Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Those industries are decades old. Do you really believe that in their infancy they were profitable? You can't be that naive.

They (pay TV) have been profitable for decades, too.

Cable TV began in 1948, but it was hamstrung by FCC regulations until 1972.

"In 1972 the Federal Communications Commission lifted a freeze on cable expansion, permitting limited entry into metropolitan markets."

I don't recall any SVOD having their expansion impeded by the government for decades like cable TV had to deal with.

Cable TV back then also had to obtain regulatory approval to raise their rates, which was another hurdle that SVODs never had to face.

"The (cable) companies have also been granted rate increases to around $7 a month from the $5 level that prevailed for years."

Here's is a New York Times article that discusses cable TVs profitability as far back as the mid 70s:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/12/15/a...2-million.html

[veritas]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You guys have a Fascination for classifying Streamers as Cheap. We enjoy Movie watching too, and with my setup Streaming Quality is very good. I do have 100Mbps Symmetrical, and Streaming comes in Rock Solid. What do you guys think is the minimum setup for Quality HT Disc setup...be honest!

The costs are basically the same I suppose. The physical media guy needs blu ray player and hdmi cable. The streaming person needs a decent streaming device either in the tv or an hdmi cable and a streaming device to hook up.

They both need a good sound system, a receiver and amplifier.

The streamer probably needs to upgrade equipment more often as they require third party support to stay functional while physical media is a lot more hardy and self enclosed.

So I guess a good home theater set up for disc would cost some amount less then a good streamers set up

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Pssst . . . the world changed. THE STRIKES. NO NEW TV OR MOVIE PRODUCTION. And just as consumers adjusted to movie theaters being closed during the pandemic, they will adjust to the lack of new content on streamers. This believe it or not is a huge win for the studios.



The best minds in the business think it will be. I'll trust their judgement over some nobody on a disc forum.

“Some nobody on a disc forum”, you are a charmer Lee.

Well, if we are talking the best minds, how about this?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...cy-1235551409/

He thinks it’s broken and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

“Some nobody on a disc forum”, you are a charmer Lee.

Well, if we are talking the best minds, how about this?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...cy-1235551409/

He thinks it’s broken and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

This is what he said:

“There are two potential reasons that we’re not getting all of the information,” he told Defector. “One is that they’re all making a lot more money than anybody knows and that they’re willing to tell us. The other is they’re making a lot less money than anybody knows. And they don’t want Wall Street to look under the hood of this thing in any significant way because there’ll be a reckoning that will be quite unpleasant. It’s one of those two.”

He doesn't know which it is. All he can go by is what the companies report in their quarterly earnings reports.

But you can assume the worst just like you always do Steedeel.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

They (pay TV) have been profitable for decades, too.

Cable TV began in 1948, but it was hamstrung by FCC regulations until 1972.

"In 1972 the Federal Communications Commission lifted a freeze on cable expansion, permitting limited entry into metropolitan markets."

I don't recall any SVOD having their expansion impeded by the government for decades like cable TV had to deal with.

Cable TV back then also had to obtain regulatory approval to raise their rates, which was another hurdle that SVODs never had to face.

"The (cable) companies have also been granted rate increases to around $7 a month from the $5 level that prevailed for years."

Here's is a New York Times article that discusses cable TVs profitability as far back as the mid 70s:

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/12/15/a...2-million.html

So whether you want to admit it or not -and thank you for that research - my statement stands as fact:

"Those industries are decades old. Do you really believe that in their infancy they were profitable?"

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

And despite adding those subscribers, they are still in the red.

Costs are growing faster than their subs. Time to "send in the s", aka ads.

Wait till you see the results of what the strikes have done for the studios. BIG win. Collectively they are saving billions of dollars not spending any money on content production. Will show up in Q4 2023.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Wait till you see the results of what the strikes have done for the studios. BIG win. Collectively they are saving billions of dollars not spending any money on content production. Will show up in Q4 2023.

Is this the "If I starve myself just think of the money that I'll save on food!" strategy?

Studios and streaming services rely upon new content to make most of their money. Content is kinda the product that they sell; without it, or with much less of it, what exactly is supposed to attract and retain viewers?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

This is what he said:



He doesn't know which it is. All he can go by is what the companies report in their quarterly earnings reports.

But you can assume the worst just like you always do Steedeel.

Come off it Lee, we all know it’s the worse case scenario.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Is this the "If I starve myself just think of the money that I'll save on food!" strategy?

Nope - the law of unintended consequences.

Studios and streaming services rely upon new content to make most of their money. Content is kinda the product that they sell; without it, or with much less of it, what exactly is supposed to attract and retain viewers?

Remember, the strikes are almost 100% USA. Movie and TV production continue throughout the world - not affected by the strikes. Paramount has already stated they have a bunch of content ready to go from their international countries. Same for Netflix.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Is this the "If I starve myself just think of the money that I'll save on food!" strategy?

Studios and streaming services rely upon new content to make most of their money. Content is kinda the product that they sell; without it, or with much less of it, what exactly is supposed to attract and retain viewers?

Lee acts like he works for these companies rather than from a movie lover’s point of view.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Come off it Lee, we all know it’s the worse case scenario.

Unless you are a CPA and can ready a corporation's balance sheets - you know jack shit.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Lee acts like he works for these companies rather than from a movie lover’s point of view.

Two different points of view. And one is objective while the other is subjective.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So whether you want to admit it or not -and thank you for that research - my statement stands as fact:

"Those industries are decades old. Do you really believe that in their infancy they were profitable?"

Industries that have been profitable for decades is usually seen as a good thing. Streaming must have really lowered expectations.

The point is that your comparison is not an apt one. For decades, Pay TV faced government restrictions on expansion and they could not even raise their rates without regulatory approval. Streaming never had to overcome such obstacles.

Pay TV and streaming thus had very different "childhoods." Once Pay TV was free of these government restrictions it became profitable quickly.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Nope - the law of unintended consequences.

Remember, the strikes are almost 100% USA. Movie and TV production continue throughout the world - not affected by the strikes. Paramount has already stated they have a bunch of content ready to go from their international countries. Same for Netflix.

If "A" list productions can't make streaming profitable, what hope is there that anything less will?

Having a bunch of content and selling it to the public are two very different things. It just sounds like an overstock sale for unwanted product.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Industries that have been profitable for decades is usually seen as a good thing. Streaming must have really lowered expectations.

They have yet to hit their stride. The industry is 16 years old of which for the first 12 there were only three (Netflix, Hulu and Prime Video). Now there are 10. That does not include FAST services.

The point is that your comparison is not an apt one. For decades, Pay TV faced government restrictions on expansion and they could not even raise their rates without regulatory approval. Streaming never had to overcome such obstacles.

A different world, then and now. And there are still government regulations in place. Disney can't buy Paramount because the FCC says you can only own 1 single network. Disney owns ABC while Paramount owns CBS.

Pay TV and streaming thus had very different "childhoods." Once Pay TV was free of these government restrictions it became profitable quickly.

Define quickly. 5 years? 10 years?

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

If "A" list productions can't make streaming profitable, what hope is there that anything less will?

Some of the most watched content on Netflix comes from outside of US production.

Having a bunch of content and selling it to the public are two very different things. It just sounds like an overstock sale for unwanted product.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Lee acts like he works for these companies rather than from a movie lover’s point of view.

Whatever his point of view, he is entitled to it.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

They have yet to hit their stride. The industry is 16 years old of which for the first 12 there were only three (Netflix, Hulu and Prime Video). Now there are 10. That does not include FAST services.



A different world, then and now. And there are still government regulations in place. Disney can't buy Paramount because the FCC says you can only own 1 single network. Disney owns ABC while Paramount owns CBS.



Define quickly. 5 years? 10 years?

FCC anti-expansion regulations were lifted in 1972. The New York Times reported on cable TV making a profit as early as 1976 as shown in the link that I provided earlier. So, profitable in 4 years tops since the lifting of those restrictions.

Studios being limited to owning one broadcast TV network is in no way the same thing as the government restricting where they can offer their services or the rates that they charge for them. Cable TV was restrained by both of these restrictions for decades.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

FCC anti-expansion regulations were lifted in 1972. The New York Times reported on cable TV making a profit as early as 1976 as shown in the link that I provided earlier. So, profitable in 4 years tops since the lifting of those restrictions.

From your article:

“The financial health of cable has improved and seems likely to continue to improve,” says Dennis Leibowitz, analyst for E. F. Hutton & Company.

A number of factors are responsible. These include higher rates for subscribers, a decline in interest payments, improved cost controls, and the earnings gain, both present and potential, from paytelevision, for which subscribers Pay an additional fee on top of the basic monthly charge in order to see certain movies, sports and other entertainment.

So Cable was profitable in 4 years once the "shackles" were removed. Can we add 1 year: EOY 2024 to see if the other SVODs (Netflix already is) attain profitability?

Studios being limited to owning one broadcast TV network is in no way the same thing as the government restricting where they can offer their services or the rates that they charge for them. Cable TV was restrained by both of these restrictions for decades.

Still falls under government regulation.

[Vilya]

I am still waking up, but these two comments seem to be a bit contradictory:

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Collectively they are saving billions of dollars not spending any money on content production.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Movie and TV production continue throughout the world - not affected by the strikes.

So, movie and tv show production continues, but at no cost to anyone. Now that IS a promising path to profitability!