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

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Does Comcast and its stockholders share your cavalier attitude? Everyone's okay with possibly losing "billions" because they can afford it?

They don't seem to have a problem with it at all:

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

But it's the best thing to happen for consumers.

I am sure there are some that might agree with you, but I don't. Sometimes things that are ultimately bad seem good at the time to people with short vision.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The "bleeding" is being attended to: higher monthly rates, addition of AVOD plans, less content spend, more licensing out of content.

but is sky rocketing costs, adding ever more annoying ads and getting les (better) content good for the consumer ultimetly good for the consumer, or a good way to get that consumer trapped now?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

They don't seem to have a problem with it at all:

[Show spoiler]

Their bread and butter probably comes from their offering internet service and cable TV service, not their streaming operations. Even so, I have never known any company to be okay with any of its divisions losing billions. It's pretty far fetched that you think that "they don't seem to have a problem with it."

Has any CEO ever said: "it's alright that this division is hemorrhaging money so long as the others are doing great." I don't believe it for a second.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Streaming started in 2007 with Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. It wasn't until 2019 that the industry exploded - that's 4 years ago.

Not sure of the context you are referring to but as a technology streaming A/V to the internet has been around much longer. In 1999 we were streaming our main channel to the internet. In 2004 Grouper came online, changed to Crackle a few years later.

DirecTV that started in 1994, deserves a lot of credit because digital compression (data reduction) made it possible for DVB then DVD, ATSC and others. Member DRMPEG was the lead compression engineer at DirecTV.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Are you even aware of what content Disney have been putting out over the last couple of years? I mean, the content is literally shaped by Twitter and all the ‘offended’ brigade.
Why do you think comedy is virtually dead?

Disney puts out stuff they think will make them money, not stuff they thing will please the "offended brigade". They are a business. That's why their representation is token at best, so they can still have stuff in countries which ban that sort of thing. Now maybe these companies do take too seriously what is on Twitter as representative of the general population, hence for example the huge pivot of star wars episode 8 and 9, but again that's for financial reasons not because they are following any "agenda", unless that agenda is to make money. They took so long to make super films staring anything but white men because they some thought it wouldn't make them money, until black panther and wonder woman showed otherwise.

It's also a bit ridiculous by the way calling "woke" people offended when it seems like the right is offended every five minutes by something on film and tv. Look at the review bombing for things like last of us episode 3.

Originally Posted by Vilya

It is a self-inflicted wound.
The studios chose the money pit that they are digging with their own hands when they decided to each offer their own competing streaming service. They should have just stuck to licensing their stuff out to cable TV and the likes of Netflix thereby avoiding all of the huge costs associated with offering their own SVOD service.

How would that work though? They licensed to Netflix when it was the cherry on top for them, but as a primary revenue source they would have to massively up the licencing rates to make for all the lost income from theatrical, physical, tv, cable, etc. In the process either Netflix would have to also up their rates to something much bigger than they are now, or be more selective in what they pay for. Having Netflix manage everything would result in like $100 dollar a month subscription costs.

Honestly it's a lose-lose situation all round and I have no idea how they are going to get out of it.

[t-mel]

double post

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Their bread and butter probably comes from their offering internet service and cable TV service, not their streaming operations. Even so, I have never known any company to be okay with any of its divisions losing billions. It's pretty far fetched that you think that "they don't seem to have a problem with it."

Has any CEO ever said: "it's alright that this division is hemorrhaging money so long as the others are doing great." I don't believe it for a second.

Go back and review your post. Now look at the stock history for the last 12 months.

Asked and answered with PROOF, not subjective emotional speculation as you continue to peddle.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am sure there are some that might agree with you, but I don't. Sometimes things that are ultimately bad seem good at the time to people with short vision.

but is sky rocketing costs, adding ever more annoying ads and getting les (better) content good for the consumer ultimetly good for the consumer, or a good way to get that consumer trapped now?

Consumers vote with their wallets. If felt the same way as you do, Streaming would already be dead and buried.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Go back and review your post. Now look at the stock history for the last 12 months.

Asked and answered with PROOF, not subjective emotional speculation as you continue to peddle.

Nothing that you posted proves that streaming is a profitable venture for Comcast. Their stock price might reflect an aspect of their overall performance over a window of time, but it says exactly squat as to how well their streaming operations are doing. Stock prices sometimes just express investor confidence, too, and not necessarily how well a company is doing during that moment in time.

Where is your proof that Comcast is making a profit with their streaming operations? You have provided none, but you certainly suggested that losing billions is okie dokie with them.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

That $120B is ALL of Comcast's revenue. So if they lose billions - they can afford it. That was the point I was making.

You have asserted that businesses don't mind losing billions in one area if they are doing well in others because "they can afford it." Show us some proof of that whopper being true.

As to providing proof where is yours that any of the studio owned and operated streaming services are on plan towards achieving profitability? Show us your tea leaves already.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

[Show spoiler]

Consumers vote with their wallets. If felt the same way as you do, Streaming would already be dead and buried.

That's what makes this all so damn funny; there is all of this consumer demand for streaming and they STILL can't make it profitable. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

No one sensible believes that streaming will die out, but something has to change if the goal is to make a meaningful profit providing it.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Nothing that you posted proves that streaming is a profitable venture for Comcast. Their stock price might reflect an aspect of their overall performance over a window of time, but it says exactly squat as to how well their streaming operations are doing.

You moved the goal posts! You said investors weren't happy with the billions in losses but the stock price history is proving you wrong.

With conglomerates its an all or nothing deal when it comes to investing.

But, according to you businesses don't mind losing billions in one area if they are doing well in others because "they can afford it." Show us some proof of that whopper being true.

I already did! If they were unhappy - they would sell and the stock price would go down. It's too bad your knowledge of investing in public corporations doesn't match your knowledge in home theater. You have yet to show ANY proof other than words - which are cheap.

Look at Disney's stock history for 1 year. THAT shows how investors are angry with losses and mismanagement. You can post it.

As to providing proof where is yours that any of the studio owned and operated streaming services are on plan towards achieving profitability? Show us your tea leaves already.

You living in a cave? There are tons of articles, most about Disney's business plans. Look them up yourself. Try Deadline or the Hollywood Reporter. Then post them.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

That's what makes this all so damn funny; there is all of this consumer demand for streaming and they STILL can't make it profitable. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

No one sensible believes that streaming will die out, but something has to change if the goal is to make a meaningful profit providing it.

Raise monthly prices, reduce content spending and take advantage of advertising dollars through AVODs. THAT'S the plan for all of them.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You moved the goal posts! You said investors weren't happy with the billions in losses but the stock price history is proving you wrong.

I never said that investors were unhappy. I said that stock prices sometimes reflect investor confidence more than anything else.

You, on the other hand, with your brilliant business acumen believe that companies are cool with losing billions in one division if they can afford it. I haven't heard anyone say something so ridiculous in a long time.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I already did! If they were unhappy - they would sell and the stock price would go down. It's too bad your knowledge of investing in public corporations doesn't match your knowledge in home theater. You have yet to show ANY proof other than words - which are cheap.

Expressing your opinion is all you have done and I hate to break this to you, but that does not constitute proof. You are just speculating about what they might do in a given situation.

Companies sometimes do their damnedest to inflate their stock prices to conceal their failures. Investors are suing Disney yet again for their questionable accounting regarding the performance of D+. Yes, Virginia, companies tell lies.

You are the one that insists that streaming is this untapped goldmine of massive profits. Prove it. I am still waiting for proof that Comcast's streaming operations are profitable.

Words are cheap, but time isn't. I am getting off of this merry-go-around. You sound more like an unhappy Disney stockholder with every post. I hope that it all works out for you.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I never said that investors were unhappy. I said that stock prices sometimes reflect investor confidence more than anything else.

You, on the other hand, with your brilliant business acumen believe that companies are cool with losing billions in one division if they can afford it. I haven't heard anyone say something so ridiculous in a long time.

There are two types of losses: those where an established division/company has fallen on hard times or consumers have abandon their products/services.

The other are losses generated from an investment whose plan has not matured enough for the losses to turn into profits.

You are smart enough to know the difference but you pretend you don't. Shame on you.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Raise monthly prices, reduce content spending and take advantage of advertising dollars through AVODs. THAT'S the plan for all of them.

Worsening the quality of the service for consumers.

Advertising, the great hope for SVODs! How truly pathetic.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Expressing your opinion is all you have done and I hate to break this to you, but that does not constitute proof. You are just speculating about what they might do in a given situation.

LMFAO - have you done any different?

Companies sometimes do their damnedest to inflate their stock prices to conceal their failures. Investors are suing Disney yet again for their questionable accounting regarding the performance of D+. Yes, Virginia, companies tell lies.

ANYONE can start a lawsuit. But will it go all the way through the court system and the defendant found guilty?

You are the one that insists that streaming is this untapped goldmine of massive profits. Prove it. I am still waiting for proof that Comcast's streaming operations are profitable.

Who said they are? I didn't. Peacock is one of the services losing money. Go back to my post and read it again - but to save you time here is a synopsis:

Netflix - profitable
Hulu - profitable
Max - on the line between profitable and taking losses'
Disney+ - taking losses but have reduced them each quarter.
Paramount+ - taking losses
Prime Video - unknown

Words are cheap, but time isn't. I am getting off of this merry-go-around. You sound more like an unhappy Disney stockholder with every post. I hope that it all works out for you before you get an ulcer.

I have zero skin in the game - no Disney stock nor do I have Disney+.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You are smart enough to know the difference but you pretend you don't. Shame on you.

Neither of us know how well, or how badly, Comcast's streaming operations are doing. Seeing as both profit and loss are purely hypothetical here there is no "shame" in speculating about the subject. I strongly suspect that if their streaming operations were a glowing success that Comcast would be blowing their horn loudly for all to hear.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Worsening the quality of the service for consumers.

That is your opinion and nothing more. Sub counts are the objective yard stick. If they go down, the plan isn't working. If they go up - it is.

Advertising, the great hope for SVODs! How truly pathetic.

Again subjective, What you and a handful of your cronies on this thread like has nothing to do with the real world.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Neither of us know how well, or how badly, Comcast's streaming operations are doing. Seeing as both profit and loss are purely hypothetical here there is no "shame" in speculating about the subject. I strongly suspect that if their streaming operations were a glowing success that Comcast would be blowing their horn loudly for all to hear.

NBCUniversal Revenues Fall, Peacock’s Loss Tops $704M in First Quarter

Peacock booked a loss of more than $700 million in the first quarter of this year, as the NBCUniversal streaming service struggles to grow its subscriber base, the company announced Thursday.

The loss, published as part of Q1 results from NBCU parent company Comcast, also showed Peacock subscriber figures hit nearly 22 million in the first three months of 2023, up 60 percent year-on-year. Revenues for the streamer came in at $685 million, below the adjusted EBITIDA loss of $704 million for the platform. The entertainment conglomerate reiterated “peak losses” at around $3 billion for Peacock this year.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...er-1235403057/

Took me all of 15 seconds to find this information. Why couldn't you before you posted?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

LMFAO - have you done any different?

I never had anything to prove here, so, yes, I am merely opining. I'm happy that you finally noticed.

I never insisted that streaming was sure to be a profitable paradise... someday. I, and others, have just been asking for some proof to support that opinion seeing as a certain someone keeps insisting it to be the gospel truth.