Movies Anywhere (Formerly Disney Movies Anywhere) - Start Here

[huskerbear]

Originally Posted by Greyman

The other part of the trick is working well with multiple providers, and they have done that. The next step, would be to bring on other studios, the topic of this thread

The second part is content. The topic is basically keychest needs more.

[huskerbear]

Originally Posted by Greyman

Actually revenue is king, that's what keeps both the providers and the studios in business. If the studios think Keychest can maximize their income, they will switch.

Now that I'll agree with

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

It's not the UI as much as the content. VUDU has more than 10,000 UV-enabled movies and nearly 9,000 UV-enabled TV episodes. FandangoNow has about 6,500 UV-enabled movies and 0 UV-enabled TV episodes. So if you bought TV shows with UV you'd be completely SOL, and 1 out of 3 of your UV movies won't be viewable. I'm exaggerating because some of the missing 3,000 UV movies at FandangoNow surely are less popular choices, but they have a significantly smaller UV catalog.

Yeah, I think CinemaNow has some UV TV, but IIRC FandangoNow just tells you to go elsewhere to view.

It's more complex too because of the movies that are UV at some places and not others. There is a thread on the Vudu forums of movies that are UV at CinemaNow or Fandango, but not UV at Vudu (and of course it happens the other way around too).

UV needs to be an all or nothing thing for these retailers, at least for stuff they carry. If it's UV one place it needs to be UV at every other place.

[Zu Nim]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Yeah, I think CinemaNow has some UV TV, but IIRC FandangoNow just tells you to go elsewhere to view.

VUDU has fewer than 700 UV TV seasons and CinemaNow has a little more than 150. But CinemaNow's apps are terrible/nonexistent and they keep dropping support from studios. So it's hard to find a good way to even watch the seasons they still carry.

I agree about the inconsistency with UV across providers. While I understand why certain providers might not offer all the movies that others do, there's no good reason for why every provider that carries a specific UV title doesn't enable it for UV. Part of the problem is that these are all minor providers and they have poor customer service.

[whipnet]

Flixstervideo.com has the bulk of the UV titles, they just need a Roku app. It's website is the only place (besides myuv.com) to easily search your collection. The UV TV shows are not separated from the movies though, but again the search works well.

[huskerbear]

Down to it's nuts and bolts we have the content (studios) vs store fronts (Amazon Vudu itunes....) If they can't come together, store fronts joining content suppliers, maybe the studios need to punt. Have the DECE pool their resources and put together a digital super store that has everything. Make apps for everybody, all devices. If Apple, or anybody else wants a cut to be on their device, add that fee on top of everybody's flat fee, for that device. Codes, only work in the super store....

[doctor_who]

Originally Posted by whipnet

Disney should have just joined Ultraviolet, but Disney had to be Disney.

I am all about more options, but Disney is for the most part garbage to me. There are only a handful of good movies in their entire history and that includes the actual good stuff and talent they acquired, not produced.

*

The Disney digital platform is far better than UV, and it's not even close. Disney is better, period, at everything, another period. period.

PS, I owe nearly 2,000 UV movies/tv, doesn't mean I can't see the obvious, which is also why I have been building up my iTunes collection all along. iTunes is indestructible and the set-up makes Vudu look like a 3rd grader's art project.

[WestMan]

This is why discs will be superior for a while. Until this all gets sorted out... it is kind of dangerous to put your eggs in one digital service. With that said... so many movies now come with the UV Platform that it will be hard to change it now.

If another digital locker takes over.... I don't care as long as I can move my collection over. If I cannot... then it is really bad for the consumer.

[stargazeruk]

Originally Posted by WestMan

This is why discs will be superior for a while. Until this all gets sorted out... it is kind of dangerous to put your eggs in one digital service. With that said... so many movies now come with the UV Platform that it will be hard to change it now.

If another digital locker takes over.... I don't care as long as I can move my collection over. If I cannot... then it is really bad for the consumer.

It's always been a downside with digital. The store could loose the rights and then your stuffed.

With UV all they have to do is stop the title being UV and then what. Your digital copy just become useless.

In the UK its a lot worse that the US. Disney has no digital copies at all, Paramount has for probably a limited time gone back to iTunes but usually does no digital titles at all. Lionsgate titles in the UK can only be found on flixster.com.

The last two standing UK ultraviolet providers TalkTalk and wuaki don't even carry Lionsgate at all. Wuaki have mostly Warner titles and a few Sony and don't even have fox or universal titles. Flixster has most of them but basically they are mobile or PC only.

If flixster was to go then I'll loose my BBC and Lionsgate titles all together.

I have seen the Disney DMA and I do have to agree they got the broadest support from most the store vendors.

The only way you can guaranteed you can view it for as long as you like at the moment is to own the disk.

[RandomNinjaAtk]

My problem with DMA is the lack of sharing that UV supports. Other than that, its a great service... If they implement sharing, I'd have no complaints of it and would prefer it because it has wider selection of front ends (amazon, Microsoft, google, iTunes, Vudu and etc).

But because it does not, I prefer UV because it does all the same things but has a built in function for sharing, which makes my digital licenses/purchases more valuable in my opinion....

Edit: DMA also needs to figure out and start to provide UHD with Dolby Atmos/DTS-X, Dolby Vision/HDR10 and etc... I would hope that when Disney finally delivers a UHD (4k) disc that this would be resolved then...

[Zu Nim]

DMA doesn't explicitly have sharing with other users. Sharing is handled by providers like iTunes and Google. They both have family sharing so you can share your purchases including Disney titles. VUDU doesn't have a sharing system (they rely on UV to do sharing) nor does Amazon or Microsoft.

[Greyman]

Originally Posted by RandomNinjaAtk

My problem with DMA is the lack of sharing that UV supports. Other than that, its a great service... If they implement sharing, I'd have no complaints of it and would prefer it because it has wider selection of front ends (amazon, Microsoft, google, iTunes, Vudu and etc).

But because it does not, I prefer UV because it does all the same things but has a built in function for sharing, which makes my digital licenses/purchases more valuable in my opinion....

Edit: DMA also needs to figure out and start to provide UHD with Dolby Atmos/DTS-X, Dolby Vision/HDR10 and etc... I would hope that when Disney finally delivers a UHD (4k) disc that this would be resolved then...

DMA leaves sharing up to the provider. iTunes and Google play offer family sharing that includes DMA movies.
As a workaround, you can sign in to DMA on 8 different devices (spread them among your sharees), however they only apparently allow 2 simultaneous streams, but each device can download a movie. Not sure if that counts as a stream of a downloaded movie is being watched.
The weakness of Vudu relying on UV for sharing is that many TV shows and of course Disney aren't included.
I do agree on the potential value of sharing and I usually get non UV items on iTunes precisely because they can be shared.

Edit: Looks like I was a few minutes slow.

[RandomNinjaAtk]

Originally Posted by Greyman

DMA leaves sharing up to the provider. iTunes and Google play offer family sharing that includes DMA movies.
As a workaround, you can sign in to DMA on 8 different devices (spread them among your sharees), however they only apparently allow 2 simultaneous streams, but each device can download a movie. Not sure if that counts as a stream of a downloaded movie is being watched.
The weakness of Vudu relying on UV for sharing is that many TV shows and of course Disney aren't included.
I do agree on the potential value of sharing and I usually get non UV items on iTunes precisely because they can be shared.

Edit: Looks like I was a few minutes slow.

Yeah, I haven't played with it enough. If you were really stretching UV and this is only with using Vudu alone, with 1 device per household/person... you could have 72 households accessing the same library, 6 (user accounts) x 12 (Devices per account).

I have a few friends and family that I share with UV, but that doesn't necessarily work the same even using Google Play or Itunes due to the other things that are shared when the feature on those services. It feels a bit more restrictive then I'd like. It's better then no sharing. But not as ideal as UV's implementation....

[RBBrittain]

Having experience with both platforms, I believe DMA is superior for these reasons:

1. Since DMA involves a single studio, Disney has more control over individual providers' offerings; for example, it can require all providers to offer all DMA titles (even Vault titles). UV, as a multi-studio joint venture, can't do that due to antitrust laws.
2. Hardware & software-affiliated providers (iTunes, Google Play, Microsoft, Amazon) prefer DMA because it has never attempted to dictate technical details such as file formats, like UV's abandoned CFF. (Disney may have considered it early on, but never got as far as CFF.) That alone may explain why iTunes is OK with DMA; Disney never tried to dictate DRM or other technical details instead of Apple's famously proprietary DRM. In turn, that made Google, Microsoft & Amazon more comfortable with DMA than UV.
3. DMA's central platform (website, apps, etc.) handles most redemptions and provides a minimum level of streaming support; UV requires its providers to handle this.

Who may finally decide the UV vs. DMA war is Comcast's Xfinity On Demand. Both UV & DMA have already dabbled with cable/satellite VOD via Verizon FiOS; though Comcast is naturally inclined towards UV (it owns NBCUniversal plus 70% of FandangoNow), it also announced a deal with Disney earlier this year that will eventually bring DMA to XOD. If DMA beats UV in arriving on the cable industry's biggest VOD platform, that can't be good for UV. In that case I wouldn't be surprised if studios start abandoning UV, either for DMA directly or by licensing the KeyChest technology for their own in-house versions of DMA. (The transition will probably like the MCU titles that moved from Paramount to Disney; if you bought or redeemed before the move you'll have licenses on both UV and the new platform, but new customers will get licenses only on the new platform.)

[Zu Nim]

You bring up an interesting opinion regarding Comcast. If DMA is Comcast's first (or only?) rights locker, we may look back at that as the turning point. I have seriously wondered why Comcast still hasn't implemented UV when they own a studio that's part of UV. If they won't implement UV, is it surprising that other providers aren't coming on board?

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

1. Since DMA involves a single studio, Disney has more control over individual providers' offerings; for example, it can require all providers to offer all DMA titles (even Vault titles). UV, as a multi-studio joint venture, can't do that due to antitrust laws.

Disney decided to do that but it's not because of DMA. If Warner demanded all providers carry their entire catalog or none at all, it wouldn't change anything about how UV operates and wouldn't obligate any other studio to change their existing behavior or pricing. I'm not sure how the rights locker technology is related.

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

3. DMA's central platform (website, apps, etc.) handles most redemptions and provides a minimum level of streaming support; UV requires its providers to handle this.

DMA code redemption is a nicer system, but providers still process redemptions and stream titles. Although implemented better, redeemdigitalmovie.com is functionally the same as myuv.com/redeem; both forward you to the provider for completion. DMA is certainly better from a consumer perspective but I'm not sure how it lightens any obligations providers have.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

I have seriously wondered why Comcast still hasn't implemented UV when they own a studio that's part of UV.

Sony's PlayStation Network hasn't implemented UV either...

[Tenchi7]

Disney needs to get Ghibli films digitalized before they worry about other things. That and Roger Rabbit.

[echopulse]

Roger Rabbit is digital. I own it on Vudu.

That said, Disney needs to make Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures, Dreamworks, and Disney Channel movies available on on DMA, before they start asking other studios to join. There are hundreds of titles under those banners.

UV has significant benefits. More studio support, and D2D. I wish other providers would jump on board.

[abbottd]

I'm on board with everyone else who says whatever gives us access to our movies digitally from any platform. I just want to be able to watch my movies from whatever provider I want without skipping from one app/site to another just to watch my digital collection.

It also seems that Disney is pretty confident other studios will join them as they've got a new site (https://redeemdigitalmovie.com/) for redeeming codes that seems to implement the one site for all redemptions and doesn't specifically say "We're Disney!"

[Cranston37]

Originally Posted by abbottd

It also seems that Disney is pretty confident other studios will join them as they've got a new site (https://redeemdigitalmovie.com/) for redeeming codes that seems to implement the one site for all redemptions and doesn't specifically say "We're Disney!"

That is very interesting, actually...