The result, titled "Life in a Day," is a 90-minute film directed by Kevin Macdonald and produced by Ridley Scott. It documents human life on Earth for one day, insofar as such a thing is possible within a span of 90 minutes. The movie, which has already premiered at a few festivals, is now available in its entirety on YouTube.

We'll leave a more in-depth critique of the film up to the movie critics, but if nothing else, it's a very interesting concept, made possibly only by digital technology and the Web.

Macdonald and Scott pieced together their creation from 4,500 hours of footage uploaded to YouTube, all of it purportedly recorded on July 24, 2010. Even six years prior, gathering that much footage from so many geographically dispersed locations would have required a huge budget, large film crew and extensive air travel.

In this case, the project was backed by a giant tech company who can afford to bring on award-winning talent to help piece the whole thing together. That ability sure made the finished product looked nice, but we can imagine a similar approach being used by amateur filmmakers, as well as budding professionals, who now have history's largest, most distributed film crew at their disposal.

Having heard those complaints loud and clear, the company has decided to axe Qwikster altogether and keep their DVD rental service as part of the Netflix brand. This summer's price hike will stay in place, but the company hopes to stop the slow exodous of customers by capitulating on the Qwikster issue, which had proved wildly unpopular.

"It is clear that for many of our members two websites would make things more difficult, so we are going to keep Netflix as one place to go for streaming and DVDs," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings wrote in a blog post. "This means no change: one website, one account, one password... in other words, no Qwikster."

The prospect of having two separate Websites with different login credentials and movie queues did not sit well with many customers, who have grown accustomed to managing everything from a single account with a common interface. The backlash was quite loud online, and it apparently wasn't just chatter and empty threats. Evidently, the company has been seeing enough canceled subscriptions (some of which were expected) to warrant a change of plans.

Even as the company gives in to customers' wishes and backs off of an unpopular decision, many commenters on the Netflix company blog remain disastified, many of them demanding that Hastings step down as CEO and criticizing the company's recent series of PR gaffes. Some people remain hard to please, but Netflix is hoping that this latest move will begin to turn things around.

The deal, which covers such popular film series as Shrek and Madagascar is expected to net DreamWorks Animation $30 million per movie for the duration of the agreement. What makes this deal significant isn't so much its price tag or the content involved. Its significance lies in the fact that this is the first time such a major Hollywood content provider has inked a deal that skips over pay TV distribution in favor of the Web.

"The so-called pay TV window is one of the entertainment industry's most important business tools. In the past, HBO has paid steep licensing fees of about $20 million per picture for exclusive rights a few months after films arrive on DVD. But Netflix - capitalizing on a consumer shift to streaming content on computers, tablets and Internet-connected televisions - has been making similar deals, albeit mostly with smaller suppliers."

The two companies are touting the deal as a major achievement, but not everybody is convinced. CNet's Greg Sandoval wonders whether Netflix is "desperate to generate positive news" after several weeks of customer and shareholder disappointment.

The company has had a rocky September, which it kicked off by implementing a highly unpopular increase in their subscription fees. In the weeks that followed, more customer frustration followed as they spun off their DVD business into a service that's entirely separate from their streaming business. Meanwhile, the company is now expected to lose 1 million customers and has seen its stock price tumble.

What was less clear before today's press conference was exactly what the details would be. Those are now revealed, and as it turns out, what Dish and Blockbuster have planned is hardly the "Netflix killer" many predicted.

The offering Dish unveiled today is not a stand-alone video streaming and DVD rent-by-mail service like Netflix, but rather it's a $10 add-on for Dish subscribers. This might be a really nice added value for existing subscribers, but it doesn't look as attractive to other consumers.

What turns a lot of people off from cable and satellite TV subscriptions is their price and the fact that providers bundle together a ton of content that they're not necessarily interested in. A growing number of people instead look toward Web-based, on-demand video content from the likes of Hulu, Netflix and others. This is especially true of younger consumers, who are moving fewer TV sets into their dorm rooms this Fall and instead packing merely their laptops.

Blockbuster Movie Pass may have its perks for Dish's 14 million pay TV subscribers, but for everybody else, it simply chains them to the old model of paying for and consuming content.

Even With Their Price Hike, Netflix is Still Cheaper

In this morning's presentation, Dish touted the price point of Blockbuster Movie Pass as one of its advantages over "the competition," an obvious reference to Netflix, whose pricing model they cited specifically. While it's true that $10 is less expensive than the $16 that Netflix customers must now begrudgingly pay for the DVD-and-streaming combo, Blockbuster Movie Pass ends up being more expensive in the end becaue it's tethered to Dish.

Blockbuster Movie Pass doesn't launch until October 1, and the prices listed on the Dish website now say that plans "start at" $19.99, a price that only appears to only be in effect for 12 months (and requires a two year contract). If the new service is an extra $10, then consumers will be paying a minimum of $30 per month.

Granted, this package gets you more than what Netflix offers, including all that satellite TV content and a DVR functionality, so the price comparison isn't apples-to-apples.

You Think Netflix's Streaming Selection Stinks? This is Worse.

People have long complained that the content available to stream on-demand from Netflix is limited. That's improved over time, but may take a major hit if the company can't manage to salvage its deal with Starz Entertainment.

Even so, the site has 20,000 titles available to stream instantly, whereas Blockbuster Movie Pass will start with only 4,000 that are available to stream to desktops. Interestingly, only 3,000 will be able to be streamed directly to TV sets.

Blockbuster Movie Pass may prove to be an attractive option for those already interested in traditional pay TV subscriptions, but for people looking for an alternative to Netflix, this probably isn't the way to go.

Blockbuster photo by yapsnaps.

Hastings had barely finished apologizing before announcing another radical change: Netflix is spinning off its DVD-by-mail business into a new brand called Qwikster and running it separately from the streaming business, which will continue to be called Netflix. Qwikster, which will be run by company veteran Andy Rendich, will also now include video game rentals.

From the company's perspective it's a sort of pre-emptive self-disruption; Just as Netflix upended movie rental stores with its DVD-by-mail service, that model now stands to be disrupted by the streaming-only model that Hastings sees as the future of the company.

Customers Respond (And It's Not Pretty)

If the heightened transparency was meant to assuage angry customers, the effort could hardly have fallen flatter. By this morning, the post had accumulated over 4,000 comments, most of which were harshly negative.

"As a Netflix loyalist for more years than I can remember, I find these two significant changes to the service to be a failure of epic proportions," complained Tod Sacerdoti.

"This just further encourages me to drop one of the services (or both)," said Netflix subscriber Julie Carter. "Without integrating the two services, it makes things much more difficult for customers who'd like both DVDs and streaming."

Many of the objections are centered around the user experience issues raised by splitting the service into two distinct websites. The change runs the risk of causing serious damage to the service's established user experience, argued Hubspot UX designer Joshua Porter in a blog post.

"They're changing the user experience of their web apps to model the new company structure, not a structure that is most friendly to people," Porter wrote. "This is an extremely common problem in user interface design. Netflix is in serious danger of breaking the user experience they are well-known for."

As negative as the feedback has been, some people have been more supportive. Venture capitalist Mark Suster wrote an enthusiastic endorsement of the split on his blog, arguing that it helps the company better position itself to survive into the future by effectively disrupting itself while making the most of the DVD side of the business while it lasts.

The service will be subscription-only and will be available across multiple platforms and devices, as Hulu Plus is in the United States.

Companies specializing in content distribution often have a hard time expanding internationally due to complex regulations and expenses related to licensing and ownership rights of that content. Due to these issues, music streaming services like Pandora and Spotify have been slow to launch in new markets and Hulu competitor Netflix is only available in the United States and Canada. The fact that we've had to wait this long for Hulu to launch outside the U.S. is thus not all together shocking.

"In Japan, we ... see an unfulfilled market need with respect to premium feature film and TV content, and very favorable environmental factors to a service like ours, including extensive broadband penetration, smart phone and other internet-connected device ubiquity, and strong consumer interest," Hulu said in a blog post.

The company has assembled a team based at its new headquarters in Tokyo to get started preparing for the launch, which is expected later this year.

In addition to a refreshed user interface, U.S. users will also be able to rent thousands of movies from their device and purchase e-books. These two moves in particular make Android a more competitive option to the Apple iPhone than it had been previously.

Movies on Mobile!

The addition of mobile movie rentals is probably the most notable change for the Android Market, as Android-based devices have been lacking in this department for many months. Third-party applications like mSpot helped to fill the void for some, but it was not until the launch of Hulu and Netflix on Android that users finally had access to vast media catalogs that their iPhone-toting counterparts had through both the iPhone versions of those apps, as well as iTunes.

But even at launch, the Netflix and Hulu catalogs weren't available to all Android device owners. Netflix, for example, is struggling to deal with the large and varied install base of Android hardware, and is painstakingly certifying devices one-by-one to meet the demands of studios who require that copyright protection technology is implemented on all streams. Hulu is in the exact same boat.

For these reasons, it's especially important that Google itself get involved in providing content options to a wider range of its Android users. Although the change won't be available to those on older Android devices, Android 2.2 and up is supported. This addresses the majority of the current market, according to Google's statistics. Only 21.1% of the Android install base is running Android 2.1 or lower.

It's also worth noting the addition of the mobile e-book store is arriving in this update, too. As with movie rentals, all book purchases will be linked to a user's Android account, and made available across all their devices, including phones, tablets and computers. And as with app purchases, all content downloads and video rentals can be added to a user's account without them having to manually sync their device with a computer over a USB cable.

New User Interface Mimics Some iTunes Features

To highlight the new features, the mobile Market has an updated user interface, which showcases the books and movie categories directly from the homescreen. Elsewhere, sections like "Editor's Choice" and "Staff Choices" go even further to mimic the iTunes experience of a curated collection of applications and recommendations. But there is not actually curation in terms of the apps accepted into the marketplace - all apps are immediately published upon developer submission.

The iTunes-like similarities don't end there, however.  Apps are now also easier to purchase - just one tap on the button displaying the app's price and a second tap to confirm the purchase.

For those Android users out there who can't stand the wait, and who know how to manage the installation of off-Market APK files, the Phandroid blog is hosting the link to the updated Market app. There are also instructions provided that will enable you to return to the old Market, if things go awry.

What does this mean for Netflix? Foremost, it is adding a huge new potential user base to its market demographic. Technology and content companies that do well in the era of Web 2.0 have significant sources of traffic in international markets, such as Facebook and Twitter which both have 70% or so of users overseas. The move will further cement Netflix as a go-to source for streaming content on the Web. With all the competition in that area, that will be huge for Netflix going forward.

We have contacted Netflix about which countries are specifically included in the Latin America and Caribbean rollout and will update this post if/when the company responds. The prize of the region would be Brazil, a country that is rapidly developing a first-world economy and sparking technological innovation. Brazil has 15 cities with a population greater than 1 million and a total population of 190 million, the majority of which speak Portuguese. If Netflix is not coming to Brazil in this expansion, it is laying the groundwork to debut in the country by providing streaming services in Portuguese.

"Netflix members in the U.S. and Canada have really taken to watching instantly and we feel great about being able to offer the same combination of convenience, choice and value to people in Mexico, Central America, South America and the Caribbean," wrote Jessie Becker, VP of marketing for Netflix, in a blog post.

It is telling that South America is mentioned by Becker with no specific mention of Brazil. It also looks like Netflix will offer streaming-only in its expansion. The logistics of DVDs by mail to 43 countries across a large geographic region is a cost that Netflix would probably like to avoid.  

"Each week we post five issues from our vast archive which covers everyone from John Barrymore to Drew Barrymore. (Before 1933, Boxoffice was published under different names in various parts of the U.S.)."

Unfortunately, this means the vast collection of issues lack metadata and are unsearchable. Still, it should, even with that limitation, provide a valuable resource to movie historians and journalists, film-makers, business people and plain old movie fans.

The earliest issue online, that of January 3, 1925, is a partial of the magazine when it was titled "The Reel Journal." ("The Film Trade Paper of the Southwest.") One of the pages from that partially-available issue, under the heading of "News Nuggets," says:

"Richard Bartholemess has completed for First National distribution his new Inspiration production, 'New Toys,' from the stage play by Oscar Hammerstein II and from Milton Herbert Gropper."

The issue of The Reel Journal from October 3 of that year, one of the few with an illustration on the cover, featured Charlie Chaplin, "Now a Pathe Comedian."

The February 13 issue of BoxOffice featured "The Misfits," the film written by Arthur Miller and directed by John Huston. It started Clark Gable, Eli Wallach, Montgomery Clift and, in her final role, Marilyn Monroe.

The latest issue features the headline, "Larry the Cable Guy voices Mater in Cars 2."

So much for "open," laugh Android naysayers. Do you agree?

Reaction to this newly discovered restriction has been overwhelming negative. Ars Technica described the move as "yet another slap in the face to users who have bought into Google's claims that the Android platform is superior to other mobile platforms because of its openness."

AndroidGuys' Ray Walters says the restriction "makes me pretty unhappy, and frankly, I think Google has screwed the pooch here."

And AndroidCentral's Jerry Hillenbrand, who broke the news (as far as we can tell), admonished Google harshly, saying, "that makes me want to buy more of your products and use more of your services, so I can be treated like a criminal just because I'm smart enough to get rid of CityID, or want a safe version of Android on my phone." (CityID is a preinstalled application on some Android devices, which many rooters choose to remove).

A slap in the face? Criminals?

Wow, tell us how you really feel, bloggers.

The Streaming Movie Battle on Android

The truth is, the requirement to restrict access to this new streaming service comes from the movie studios themselves, not Google. After all, it was the studios' fear of piracy that led to Netflix's inability to launch on Android until just recently.

In November 2010, Netflix explained the holdup to Android users, saying that because it didn't have a common platform security mechanism and DRM, Android devices would have be certified one-by-one. It's a slow way to doing things, and "not a preferred solution," the company said.

Six months later, the first five Android phones to officially have access to Netflix were finally announced. More are on the way, the company promised, again reiterating the "significant challenges with developing a streaming video application for this ecosystem."

In Netlix's case, the original restriction was actually due to the very openness of the Android platform itself. So open, in fact, that it scared the studios away.

Defining (& Re-Defining) Open

Google has long touted Android as a more open alternative to Apple's iOS mobile operating system (OS) that powers the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad. With Android, carriers and OEMs can customize the mobile OS, adding pre-installed apps and services, user interface layers like HTC's Sense and other features. Application developers can submit apps to the Android Marketplace and see them go live immediately, without having to pass through an inspection process as is necessary with iTunes. And finally, Android's code is open source.

For these reasons, Google has promoted Android as an "open" OS. But moves like this latest one - banning rooted devices from streaming movies - make some users question whether Android is really open enough.

It all depends on how you define "open," we suppose. Google's Android chief Andy Rubin explained what the company meant by "open" at this month's developer event, Google I/O. Android is open-source code, he said, but it's not a community-driven project.

How's that for open?

Google also tightly controls the Android platform, restricting OEMs' access to Google apps like Gmail, Maps and the Android Market by defining a set of compatibility standards. These standards have now been exposed in a lawsuit initiated by location provider Skyhook, who claims Google uses them in an anti-competitive way.

Is that open? Hmm.

In other words, Android, comparatively speaking, may be more open than other mobile OS's. But open open? No, not really. You know it, we know it, Google and its partners know it. That horse is dead. Now, please move on to posting hacks on defeating this new restriction on rooted phones. Thank you.

What does this mean for Flixster? Warner says that Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes will both remain completely independent. Flixster will be getting into content distribution through Warner Bros., a big leap in scope and functionality for a company that provides applications and access to reviews. Warner says that it will tie Flixster in with its announced "Digital Everywhere" application designed to organize and access consumers' digital libraries from any device.

Warner Bros. thinks that the combination of Flixster/Rotten Tomatoes, Digital Everwhere and its support of the UltraViolet format will be part of a winning platform to "give consumers even more freedom, utility and value for their digital purchases." UltraViolet will launch later this year as cloud-based storage to give consumers the ability to watch digital media across multiple platforms.

According to Warner, the Flixster application has been downloaded 35 million times between Android, iOS and BlackBerry operating systems. Rotten Tomatoes serves critiques to 12 million unique monthly visitors and has grown a robust movie reviewing community. Flixster acquired Rotten Tomatoes in Jan. 2010 from IGN Entertainment, a division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Rotten Tomatoes features around 2.3 billion user reviews, 500,000 critic reviews and 35,000 trailers and videos.

It is doubtful that Warner Bros. will be able to use the partnership with Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes to influence or silence negative reviews of its movies. The site and community is just too big to be controlled, even by one of the biggest movie studios in the world. To temper Rotten Tomatoes, Warner Bros. would have to shutdown the site entirely. After having paid for it, that does not seem likely, especially considering that a replacement would pop up on the Internet almost immediately.

The sources cited by The Wrap are "movie executives with knowledge of the deals," but YouTube itself said it would not comment on rumor and speculation.

A YouTube spokesperson would only say this, when asked about the on-demand streaming service:

"We've steadily been adding more and more titles since launching movies for rent on YouTube over a year ago, and now have thousands of titles available."

The spokesperson is referring to YouTube's store, available here at: http://www.youtube.com/store. The service launched last year, offering movie rentals for $2 or $3 dollars apiece. The files are available for streaming, not download, similar to the videos provided by Netflix or Hulu's streaming services.

Currently, there are only a small number of well-known titles in the YouTube Store. These are prominently featured on the site's homepage, making the service appear more well-stocked than it actually is. But dig a little deeper and you won't find much more to choose from, unless you like really B-to-D grade films and direct-to-video offerings.

Launching in Weeks

The upcoming deal, which has now been confirmed by AllThingsD's Peter Kafka as well, would change that. He adds that while Sharon Waxman's report from The Wrap pinned the launch date as being "as early as next week or next," he heard that the time frame was "weeks, but not months."

Those not participating in the current deal, Kaftka notes, are New's Corp.'s Fox and Paramount, whose corporate parent Viacom is still suing Google regarding YouTube copyright issues and claims.

Cloud Locker Planned

Kafka also cited one source who said that this on-demand movie rental service was just the beginning for Google's vision. In the future, Google wants users to be able to purchase movies and store them in an online cloud locker, a service that sounds strikingly familiar to the one Amazon itself just launched.

But even if the service does launch as expected, the question many in the media are now asking is whether or not the business model is viable. Netflix, which offers streaming movies, not rentals and purchases, is booming, having nearly doubled its net quarterly profits from last year. It also added 3.3 million subscribers in Q1 2011. Would streaming individual rentals and purchases attract a large enough audience to make the expanded YouTube service a success? Or will consumers still choose Netflix instead?

That would put Redbox head-to-head with Netflix, which recently announced it had surpassed 20 million subscribers and is also working on shifting its business from the disc shipping to the Internet-streaming business. Indeed, customers are increasingly turning to the Web to watch movies, rather than to DVDs.

Redbox has been gauging its customers' interest in a streaming plan, asking in a survey last year if they would be interested in a $3.95 per month subscription plan. That means that for those who rent four or more movies from Redbox a month (at its current $1 per film rate), that's a good deal - and quite competitive with Netflix's subscription plan.

Despite Redbox's confirmation that a streaming service is in the works, its partners in the endeavor have not been identified. According to the L.A. Times, "several people familiar with the matter have confirmed that Amazon.com is in talks with studios to acquire content for a Netflix-like subscription movie streaming service set to launch soon, making it a likely candidate to be Redbox's partner." Earlier this year, Amazon acquired the European rental and streaming service LoveFilm.

You may be familiar with the name mSpot because of its mobile offerings for iPhone and Android, which are separated into two apps: mSpot Music and mSpot Movies. With mSpot Music, you first have to download its installer on your computer and upload your files to the "cloud," in this case the cloud referring to mSpot's own servers. Once that process is complete, you can stream your own music from your mobile phone, anywhere you have an Internet connection.

However, with mSpot Movies, an entity so different that it even lives at its own domain name where it makes no mention of its sister service, you simply download an app to watch free movie trailers and rental movies that start at $2.99. There is no computer-based installer as you're not accessing your own digital media collection, but actual movies from Hollywood studios who have partnered with the company.

Now on Google TV

mSpot has not created a special "app" for Google TV for its Music offering - it says you'll have to load up the Chrome Web browser and head over to its mobile site at m.mspot.com instead. Here, your music library is available for streaming from your TV. You get the first 2 GB for free (1600 songs) then its $3.99 for 40 more gigs.

It sounds like mSpot's Movies' integration has been given more consideration, though. You launch the service from its own icon in the "Spotlight" section on Google TV (or via mspotmovies.com). And the interface, says the company, has been optimized for the big screen, even if you're browsing for movies from 10 feet away (as you probably are). Again, movies are $2.99-$3.99 to rent.

Another interesting side note - mSpot says it will begin offering DRM-enabled caching of movies on your devices starting this year. That way, you could stream content even when offline. Despite the near-ubitity of cell coverage, dead spots and low-bandwidth areas are still an issue for many. And streaming movies to your mobile is something many travelers do - often on planes without Wi-Fi, as well as trains, subways, buses, etc. When that offline feature launches, mSpot may begin to get even more pickup than they have now.

According to a report by Andrew Wallenstein at PaidContent tonight, Sony is experimenting with the following, when you buy one of three new movies on iTunes:

"A search button allows you to input a word, and any mention of it in the script will be retrieved along with a link to the exact moment in the movie in which the line was uttered. A 'clip & share' function lets the viewer take select scenes and post them to social networks. There's also a playlist with songs from the film, which are linked to to places on iTunes where those songs can be purchased."

I cannot imagine watching a Resident Evil movie, but perhaps one of my Facebook friends will shoot a clipping of the best part into my Newsfeed and change my mind.

May all old media industries find inspiration in these experimental new features and come up with ways to make their products exciting enough to purchase in a digital world filled with free content.