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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Cry me a river with your holier than thou sob story. And isn't it amazing that when Netflix cracked down, they saw/seeing an increase in their sub count which is directly related to said crackdown.

Please tell us how much it costs to add another family member to the existing plan. I'm pretty sure it's another of your making a mountain out of a mole hill deals.

I'm not shedding any tears over how you behave; I don't have to live with you, but in my experience those who are the most judgmental are also usually the most guilty of the very things that they judge others for.

What's so surprising about the password crackdown resulting in more subscriptions? Parents love their children and will do almost anything for them including paying an extra $7.99 per month, per kid, to entertain them. Not surprising that you wouldn't realize this on your own.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

What's so surprising about the password crackdown resulting in more subscriptions? Parents love their children and will do almost anything for them including paying an extra $7.99 per month, per kid, to entertain them. Not surprising that you wouldn't realize this on your own.

So the parents are spending thousands of dollars a year to send their beloved children to college and you feel that $8 a month per child is going to break the bank?

It's great you worked on the railroad. As a salesman you would have starved to death.

[stonesfan129]

I'm just waiting for the day when services like Vudu or Apple will start charging a subscription fee to access you digital library. I love the convenience of Vudu, but I can't see the point of paying $20 for something new when I could pay that same price for the disc, and get the digital code for free. If the digital version was always <$10, I might go down that route 100%.

I got out some of my Blu-rays to watch over the weekend, and I just can't live with the lower quality on the stream. The picture quality looks close, but it's not the same. The audio quality suffers too. And then you've got some films where they letterbox the entire thing even though the Blu-ray has full screen shots (most of the Christopher Nolan films).

That and there's so many free streaming alternatives like Tubi, Kanopy, the free channels in Plex, etc. Why even pay for the streams on a service like Vudu when a lot of these will just show up on a free service at some point?

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So the parents are spending thousands of dollars a year to send their beloved children to college and you feel that $8 a month per child is going to break the bank?

As a person with 3 kids currently in college, eventually you start looking for ways to save because eventually you come up on practical limits.

$8 a month isn't such a "big" deal but it is an easy target for someone who needs to cut back a little bit to make ends meet. The little things are where you look because you can't really decide to pay less for utilities or groceries.

Many still think Netflix is essential and sort of implied but the people who use it often know better.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Services rendered monthly will eventually get a price hike. To think they will stay the same price forever is living outside the real world.

AVODs - are cheaper than SVODs. You don't have to choose that option. You can continue to watch ad free content. So, complaining about ads being added - if you don't choose that option how is it affecting you? Why should you care that people want to save money and don't care about ads in their content?

Pass Word Sharing - that's stealing services. Getting something for free you are not paying for. They have every right to crack down on such theft. Just like they put pirate websites out of business that steal digital copies of their content and offer them for free.

The difference is, ad-free service’s price is being artificially inflated by the introduction of ad supported content, then we have the regular price hikes on top.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Services rendered monthly will eventually get a price hike. To think they will stay the same price forever is living outside the real world.

It's more like there will be a few times a year the price doesn't go up. Not a lot of eventually to it.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I got hit with a $200 a month increase in my monthly rent and . . . they say the pool needs repair, so they closed it.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I am superior.

I figured with your superior intellect that you would own your dwelling and property. And no I did not suspend all my SVOD, except Amazon, because of finances, did it because just nothing of real interest at this time on any of them.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

[URL=https://imgbox.com/vKpjTLKO]
Consumers vote with their wallets. If felt the same way as you do, Streaming would already be dead and buried.

like I said

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.

the issue is we both now

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.

but you only seem to know it when discussing profitability, but you don't seem to realize the consumer will need to deal with it .

there is a reason the fable of the frog and boiling pot exists, it is not because frogs can jump out of a pot of boiling water before they get hurt but some people are dumb enough to think the "warm water" is good (until it is too late and they are soup)

I don't need you to point out there are some dumb people out there, I need you to show how when the price is 40$ a month and thre are some ads and the lack of content means they need 5 services the consumer will be better off. Netflix launched with a price of 7.99 USD they had content of all the different studios and there were really no limits now the top tier is 19.99 US limited to 4 streams which means if I want to watch a film in my HT, my wife something in the family room, my 2 kids in their bedroom and my dad in the living room we would not be able to do it. And instead of the content we would want to watch it is full of terrible Netflix originals as a way for them to cut costs.

[Anthony P]

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.

there is demand for cheap streaming, not real cost streaming. What is happening is these companies are hoping people are too stupid to notice the prices keep on outpacing inflation and that they will continue supporting them.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

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

I already did! If they were unhappy - they would sell and the stock price would go down. I

that is just no where near true

1) there are a lot of people ($) that do speculative trading (aka day trading aka buy low sell high)

2)https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litiga...eaming-revenue

people can still invest in a company and think they are making a terrible decision in one are of the conglomerate. In this case it is so bad that people are suing Disney because of how terrible streaming is doing (i.e. they would rather get that dividend)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Worsening the quality of the service for consumers.

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

you forgot asking them to pay a lot more

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but you only seem to know it when discussing profitability, but you don't seem to realize the consumer will need to deal with it .

They are dealing with it. The are choosing AVODs instead of SVODs so they can save money and continue to see the content they want.

there is a reason the fable of the frog and boiling pot exists, it is not because frogs can jump out of a pot of boiling water before they get hurt but some people are dumb enough to think the "warm water" is good (until it is too late and they are soup)

You are forgetting that all it takes is a couple of clicks to dump a streaming service. In essence - the water never gets past warm, and the frog jumps out unharmed.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that is just no where near true

1) there are a lot of people ($) that do speculative trading (aka day trading aka buy low sell high)

The only people making money off Disney stock are the short sellers:

2)https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litiga...eaming-revenue

people can still invest in a company and think they are making a terrible decision in one are of the conglomerate. In this case it is so bad that people are suing Disney because of how terrible streaming is doing (i.e. they would rather get that dividend)

The key word = ACCUSED. That does not mean they are guilty. That is for a court to determine.

[t-mel]

Lee I don't understand why you keep defending streaming (and it is defending it). Your original arguments are that it is more convenient and cheaper. When it's pointed out to you that this is only possible because of the huge losses the companies make, you say they will just mitigate that by increasing prices, adding advertising, remove titles that are not popular, licence stuff out onto crappy FAST services with terrible quality, and stop password sharing. But then how does this not remove all the purported benefits of streaming in the first place? Nothing convenient about having to switch services to find specific things or having to watch ads, and nothing cheap if they are all $20-$30 (which they will be). I wonder what the ceiling is. The $40 figure given here sounds ridiculous but as has been pointed out they've already doubled in price so nothing to stop them doing it again.

And with all this you say we can just switch between services (not convenient as I said, why is putting in a disc so hard?). But you do realise that churn is one of the biggest problems facing the streamers. Here's one article: https://dougshapiro.medium.com/to-ev...rn-b9044d376be

So you can bet your ass they are going to tackle this as well, probably by incentivising long term contracts while short term ones increase in price, or something. They won't force it but effectively they will unless you are ok with paying more, further eroding the savings you claim.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by t-mel

Lee I don't understand why you keep defending streaming (and it is defending it). Your original arguments are that it is more convenient and cheaper. When it's pointed out to you that this is only possible because of the huge losses the companies make, you say they will just mitigate that by increasing prices, adding advertising, remove titles that are not popular, licence stuff out onto crappy FAST services with terrible quality, and stop password sharing. But then how does this not remove all the purported benefits of streaming in the first place? Nothing convenient about having to switch services to find specific things or having to watch ads, and nothing cheap if they are all $20-$30 (which they will be). I wonder what the ceiling is. The $40 figure given here sounds ridiculous but as has been pointed out they've already doubled in price so nothing to stop them doing it again.

And with all this you say we can just switch between services (not convenient as I said, why is putting in a disc so hard?). But you do realise that churn is one of the biggest problems facing the streamers. Here's one article: https://dougshapiro.medium.com/to-ev...rn-b9044d376be

So you can bet your ass they are going to tackle this as well, probably by incentivising long term contracts while short term ones increase in price, or something. They won't force it but effectively they will unless you are ok with paying more, further eroding the savings you claim.

Lee simply doesn’t have the same concerns as he isn’t really a big movie fan. He prefers tv (maybe even reality tv?)

Most of us are coming at it from a film lover’s point of view.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Services rendered monthly will eventually get a price hike. To think they will stay the same price forever is living outside the real world.

look I am paying today (for UHD BD) per film roughly the same as I did over 30 years ago when I started collecting. My sister is paying the same amount for Bell fibe basic as she did when it launched in 2010. But no one is saying streaming is not allowed to keep up with inflation or the small eventual price hike. But so far the price hilkes a re very often and they are a high percentage.

You can't on one hand argue that "Disney's streaming will become profitable because of price hikes .... and then pretend anyone else talkingt about huge price hikes in the apst and future are hurting their pockets is being unreasonable

AVODs - are cheaper than SVODs. You don't have to choose that option. You can continue to watch ad free content. So, complaining about ads being added - if you don't choose that option how is it affecting you? Why should you care that people want to save money and don't care about ads in their content?

now, but what does the future hold as they try and be profitable? For example Netflix used to offer a basic plan at 9.99 (at least here in Canada) it is no longer offered if you are OK with ads (and poor quality and limited watching) there is a plan at 5.99 or the cheapest (standard) plan at 16.49

Pass Word Sharing - that's stealing services. Getting something for free you are not paying for. They have every right to crack down on such theft. Just like they put pirate websites out of business that steal digital copies of their content and offer them for free.

agree but it is not all password sharing. A friend got an e-mail from Netflix that he will need to pay that extra 7.99 because he was at home (for work) while his wife and kids where at the cottage. My middle sister got the e-mail because she is divorced with split custody so the kids watch their Netflix at both their homes.

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Lee simply doesn’t have the same concerns as he isn’t really a big movie fan. He prefers tv (maybe even reality tv?)

Most of us are coming at it from a film lover’s point of view.

Honestly as you said and I agree streaming is not good for people watching films. Instead of someone seeking out specific things they want to see, they just scroll and choose something that's given. There is no effort made to be more active in choosing. I guess people did that in rental stores but at least there the films available were chosen by the owner who was likely passionate about films themself. Now you have an algorithm dictate what you see (based on your previous viewings). Can't imagine a worse worse to watch films.

If what you say is true it's no wonder Lee doesn't see the problem, and sadly most people who watch films are probably the same, just see something to past the time. I can't expect people to have an interest in films but it was certainly higher in the past and the things that are occupying people's time as replacement (youtube streamers and tik tok) honestly deserve to be binned and have no cultural or intellectual value for the most part.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Cry me a river with your holier than thou sob story. And isn't it amazing that when Netflix cracked down, they saw/seeing an increase in their sub count which is directly related to said crackdown.

Please tell us how much it costs to add another family member to the existing plan. I'm pretty sure it's another of your making a mountain out of a mole hill deals.

7.99 a month (at least here) and Netflix will count this when counting subscribers(i.e. if someone has premium and adds two extra members (max) for 16$ that is three subscriptions)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So the parents are spending thousands of dollars a year to send their beloved children to college and you feel that $8 a month per child is going to break the bank?

I am sorry, I paid my own way through university not all that continued had a silver spoon in our mouths.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The difference is, ad-free service’s price is being artificially inflated by the introduction of ad supported content, then we have the regular price hikes on top.

I don't agree with you on that. the price hikes have been happening way before an ad tear was added for most services. I think ads are a way of moving where the revenue is coming from but most companies need a lot more revenue because the prices where too low.