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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think you will buy it!

It's an import for me, so that will work against the price being tempting. Movies 3 & 4 would really have to impress me and that seems unlikely what with my high standards and such.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

For me it has always been what is desired, cost and design process. Sometimes the desired cost way more than we had so I traded my time for dollars. For example, in the early 80's Fosgate (Tate) had a audio processor that I really wanted but did not have the dollars for one so I designed and constructed my own. I used a Bucket-brigade device (here) for the Dolby Surround delay and in a pseudo-stereo generator (mono to pseudo stereo). No remote control and two volume controls to set but by doggie, I had a for real surround setup for movies.

Some around here would have been content with just They don't understand the desire for something better, yet alone making the effort to get it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It's an import for me, so that will work against the price being tempting. Movies 3 & 4 would really have to impress me and that seems unlikely what with my high standards and such.

Finger nudges closer to the buy button!

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by deatheats

I took my first trip to Santa Cruz earlier this year.......

I lived in San Jose, CA not too far away from Santa Cruz from 1972-2000. Use to go there all the time with different girl friends. Very Pictures' Sea Town, had friends that lived there. Also played Pasatiempo GC not too far away, where Tiger Woods played once in a while growing up. Good Memories!

Also there is a Restaurant there called The Crows Nest right on the bay there with all the boats. Very good you should try it if you get a chance, I'm sure it is still there.

[cheez avenger]

Used some AGC I had and ordered the Nightbreed 4K set.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I understand that they want to keep subscribers. But churn is happening anyway. And they are sacrificing other profitable revenue streams in favor of one that has been highly unprofitable.


Even if they don't want to license out their best content (i.e. newer movies) to other streaming services, they could still wait longer between other home release options (sales and rentals) and then putting it up on their own streaming service. That way the titles would still ultimately be exclusive to their service, they would be able to get money from the other streams, and if it's just a matter of waiting (just to pick a number) 6 months after each movie is in the theater to go on their own service, it would ultimately result in that content being added in consistent intervals. It would just be more delayed compared to what the case currently is.

The people who like that particular studio's films will continue subscribing, especially if they prefer having a streaming service with a lot of content for one monthly cost, and don't want to pay to watch those movies individually anyway.

Like it or not, they are committed to streaming. And until such time they are not, that is their priority. That's where their newest content is going.

And they are licensing out content - older catalog titles.

Do you have any idea how much money - revenue - streaming brings in? Let's take a look at Netflix as their only real source of revenue comes from their streaming service:

Netflix revenue for the twelve months ending June 30, 2023 was $32.126B

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Like it or not, they are committed to streaming. And until such time they are not, that is their priority. That's where their newest content is going.

And they are licensing out content - older catalog titles.

Do you have any idea how much money - revenue - streaming brings in? Let's take a look at Netflix as their only real source of revenue comes from their streaming service:

Netflix revenue for the twelve months ending June 30, 2023 was $32.126B

How much did Netflix spend during the same twelve months? Just stating their revenue is meaningless.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Like it or not, they are committed to streaming. And until such time they are not, that is their priority. That's where their newest content is going.

And they are licensing out content - older catalog titles.

Do you have any idea how much money - revenue - streaming brings in? Let's take a look at Netflix as their only real source of revenue comes from their streaming service:

Netflix revenue for the twelve months ending June 30, 2023 was $32.126B

And Netflix is pretty much the only one that is profitable.

Revenue otherwise means little if they are not profitable or on a realistic path to profitability.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

How much did Netflix spend during the same twelve months? Just stating their revenue is meaningless.

Their operating costs were $26.5 billion.

"Netflix operating expenses for the twelve months ending June 30, 2023 were $26.502B, a 5.61% increase year-over-year."

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...%20from%202020.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

And Netflix is pretty much the only one that is profitable.

Revenue otherwise means little if they are not profitable or on a realistic path to profitability.

But they are. They are doing what is necessary to attain profitability: raising monthly sub cost, reducing new content spend and straining out shows that no one is watching.

[Vilya]

Fresh from the box office movies often do not go to Netflix, though. Most of the time I don't even recognize what is "new on Netflix." It's usually a lot of their own half-baked content, made on the cheap documentaries, and so-called reality shows.

New box office titles usually wind up on their respective studio's own streaming service. Thus, when the studios shorten the theatrical window on their new movies and rush them to their streaming service they are kind of cutting their nose to spite their face. Prematurely abandoning box office revenue in favor of their streaming platforms has not paid off for them... at least not as of yet.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

But they are. They are doing what is necessary to attain profitability: raising monthly sub cost, reducing new content spend and straining out shows that no one is watching.

Spending less money on movies and TV shows will lead to short term gains because so many people are already hooked on Netflix based on the high quality shows they used to release in abundance. But when people realize that Neflix isn't releasing as high quality of content as they used to they'll rapidly lose subscribers.

The way for streaming subscriptions to increase subscribers is to make high quality expensive content. The way for streaming subscriptions to make a profit is to not spend so much on content. Since those two concepts are mutually exclusive it's unlikely that streaming subscriptions will ever be highly profitable.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Fresh from the box office movies often do not go to Netflix, though. Most of the time I don't even recognize a lot of what is "new on Netflix." It's usually a lot of their own half-baked content, made on the cheap documentaries, and so-called reality shows.

New box office titles usually wind up on their respective studio's own streaming service. Thus, when the studios shorten the theatrical window on their new movies and rush them to their streaming service they are kind of cutting their nose to spite their face. Prematurely abandoning box office revenue in favor of their streaming platforms has not paid off for them... at least not as of yet.

If movies play out like The Flash and Indy 5 did - there is no reason to keep them in theaters. This isn't rocket science - get them into your most profitable revenue streams: home entertainment.

But if they have legs like TGM or Barbie and Oppenheimer - they will stay in theaters to milk all the proceeds they can.

I can't think of a single instance where a movie which was making great BO was taken out of theaters and placed on a streaming service - that's nothing more than a myth.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Spending less money on movies and TV shows will lead to short term gains because so many people are already hooked on Netflix based on the high quality shows they used to release in abundance. But when people realize that Neflix isn't releasing as high quality of content as they used to they'll rapidly lose subscribers.

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 way for streaming subscriptions to increase subscribers is to make high quality expensive content. The way for streaming subscriptions to make a profit is to not spend so much on content. Since those two concepts are mutually exclusive it's unlikely that streaming subscriptions will ever be highly profitable.

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

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

If movies play out like The Flash and Indy 5 did - there is no reason to keep them in theaters. This isn't rocket science - get them into your most profitable revenue streams: home entertainment.

If a movie is doing poorly in theaters it isn't going to drive more people to subscribe to a streaming subscription either. When The Flash and Indy 5 show up on Max and Disney+ there will undoubtedly be plenty of existing subscribers who watch them but that won't make any money for Warner or Disney. All that really matters is the people who subscribe specifically to watch those movies and I suspect that will be a very small number of people.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The best minds in the business think it will be.

The best minds in the business thought streaming was going to be a cash cow that was as profitable as cable and satellite TV (which is still the most profitable form of home entertainment by a huge margin). There is zero indication that will ever be the case but they refuse to admit they're wrong.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

The best minds in the business thought streaming was going to be a cash cow that was as profitable as cable and satellite TV (which is still the most profitable form of home entertainment by a huge margin). There is zero indication that will ever be the case but they refuse to admit they're wrong.

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

Streaming as an industry started in 2007. But it didn't get serious until 2019 - just 4 years ago.

Netflix is profitable. If they can do it, so can Disney, Paramount and Comcast/NBC Universal.

Betting against them is a fools bet.

[PenguinInfinity]

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.

Streaming as an industry started in 2007. But it didn't get serious until 2019 - just 4 years ago.

Netflix is profitable. If they can do it, so can Disney, Paramount and Comcast/NBC Universal.

Betting against them is a fools bet.

Netflix has only recently made a profit because they established themselves as the standard streaming service before cutting down on spending. But as competition grows and Netflix stops having as much high quality content churn will hit them just as hard as it's hit all the other streaming services.

The ease of cancellation, lack of long-term contracts, and the expectation that all original movies and TV shows won't disappear quickly ensure that streaming can never be the cash cow that TV is.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

If a movie is doing poorly in theaters it isn't going to drive more people to subscribe to a streaming subscription either. When The Flash and Indy 5 show up on Max and Disney+ there will undoubtedly be plenty of existing subscribers who watch them but that won't make any money for Warner or Disney. All that really matters is the people who subscribe specifically to watch those movies and I suspect that will be a very small number of people.

Why is it that none of you understand the streaming business? Yet you think you do.

You don't listen - that's the problem. You ignore the #1 issue that streaming has - CHURN. I don't know how many times I have to say it for any of you to believe it to be the truth. Do I have to fill posts with articles that say exactly that?

There are no free trials anymore. The minimum sub time is 1 month. Getting consumers to subscribe is #1. Keeping them subscribed is #2. Can't you see that? It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to do that. But it does take a very savy experienced business person to maximize number 1 and 2.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Netflix has only recently made a profit because they established themselves as the standard streaming service before cutting down on spending. But as competition grows and Netflix stops having as much high quality content churn will hit them just as hard as it's hit all the other streaming services.

Nope - they are licensing in content. Aren't you aware of the deal they doing with WBD? Use Google.

The ease of cancellation, lack of long-term contracts, and the expectation that all original movies and TV shows won't disappear quickly ensure that streaming can never be the cash cow that TV is.

But TV no longer is. If it was so profitable, Disney wouldn't be contemplating selling ABC. You don't sell cash cows. Only marginal or losing pigs.