That's an interesting point... We often say, "X will fail because I don't do X, and this proposed change makes me like X even less." But if you're already not

That's an interesting point... We often say, "X will fail because I don't do X, and this proposed change makes me like X even less." But if you're already not doing X, the change isn't for you anyway.* Charitably though, we might interpret that argument as "My concerns are shared to a lesser extent by the marginal user of X. This change amplifies these concerns. Therefore, the change will cause X to lose marginal users." For me, I don't go to the movies anymore because the internet is amazing and screens are cheap. Also, I like older movies as much as new ones, and being in a room with friends more than being with strangers. I assume, maybe incorrectly, that the reason most movie consumers don't feel like I do is because they are not rabid technophiles. Maybe they just don't realize the fountain of entertainment they can easily put on a spectacularly sized display in their own home. If I'm right, that that's the barrier, then once late adopters realize this, it may be game over for cinemas. Maybe I'm wrong. We should ask, "Why do people actually go to the movies?" *EDIT: It's a bit like everyone's complaint that 24 hour news isn't more intelligent. There was a panel at the Aspen Ideas Festival where MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell basically said: We'd love to tell complex and deep stories. People who enjoy such stories though have busy lives and aren't home during primetime, they're going to the ballet, or outdoors, or reading a novel, and getting their news by scanning the internet for a few minutes each day. We run the market experiment against PBS every night.