Netflix Turns Focus Back to Disc

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Blockbuster has nothing to do with the delay. And Blockbuster's vitality has nothing to do with the restrictions imposed on Netflix. Content devaluation does.

Pro-B

Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix...livery_methods

"In fall 2006, Blockbuster signed a deal with The Weinstein Company, that gave it the exclusive rental rights to the studio's films beginning January 1, 2007.[117] This agreement forced Netflix to obtain copies from mass merchants or retailers, instead of directly from the studio.[118] Netflix has speculated that the effect of the Blockbuster-Weinstein agreement could result in higher rental costs and/or fewer copies of the studio's movies, which would limit the number of each movie's DVDs that would be available to subscribers at any one time.[119] As of June 2007[update], Netflix continues to make available Weinstein movies, including Unknown, School For Scoundrels and Harsh Times, among others. The first-sale doctrine allows Netflix and other video rental businesses to offer movies released by the Weinstein Company, but the long-term effects of the Blockbuster-Weinstein deal remain uncertain."

Edit: You can see Blockbuster avoided the delay, by paying up:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...40078951.shtml

Edit 2: Sure seems like w/BB out of business, things will resort back to normal:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...33238859.shtml

Of course we won't know until that actually happens.

[krazeyeyez]

Blockbuster isn't out of business at least in ohio, and i was under the impression they were now owned by the dish network. What effect this has on their exclusives and such i do not know, as for the 30 day netflix delay i was also under the impression this had nothing to do with Blockbuster as all other video chains also benefit, i know family video advertises every tuesday "we have it now, netflix doesn't".

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Oh really?

Yes.

The restrictions are imposed because of the content devaluations that affected the rental business. Either there needs to be an adjustment in the pricing model or the content restrictions will be expanded.

Additionally, as far as streaming is concerned A-grade content will simply be restricted for Netflix regardless of where Blockbuster heads:

http://blogs.forbes.com/ericsavitz/2...y-after-never/

Pro-B

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Yes.

The restrictions are imposed because of the content devaluations that affected the rental business. Either there needs to be an adjustment in the pricing model or the content restrictions will be expanded.

Additionally, as far as streaming is concerned A-grade content will simply be restricted for Netflix regardless of where Blockbuster heads:

http://blogs.forbes.com/ericsavitz/2...y-after-never/

Pro-B

I understand the studios made the deal w/Netflix(or maybe vice-versa) to boost sales of new disc releases...but you see the studios "cut" a deal w/Blockbuster.
You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall here. I'll stick to my original statement: WHEN Blockbuster finally goes under, the 30 day delay will be lifted! Heck it might even happen sooner, rather than later. This was a dumb deal as soon as it was stuck and it seems all involved know this.

**I look forward to revisiting this post in 2-3 years**

[MikeDaWiz]

I dont know why people have a beef with streaming. I love streaming movies and tv off netflix. i have been able to watch tv shows and movies that i normally would not have given a chance.

[Steedeel]

People have a beef with streaming because it may end up being the only way to watch films. Some streaming HD works out at 4mps for a full film. That is disgustingly bad and true film lovers who want the home cinema experience would be insulted by such quality.
Do we face a future where we go from HD sources for tv and on- demand and bluray to naff streaming quality in a few years.
Streaming needs to be at least 10mbps with the option to spike at 15mbps via buffering to be any way shape or form acceptable now. Even then, i will turn my nose up at such shortcomings. It would break my heart to watch films in such highly compressed forms, it really would. In fact, i would probably just rewatch my (hopefully large collection) rather than suffer such horror. Everyone saying both will co-exist needs to wake up now before its too late.
People are sheep as a rule and will buy into the latest hype and lies. Do we face a future of NO HD SOURCES AT ALL? Only HD lite with building blocks where the detail used to be. Film should be an 'event' not a throwaway activity with some sad teenager with their smart phone glued to their ear. Let's keep true hd for the true fans at least.

[FinalEvangelion]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

People have a beef with streaming because it may end up being the only way to watch films. Some streaming HD works out at 4mps for a full film. That is disgustingly bad and true film lovers who want the home cinema experience would be insulted by such quality.
Do we face a future where we go from HD sources for tv and on- demand and bluray to naff streaming quality in a few years.
Streaming needs to be at least 10mbps with the option to spike at 15mbps via buffering to be any way shape or form acceptable now. Even then, i will turn my nose up at such shortcomings. It would break my heart to watch films in such highly compressed forms, it really would. In fact, i would probably just rewatch my (hopefully large collection) rather than suffer such horror. Everyone saying both will co-exist needs to wake up now before its too late.
People are sheep as a rule and will buy into the latest hype and lies. Do we face a future of NO HD SOURCES AT ALL? Only HD lite with building blocks where the detail used to be. Film should be an 'event' not a throwaway activity with some sad teenager with their smart phone glued to their ear. Let's keep true hd for the true fans at least.

Maybe you are just paying attention to the FUD a little too much. The deal is the two big opponents of Blu-ray - Microsoft and Apple - are the two biggest advertisers on tech websites. So of course tech sites are going to try to appease their biggest sponsors. If that means distorting the facts, then that's what they will do. Blu-ray has already reached a point to where many people like us are not willing to go back to something with less quality. If it's doing good enough to keep selling, then that's what counts.

Yes, there are a couple people here that are pushing the supposed success of digital downloads, but I just ignore them for the most part. MP3s still are at 50% of CD sales, so I don't expect digital downloads to reach 100% penetration overnight like some people expect or would like to happen.

If other people want to watch youtube quality videos on their 4k televisions, then that's their loss.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by FinalEvangelion

MP3s still are at 50% of CD sales, so I don't expect digital downloads to reach 100% penetration overnight like some people expect or would like to happen.

That depends upon how you count. On a unit basis (counting a single the same as an album), digital had an 86.1% unit share in 2010. On an album equivalent basis (where 10 singles = 1 album), physical had a 53.5% share in 2010, but will certainly drop to below 50% in 2011.

In 2010, 225.8 million CDs were sold (in the U.S.), but that's only 24% of the 942.5 million CDs sold in 1999, the peak year for the U.S. music business. So from any perspective, CD sales are currently a disaster, although the music business overall is also a disaster. It's only at 47% of its 1999 peak (in dollars, not adjusting for inflation, which would make it worse). Maybe Lady Gaga will make 2011 a better year (but I doubt it).

No one with a brain would expect digital downloads to EVER reach 100% of the market, but that's not the point. The point is that even though it's five years old, Blu-ray is still a new format and it needs to grow in order to keep the studios interested. So far this year (through 6/18), it's only 8.5% ahead of 2010 (in dollars) whereas at this time last year, it was 75% ahead of 2009. Although most people on this Forum have disagreed with me, my contention is that without substantial growth, BD won't go away, but the studios will cut back substantially on releases and especially on restorations.

Although packaging and manufacturing is a relatively small part of the overall cost of issuing a movie on BD, it's certainly far less of an investment to simply make the movie available on streaming and download sites. If it gets to crunch time, that's what the studios will do for the weaker titles, especially because BD so far seems to be an extremely hit driven business: if you look at the charts, the #5 title does an extremely small percentage of what the #1 title does. There is a concept in retail (whether online or physical) called the "long tail", where you have products that sell slowly, but over a long time period, but that only works when the overall market is quite large and BD isn't quite there yet.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by MikeDaWiz

I dont know why people have a beef with streaming. I love streaming movies and tv off netflix. i have been able to watch tv shows and movies that i normally would not have given a chance.

Usually the only people that have an actual beef against it are format fanboys; not actual film lovers. For the rest of us streaming co-exists right along with the theater, blu-ray, dvd, and cable & satellite. Anyone that would say something is not worth watching just because it is not on blu-ray is clearly a format fan; not a film fan. There are many great films, especially indie films, that have not been released on blu-ray and likely never will.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

Usually the only people that have an actual beef against it are format fanboys; not actual film lovers. For the rest of us streaming co-exists right along with the theater, blu-ray, dvd, and cable & satellite. Anyone that would say something is not worth watching just because it is not on blu-ray is clearly a format fan; not a film fan. There are many great films, especially indie films, that have not been released on blu-ray and likely never will.

Or just fans of good uncompressed PQ/AG & no bonus content that media supplies in abundance. IF the worldwide infrastructure is upgraded to deliver all of those criteria I'm sure a slew of film fans will be interested in streaming! I don't see that happening for another decade, at least. Of course by then you'll be paying exorbitant rates to download your movies, it will make the media even more appealing. Just ask people in Australia, about their download limits!
Yes, I'll stick with tangible media for a long as I can...thank you very much!

[Steedeel]

Zoe you are a ray of sunshine arent you. Bluray cannot survive with the business model you have just described. Cutting out lesser titles and catalogue titles would kill the format stone dead. Exactly what you want.
Your argument that bluray will last ten years despite this, is nonsense. If you knew about the industry you would realise that. Also dont use the i own blurays argument as 68 discs does not suggest a very big fan to me.
Bluray will be dead within two years under your ideas of how things will pan out.

[FinalEvangelion]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

That depends upon how you count. On a unit basis (counting a single the same as an album), digital had an 86.1% unit share in 2010. On an album equivalent basis (where 10 singles = 1 album), physical had a 53.5% share in 2010, but will certainly drop to below 50% in 2011.

In 2010, 225.8 million CDs were sold (in the U.S.), but that's only 24% of the 942.5 million CDs sold in 1999, the peak year for the U.S. music business. So from any perspective, CD sales are currently a disaster, although the music business overall is also a disaster. It's only at 47% of its 1999 peak (in dollars, not adjusting for inflation, which would make it worse). Maybe Lady Gaga will make 2011 a better year (but I doubt it).

No one with a brain would expect digital downloads to EVER reach 100% of the market, but that's not the point. The point is that even though it's five years old, Blu-ray is still a new format and it needs to grow in order to keep the studios interested. So far this year (through 6/18), it's only 8.5% ahead of 2010 (in dollars) whereas at this time last year, it was 75% ahead of 2009. Although most people on this Forum have disagreed with me, my contention is that without substantial growth, BD won't go away, but the studios will cut back substantially on releases and especially on restorations.

Although packaging and manufacturing is a relatively small part of the overall cost of issuing a movie on BD, it's certainly far less of an investment to simply make the movie available on streaming and download sites. If it gets to crunch time, that's what the studios will do for the weaker titles, especially because BD so far seems to be an extremely hit driven business: if you look at the charts, the #5 title does an extremely small percentage of what the #1 title does. There is a concept in retail (whether online or physical) called the "long tail", where you have products that sell slowly, but over a long time period, but that only works when the overall market is quite large and BD isn't quite there yet.

Like many other forum members requested, you should find some hard evidence that digital downloads are what Hollywood should be supporting instead of Blu-ray. I never see actual industry members saying they are interested in switching to downloads / streaming. I actually hear the opposite.

Since you seem so insistent on your crusade that Blu-ray is on the way out and digital downloads are coming in, please bring the facts that show this. Right now, it appears that Blu-ray is growing faster than anything else out there.

[Steedeel]

Zoe will give himself a day to think of an answer and in the meantime try to wind people up. Like i said under the model of releasing mentioned in his post bluray will be dead in two years so we have not got too long to wait.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Zoe you are a ray of sunshine arent you. Bluray cannot survive with the business model you have just described. Cutting out lesser titles and catalogue titles would kill the format stone dead. Exactly what you want.
Your argument that bluray will last ten years despite this, is nonsense. If you knew about the industry you would realise that. Also dont use the i own blurays argument as 68 discs does not suggest a very big fan to me.
Bluray will be dead within two years under your ideas of how things will pan out.

First of all, most of my post was about the hard facts of the music market, not BD, so I don't know why you've got your panties in a knot.

Cutting out lesser BD titles would only kill the format if those lesser titles are selling. And if they were selling, sales would be better. But they're not selling. So it really wouldn't make much of a difference, except for the perception that fewer titles are getting published.

Your suggestion that 68 titles doesn't make me a "fan" is irrelevant to this conversation because it implies that to analyze the market, you need to be a fan of blu-ray. But that's not the case. My point in stating how many titles was only to demonstrate that I support the format and I have no vested interest in seeing it fail.

You keep saying that if my market analysis is accurate, then BD can't last another ten years. But it all comes down to how you define "last". After all, there's still vinyl so it has "lasted", although it's only less than 2% of the market.

You haven't presented a single shred of evidence that anything I've written is incorrect. You've only stated emotional opinions about the subject. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

It is a FACT that in the U.S. (according to Home Media Magazine) BD is running only 8.5% ahead of last year ($727 million YTD vs. 670 million YTD 2010) whereas last year at this time, it was 73% ahead of 2009 ($386 million YTD). It is a FACT that year to date, BD has only a 20.4% physical market share ($727 million / $3559.84 total). It is a FACT that in any given week, the #10 and #20 titles sell only the tiniest percentages of the #1 title, making this totally a hit driven business:

- for the week ending 6/12, the #10 title sold 3.44% of the #1 title and the #20 title sold 2.15% of the #1 title.

- for the week ending 6/19, the #10 title sold 7.37% of the #1 title and the #20 title sold 4.5% of the #1 title.

- for the week ending 6/26, the #10 title sold 16.4% of the #1 title and the #20 title sold 7.91% of the #1 title.

So if that's what the #20 title sells, what does the #50 or #100 title sell? Next to nothing.

I work with the studios, media and cable companies every day. They are pursuing every deal they can make in all media, physical and virtual. (I develop software specifically designed to support those different deal types.) It is foolish to think that they're not going to push the downloads/streaming market in a big way, even if it is a inferior experience. That doesn't mean that BD goes away any more than it means that every movie theatre will disappear. But it does mean that BD probably will not dominate the market.

You can legitimately argue about what the specific size of the streaming market will be. But you can't deny that it's going to play a big role. And history has proven time and time again that when economics are at stake, media companies reduce the number of new releases and reduce the size of the catalog. The reason why they do this is because if the material is licensed, there may be minimum guarantees that they have to pay the content owners and in the case of movies, minimum backend participations to the profit participants. And in the case of physical media, they reduce it because inventory is an asset and assets are taxable.

But you wouldn't understand any of this because you have absolutely no understanding of business practices in the real world. You only know what you like.

[Steedeel]

They can push it all they like. I will never bite. Bluray is the ultimate viewing experience. Anything less is inferior and i will not touch. For tv that is a different matter but i will not accept weak substitutes. What the market will do is push purists like me into just renting rather than purchasing. Rent, watch, forget! That will be the pattern of collectors forced into a world of online film. The urge to own a film goes away when the quality is far less than one is accustomed too. Studios need to protect the hardcore film fan or collectors will go away forever. I mean, what is going to be the spin for Ultraviolet? buy your films again in lesser quality with plenty of compression artefact's? Yes, great!!! Count me in.

[Steedeel]

Zoe, doesn't that 8.5 percent exclude several companies that have a rental window? I thought the percentage was closer to 12 percent.

By the way, you need to realise you are on a bluray forum. Most of us are loyal and love the format. To have someone come on and repeatedly tell us bluray is dead (or the same fate as vinyl) and streaming is the champion of the world is only going to get one response. You know what that response is. Now, you do not seem a fan of bluray to me. So your interest in this site baffles me. If you were a fan of film who loves the picture and sound quality of the format you would already have acquired several hundred blurays. I can safely surmise you are not an enthusiastic fan. Therefore, is it a fair presumption that you have some ulterior motive for your posts? No, but people will presume that anyway because you have rarely made positive points and i cant find any posts relating to good weeks for bluray. You (in my opinion) have some drive for bluray to fail. Maybe it is that you want to come to this forum to state how correct you were if bluray folds in the next few years? You have stated similar points in other threads but still seek out arguments in this one. Making the same point time and time again. You ignore facts like the recession and the fact that last year Avatar was massively successful and of course will have some effect on the next years sales. There has not been a Avatar this year and you know it!

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

First of all, most of my post was about the hard facts of the music market, not BD, so I don't know why you've got your panties in a knot.

Cutting out lesser BD titles would only kill the format if those lesser titles are selling. And if they were selling, sales would be better. But they're not selling. So it really wouldn't make much of a difference, except for the perception that fewer titles are getting published.

Your suggestion that 68 titles doesn't make me a "fan" is irrelevant to this conversation because it implies that to analyze the market, you need to be a fan of blu-ray. But that's not the case. My point in stating how many titles was only to demonstrate that I support the format and I have no vested interest in seeing it fail.

You keep saying that if my market analysis is accurate, then BD can't last another ten years. But it all comes down to how you define "last". After all, there's still vinyl so it has "lasted", although it's only less than 2% of the market.

You haven't presented a single shred of evidence that anything I've written is incorrect. You've only stated emotional opinions about the subject. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

It is a FACT that in the U.S. (according to Home Media Magazine) BD is running only 8.5% ahead of last year ($727 million YTD vs. 670 million YTD 2010) whereas last year at this time, it was 73% ahead of 2009 ($386 million YTD). It is a FACT that year to date, BD has only a 20.4% physical market share ($727 million / $3559.84 total). It is a FACT that in any given week, the #10 and #20 titles sell only the tiniest percentages of the #1 title, making this totally a hit driven business:

- for the week ending 6/12, the #10 title sold 3.44% of the #1 title and the #20 title sold 2.15% of the #1 title.

- for the week ending 6/19, the #10 title sold 7.37% of the #1 title and the #20 title sold 4.5% of the #1 title.

- for the week ending 6/26, the #10 title sold 16.4% of the #1 title and the #20 title sold 7.91% of the #1 title.

So if that's what the #20 title sells, what does the #50 or #100 title sell? Next to nothing.

I work with the studios, media and cable companies every day. They are pursuing every deal they can make in all media, physical and virtual. (I develop software specifically designed to support those different deal types.) It is foolish to think that they're not going to push the downloads/streaming market in a big way, even if it is a inferior experience. That doesn't mean that BD goes away any more than it means that every movie theatre will disappear. But it does mean that BD probably will not dominate the market.

You can legitimately argue about what the specific size of the streaming market will be. But you can't deny that it's going to play a big role. And history has proven time and time again that when economics are at stake, media companies reduce the number of new releases and reduce the size of the catalog. The reason why they do this is because if the material is licensed, there may be minimum guarantees that they have to pay the content owners and in the case of movies, minimum backend participations to the profit participants. And in the case of physical media, they reduce it because inventory is an asset and assets are taxable.

But you wouldn't understand any of this because you have absolutely no understanding of business practices in the real world. You only know what you like.

One could turn that around and say you have not posted a link or any source either! You just openly said "per Home Media Magazine".
I would suggest, that if you're going to rile up BD enthusiasts in a BD thread, at least have the common courtesy to provide hard sources.

[Steedeel]

Could someone please give me the percentage for the current yoy bluray disc sales as of now (latest info) I am a little confused. I am reading it at 16.5 percent but others claim otherwise.


cheers

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Bluray is the ultimate viewing experience. Anything less is inferior and i will not touch. Studios need to protect the hardcore film fan or collectors will go away forever.

So you are saying films like The Deer Hunter, Jaws, Lawrence of Arabia, Pulp Fiction, Rear Window, The Sting, Vertigo, West Side Story, and many many others are not worth watching because they are not on Blu-ray? What if they never get a blu-ray transfer? We should just forget those great films ever existed? What about all of the great indie films out there that will never get a blu-ray transfer? Are they not worth watching either? A true film fan, as you proclaim to be, would never say they wouldn't touch a film if it were not on one particular format. That's a format fan, not a film fan.

[Steedeel]

It is all about availability. I need access to top notch picture quality for present and future films. If i have that i am happy. Of course i have watched the films you mentioned on lesser sources. Jaws is one of my all time favorite films (on bluray next year, yay!) However, why should we go backwards technology wise? Cinema fans (home theater) want cinema quality. Otherwise we might as all go back to VHS (oops we did, its called streaming!) I have had VHS, Laser disc, DVD and now Bluray. Can you see the common link running through all those sources?