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

[alchav21]

Well I was at Best Buy the other day, and Displays are getting bigger there. They had this Sony 85" on display, and a few in boxes on the floor. So their big TV's were 65", 75", and 85". I asked what the Standard UHD TV, and the Tech said it's a 65" now. So TV's are getting bigger not smaller!

[p w]

Originally Posted by Vilya

His concerns about AT&T's ownership of Warner Bros. in no way supports your unfounded fear that everything will be chopped up into little pieces. AT&T wanting to own content for their streaming service is logical; AT&T butchering that same content is not.

AT&T has already gone on record saying they want existing/future shows to be cut down into smaller 7-15 minute pieces for their phone audience.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by p w

AT&T has already gone on record saying they want existing/future shows to be cut down into smaller 7-15 minute pieces for their phone audience.

Maybe so, but their phone audience is not their entire audience by a long shot. AT&T offers pay TV and VOD services also. They own satellite service provider DirecTV and they offer cable TV services thru AT&T U-Verse. They own several cable TV channels, too. There is no evidence to suggest that AT&T wants to chop up their content for those audiences.

AT&T owns 98 companies and they are listed here:

https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson...r-the-merger-2

They own HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TCM, TNT, The Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, and even 50% of The CW. They also own Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment, and DC Entertainment to name just a few.

AT&T is far from being just a cell phone service provider, or even just a major telecom; they are a multimedia giant.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by p w

AT&T has already gone on record saying they want existing/future shows to be cut down into smaller 7-15 minute pieces for their phone audience.

Is anybody at AT&T (or anywhere else) on record saying they want these smaller chunks to replace the full content? Or would these bite-sized portions be offered in addition to the regular content?

The former would suck.

The latter?

Who cares.

[Steedeel]

I believe they said short form was the future and very conducive to mobile. They very much want to make a big business out of it.

But hey, what do I know? I have only been predicting this for 9 years.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I believe they said short form was the future and very conducive to mobile. They very much want to make a big business out of it.

So what?

Originally Posted by Steedeel

But hey, what do I know? I have only been predicting this for 9 years.

You've been predicting this for nine years and the dire outcomes are still right around the corner.

Right where they'll be nine years from now and nine years after that.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

So what?



You've been predicting this for nine years and the dire outcomes are still right around the corner.

Right where they'll be nine years from now and nine years after that.

Not at all, these things rely on the next generation forming habits. You always said that even those that love their mobile entertainment now would eventually shift to the bigger tv screen in their homes when they settle down or mature. I say that transition won’t happen this time around.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Short videos are a big business, not the only big business. They aren't going to abandon all of their other highly profitable revenue streams.

What do you know? That's a good question, you've been predicting tons of stuff that isn't any more likely now than it was 9 years ago.

I predicted the end of UV several years before it happened.

I predicted that Filmstruck would be closed down months before it was.

I predicted that mobile viewing would overtake time in front of home tv (it did this year)

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Not at all, these things rely on the next generation forming habits. You always said that even those that live their mobile entertainment now would eventually shift to the bigger tv screen in their homes when they settle down or mature. I say that transition won’t happen this time around.

So is everyone who is currently in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s going to stop spending money soon? Will this next generation that you are convinced only cares about mobile be the only people watching videos in just a few years?

[p w]

Originally Posted by Vilya

AT&T owns 98 companies and they are listed here:

https://bigthink.com/stephen-johnson...r-the-merger-2

They own HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TCM, TNT, The Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, and even 50% of The CW. They also own Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, Castle Rock Entertainment, and DC Entertainment to name just a few.

AT&T is far from being just a cell phone service provider, or even just a major telecom; they are a multimedia giant.

AT&T bought Warner's content for 86 billion because they wanted to live in the past or add 1 more additional company to their portfolio? The CEO's comments about the direction of the company and content were for the future, not about the past. If you follow any of the industry mags (or even google it) you'll see that cable and satellite subs are falling every year. While the 30 and under crowd are cable/satellite "nevers." As in never subscribed to the services. The phone is AT&T's long term plan, this isn't speculation, you can go to google and read the CEO's statements. You look at the fact they just spent 86 billion to secure content. That's the direction. Not just adding companies to stick with some 1980s plan for the future.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

So is everyone who is currently in their 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s going to stop spending money soon? Will this next generation that you are convinced only cares about mobile be the only people watching videos in just a few years?

No but younger trends will impact films. Short form and ‘highlights’ will create a huge market and that will dictate what happens to longer form. If most people are watching short form and highlights rather than film and tv series, the point will come when highlights and short form is all we get.

Also, wireless companies are more concerned about pushing mobile packages than anything else. What’s to stop them offering HBO exclusively to mobile customers?

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I believe they said short form was the future and very conducive to mobile. They very much want to make a big business out of it.

But hey, what do I know? I have only been predicting this for 9 years.

I think they already have a Short Form in Series, they can make them 20-30 minute Episodes, and people can binge watch them at what ever rate they want. Then you have YouTube Videos, Short Form at it's best. Also with good Apps like in MA or Vudu, you can watch Movies start and stop them anywhere you want and come back to them later. Short Form....We have it covered!

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

No but younger trends will impact films. Short form and ‘highlights’ will create a huge market and that will dictate what happens to longer form. If most people are watching short form and highlights rather than film and tv series, the point will come when highlights and short form is all we get.

"Most people" includes hundreds of millions of older people too. What's going to cause most people to give up the types of movies and TV shows they've been watching for decades?

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Also, wireless companies are more concerned about pushing mobile packages than anything else. What’s to stop them offering HBO exclusively to mobile customers?

Why would they deliberately limit their customer base? They can make way more money by offering both mobile and TV versions.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I predicted the end of UV several years before it happened.

I predicted that Filmstruck would be closed down months before it was.

I predicted that mobile viewing would overtake time in front of home tv (it did this year)

UV was simply replaced with MA here and apparently Google Play, or some such, elsewhere.

Filmstruck has been reborn and renamed.

Mobile viewing time varies by generation and it in no way endangers viewing on larger screens. TV sales are increasing, not declining.

Short subject videos have been a big business for over a century.

Every business hopes that their ventures are successful.

You have not successfully predicted anything meaningful or consequential.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

UV was simply replaced with MA here and apparently Google Play, or some such, elsewhere.

Filmstruck has been reborn and renamed.

Mobile viewing time varies by generation and it in no way endangers viewing on larger screens. TV sales are increasing, not declining.

Short subject videos have been a big business for over a century.

Every business hopes that their ventures are successful.

You have not successfully predicted anything meaningful or consequential.

UV was replaced in one country, yours.

Google Play is not a digital locker, it’s just took on digital codes from Flixster. The same problems remain.

Filmstruck’s rebirth is irrelevant. The service was shutdown.

Closure of UV is very meaningful, just not to the U.S

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

"Most people" includes hundreds of millions of older people too. What's going to cause most people to give up the types of movies and TV shows they've been watching for decades?



Why would they deliberately limit their customer base? They can make way more money by offering both mobile and TV versions.

Well, let’s see. If films at home is still a thing in 20 years I will be ecstatic. I just sense that won’t be the case. A horrible, nagging, devastating feeling.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by p w

AT&T bought Warner's content for 86 billion because they wanted to live in the past or add 1 more additional company to their portfolio? The CEO's comments about the direction of the company and content were for the future, not about the past. If you follow any of the industry mags (or even google it) you'll see that cable and satellite subs are falling every year. While the 30 and under crowd are cable/satellite "nevers." As in never subscribed to the services. The phone is AT&T's long term plan, this isn't speculation, you can go to google and read the CEO's statements. You look at the fact they just spent 86 billion to secure content. That's the direction. Not just adding companies to stick with some 1980s plan for the future.

The revenue from the global pay TV industry dwarfs all other sources of video entertainment revenue by far. Revenue is falling, but subscribers are actually growing.

"Pay TV revenues [subscription fees and PPV movies and TV episodes] for 138 countries peaked in 2016 at $205 billion. Revenues will fall by 14% to $177 billion in 2024. This is the same level as 2010 - despite the number of pay TV subscribers climbing by 380 million between 2010 and 2024."

More pay TV subscribers, not less. Less revenue, but still LOTS of it.

https://www.wrcbtv.com/story/4061940...illion-in-2024

The entire video streaming industry was worth just $22.6 billion in 2018 for comparison.

"The overcrowded video streaming market — valued at $22.6 billion last year and estimated to grow to $30.6 billion by 2022, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers"

https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/30/g...sual-suspects/

Pay TV revenue peaked in 2016: $205 billion. Streaming in 2018: $22.6 billion.

Projected pay TV revenue in 2024: $177 billion. Projected streaming revenue in 2022: $30.6 billion.

It will be a very long time before streaming revenue comes anywhere near to equaling that of Pay TV, yet alone surpassing it.

People are not cutting the Pay TV cord as readily as many think:

"fully 71% of all US consumers not only have a pay-TV service but also have no plans to drop it."

"But even younger people are sticking with the cord:.

Specifically, 58% of 18-34-year-olds surveyed report having no plans to drop their cable or satellite service. That figure rises to 69% of 35-49-year-olds, 78% of 50-64-year-olds, and 83% of people ages 65 and older."

https://www.marketingcharts.com/tele...cutting-105558

What was that about 30 year-olds and under being "cable nevers?" 58% of that demographic say that they plan to keep Pay TV.

Additionally, Pay TV subscriptions are growing in gigantic markets like India and Indonesia helping to offset declines in western countries.

And then are the old cheapskates like me that are not included in those totals that get their TV for free with an antenna, but money is still being made off of all those commercials that I and paying customers alike must endure. Ratings determine ad rates afterall.

You were right about one thing: Google did lead me to actual facts about the subject. The facts are that Pay TV subscribers are growing, but Pay TV revenue is falling. Even so, Pay TV's 2016 revenue peak is nine times that of streaming's revenue peak in 2018.

And those "youngsters" not only have cable TV, but most are planning on keeping it.

Of course AT&T is looking for new opportunities to grow their business, but that it no way means that they are ready to abandon their existing cash cows. AT&T is not going to walk away from their share of an industry, Pay TV, that brings in twelve figures of income globally.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Well, let’s see. If films at home is still a thing in 20 years I will be ecstatic. I just sense that won’t be the case. A horrible, nagging, devastating feeling.

I doubt that. In 20 years you'll continue saying that the death of film is right around the corner and you'll point out that you've been predicting it for 29 years.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I doubt that. In 20 years you'll continue saying that the death of film is right around the corner and you'll point out that you've been predicting it for 29 years.

I will exist as long as films and HT exist. It’s that simple.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

UV was replaced in one country, yours.

Google Play is not a digital locker, it’s just took on digital codes from Flixster. The same problems remain.

Filmstruck’s rebirth is irrelevant. The service was shutdown.

Closure of UV is very meaningful, just not to the U.S

Play semantics all you like, but if people outside the U.S. still have access to their digital purchases, they won't care if it is due to a new digital locker or if it is due to a digital content provider like Google. The vacuum left by UV and Flixster will be filled.

Filmstruck was simply rebranded after a short hiatus. It is still here and that fact is most definitely relevant.

Your less important predictions, mentioned above, did not come to pass in any meaningful way. Names were simply changed and the needs of those customers are being met and will continue to be met.

None of your dire predictions have come to pass:

Short form content has replaced nothing. Not in the over 130 years that it has existed. Viewing short form content has been a "habit" for generations.

Vertically framed content has replaced nothing.

Viewing content on mobile devices has had no adverse impact on viewing content on stationary devices.

TVs not only still exist, their sales are growing. Average screen sizes are increasing also.

Movie theater attendance is up, including among young people. People of all ages still enjoy long form content.

We can still sit all we want while doing whatever we please.

Vegans still own devices with display screens and they will continue to do so.

If predicting the future was your livelihood, you would starve.