It's playing on people not knowing that it's a platform, but rather a direct competitor to the iPhone. iPhone vs Windows Phone. Same as the laptop hunter ads. Microsoft vs Apple, Nokia, et al.. Software, hardware, it doesn't matter.

Was it the "excellent education for the mass" that taught you how to write?

Yet another idiotic comment.

I can't imagine those girls have much of a romantic life.

I do disagree. This is nothing more than another DRM fiasco that will anger consumers even more. They have no right to mooch off other companies profits---companies they rely on in order for survival. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. They have already bitten the consumers, now they are going after their distributors and retailers. The MPAA is traveling down the same road the RIAA has already traveled. Yet they can't even see the forest through the trees.

So you want Redbox to pay for Blockbusters bad business model? It is not up to Redbox to bailout the studios or Blockbuster. If they are not making enough profit they need to change there business model. It is not Redbox's fault that Blockbuster, et al. have high overhead.

The studios have to do what they have to do, to make a profit. If they are not making a profit, they need to raise the cost of tickets or the cost they sell DVD's to Redbox. But as far as I am concerned, they are stealing if they require Redbox and Netflix to do some profit sharing scheme.

If they don't want to sell DVD's to Redbox for 30 days, that's their right. But if there was ever a bad business model, that has to be it. Either customers will just wait, or they will lose interest. There are certain movies that I wouldn't wait for, but those are ones I would buy anyway.

Why does Blockbuster deserve anything? They got what they deserved. They were profitable for many years. Now they are losing to companies that saw a change in how consumers shop. Studios have failed miserably. They have taken years to adjust to what consumers want, and they are still years behind.

And despite what you say, consumers control the market. If consumers are not interested in a product or company, they fail. Which is how it should be.

I will not bend to some company that says I have to pay $4 for something I can get for $1. Especially when I don't need it in the first place. They can charge what ever they want, but it is up to ME whether or not I will spend MY money on it.

Are you some sort of PR rep for Blockbuster and the studios? Because you are doing a horrible job.

People buy iPhones(myself included) because they see value in it. I think that it is worth the price. Random movies for $4, I do not.

I don't begrudge anyone trying to make a fair profit. But this is downright stealing.

The studio had an idea. The movie. They produced the movie and put it up for sale. They make their profit in theaters and when they sale a copy to Redbox. Redbox has an idea. Redbox buys thousands of copies, and rents them for $1 a day. Redbox rightfully bought these copies.

They had an idea. they made a profit on this idea. Now the studio thinks that it deserves a portion of the profit because the original idea was theirs. This is downright theft. Why aren't they going to Walmart and saying we want a share of your profits because you sale movies cheaper than every one else?

Just because Redbox's business model(high-volume, low margin) is different from Blockbuster's model(low-volume, high margin) does not mean they have to pay a higher cost.

This is not how business works. If you can't survive on your OWN profits, you shouldn't be in business.

So, this would mean that people can get out of their contracts for free. They are changing the terms of the contract on us. Which would mean no early termination fee. Or am I wrong in this?