3 ms·

>Iger has said Disney has built enough capacity to generate more entertainment than the world has cash to consume. In other words, they have distorted the mark

by s3000 4y ago

>Iger has said Disney has built enough capacity to generate more entertainment than the world has cash to consume. In other words, they have distorted the market because over-capacity should let prices fall. But even if they keep their prices, cash doesn't have to be the limiting factor. The available cash is not fixed. If they spend their income instantly, 'new' cash is available to the market, and Disney can sell more entertainment. >So the question is, once your corporate mega machine has become this efficient what do you even do next? Expand to other markets. They know everything about human perception. They can leverage that to make more games or VR applications. They can build better education platforms or even create new cities. They could even try to convince Apple, Amazon and Google to open up the declining personal assistant market [1]. However, stable diffusion threatens their position. Who needs Disney's capacities if other algorithms can do it better? Disney will have to enter the AI race and spend all their money on developers and researchers. Unfortunately for them, they haven't used the last 20 years to create something like an online Cinderella university to globally identify young geniuses and funnel them into their company. [1] Amazon Is Gutting Its Voice-Assistant Alexa https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33680904 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33680904

tsimionescu 4y ago
> Expand to other markets. They know everything about human perception. They can leverage that to make more games or VR applications. They can build better education platforms or even create new cities. They could even try to convince Apple, Amazon and Google to open up the declining personal assistant market An extremely well-oiled movie-making machine is not a good games-making machine, VR or not. And while there may be some cross-over with game-making, there is certainly no cross-over with voice assistants, where did you even think of that? Home assistants don't actually assist you in the home, they are mostly a device you buy to serve you ads (and occasionally switch the music when your hands are dirty). > However, stable diffusion threatens their position. Who needs Disney's capacities if other algorithms can do it better? Disney will have to enter the AI race and spend all their money on developers and researchers. You really don't understand the AAA movie business if you think Stable Diffusion is anywhere near threatening Disney. They just explained that they've gotten so good at making blockbusters, they don't have enough clients for how many blockbusters they can make. Even if Stable Diffusion was any good at making AAA movies (they're a few decades away from that), someone trying to use it to compete with Disney would quickly find they have no power whatsoever to actually market their movies - that is where Disney truly shines. And it's not about movie posters and reviews, marketing in the business is greatly tied to creating stars. People arent just coming to see Iron Man, they're coming to see Robert Downey Jr, or Chriss Pratt etc. AI-generated movies have no hope to compete with the marketing power of a big-name celebrity.
- s3000 4y ago
  Very thoughtful. Thank you. >there is certainly no cross-over with voice assistants, where did you even think of that? Disney Land is a beautiful environment where the technical details are hidden. That's what they can replicate with assistants outside their parks. >Home assistants don't actually assist you in the home That's the point. Unlike Amazon, who hasn't managed to integrate their home automation with Alexa (see comments in [1]), Disney could approach assistants more holistically like they approach their parks and create a blissful experience of their clients' lives. Voice assistants are voice assistants because the system doesn't know position, movement and other signals yet. People trust Disney so they can collect all data to react to movements or whatever else is possible. Additionally, they are skilled in stories, in decision-making. Right now, assistants are servants who fulfill commands. A good assistant supports beyond that. The system has to know what people care about, what moves them, to turn their complex life into a linear, beautiful story. *edit: If Disney does know everybody's location, they can use their movies for the ultimate gamification of work: You can only watch the next episode of your favorite series if you complete your milestone at work.

by s3000 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

> Expand to other markets. They know everything about human perception. They can leverage that to make more games or VR applications. They can build better education platforms or even create new cities. They could even try to convince Apple, Amazon and Google to open up the declining personal assistant market An extremely well-oiled movie-making machine is not a good games-making machine, VR or not. And while there may be some cross-over with game-making, there is certainly no cross-over with voice assistants, where did you even think of that? Home assistants don't actually assist you in the home, they are mostly a device you buy to serve you ads (and occasionally switch the music when your hands are dirty). > However, stable diffusion threatens their position. Who needs Disney's capacities if other algorithms can do it better? Disney will have to enter the AI race and spend all their money on developers and researchers. You really don't understand the AAA movie business if you think Stable Diffusion is anywhere near threatening Disney. They just explained that they've gotten so good at making blockbusters, they don't have enough clients for how many blockbusters they can make. Even if Stable Diffusion was any good at making AAA movies (they're a few decades away from that), someone trying to use it to compete with Disney would quickly find they have no power whatsoever to actually market their movies - that is where Disney truly shines. And it's not about movie posters and reviews, marketing in the business is greatly tied to creating stars. People arent just coming to see Iron Man, they're coming to see Robert Downey Jr, or Chriss Pratt etc. AI-generated movies have no hope to compete with the marketing power of a big-name celebrity.

s3000 4y ago
Very thoughtful. Thank you. >there is certainly no cross-over with voice assistants, where did you even think of that? Disney Land is a beautiful environment where the technical details are hidden. That's what they can replicate with assistants outside their parks. >Home assistants don't actually assist you in the home That's the point. Unlike Amazon, who hasn't managed to integrate their home automation with Alexa (see comments in [1]), Disney could approach assistants more holistically like they approach their parks and create a blissful experience of their clients' lives. Voice assistants are voice assistants because the system doesn't know position, movement and other signals yet. People trust Disney so they can collect all data to react to movements or whatever else is possible. Additionally, they are skilled in stories, in decision-making. Right now, assistants are servants who fulfill commands. A good assistant supports beyond that. The system has to know what people care about, what moves them, to turn their complex life into a linear, beautiful story. *edit: If Disney does know everybody's location, they can use their movies for the ultimate gamification of work: You can only watch the next episode of your favorite series if you complete your milestone at work.