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

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

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.

and all you have to do is move if you are not happy your rent is 200$ more and the pool does not work. Writing nonsense on a board is easy. The same way you would need to find an other place to rent the consumer trapped in subscription services will either need to add an other one (with the same problems) or be OK twiddling his thumbs all evening.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

Very few people do agree with me on many topics to be fair.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

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

agree, but irrelevant you said everyone that has stock must be happy with all of the companies decisions including losing tons on streaming, no matter how the court decides these people own stock and are not happy with Disney's streaming decisions.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

and all you have to do is move if you are not happy your rent is 200$ more and the pool does not work. Writing nonsense on a board is easy. The same way you would need to find an other place to rent the consumer trapped in subscription services will either need to add an other one (with the same problems) or be OK twiddling his thumbs all evening.

Moving will cost me at least $2000. So that is not a viable alternative at all. How do I know? I already looked into it.

And writing nonsense - you should know - you do it all the time. Nothing but speculation which you believe props up your argument but it doesn't. Nothing but a Strawman Arguments.

[Lee A Stewart]

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.

Disney has already learned that increasing prices to such a point loses customers. That's why their parks were empty this summer. They went too far.

And so what if they go to $20 a month? Instead of having 2 SVODs at $40 they will have 3 AVODSs at 35. Along with 5 or 6 FAST services. That equal TONS of content.

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.

I have said all along for the last 3 years that churn is a problem. So it isn't news to me - maybe to you it is.

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.

How much would you like to bet they never go to long term contracts like they do in the Pay TV or Cell Phone industry? Name the stakes and I'll take that bet. The industry would literally collapse overnight. All they will do is continue to offer 1 year contracts with a savings instead of paying M-T-M. That won't change. They might even increase the savings.

[bhampton]

With Lee it's either moving the goal posts or straw man argument.

[Lee A Stewart]

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?)

I HATE reality TV. And yes 90% of my content viewing is TV shows.

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

And you spend thousands of dollars a year to feed your obsession then go nuts when they raise a SVOD $3 or $4 a month. That pretty much makes you all deceptive.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by bhampton

With Lee it's either moving the goal posts or straw man argument.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

agree, but irrelevant you said everyone that has stock must be happy with all of the companies decisions including losing tons on streaming, no matter how the court decides these people own stock and are not happy with Disney's streaming decisions.

I was referring to Comcast. Nice that you moved the goal posts to include Disney.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

And you spend thousands of dollars a year to feed your obsession then go nuts when they raise a SVOD $3 or $4 a month. That pretty much makes you all deceptive.

Really nice how you lump everyone together, but at least use the right word when doing so.

None of us are "deceptive" about how many discs that we buy; we show our purchases all the time. However, we don't usually comment on how much we spent unless we got a really great deal or paid out the nose for an expensive collector's item.

Complaining about streaming services rate hikes is not deceptive, either. Saying how we feel about something is our honest reaction. Often the complaint is less about the amount of the rate hike than the fact that we are getting less for our money on top of it.

At the most, complaining about streaming rate hikes while also spending lots on discs might seem ironic, but it is not at all deceptive.

For it to be deceptive, you would have to have been misled. You weren't misled; we wear our hearts on our sleeves when it comes to our passion for this hobby.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Very few people do agree with me on many topics to be fair.

I agree with this statement.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Really nice how you lump everyone together, but at least use the right word when doing so.

None of us are "deceptive" about how many discs that we buy; we show our purchases all the time. However, we don't usually comment on how much we spent unless we got a really great deal or paid out the nose for an expensive collector's item.

Au Contrares. Many here just post their purchases to show you they continue to support disc.

Complaining about streaming services rate hikes is not deceptive, either. Saying how we feel about something is our honest reaction. Often the complaint is less about the amount of the rate hike than the fact that we are getting less for our money on top of it.

I subscribe to Paramount+ and Peacock and I don't see less content at all. Only Disney and MAX fit your description.

At the most, complaining about streaming rate hikes while also spending lots on discs might seem ironic, but it is not at all deceptive.

No - it's hypocritical: behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:

For it to be deceptive, you would have to have been misled. You weren't misled; we wear our hearts on our sleeves when it comes to our passion for this hobby.

How does it make sense to complain about a miniscule rate increase and then show you have spent $1500 on discs in a month. That may be excessive, but I am willing to bet those that populate this thread supporting discs are spending at least $100 a month.

And LMAO - they complain about spending more and getting less on streaming but they don't have a streaming service that fits that description.

Deceptive!

[t-mel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I have said all along for the last 3 years that churn is a problem. So it isn't news to me - maybe to you it is.

So churn is a problem yet your solution to the increasing prices is... churn?

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

How much would you like to bet they never go to long term contracts like they do in the Pay TV or Cell Phone industry? Name the stakes and I'll take that bet. The industry would literally collapse overnight. All they will do is continue to offer 1 year contracts with a savings instead of paying M-T-M. That won't change. They might even increase the savings.

I said they wouldn't have forced yearly contracts. I said they will make them more attractive vs monthly than they are now, and I don't think that will be through making yearly cheaper but by monthly more expensive.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Au Contrares. Many here just post their purchases to show you they continue to support disc.

You do not know anyone's motives and nor do I. Stop making broad assumptions.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I subscribe to Paramount+ and Peacock and I don't see less content at all. Only Disney and MAX fit your description.

Well, I subscribe to Max. I have said this on more than one occasion. Regardless, people's feelings are honest whether or not anyone else thinks that their feelings are justified.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

No - it's hypocritical: behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case:

There is no hypocrisy here. No one is responsible for the inferences you make, either.

"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform."

-Oxford Dictionary

If I criticize you for eating meat only to be caught with a cheeseburger in my mouth, that would be hypocrisy.

Buying discs and while also complaining about streaming rate hikes is neither deceptive or hypocritical. There are no great moral issues or beliefs involved here. It is just how someone feels about something.

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

How does it make sense to complain about a miniscule rate increase and then show you have spent $1500 on discs in a month. That may be excessive, but I am willing to bet those that populate this thread supporting discs are spending at least $100 a month.

And LMAO - they complain about spending more and getting less on streaming but they don't have a streaming service that fits that description.

Deceptive!

You do not get to decide what makes sense for other people nor do you get to tell them how they are supposed to feel.

People complain about the prices of things that they don't use all the time. The high price might well be the reason that they don't use the thing in the first place. Also, unless someone tells you that they do not use streaming, you have no way of knowing if they do or not.

There is no deception in stating how someone feels about something. I complain about the price of Kaleidescape's hardware, which I do not use, because I think that it is ridiculous. That's how I really, really, feel. No deception, no hypocrisy, no misleading anyone; it's my honest feeling.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by t-mel

So churn is a problem yet your solution to the increasing prices is... churn?

The prices were too low to begin with - you know this. Others here have stated it here on this thread, so I am not alone on this. There may not be a solution to churn. One idea is bundling services together to offer more content to consumers.

High interest rates and inflation are creating havoc all over. As a corporation you can't ignore them. As a consumer your dollar is buying less and less in a whole host of markets.

I said they wouldn't have forced yearly contracts. I said they will make them more attractive vs monthly than they are now, and I don't think that will be through making yearly cheaper but by monthly more expensive.

Time will tell who is the better prognosticator.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

You do not know anyone's motives and nor do I. Stop making broad assumptions.

That's pure crap and you know it. All you have to do is review posts where members have shown purchases and keep an eye out as to how many "chain post" - one following the other.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Well, I subscribe to Max. I have said this on more than one occasion. Regardless, people's feelings are honest whether or not anyone else thinks that their feelings are justified.

So you accept what they are doing because you haven't cancelled it to show your disdain for their business practices. Just gives you something to bit*h about right?

There is no hypocrisy here. No one is responsible for the inferences you make, either.

"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform."

-Oxford Dictionary

If I criticize you for eating meat only to be caught with a cheeseburger in my mouth, that would be hypocrisy.

Buying discs and while also complaining about streaming rate hikes is neither deceptive or hypocritical. There are no great moral issues or beliefs involved here. It is just how someone feels about something.

If you spend $1500 on discs in a single month then complain your streaming service just raised your monthly rate by $4 - you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

That's pure crap and you know it. All you have to do is review posts where members have shown purchases and keep an eye out as to how many "chain post" - one following the other.

Observing a behavior is not the same thing as understanding the reasons for it. You can not possibly know the motives of others. You just think that you do.

You are possibly the most judgmental, leaps to conclusions, person that I have encountered in a very long time.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So you accept what they are doing because you haven't cancelled it to show your disdain for their business practices. Just gives you something to bit*h about right?

It's included with my cellphone service, which ironically has dropped a $1.50 per month.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It's included with my cellphone service, which ironically has dropped a $1.50 per month.

So they could raise the rate by $10 a month and you would not be affected because you are getting it for free. So why on earth would you care what shows they are taking away? No money out of your pocket. LOL - you can't even cancel it!