3 ms·

It's sad that there isn't a studio exec out there who can make the leap to realize that there is a impedance mismatch in the market that they can capitalize on.

by cheald 12y ago

It's sad that there isn't a studio exec out there who can make the leap to realize that there is a impedance mismatch in the market that they can capitalize on. Netflix resoundingly proved that there is an appetite for streaming movies and TV, and the studios' response has been to...withhold content, and when they do license it, to do so at enormously exorbitant rates. Do they actually think that if they just make it difficult to stream that people are going to be content to go back to buying DVDs at $25/pop, or driving to rental stores to rent a DVD that you have to return the next day? There's a huge vacuum in the market ready to be filled. The first mover to start making new-release movies available for streaming at decent rates (Hint: $20 for a digital movie that has effectively zero marginal manufacturing cost is not a decent rate in this day and age) is going to need an aircraft carrier to carry all their cash. Killing Popcorn Time, etc isn't going to kill the market desire. People are still going to stream stuff, and the genie is out of the bottle - there's no returning to the mid-90s distribution model, no matter how much some crusty old suits want to.

chc 12y ago
The marginal cost of producing a copy of a movie is not the predominant factor in the actual cost of producing a copy of a movie. So I don't know why you're bringing it up.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 12y ago
I wonder if maybe they just have a good picture of their current revenue and profits and some projections that show numbers that are smaller. After all, they are perfectly happen to make cents/viewer over on cable.
MyDogHasFleas 12y ago
This is the only on-point comment so far. At some level both these apps are big time enablers of copyright infringement. Maybe you don't think that's a bad thing and all copyright laws should be gutted, or maybe you want to play lawyer or (worse) make analogies. That is totally not the point here. The point is, what some view as copyright infringement, others view as unsatisfied demand. Music has already crossed the chasm, but that's probably more because there is so much more of it in such smaller economic units. Big budget movies have more mass and will find it harder to leap that chasm to streaming services. I think that if anyone manages it, it will be Apple. And it will start with TV, not movies. I will take issue with cheald's "marginal manufacturing cost" argument, a big budget movie has to make back its gigantic capital investment, and each unit of consumption has to pay its share.
- cheald 12y ago
  > a big budget movie has to make back its gigantic capital investment, and each unit of consumption has to pay its share. I don't dispute that, but a the marginal cost of a digital copy is electricity + bandwidth, where as a physical copy costs materials, manufacturing labor, shipping and distribution costs, and because you can't print a physical DVD on-demand, you have to cover unsold inventory, which requires an additional capital investment which you may potentially not recoup. Apple already sells new release movies via iTunes (I pulled the $20 number from the Edge of Tomorrow listing), but the problem is that the pricing for digital movies hasn't kept pace with consumer expectations. We buy our software and music for pennies on the dollar compared to what we used to; paying 1996 prices for digital movies isn't something anyone is in a rush to do. Valve has found that game prices are highly elastic - you can move them all over the place and still retain roughly the same gross revenue, because you're hitting multiple brackets of consumers. Add in bonus sales that call attention to a title, and you can put revenues through the roof. If Google Play or iTunes regularly ran weekly sales on fresh content where I could get a copy of some movie for X% off this week only, I would be constantly engaged! Judging by Steam's success, the studios would see tremendously increased sales and tremendously reduced piracy. Instead, I go there only as a last resort. The distribution sucks, and the pricing sucks. It's not that I'm not willing to pay for movies - I am more than willing to - but if you ask me to pay 200% of my monthly Netflix expenditure to watch a single movie, I'm going to laugh at you and go find something to watch on Netflix.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Video content already price discriminates similar to how Valve uses sales to sell games. At release: Movies are 12 bucks a person a view at the theatre. Games cost 60 bucks. After a while: You can rent a movie for 4 bucks or buy it for 15 bucks on DVD. Games cost 30 bucks. Year + later: It's on HBO, cable, network TV or netflix. Games cost 5-10 bucks ON SALE! Maybe movies could be sold for super cheap after a year, but for the most part there isn't much interest in the movie.
rhino369 12y ago
Netflix doesn't have enough revenue (and never will at current pricing) to create the vast amount of content it has access to. It has so far relied on content creators treating their IP as essentially "used up" after it aired and was released on DVD. Netflix wasn't seen as a competitor but as another was to price discriminate to wring out the last drops of revenue. But now Netflix is starting to cannibalize TV views, cable subscriptions, and DVD sales. As the revenue from traditional sources decreases either 1) nobody will make expensive content or 2) Netflix will have to pay more to make up for it.

by cheald 12y ago

chc 12y ago

The marginal cost of producing a copy of a movie is not the predominant factor in the actual cost of producing a copy of a movie. So I don't know why you're bringing it up.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

maxerickson 12y ago

I wonder if maybe they just have a good picture of their current revenue and profits and some projections that show numbers that are smaller. After all, they are perfectly happen to make cents/viewer over on cable.

MyDogHasFleas 12y ago

This is the only on-point comment so far. At some level both these apps are big time enablers of copyright infringement. Maybe you don't think that's a bad thing and all copyright laws should be gutted, or maybe you want to play lawyer or (worse) make analogies. That is totally not the point here. The point is, what some view as copyright infringement, others view as unsatisfied demand. Music has already crossed the chasm, but that's probably more because there is so much more of it in such smaller economic units. Big budget movies have more mass and will find it harder to leap that chasm to streaming services. I think that if anyone manages it, it will be Apple. And it will start with TV, not movies. I will take issue with cheald's "marginal manufacturing cost" argument, a big budget movie has to make back its gigantic capital investment, and each unit of consumption has to pay its share.

cheald 12y ago
> a big budget movie has to make back its gigantic capital investment, and each unit of consumption has to pay its share. I don't dispute that, but a the marginal cost of a digital copy is electricity + bandwidth, where as a physical copy costs materials, manufacturing labor, shipping and distribution costs, and because you can't print a physical DVD on-demand, you have to cover unsold inventory, which requires an additional capital investment which you may potentially not recoup. Apple already sells new release movies via iTunes (I pulled the $20 number from the Edge of Tomorrow listing), but the problem is that the pricing for digital movies hasn't kept pace with consumer expectations. We buy our software and music for pennies on the dollar compared to what we used to; paying 1996 prices for digital movies isn't something anyone is in a rush to do. Valve has found that game prices are highly elastic - you can move them all over the place and still retain roughly the same gross revenue, because you're hitting multiple brackets of consumers. Add in bonus sales that call attention to a title, and you can put revenues through the roof. If Google Play or iTunes regularly ran weekly sales on fresh content where I could get a copy of some movie for X% off this week only, I would be constantly engaged! Judging by Steam's success, the studios would see tremendously increased sales and tremendously reduced piracy. Instead, I go there only as a last resort. The distribution sucks, and the pricing sucks. It's not that I'm not willing to pay for movies - I am more than willing to - but if you ask me to pay 200% of my monthly Netflix expenditure to watch a single movie, I'm going to laugh at you and go find something to watch on Netflix.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Video content already price discriminates similar to how Valve uses sales to sell games. At release: Movies are 12 bucks a person a view at the theatre. Games cost 60 bucks. After a while: You can rent a movie for 4 bucks or buy it for 15 bucks on DVD. Games cost 30 bucks. Year + later: It's on HBO, cable, network TV or netflix. Games cost 5-10 bucks ON SALE! Maybe movies could be sold for super cheap after a year, but for the most part there isn't much interest in the movie.

rhino369 12y ago

Netflix doesn't have enough revenue (and never will at current pricing) to create the vast amount of content it has access to. It has so far relied on content creators treating their IP as essentially "used up" after it aired and was released on DVD. Netflix wasn't seen as a competitor but as another was to price discriminate to wring out the last drops of revenue. But now Netflix is starting to cannibalize TV views, cable subscriptions, and DVD sales. As the revenue from traditional sources decreases either 1) nobody will make expensive content or 2) Netflix will have to pay more to make up for it.