Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoudman
You're missing the point. I believe Starz was hampering the quality of their content on NIW for just this reason, which is an underhanded tactic at best. Of course, my only evidence of this is the quality of the content itself, but why else would any company knowingly produce content in the poorest possible quality when they obviously have much better quality prints available and being shown on their station?
Also, how is renting a movie, liking it and buying it a slim exception? You seem to enjoy claiming that certain habits are either rampant or not rampant enough based on little or no evidence.
It may very well have been about money when it all comes down to it, but the impetus behind the decision for both parties was the fact that Netflix wouldn't budge and create a "premium content" system for Starz. Why should they? From their standpoint, they are paying more for Starz (at that point, ten times the amount they had previously paid them) than most if not all of the other content on their IW system. To make matters worse, the content is in the worst possible quality pretty much at all times. Why would they make their customers pay more for worse quality? It doesn't make sense. If Netflix would have agreed to these terms, I can only imagine the hell that would have broken loose when people discovered the "premium Starz content" and found upon viewing it that the quality was worse than most of the other content that WAS NOT "PREMIUM." They would have had some pretty pissed off customers on their hands, even moreso than they have now.
In this situation, the only intelligent solution is to drop the matter, let the current contract fizzle out and move on. I don't see how anyone could refute this matter, it's just about the simplest business decision anyone would ever have to make.
|
this hampering of quality is a new BS argument that you did not make before, until now it was that the content was not worth it because there is very little and what it is sucks content wise.
As for why I call it BS. Have you ever thought the reason could be just that it is streaming vs all the other options, BD looks better then OTA because BD can go to 48mbps (40mbps for video) and OTA only 20mbps, cable/sat is a bit lower and will depend on the cable sat/company, and then far behiond at 4mbps tops you have Netflix streaming. It does not and you cannot expect it to look and sound as good. If you are happy with that quality, then good enough but unless they raise the BW by a lot no matter how good the content looks when it is given to them it would look like the 4mbps they can offer for their best quality (and if you choose a lower speed like 300kbps then it will look even crappier)
As for “Also, how is renting a movie, liking it and buying it a slim exception? You seem to enjoy claiming that certain habits are either rampant or not rampant enough based on little or no evidence.” Think about it, if someone bought the movie why would they rent it? And if they intend to buy it then why would they rent it first? Do you think the people on here that have 1000+ BDs rented those before they bought them. Let me ask you this simple question, how many Netflix movies/TV episodes do you stream a month and how many of those do you then buy on BD? If you go you buy ½ of them, then I will agree it is not slim, but I doubt if I had a poll most would be near or above 10% and most likely the vast majority will be less then <1%.
Quote:
No, I'm telling you that your example isn't valid. If you're going to claim some kind of altruism based in statistics, you better actually have the statistics to back it up. One person out of millions is not a good basis for study. It's like when An Inconvenient Truth used 150 years of data as a basis for their argument when they would have needed at least 10-50,000 years for anyone with a scientific understanding of the analysis to take them seriously. Only in this case, your example is much worse.
That being said, I think if you did start a poll you might find that Streamers buy and watch DVDs/Blus and downloadable/online content from other sources a lot more than you seem to assume.
|
first I am guessing you have no idea what altruism actually means. Since altruism means to be so generous and selfless to others to the point where it actually hurts you, for example if some person sees a hobo freezing in the street and decides to give the hobo the coat of his back then that is altruism. Can’t see what that has to do with what we discuss.
As for the rest of the comments, the onus is on you to prove that it is not correct and people who stream also get that same content from elsewhere which is more profitable for Starz. It is a simple assumption that the vast majority that have watched the Spartacus: Blood and Sand on Netflix probably did not also buy the BDs or other distribution chgannels that are more profitable for Starz.
The question is not if it is more or less then what I assume especialy since I did not make any assumptions), but what is the difference between the two distribution channels for Starz (i.e. what Starz made from Netflix and what Starz would have made if the person used something else to watch it). If Joe would have bought the BD (if he was not subscribed on Netflix) and Starz makes 10 times what they would when he watches it on Netflix, you need Joe and 9 other people that streamed on Netflix and used a different method as well (i.e. some buy the BD, others the DVD, others rent somwhere else) in order to counter that one lost sale on BD.
Quote:
|
I wasn't making a point about how content over all does not matter, I was making a point about how the Starz content over all does not matter. True, these were only a few examples of the films you can find on Starz Play, but combine that with the fact that even the decent films through the service are in the worst possible quality and somehow I doubt that anyone with any taste and sense of visual quality will really care when Starz is gone.
|
But anyone that cares about A/V quality would not be using Netflix in the first place so I can’t see how you see that as a valid point. But you did hand pick a handful of titles out of as you said (I think your count is off) close to 1000 titles. Pick any studio and I am sure you can find a handful of titles you can do without.
Quote:
Well, that's a fallacy. It's not "nothing for now." Just because Starz Play will be gone does not mean that there is nothing else on NIW. Starz play represents 8% of the total content on NIW. Are you really trying to tell me that 92% of the original 100% is...nothing? Seriously? Is that your argument? Should I just laugh in your face now? Or should we schedule it for another, more appropriate time?
Also, I'd hardly call a few months a "long delay."
|
you missed my point, you said Starz does not matter because “they've signed a contract with Dreamworks to get some of their newest content on NIW only a few months after release. That contract isn't going to go into effect until, I believe, next summer.”
Nothing now was meant wrt the Dreamworks contract, if like you say it only comes into effect in roughly a year then it means nothing added to replace the lost content for now. Will Netflix give you a ~10% discount for the ~10% of content you admit you won’t have access to? As for long delay, yes I would call only having access something a few months later as a long delay, there is a day when it is available and that is not when you will get it on Netflix. If your boss said I would pay you in a few months wouldn’t you consider that a long delay?
Quote:
|
Did something about this confuse you? You were comparing the fall of HD-DVD to the supposed fall of NIW. These are two entirely different things. They cannot be compared. HD-DVD is one format supported by one entity. VOD/Streaming is a format supported by several different entities. HD-DVD may have been supported by several different companies and studios, but so is NIW alone. Combine with it the streaming from sites like Youtube, Hulu, Vudu, ect. and it's easy to see that there's more going on here than there ever was with HD-DVD. The two simply cannot be compared.
|
what does HD-DVD have to do with anything? I asked because you started with content matters and then said losing a sizable amount of content is the best thing that evere happened. Those two statements are contradictory. As for Youtube, Hulu, Vudu…. You don’t need Netflix to access them so I don’t see what it has anything to do with the conversation. If Vudu has Srtarz content and you have a Netflix account do you see it for free using Vudu?
Quote:
|
What if I was living paycheck to paycheck? What if I literally didn't have the money for insurance? It happens all the time, sadly. Does this mean to you that these people don't deserve entertainment? Does this mean to you that they can't spend $10 on a DVD player and enjoy their favorite movies whenever they want to? If so, your view of the the world is rather small and pathetic.
|
how much does insurance cost, I know a few people that live paycheck to paycheck but everyone has insurance. You made an invalide argument and now trying to cover it up by being more ridiculous, no one said people don’t deserve entertainment, or that they should not spend the money as they wish. It is the insane argument that if your home was burning down that any one in his right mind will save the DVD of a movie he likes because it is too expensive to replace a BD player.
Quote:
|
No, I live in 2011, where for some people $80 is quite a bit of money.
|
but if 80$ is quite a bit of money and they can’t afford it, then don’t, I did not tell anyone how to spend their money and it is not 80$ since you can buy a BD player for less then 80 and if the alternative is a DVD player then you would need to buy it. But let’s put it into perspective, (and get back on topic a bit) Netflix costs 8$ a month for a years subscription he would have paid more then the cost of the BD player.
Quote:
|
That doesn't mean they can't be film fans, that doesn't mean they don't have the right to enjoy the movies and television shows they want to. You seem to be under some strange assumption that a greater amount of the population is WEALTHY than is POOR. Unfortunately, the truth is very much THE CONTRARY of this assumption.
|
You and I have very different definitions of wealthy and poor, so you think everyone with a BD player is wealthy because they had 50$ to spend on a BD player instead of a DVD player? Your argument also does not hold, since the individual in your example only has one DVD (the one saved in the fire instead of the BD right next to it)
Quote:
|
Also, are you suggesting someone should buy a BD player even if they don't have an HD source to hook it up to? Really? Why would you want to watch blu-rays in SD? Isn't that kind of counter productive? You definitely won't see a difference, so what the hell is the point? Why, if you were low on funds and only had an SDTV, would you pay $80 for a BD player instead of $10 on a DVD player? Financially, it makes no sense. In terms of quality, it makes no sense. Your argument makes no sense.
|
because you will see a difference, have you even watched a BD? Try it out for yourself, connect the BD player limiting it to SD to your TV and then try it (if you don’t own an SD TV). Second the scenario is of someone at this time in a tight spot (house burned down and no insurance and can just afford cheapest TV since there are more important things then movies in life) it is not a permanent solution, if now SDTV was a necessary compromise, in a year he might have the $ to buy a better TV why also waste money on a DVD player & movies now and then in a year or so have to rebuy them. You are thinking immediate and not even short term, probably why the person was in such a financial crunch where he can’t afford the difference between a BD player and a DVD player.
Quote:
|
They didn't really start releasing VHS titles for sale until the mid to late 80's. VHS/VCR's was created for the RENTAL MARKET.
|
no and no, VHS/Beta where created for home recording, not only was there nothing to buy/rent when they launched but when Beta launched (came out first) the studios brought them to court. Who is talking pre-recorded content? You said that if show X plays on channel Y at time T it is impossible to watch it at any other time unless someone waits weeks and months until it is on Netflix, I pointed out that late 70’s someone could have bought a VCR and used it to record a show that was playing and watch it 10m,20m,30m, 1h,2h, 1d,2d….after it aired, when ever he wanted
Quote:
|
Also, you seem to skip quite a few technologies between VHS and PVRs/DVRs.
|
not at all, I was pointing out that anyone could record a show from the time the VCR hit the market what tech they use is immaterial, just that you would need to go to the 70’s and beyond to be at a time when the only way to watch a show was to watch it when it airs.
Quote:
|
With TV you are forced to watch it when the show is set to release on air. If you don't catch it then, you might get lucky and find it On Demand or played in repeats shortly after. If not, you're screwed, just like everyone who doesn't buy into cable/satellite or misses the broadcast.
|
not at all, I record it when it airs and watch it later, I watch most of my shows recorded since that way they take less time then live (skip commercials and all) the only one I regularly watch live is the news at suppertime since it plays while I am preparing food/eating.
Quote:
|
Yes, I'm very aware that TV can be free. However, increasingly among said "free TV," if you don't catch it the first time it is aired, you're either going to have to wait a week or more to catch it on demand or pay out the nose to catch it sooner. How this is "free" is beyond me. It keeps you tethered to their schedule, to the way that they choose to do things. If you want it differently, you're going to have to wait. Does this mean you can't discuss it with your friends when you finally get the chance to see it? No. It just means you don't get to do so right away. This is hardly a tough price to pay when one can't be bothered to be tethered to their television at all times.
|
don’t know in what fantasy world you live in but no, OTA is 100% free and you are not tethered to their schedule, let me guess if you where alive in the 80’s 90’s you where one of those people who’s VCR was blinking 12:00. Look, now a days you have a PVR/DVR, depending on situations you tell it “tape show X” or “tape channel Y at time t”, one of my recorders only does time, my other I use either method. Then when you want to watch it you do (you can also watch it while it is recording), you can also be watching a show, press pause and then continue it later by pressing play. I have no idea why you are completely delusional and think that you can’t record the shows you want to watch, again, that has not been true since the 70’s
Quote:
|
How do you figure? Because you don't get to see it at the same time as every other slave to the system does?
|
no because I don’t get to see it when I want to.
Quote:
|
I simply can't see this as a negative aspect of NIW
|
who said it is a negative, it was just mischaracterized as TV. TV is being able to watch the show when it is broadcast as a TV signal or any time after that, if you can only watch it when it comes out on BD/DVD then it no longer compares to TV but BD/DVD. If you buy/rent a season of a TV show on BD/DVD you need to wait until it comes out and you can see a whole season on your display, if you watch TV you can watch it when it airs (or record it to watch it a bit later) but unless you recorded and kept a whole season you can’t watch it all at once. It is as if the guy said a donkey is no substitute for a horse, it is not as elegant or as fast but a donkey is the perfect substitute for a chicken. I can understand comparing a donkey to a horse, you can ride both, they can pull stuff…. But if someone wants a chicken, it is probably for eggs or ,eventually, cooking it, none of which a donkey is good at.
Quote:
|
Cartoon Network: They have taken all of their 4:3 content and either stretched it
|
I have never watched the cartoon network, but are you sure that you have your TV set-up correctly, maybe you have it to stretch SD. Maybe I live in a better place then you, all the TV shows are shown in their proper AR (if it is 4:3 then there are bars on either side) For movies I will always fall back to the disk, preferably BD. Even though OTA and even cable are far superior to Netflix in quality they still don’t come close enough to BD.
Quote:
|
Why would you pay more for this? Oh, and don't think Cable stations are the only ones that do this. I once saw ABC do it to a POTC film as well.
|
you do realize that I did not exclude cable but that there is more then just cable out there. I don’t pay for cable nor satellite, You buy an antenna (or make your own) and you will catch channels that are sent out over your neighbourhood, this is 100% free so you don’t pay more, you don’t pay a cent. I would assume anyone that is interested in quality will know this since OTA is better quality then cable and someone who is obsessed with $ and the poor should know this as well. Maybe if you did then you would save enough to be able to spend a few dollars and get a BD player.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
