home theater, but only $.50 for one you will listen to on your iPod?

How about paying $30 for a bottle of tequilla if you will drink it by the shot, but $50 if you will drink margaritas?

Ooo! How about if I only have to pay $25,000 for a Ferari if I promise to only drive it on shitty roads?

Re:value scales with screen size (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881627)

But the Jewlywood studios are poor and destitute! Haven't you seen that their movies never make any money?!!

Re:value scales with screen size (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 7 months ago | (#46881737)

oooo finally i can afford a Ferrari, where do I sign up for this

Re:value scales with screen size (1, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 7 months ago | (#46881917)

Actually, your tequila example is pretty close.

And we do charge for temporal value.

You pay $15 to watch the movie NOW.

But $10 in 3 months.

And $5 in a year.

And pennies on a cable station two years from now.

You can save a lot of money by falling back a year on the entertainment curve. And there is more entertainment than you can consume. I've been retired a year... do things like watching 14 episodes of DS9 (in between episodes of "TheNewBoston" android development... which is interesting because I may finally be regaining interest in recreational programming)... uh.. anyway... and more entertainment comes out every day than I can keep up with. I have to prioritize-- and cost is one way i do that.

This is a challenge of the content industry. There is too much content now. And as income inequality grows- I don't think 10% of the people are going to buy enough content to support the current model.

No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881281)

A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99.

So, I hook my smartphone up to my 75 inch TV & save $2? I'll stick with unlimited streaming, thanks. MKV files as a fallback. I haven't yet, and don't intend to ever, purchased a DRM'd video. I buy non-DRM mp3s all the time now.

Re:No Thanks (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 7 months ago | (#46881539)

A 75-inch TV will be $4. A smartphone will be $1.99.

So, I hook my smartphone up to my 75 inch TV & save $2? I'll stick with unlimited streaming, thanks. MKV files as a fallback. I haven't yet, and don't intend to ever, purchased a DRM'd video. I buy non-DRM mp3s all the time now.

Indeed -- and how would this work for something like an AppleTV? It has no screen, so would they charge the max price? In that case, I can see a market for devices with tiny screens that demand high resolution video and just happen to be able to broadcast as well.

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881687)

I also buy non-DRM MP3s. I never bought digital music when DRM was the only option. I also buy most of my games DRM free. I will not buy any digital movie or TV show that requires DRM. I have had the opportunity to purchase a few digital movies DRM free. For the record, I have not shared any digital music, game or movie that I have purchased with anyone. I have loaned CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Rays to friends and family.

EDID spoofers are common... (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | about 7 months ago | (#46881285)

Any video switching equipment for HDMI/DVI will often use a small device such as Gefen's HDMI Detective to store the EDID of the screen and convince the video source that it is always connected. It would be trivial to store a "fake" EDID in such a device that reports a smaller screen.

Re:EDID spoofers are common... (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 7 months ago | (#46881517)

I'm not sure this would work though. If you have, say, a 46 inch TV that's spoofing itself as a 4.7 inch cell phone, something tells me they will stream you a lower-quality picture. Or are people actually streaming 1080p and higher content to small screens already? (honest question)

Re:EDID spoofers are common... (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 7 months ago | (#46881593)

1080p is 1080p, screen size be damed. Frankly, it's not even very high resolution. Some people like to count pixels however so they get the big screens. To answer your question, there are a fair number of 20 inch or smaller 1080p screens out there and I fully expect cell phones to have it as a common resolution soonish with mini-hdmi output ports being more common.

Re:EDID spoofers are common... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46881681)

Or are people actually streaming 1080p and higher content to small screens already? (honest question)

My Nexus 7 tablet has full 1080p.

I have no reason to doubt that people are streaming full HD content to small screens.

Re:EDID spoofers are common... (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46881595)

I think what they'll do is offer streaming services. That'd be a lot easier for them to police because they could create their own client and force you to use it. However, I think they are vastly over-estimating their customers pain threshold. Especially when 3rd parties are starting to produce their own content and could offer a much more pleasant experience as a selling point.

The problem with all the movie industries attempts to change the dynamics of their sales model has been that they want to both restrict the customers access AND charge the highest rates in the land at the same time.

No it won't (1)

SuperDre (982372) | about 7 months ago | (#46881287)

He can go F himself if that's gonna happen, I've got a projector with a 100+" screen, and I've also got a phone of 5", both are FullHD, so for one I would be paying $15 and for the other $5 even though they are using exactly the same resolution, therefore bandwidth...
I have more than 600 bluray's and well over 5000 dvd's, but if they go for such a moronic pricing for digital downloads, then I'll just go and pirate it, there is a limit to what actually makes sense, but paying according to your screensize is well beyond that..

We already have a unit of measure for billing (5, Insightful)

thechemic (1329333) | about 7 months ago | (#46881295)

We already have a unit of measure for billing which is referred to as "mega bits per second". Now they want to bill us by "screen size per viewing"? Every @#$%'ing time I try to go legit, they force me back to illegal downloads with their senseless bullshit.

Re:We already have a unit of measure for billing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881707)

What about Stadard Definition, 720p HD, 1080p HD, 4K, 8K, etc... and maybe a pricing for a lower rate for small phones where 480 is more than what is necessary? That accounts, roughly, for bandwidth and the amount of data downloaded. Really, revolutionary? It basically already exists. When I rent something from Amazon on Demand, I have a different rate for SD and HD.

Good thing I kept my CRT! (2)

sinij (911942) | about 7 months ago | (#46881315)

Good thing I kept my old CRT with 800x600 resolution. Well, at least that what my system will report and I am sticking with it!

Re:Good thing I kept my CRT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881811)

Already somewhat covered in copyright law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110#5_B_i_II
Got a 60" screen and a 7.1 surround sound system? Better get a license. Copyright violations abound...

Shoot selves in foot ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46881321)

These clowns are just more or less determined to destroy the whole business of downloading, as well as killing their own revenue stream.

They think I'm going to pay more to download a video to my 55" TV than my 27" TV (and correspondingly more than my tablet)? All at the same resolution? How does *that* work? Can we charge him more for being a bigger idiot?

They're already gouging me to rent it, then my internet company is gouging me for the bandwidth to get it, and *then* they want a premium to play the exact same content on a slightly different device at the same resolution because the physical dimensions of the screen are larger?

These guys are drunk, rent-seeking assholes who have lost touch with their customers if they think this is going to work.

It seems like the movie studios are so focused on leveraging their synergies in order to opimitaly maximize revenue that they're going to destroy the very market they're hoping to make money from.

If Dreamworks and the other movie studios go this route, they're going to drive away customers.

I already think going to a movie is too damned expensive, and would rather watch movies at home. But it sounds like they're just trying to add more rent seeking/price gouging along the chain here.

What... the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881327)

And if I'm streming music on a 5.1 system will I be charged eventually more than on a standard stereo smartphone...

As the low quality vs high quantity of content grows, the entertainment industry is still looking to sqeeze more more and more juice from customers.

As ridiculous as deactivating and activating pistons on a car based on the price you paid it. And I heard some companies have thoughts about it. You give a call, activate some "service" at a monthly price and BANG you got a V8!

Yar Har Fiddle Dee Dee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881335)

OR I could pay for the lowest resolution and torrent the highest resolution and sleep soundly

OR I could just not pay for anything at all if you're going to have a pay scale that equates resolution to quality

Hey professor, what's another word for pirate treasure?
"Well I think it's booty" "booty" "booty that's what it is"

CAPTCHA: "dreaded" (pirate roberts)

Another stupid idea that flops before takeoff (1)

rs1n (1867908) | about 7 months ago | (#46881339)

So just buy it for your mobile phone or tablet and stream to your TV. Most of the smaller have resolutions that are good enough for "typical" TV-sized displays. A better pricing scheme would be for the actual resolution. E.g. $1 for 640x480, $2 for 1024x768, and scale upward.

Re:Another stupid idea that flops before takeoff (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 7 months ago | (#46881443)

Resolution based pricing, along maybe with audio quality (Stereo- low/hi bitrate - AAC/5.1 - DTS etc), is the only thing that makes sense. Simple rather than complicated.

If they sold newer movies at 480p stereo sound for $5 each, they eliminate a bunch of pirated downloads and likely not offset any existing sales, IMO.

And projectors? (1)

zarmanto (884704) | about 7 months ago | (#46881375)

And how do they propose determining the price for a projector, when a single unit can readily have a screen size ranging from 30 inches to 300 inches [amazon.com] ?

Re:And projectors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881585)

Well, they would probably simply have a maximum price when going over a certain inch amount.

Re:And projectors? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 7 months ago | (#46881601)

And how do they propose determining the price for a projector, when a single unit can readily have a screen size ranging from 30 inches to 300 inches [amazon.com] ?

Easy: they charge the maximum the device is capable of (in this case, 300 inches).

Re:And projectors? (1)

zarmanto (884704) | about 7 months ago | (#46881819)

And how do they propose determining the price for a projector, when a single unit can readily have a screen size ranging from 30 inches to 300 inches [amazon.com] ?

Easy: they charge the maximum the device is capable of (in this case, 300 inches).

Well, I don't know about you, but I didn't buy a projector because it could project a maximum size of 300 inches... I bought it because it was far cheaper than practically every other remotely comparable large-form-factor television, even when projecting at "only" 80 inches, as I am. Thus, when the price of the hardware is factored into the equation, the amount of dough that you can expect to squeeze out of your viewing audience is dramatically impacted.

Which is to say: if Dreamworks actually goes down this path, then they had better find a way to convince every other studio to follow them... otherwise, I'll just stop watching Dreamworks films entirely in favor of their competition. (Pixar puts out some pretty darned good stuff, after all.)

if resolution increases with screen size, it's o.k (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881401)

if i get a 4k version for the 4$/75 inch and 8k & some nice uncompressed 192khz multichannel surround for the movie screen, e price hike is justified. but for playing the same file on a larger screen? that's just ridiculous.

following this logic, audiophiles should pay a tax for playing their music on a high end stereo/better headphones, pc gamers with bigger screens should pay extra (and for surfing the net on a 32 inch monitor....) and peole with bad eyesight should pay for larger fonts on their kindle.

no concept of digital technology (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about 7 months ago | (#46881405)

This is another example in the cavalcade of lunacy...

Media bigwigs simply **do not understand the internet and digital technology**

Over and over, through things like DRM, their marketing, lawsuits they file, companies they back, the music/film/TV industry shows the faults of their business model.

Where does it all end? We can already get any "content" free virtually instantly (to watch new TV shows online you have to wait depending on your time zone)...artists are using non-standard channels more than ever...whole genres of music have developed that are entirely outside mainstream media marketing...

Do these companies just die ridiculously slow deaths?

Re:no concept of digital technology (3, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | about 7 months ago | (#46881847)

No. They *do* understand it. They don't like it. They want to kill it in its current form.

And yet (2)

future assassin (639396) | about 7 months ago | (#46881415)

buying that cheap $2-$4 dvd or $5-10 BR at a pawn shop costs me nothing to watch it anywhere. I got about 1000 dvd's and 700 came from pawnshops/flea markets. You can keep your price per size hopefully it goes all digital and no more physical media so I never had to be bothered to watch anything and go for a walk instead. That movie habbit is hard to break but I'm getting there. Been cable free for over a year now which saved me $100 per month and haven't been to a movie theather since The Road.

Perhaps He Meant Resolution (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881441)

I think he was really referring to resolution when he was talking about screen size, perhaps he was addressing a non-technical audience. I agree with him for the most part. He's talking about expediting digital distribution to only 18 days after the initial release, as he figured the major cinemas have made about all they're going to make by the first three weekends. He sounds very forward thinking. Pay X3 for 4K, X2 for 1080P, X1 for SD.

And Google Glass (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 7 months ago | (#46881451)

...will be 25 cents.

This is fucked up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881455)

Is anyone else thinking that this is fucked up? How in hell is the size of my device related to the value of the movie? This is not capitalism. This is a new kind of scam.

At least try to understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881461)

What he's talking about is more likely that streaming a movie to an iPhone app may be cheaper than to an Apple TV, for example. Or that a lower resolution screen (totally fine for smaller devices) would cost less than the full HD stream. No mention of measuring the actual resolution or dimensions of the display device. He may or may not be correct in his statement, but can we at least show the courtesy to not infer crazy ideas that weren't expressed?

Re:At least try to understand (1)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about 7 months ago | (#46881629)

Last time i checked all the new iphones have high-definition screens, and some of the newer android devices even exceed HD resolutions. So, a tiny 6" screen has more definition than a giant 600" screen.
Next, you stand considerably further away from a large screen, so a large screen occupies the same area on your visual field as a small screen which you hold closer to your face. The end result is the same.
Based on these facts, there is no technical merit nor reason for charging based on screen size. Instead of coming up with useful services to earn revenue, they waste their time trying to find more ways to nickel and dime their customers.

Why stop here? Charge for loudness too! (1)

sinij (911942) | about 7 months ago | (#46881475)

How about also charging more for loudness? This way a-holes next door will have to pay more for being obnoxious.

Also what about separate charges for Red, Blue and Green? This way colorblind people can benefit from low, low price of $19.99.

Last but not least, they should charge extra for Jar Jar Bink-less content. Insert him into all movies, then charge low low price of $1.99 to filter.

Re:Why stop here? Charge for loudness too! (2)

lgw (121541) | about 7 months ago | (#46881733)

No, no! Never repeat that Jar Jar idea. The fuckers will do it.

Re:Why stop here? Charge for loudness too! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 7 months ago | (#46881779)

What exactly was wrong with Jar-Jar? He was one of the most endearing characters in the series. Pretty much everyone has dead, lifeless acting; Jar-Jar's character was animate and dynamic, rather than stoic and prompted.

Re:Why stop here? Charge for loudness too! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46881895)

What exactly was wrong with Jar-Jar?

He's annoying. He's really annoying. He's bad comic relief with a fake Jamaican accent and an annoying voice.

I tried to watch Episode 1 with the wife once, and shortly after he appears on screen, she said "is he in the rest of the movie?" And when I told her, yes, he was, and was in the next two, she said "I can't watch this". She then walked out to leave me to watch it myself.

Jar-Jar creates a very strong reaction for a lot of people. There's a reason people have re-cut episode 1 without him in it.

Many people view Jar-Jar as a "jumped the shark" kind of character. And, while I can still watch it, I must confess to not really liking the character.

Much ado about nothing (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 months ago | (#46881485)

If you ask me, odds are 70% he was just using "Screen Size" as a proxy for "Resolution" in the first place, either because he doesn't know the difference, or (more likely) was talking down to the audience. In any case, it is one person's speculation about the future, nothing more.

Re:Much ado about nothing (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 7 months ago | (#46881623)

If you ask me, odds are 70% he was just using "Screen Size" as a proxy for "Resolution" in the first place, either because he doesn't know the difference, or (more likely) was talking down to the audience.

Seriously, if the CEO of Dreamworks Animation doesn't know the difference, he's not qualified to hold the position.

Either way, I think this falls into the category of "just how much more can we screw the customers before they leave".

Re:Much ado about nothing (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 months ago | (#46881823)

Either way, I think this falls into the category of "just how much more can we screw the customers before they leave".

Some would choose to phrase that "charging what the market will bear," but yeah, same thing.

Re:Much ado about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881647)

But if he was, what reason does his kind have to lie about that? Why wouldn't he just tell the truth instead of acting like a Republican and refuse to ever say something factual. I know that is the way of their kind, but your claim is ridiculous. Katzenberg is a diehard Republican, and their platform is against large TVs. I guess they know their Faux Knews bimbos don't look as good on large TVs so they hate them. They are disgusting.

lol (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#46881491)

Once again, the movie industry reveals their complete lack of understanding of their own industry. People have no moral inclination to follow unjust and ridiculous rules/laws. Making your sales model even more ridiculous will just drive more customers into piracy.

Modified EDID possible (4, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#46881521)

Can you fake the physical dimensions reported in the EDID block when the connection is using HDCP?

Yes. The EDID block is not encrypted.

Re:Modified EDID possible (1)

adisakp (705706) | about 7 months ago | (#46881617)

You can already buy a device that does this: Gefen HDMI Detective Plus [gefen.com]

Whoo hoo! (4, Funny)

gehrehmee (16338) | about 7 months ago | (#46881529)

Whoo hoo! My 51" hdtv's EDID data says it's 7" in size. Everything's coming up Milhouse!

Maybe they should just... (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 7 months ago | (#46881541)

Maybe they should just charge based on how much we enjoy the movie. They could install brain sensors in all the audience members, and if it's a really good movie like Spider Man 2 or The Revenge of the Sith we can pay top dollar, and if it's a really terrible movie like Spider Man 3 or The Phantom Menace we can get a discount.

Explains the state of movies these days (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46881543)

This kind of article and thinking by a studio exec shows that nothing has changed in the way of making movies. Of course, content and story have nothing to do with it, it's down to what you're watching it on which completely takes the studios off the hook for producing anything that you'd actually want to pay for. Has anybody really seen a film that Dreamworks has produced in the last 10 years that's worth seeing again and again? Clearly the pay per view model is where this douche is focusing and I'm sure we're all going to want to pay, happily, to see "Dinner For Shmucks", "Cowboys and Aliens" or "Need For Speed" again.

Screen size is meaningless (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 7 months ago | (#46881547)

Dunno how the head of an animation company doesn't know this. What's important is angle of view. A 5" phone held 1 foot away from your eyes has the same angle of view as a 50" TV viewed from 10 feet away, which is the same as a 50 foot theater screen viewed from the back at 120 feet away, or a 0.42" Google Glass-type screen on your eyeglasses just 1" away. The image for all of these occupies exactly the same size on your retina.

Price based on quality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881559)

Surprisingly, that seems rather unheard of.

Crippled product lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881561)

How do these fucktard CEO's get these jobs?

Price for Bitrate / Resolution? (1)

adisakp (705706) | about 7 months ago | (#46881565)

I'd be ok with a price for bitrate or quality.

You can have a much smaller / lower quality file (SD'ish) for a smartphone than for a 60" TV (where you want at least 720 and probably 1080).

They already charge a higher rate for HD movies than SD movies on a number of streaming rental sites so it's not even a "future" rental model.

Re:Price for Bitrate / Resolution? (1)

adisakp (705706) | about 7 months ago | (#46881591)

Although, ideally, you'd just pay for a movie once to own it in the highest resolution available and then you'd be able to watch it in any quality that or less on any device.

In other news... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 7 months ago | (#46881581)

Yep, "Pay-per-Pixel." I can see that.

In other news, DreamWorks executives can afford to smoke shit that the rest of us haven't even heard of... :)

ceo's (1)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | about 7 months ago | (#46881599)

--- "i think what we have here is a failure to communicate" ---

as in the CEO has NO idea about the technology being used

px resolution is a easy one to do , and would make some sense .

the SIZE of the screen is just a phallic reference .

     

summary is misleading (5, Informative)

Khashishi (775369) | about 7 months ago | (#46881619)

Jeffrey Katzenberg might have said "you pay for the size", this does not mean he explicitly meant physical dimensions and not resolution. This suggestion was added in by the article submitter to make him sound more idiotic than he probably is. I'm sure if you were actually talking to Katzenberg and you pressed him on the issue, he would clarify that he used the term size as a proxy for a combination of resolution and compression quality which one would expect for a TV vs a cellphone.

You're downloading a resolution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881621)

The software does not detect what device you have and let you download only that. He's trying to say that you pay more for a better quality picture. If you want to pay 1.99 and stretch a smartphone resolution-sized video onto your 60 inch tv, you can do just that.

As for me, I'll keep using torrents.

This guy is an idiot (1)

Yew2 (1560829) | about 7 months ago | (#46881643)

More tech predictions from MBAs. Why is /. repeating this crap?

Yeah, or they will keep pirating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881657)

Also, lol @ 'smaller screen sizes mean you pay less'. You never pay less. It'll be the base rental cost it is now ramped up further on screen size.

Its 4K, HD, or SD explained in a diferent way (1)

jamiefaye (44093) | about 7 months ago | (#46881665)

... I doubt they care what your screen size is. If you want to upscale the SD version onto your 4K TV, no problem -- it just won't look as good.

So what happens when they've finally pissed off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881685)

their last paying customer?

Other factors (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 7 months ago | (#46881717)

They should also charge according to how close you're sitting to the screen, and how many speakers you have. </sarcasm>

Control freaks and stupid ideas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881721)

Does anybody in the entertainment industry stop for a moment and think how much money they are wasting on implementing various protection schemes just so they can have the fuzzy warm feeling of being in full control? Screen size? Really? How do you know what screen size I am projecting on from my DLP? What about my VR set? What would be the screen size on that one? What if you are projecting directly on the retina from a google-glass-like device?

So they now have to come up with protocols for communicating the size and resolution of the screen to a number of devices and over the network to the streaming services. Mind you, in order for this to work these protocols have to be reasonably tamper proof, highly accurate (you don't want Netflix to think that your brand new 70" TV is a cell phone) and backwards compatible (yes grandma watches TV too). Then they have to convince all manufacturers to spend money on implementing this. After that they will have spend more money on fighting kids that mess with their little scheme not because they don't have money to watch the movies, but just because they can. How is all this going to make them more money compared to just dumping the content to Netflix or offering to on Amazon for 99 cents?

Because clearly that is a cost factor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881725)

When a market can maintain price differentiation based on an attribute that doesn't affect the cost, then the market has failed and is clearly in need of intervention. You're not saying that the movie industry needs to be shaken up, do you? Not that it affects me. I'm not going to pay for music or movies ever again. IMHO those industries don't need to be shaken up, they need to die.

cloud sylphs claiming near unpossible task (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46881745)

the burden of the crown royal wizards & warloks http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=weather+manipulation+wmd beware falling gargoyles....

torrent comments aside... (1)

Torp (199297) | about 7 months ago | (#46881747)

Let's assume he's talking about resolution instead of screen size, because he's probably the kind that has his secretary print out his emails and has no idea what a pixel is.

This is the CEO of Dreamworks, known for a lot of CGI movies.
After getting a retina macbook, i recently tried the 4K version of one of those Blender movies - Sintel to be exact.
I didn't see any significant difference.
I guess Dreamworks has the render farms to do a few more hairs than the Blender foundation, but still, for his products more resolution is a bit worthless.

Also, "Newsies" will bring back the musical. (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 7 months ago | (#46881787)

Anyone who looks to Katzenberg for predictions about the future is a fool.

Tiered based on Video dimensions, not screen size (2)

landoltjp (676315) | about 7 months ago | (#46881837)

Rather than tiered based upon Screen Size, it;'s more likely that Katz meant it would be tiered based on Video dimensions. Many people have pointed out that it's hard for the delivery mechanism to know the target screen size. It's easy for the producer to generate a video at multiple video dimensions. The teirs would relate to standard screen sizes, increasing in cost per tier. For example:

Tier 1 - 320x240 or 640x360
Tier 2 - 640x480 or 800x450
Tier 3 - 800x600 or 960x540
Tier 4 - 1024x768 or 1024x576
Tier 5 - 1280x720
Tier 6 - 1920x1080

These are 4x3 and 16:9 resolutions. I'm sure they could make other resolutions available.
The idea is that lower resolution may be just fine for viewing on your phone or watch, but you'd want the Tier 5-6 dimensions for watching on a large TV. Try watching a 320x240 res video on your 40" display and you'll see what I mean.

Nothing to stop you from doing exactly that; you want to pay $1 and watch 320x240 res video on your 40" display? Sure, go ahead. But I'm betting it won't be as good as watching the 1920x1080 res video.

Except if it's a download of Twilight.

Could they really just mean resolution? (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 7 months ago | (#46881839)

I mean then it's a straight data / cost ratio.

Say it was 50 cents per gigabyte you download from them.

So $2 for a DVD. $15 for a Blue ray. 50 cents on your mobile device unless you want to run it at "retina" level resolution in which case you might be paying $4.

Rookie security mistakes (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 7 months ago | (#46881865)

One of the most popular seems to "trusting remotely entered data".

I doubt it (1)

quietwalker (969769) | about 7 months ago | (#46881875)

Based on the wording, he's comparing watching it on a given screen equal to watching it in a movie theater. That is, you don't get to keep it. Watch once, that sort of thing. Maybe a netflix model. At $4 bucks, 10 years from now, for a large screen tv, it sounds like it's some sort of rental, like the holy grail of DRM has promised the MPAA folks; they can only watch it _x_ times, or only until date _y_.

Of course, like all models that revolve around these sorts of limitations, you need to implement increasingly restrictive DRM, enforced by both software and hardware, and it can't have any holes or alternative routes. We all know how well that works. We've seen exactly how well it works. People, by and large, aren't in a big rush to adopt hardware for features that only benefit copyright distributors at the consumer's expense.

My guess is that in the best case, they'll end up partnering with cable companies and/or netflix to have some sort of ala carte channel model with a monthly subscription fee. Direct digital distribution is unlikely because they won't be able to set a price point that makes sense to the public - their price point will be based around the concept of giving up control completely, because once one person 'hacks' it, it free.

Thank god for smartphones (1)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | about 7 months ago | (#46881893)

That's it. I'm only watching movies on my phone from now on.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?