2 ms·

Exclusive products are essentially the polar opposite of a competitive marketplace. They're a vertical monopoly. Imagine that you could only go to AMC theatres

Exclusive products are essentially the polar opposite of a competitive marketplace. They're a vertical monopoly. Imagine that you could only go to AMC theatres to watch Spider-man. No other theatres could carry it. Imagine that you could only buy Coke from 7-11. No other stores could carry it. Imagine that you could only buy an iPhone from Verizon. No other carriers could sell it. Imagine that you could only buy a computer with Windows pre-installed. There was no way to get a computer without giving money to Microsoft. When the product being sold is captured by a single storefront or service, that actively harms consumers. They cannot choose the location with better service without choosing a different product. They cannot chose a better product without choosing a different service. Exclusives rob the customer of choice by making every choice an all-or-nothing offer.

watwut 5y ago
And syndication means that all theaters are playing exactly same movies all the time. And those movies are so similar to each other, that they are virtually unindinstinguishable. And then there is separate group of movies, lets call them indy, that are special and you wont ever fined about them. Oh, and the whole business is super dependent on who you know in that one center and if you piss that one powerful person, no other studio will take you. Ripe for abuse. That was movie production for decades. Same script, same characters, same ending all the time, to the point that suspension does not exists.
- setr 5y ago
  That doesn’t seem to me inevitable from syndication. If all movies are competing simultaneously, there’s pretty good incentive to not be derivative of one another. And if all theaters play all movies, there’s pretty good incentive for the business not to be dependent on one person. And with indies, that don’t fall into “all movies” categories, there’s a pretty good incentive for a theater to optionally try them out anyways, as a differentiator beyond service. The fact that Hollywood managed to do anyways I think is despite the incentives being against them. Whereas in the current system, Disney and Netflix need to make the exact same movie twice so they can both have it in their catalog, to meet whatever checkbox. Or ape each other’s unique movies to avoid the “you need 5 subscriptions to see everything” problem

watwut 5y ago

And syndication means that all theaters are playing exactly same movies all the time. And those movies are so similar to each other, that they are virtually unindinstinguishable. And then there is separate group of movies, lets call them indy, that are special and you wont ever fined about them. Oh, and the whole business is super dependent on who you know in that one center and if you piss that one powerful person, no other studio will take you. Ripe for abuse. That was movie production for decades. Same script, same characters, same ending all the time, to the point that suspension does not exists.

setr 5y ago
That doesn’t seem to me inevitable from syndication. If all movies are competing simultaneously, there’s pretty good incentive to not be derivative of one another. And if all theaters play all movies, there’s pretty good incentive for the business not to be dependent on one person. And with indies, that don’t fall into “all movies” categories, there’s a pretty good incentive for a theater to optionally try them out anyways, as a differentiator beyond service. The fact that Hollywood managed to do anyways I think is despite the incentives being against them. Whereas in the current system, Disney and Netflix need to make the exact same movie twice so they can both have it in their catalog, to meet whatever checkbox. Or ape each other’s unique movies to avoid the “you need 5 subscriptions to see everything” problem