Interesting persepctive on movie industry & downloads

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, to my surprise I have been seeing articles that show Blu-ray is growing faster than DVD did. Is that due to economy or solely the PS3 or a combination of things, I'm not sure. Like I say, I was surprised. Maybe it's a more tech savvy consumer, or younger consumer, or the timing of HDTV.

I think it is all the things you mention in your last sentence. The other thing that needs to be noted is that consumer stop buying big ticket items such as cars, houses, and major appliances during recessions, and tend to purchase home entertainment products instead. Folks want to feel better when things are not going so well. Player and software prices have fallen quite a bit, and is probably at the point where the average consumer can jump in. Consumers can find a player at every price point, and at all levels of performance, quality and features to suit them now.

[frahengeo]

Demand, demand, DEMAND is what drives prices down.

With only one semester of Economics required in my curriculum (long time ago), my knowledge is a little rusty, but...

I think you mean "Supply" drives prices down. As more manufacturers (of BR players) enter the market, the supply should go up.

[nightflier]

You can go on with all of your b!tching, moaning, and complaining if you want to, but it not the studios fault here, its your profound ignorance of basic business principles. There is a reality here that you cannot seem to grasp. If it was just the cost of the download that is keeping downloading from growing can you explain this. When the first VHS machine hit the market they were expensive. It sold well enough even with a high price tag that it allowed manufacturers to make a profit to support R&D, simplifying the design, lower production costs, and pass the savings onto the customer. What was the main ingredient here? Consumer demand. They wanted that product no matter what the cost, and that drove enough sales for the economy of scale to kick in. When you first wanted to rent pre-recorded movies on VHS tape, the daily cost of rental was pretty expensive. However the rental market grew very quickly, competition popped up, and that drove the cost of rentals downward. What was the ingredient for the lower prices? Demand. My next example lines up with digital downloads pretty damn well.

Completely false. I'm afraid you're the one who lacks business sense, and it shows. I'm pretty certain that the cost of storage is going down, but you insist, erroneously, that it's going up. Well if it is, and if it also accounts for the largest portion of the cost of downloads, as you say, then the cost of the downloads will also be going up. And see, this not only goes against economics, but is also not borne by the evidence. What I see is a cost that is maintained at an unrealistic level, not allowed to fluctuate with the market, and has no relationship to demand. This is classic price-controlling.

To the consumer, it doesn't matter if this is the fault of studios (my belief) or the middlemen (your belief), it's still an artificial price point that is not low enough to warrant enough sales. Both the studios and the middlemen have an interest in keeping this just so, because they are making so much on physical disks, something they can continue to do as long as downloads don't grow, or at least don't grow too fast. This is why this market is practically stagnating. The only reason we are seeing any growth at all in it, is because it is riding on the tail-end of the wave of the exponential growth of smaller, portable devices and screens.

But for all your babbling, and supposed economic know-how, you still have no explanation for the high cost of downloads, the reasons why it remains high, and the lack of interest from the consumer. That is because you are so far removed from that consumer and his needs that you can't possibly fathom any other reality than what is allowed up in that isolated tower of exclusivity you live in. It's my guess that you're like the old dead-wood executive that everyone hopes will retire soon so that you'll stop hampering progress. That your superiors didn't listen to you when you wanted to ban movies on all computer-type devices, should be a sign, a big one, that you just don't get it.

For all the lofty stats, all the exclusive connections, and your precious home movie collection (half of it porn, I don't doubt), you just can't see what is happening in this economy and the Internet. That Titanic of exclusivity has already hit an iceberg called the economic downturn, but as before, it's the arrogance of it's top brass that is doing it in.

... ... ...Almost thirteen years and billions of discs later, you can find DVD's in bargain basement bins at big boxes(say that five times real fast) for $5. What drove prices down? Demand, competition, and format maturity.

Blah blah blah. Then why do you refuse to apply this rule of economics to downloads? Economies of scale should be much more apparent and begin to work faster with digital downloads because replication is so much easier, and yet none of that is happening. Prices are fixed at an unreasonable and unmarketable level that you simply can't explain.

Right now there is no mass demand for movies distributed online. It is still a very small market. As the market grows and demand increases, the price of the download goes down.

Yeah, but it ain't happening.

However while the market is still fractured...

What are you blabbering about now? How exactly is this market fractured? Between what & what? You're just spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, aka FUD, the very thing that conservatives are using to defeat healthcare reform, that Microsoft (another one of your favs) has used for years against Apple, IBM, Linux; and the very tactic that is a staple on FoxNews. Trouble is, there is no substance behind it. But at least, we know a bit more about where you stand on the issues, now.

...with no unified pricing structure...

What do you mean by a "unified pricing structure"? This sounds more like price controls, and certainly not market-driven pricing. Ironically, the price of $14.99 per movie-download is pretty much the standard out there, so it seems to me that we have rather iron-fisted price controls, a jagged little pill you protectionist executives like to wash down with words like "unified pricing structures" (which is really the same thing). Now if you don't think we have price controls, then please enlighten us. I would love to see some examples of an actual market-driven price structure, because what I'm seeing isn't at all like that.

...no single codec for playback, and no single way for playback(too many incompatible boxes or a computer is involved)...

Wait a minute. You're repeating yourself: "no codec" & "no single way for playback" is the same thing. Again, more FUD. You're trying to sound smart by using a little computerese and then using it's definition as another example. Sneaky, perhaps, and typical, but it's just more FUD, and you know it.

But here's the best part, there is no reason for there to be a single codec - most computer-type devices can read the most popular ones already. As a matter of fact most decoder chips are designed with support for multiple codecs. Now I know this is getting a little technical for you executive types, but that's why I wanted to explain it in plain English. After all, you're just continuing with the FUD on this point too. It's a complete fallacy that a single codec is needed, and either you knew that and deliberately tried to deceive the readers here, or you are just that ignorant about the technology.

Take your pick, the end result is the same. But don't try that nonsense again, you're playing in my playground now.

...there is no economy of scale to drive down prices.

Oh, so let me get this straight: you are saying that because of all the examples above, all the ones that we now know are FUD, that because of those, there are no economies of scale? Well isn't that just peachy-keen? And it's a load of nonsense. You are deliberately trying to make a case where there is none. Rather than trudging though all that esoteric load of bunk, the much simpler answer is that price controls are killing the market.

What you cannot seem to grasp is disc media is familiar to EVERYONE. The reason that Blu-ray is growing is because of that familiarity. The average consumer is not familiar with downloads. A child can operate a DVD player, but they cannot initiate a download.

Funny, because every elementary school child can. They learn it in school. Funny thing that you executive types aren't as smart. As I said, you are completely removed from reality. I'll even go a step further: the familiarity with downloads in children is likely to be greater than the familiarity with physical disks. Your lack of understanding is really showing here.

When the downloading experience becomes as ubiquitous as the DVD format, it will take off like a rocket.

It is and it has. But you executive types haven't noticed because you're so fixed on sales revenue only. The downloading of free content is so ubiquitous, and you have no stat to point that out to you, because all you've got your eyeballs on is your bottom line. Sad really. And again, we see how removed from reality your are because of your dogged obsession with only that which you are familiar with. Anything new or disruptive just baffles you.

...because with 4000+ movies available to downloading services, lack of content is not the issue. You cannot kill what you feeding, and I have cited too many examples of the studio pushing into to download distribution. It is go, but go slow until the infrastructure at all levels is there.

So slooowwwwww that you're being left in the dust, I see.

4000+ movies available for download? At prices that are exorbitant? Yeah, small wonder.

If it wasn't for pirates giving people an alternative, you wouldn't even be discussing this with us peons, right? Well since you don't want to compete in a real market, the pirates are competing in a market that you absolutely cannot win anymore: free content. Maybe all you sloooowwwww executives should start working a little faster and harder on this problem you've created for yourselves, and earning that lofty salary and those fancy perks, because there isn't anyone shedding a tear over your woes.

As far as chick flicks at the theaters, well, theaters charge an general admission, not a product valued admission. If you charged based on the value of the content, who would decide that? Who can establish a successful business model when the cost of the product would change from movie to movie. How do you budget yourself when you don't control when the content comes, and how much to charge for it. How do you manage a business with 6388 screens all showing different movies, in 39 different states, with different economic conditions in each?

Welcome to good-old competition. I'm sorry you all have been away from it for so many decades of price-controls and corporate collusion, but you know, progress marches on. I guess you'll have to actually compete now. We're really sorry for the shock this must be, but you see we've been so busy scratching a living in a real world where prices actually do fluctuate, that we don't really have the time to help you catch up. But you have such big salaries, that I'm sure you can afford to hire a few people to teach you the ins & outs of the American economy again. If you're wondering where to find such talented people, just check down at the local unemployment office, I'm sure you'll find lots of familiar faces of all the people you fired this past decade!

Theaters are not are not stand alone operations, they are managed by large chains with multiple theaters in multiple states. There is a level of financial expectation when a single market driven pricing structure is in place. Things are more manageable with one pricing structure rather than many.

Oh? Has corporatism, integration, and conglomeration made you too big? Was that the "economies of scale" you were referring to? Well, you might want to take a look at what happened to the American auto and insurance industries. They can tell you exactly how you screwed yourselves into this mess.

I have nicely and intelligently tried to explain things to you, but you seem to be more in a blaming and blasting mode, than a learning one.

See this is were we disagree the most. You haven't explained squat. As a matter of fact, you've wasted a whole lot of my time, and the time of the other readers with your insults, your unending meaningless stats, and your FUD. And yet we're still asking the same basic question: why are downloads so expensive? A question you simply don't have an answer to. Now I've given several answers to that question and you have yet to disprove a single one.

So, in your own words: "there is nothing you have said here that has not been repeated time and time again by fan boys in the corporate executives.... No amount of b!tching and moaning is going to change that. No amount of personal onslaughts and opinions on character are going to change that. You can call me every name in the book, and make all the personal valuation on my personality that you choose, but it is not going to change reality, the facts, or the way folks do business...."

You had a lot more insults to add to that as well, including more FUD, but I think the point has been made pretty clearly now: you're a hypocrite who has nothing more to say than bragging about his lofty connections who don't seem to help his incessant pedantry.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

With only one semester of Economics required in my curriculum (long time ago), my knowledge is a little rusty, but...

I think you mean "Supply" drives prices down. As more manufacturers (of BR players) enter the market, the supply should go up.

In this case we are using the law of demand to reach ecomony of scale. In other words the demand of the product becomes so high that a manufacturer can lower his manufacturing costs through manufacturing efficiencies.

[Mr Peabody]

I saw some of those old VCRs at a thrift store and those original ones were built like a tank. I think what drives prices down is competition. I don't think manufacturers become more efficient building a product I think they begin to cut corners to get the price down. Take any product from VCR to CD player to Blu-ray, look at the first or second generation and then look at what comes after. The later generations look like crap in comparison.

I saw where the FCC is supposed to be starting talks on the subject of internet and to possibly be looking to pass laws so that providers can't limit bandwidth or at least at their disgression. So things should be thoroughly screwed up some time in the near, well FCC, probably distant, future.

[poppachubby]

Demand drives prices up, simply put, the more sought after an item is, the more valuable it becomes.

[poppachubby]

I think what drives prices down is competition. I don't think manufacturers become more efficient building a product I think they begin to cut corners to get the price down. .

You're right P, competition generally involves lower prices, this is one of the greatest benefits to the consumer and probably one of the greatest catalysts for making Adam Smith's model "great".

But generally speaking, in todays manufacturing climate, efficiencies and "cutting corners" are not passed onto a consumer unless outside variables dictate so. Manufacturers will try to use these efficiencies as ways to increase their own margins after already setting a market value.

IMO, with high demand you would be hard pressed to find a manufacturer willing to pass savings on to a consumer. Since consumers have created the demand, they lose. A great model of this is XBox/PS3 and the gaming industry in general.

Hey, I just took all this stuff through my union. Feels nice to be able to discuss a bit. We had to learn about "our enemy", hahaha...

[frahengeo]

You're right P, competition generally involves lower prices, this is one of the greatest benefits to the consumer and probably one of the greatest catalysts for making Adam Smith's model "great".

But generally speaking, in todays manufacturing climate, efficiencies and "cutting corners" are not passed onto a consumer unless outside variables dictate so. Manufacturers will try to use these efficiencies as ways to increase their own margins after already setting a market value.

IMO, with high demand you would be hard pressed to find a manufacturer willing to pass savings on to a consumer. Since consumers have created the demand, they lose. A great model of this is XBox/PS3 and the gaming industry in general.

Hey, I just took all this stuff through my union. Feels nice to be able to discuss a bit. We had to learn about "our enemy", hahaha...

The price of oil is also a great example of this. Last year we saw price of oil go through the roof due to demand by consumers and investors. It seemed as if it were never ending. Then, supposedly supply was increased, but people started cutting back at the same time. The demand went down and with it, the price. Then, OPEC attempted to control the declining barrel price by cutting back on production.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You're right P, competition generally involves lower prices, this is one of the greatest benefits to the consumer and probably one of the greatest catalysts for making Adam Smith's model "great".

But generally speaking, in todays manufacturing climate, efficiencies and "cutting corners" are not passed onto a consumer unless outside variables dictate so. Manufacturers will try to use these efficiencies as ways to increase their own margins after already setting a market value.

IMO, with high demand you would be hard pressed to find a manufacturer willing to pass savings on to a consumer. Since consumers have created the demand, they lose. A great model of this is XBox/PS3 and the gaming industry in general.

Hey, I just took all this stuff through my union. Feels nice to be able to discuss a bit. We had to learn about "our enemy", hahaha...

Actually Poppa the PS3 is a great example of a manufacturer passing on parts and manufacturing savings on to the consumer. The first PS3 to hit the market at $599 used the most expensive parts for their design. They used the largest most expensive cell processor (a energy hog), had a huge parts list, and was costly to manufacture as it required new factories. The next generation had fewer parts, a smaller more efficient cell processor, and a more mature manufacturing process that made it cheaper to produce. The price was cut to the consumer, and the losses to Sony decreased as well. The PS3 slim has even fewer parts, an even smaller cell processor (not less powerful but more power efficient), and a one piece blu laser assembly. It is a MUCH cheaper product to produce than the original model, and therefore the reduced cost of manufacture was passed on to the consumer, and Sony could still make a profit from the machines. In three years the PS3 went from $599 (at Sony's loss) to $299 (with a small Sony profit).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The price of oil is also a great example of this. Last year we saw price of oil go through the roof due to demand by consumers and investors. It seemed as if it were never ending. Then, supposedly supply was increased, but people started cutting back at the same time. The demand went down and with it, the price. Then, OPEC attempted to control the declining barrel price by cutting back on production.

Oil is not a fair example because it is traded(and speculated) as a raw material, and we are talking about a finished product.

In consumer electronics, you almost never see the price of anything go up when the demand goes up. When demand was up for Blu-ray players, and the majors couldn't keep up with demand, the player prices became stable but did not actually go up or down. When supply caught demand prices remained stable, but the market itself became larger. As the market became larger (more interest), more players (manufacturers) got in the game which droves prices downward. More competition drove the prices downward, but it also allowed price tiering, just the effect the BDA was trying to create. One of the same effects was saw with DVD also happened with Blu-ray. No manufacturer outside the major japanese electronics industry wanted to get in on the action until the format caught on with consumers. So it as actually consumer demand for the product that pushed prices down.

[poppachubby]

Actually Poppa the PS3 is a great example of a manufacturer passing on parts and manufacturing savings on to the consumer. The first PS3 to hit the market at $599 used the most expensive parts for their design. They used the largest most expensive cell processor (a energy hog), had a huge parts list, and was costly to manufacture as it required new factories. The next generation had fewer parts, a smaller more efficient cell processor, and a more mature manufacturing process that made it cheaper to produce. The price was cut to the consumer, and the losses to Sony decreased as well. The PS3 slim has even fewer parts, an even smaller cell processor (not less powerful but more power efficient), and a one piece blu laser assembly. It is a MUCH cheaper product to produce than the original model, and therefore the reduced cost of manufacture was passed on to the consumer, and Sony could still make a profit from the machines. In three years the PS3 went from $599 (at Sony's loss) to $299 (with a small Sony profit).

A fine point Terrence and please know that I am simply discussing, not arguing. The thing about PS3 developments is that they are directly in correspondence to its demand. Initially, $600 a pop, however as demand fell, the need for short cutting or efficiencies had to play a role for Sony.

As I said in my original post, savings are not passed onto the consumer unless outside variables force them to. Decreasing demand/interest is one of those variables. They play this game with every new release of an upgraded machine.

That's what makes the gaming industry so interesting, every model, they are able to get the hype and demand to unthinkable levels. They have people pre-ordering and lining up for hours on end all in an attempt to get a new unit. Of course, once the mystique and hype is revealed to be just that, Sony have to bring down the price and in turn find ways to cope with profit margins.

Same cycle everytime with gaming. Can you think of one system that hasn't undergone this process? It's quite remarkable actually and extends to certain game franchises as well, not just the machines exclusively.

I use this industry just because it's a little unique in terms of its success rate and strategy. Now, your industry I really know nothing about but I'm sure they have a few cards up their sleeves. The success rate of movies however is a real up and down thing, sometimes with no real explanation except that you never know what will catch on with the mass market's tastes. Sometimes they want a bloodbath and sometimes a fuzzy drama.

[poppachubby]

Oil is not a fair example because it is traded(and speculated) as a raw material, and we are talking about a finished product.

In consumer electronics, you almost never see the price of anything go up when the demand goes up. When demand was up for Blu-ray players, and the majors couldn't keep up with demand, the player prices became stable but did not actually go up or down. When supply caught demand prices remained stable, but the market itself became larger. As the market became larger (more interest), more players (manufacturers) got in the game which droves prices downward. More competition drove the prices downward, but it also allowed price tiering, just the effect the BDA was trying to create. One of the same effects was saw with DVD also happened with Blu-ray. No manufacturer outside the major japanese electronics industry wanted to get in on the action until the format caught on with consumers. So it as actually consumer demand for the product that pushed prices down.

Agreed, commodities is another beast.

[frahengeo]

Oil is not a fair example because it is traded(and speculated) as a raw material, and we are talking about a finished product.

In consumer electronics, you almost never see the price of anything go up when the demand goes up. When demand was up for Blu-ray players, and the majors couldn't keep up with demand, the player prices became stable but did not actually go up or down. When supply caught demand prices remained stable, but the market itself became larger. As the market became larger (more interest), more players (manufacturers) got in the game which droves prices downward. More competition drove the prices downward, but it also allowed price tiering, just the effect the BDA was trying to create. One of the same effects was saw with DVD also happened with Blu-ray. No manufacturer outside the major japanese electronics industry wanted to get in on the action until the format caught on with consumers. So it as actually consumer demand for the product that pushed prices down.

You do see consumer electronics go up in price, though not officially, when the demand is extremely high, but supply is low. PS3, Wii on Ebay is an example.

If the demand is high and remains high there really is no reason for a manufacturer to arbitrarily lower its price.

Long term effect, the demand causes an increase in supply as other manufacturers enter the market. The increase in supply, is what drives the prices down.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I saw some of those old VCRs at a thrift store and those original ones were built like a tank. I think what drives prices down is competition. I don't think manufacturers become more efficient building a product I think they begin to cut corners to get the price down. Take any product from VCR to CD player to Blu-ray, look at the first or second generation and then look at what comes after. The later generations look like crap in comparison.

I saw where the FCC is supposed to be starting talks on the subject of internet and to possibly be looking to pass laws so that providers can't limit bandwidth or at least at their disgression. So things should be thoroughly screwed up some time in the near, well FCC, probably distant, future.

You are right about first generation products. My first HD-DVD player was basically a Pentium 4 computer, metal box, with off the shelf chips for video processing, and a ultra expensive sharc chip for audio. It was built like a rock. The next version I got looked more like a DVD player, had SOC solution for audio and video, much lighter weight, and a plastic box.

As far as the internet thing, well they are not going to be able to slow down traffic like there were, but they sure can impose usage caps.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It may be commodity, but still supply and demand. If it want it badly enough, you will pay the asking price (within your means of course).

You do see consumer electronics go up in price, though not officially, when the demand is extremely high, but supply is low. PS3, Wii on Ebay is an example.

If the demand is high and remains high there really is no reason for a manufacturer to arbitrarily lower its price.

Long term effect, the demand causes an increase in supply as other manufacturers enter the market. The increase in supply, is what drives the prices down.

On the other hand the earlier model of PS3 was in short supply at the beginning, and its player price was exactly the same. Ebay is bid driven, and does not have a definitive price structure like you get at Best Buy

As far as the oil thing, that commondity's price can be manipulated by speculation. Right now world wide demand is low, but speculators are driving up the price based on what is going to happen in the future, not what is currently happening.

In consumer electronics, if you want to increase your market share, you lower your price to spur sales. Now if you are the only manufacturer of a in demand product, you are correct, there is no reason to lower your prices. However with electronics like DVD and Bluray players, you are rarely the only manufacturer creating the product. When Samsung, Sony, Pioneer and Panasonic were the only ones offering Bluray players, the player prices remained pretty steady and consistant. It is only when lower priced unified laser assemblies, and SOC hit the market that the lower priced players came on the scene.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Completely false. I'm afraid you're the one who lacks business sense, and it shows. I'm pretty certain that the cost of storage is going down, but you insist, erroneously, that it's going up. Well if it is, and if it also accounts for the largest portion of the cost of downloads, as you say, then the cost of the downloads will also be going up. And see, this not only goes against economics, but is also not borne by the evidence. What I see is a cost that is maintained at an unrealistic level, not allowed to fluctuate with the market, and has no relationship to demand. This is classic price-controlling.

To the consumer, it doesn't matter if this is the fault of studios (my belief) or the middlemen (your belief), it's still an artificial price point that is not low enough to warrant enough sales. Both the studios and the middlemen have an interest in keeping this just so, because they are making so much on physical disks, something they can continue to do as long as downloads don't grow, or at least don't grow too fast. This is why this market is practically stagnating. The only reason we are seeing any growth at all in it, is because it is riding on the tail-end of the wave of the exponential growth of smaller, portable devices and screens.

But for all your babbling, and supposed economic know-how, you still have no explanation for the high cost of downloads, the reasons why it remains high, and the lack of interest from the consumer. That is because you are so far removed from that consumer and his needs that you can't possibly fathom any other reality than what is allowed up in that isolated tower of exclusivity you live in. It's my guess that you're like the old dead-wood executive that everyone hopes will retire soon so that you'll stop hampering progress. That your superiors didn't listen to you when you wanted to ban movies on all computer-type devices, should be a sign, a big one, that you just don't get it.

For all the lofty stats, all the exclusive connections, and your precious home movie collection (half of it porn, I don't doubt), you just can't see what is happening in this economy and the Internet. That Titanic of exclusivity has already hit an iceberg called the economic downturn, but as before, it's the arrogance of it's top brass that is doing it in.



Blah blah blah. Then why do you refuse to apply this rule of economics to downloads? Economies of scale should be much more apparent and begin to work faster with digital downloads because replication is so much easier, and yet none of that is happening. Prices are fixed at an unreasonable and unmarketable level that you simply can't explain.



Yeah, but it ain't happening.



What are you blabbering about now? How exactly is this market fractured? Between what & what? You're just spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, aka FUD, the very thing that conservatives are using to defeat healthcare reform, that Microsoft (another one of your favs) has used for years against Apple, IBM, Linux; and the very tactic that is a staple on FoxNews. Trouble is, there is no substance behind it. But at least, we know a bit more about where you stand on the issues, now.



What do you mean by a "unified pricing structure"? This sounds more like price controls, and certainly not market-driven pricing. Ironically, the price of $14.99 per movie-download is pretty much the standard out there, so it seems to me that we have rather iron-fisted price controls, a jagged little pill you protectionist executives like to wash down with words like "unified pricing structures" (which is really the same thing). Now if you don't think we have price controls, then please enlighten us. I would love to see some examples of an actual market-driven price structure, because what I'm seeing isn't at all like that.



Wait a minute. You're repeating yourself: "no codec" & "no single way for playback" is the same thing. Again, more FUD. You're trying to sound smart by using a little computerese and then using it's definition as another example. Sneaky, perhaps, and typical, but it's just more FUD, and you know it.

But here's the best part, there is no reason for there to be a single codec - most computer-type devices can read the most popular ones already. As a matter of fact most decoder chips are designed with support for multiple codecs. Now I know this is getting a little technical for you executive types, but that's why I wanted to explain it in plain English. After all, you're just continuing with the FUD on this point too. It's a complete fallacy that a single codec is needed, and either you knew that and deliberately tried to deceive the readers here, or you are just that ignorant about the technology.

Take your pick, the end result is the same. But don't try that nonsense again, you're playing in my playground now.



Oh, so let me get this straight: you are saying that because of all the examples above, all the ones that we now know are FUD, that because of those, there are no economies of scale? Well isn't that just peachy-keen? And it's a load of nonsense. You are deliberately trying to make a case where there is none. Rather than trudging though all that esoteric load of bunk, the much simpler answer is that price controls are killing the market.



Funny, because every elementary school child can. They learn it in school. Funny thing that you executive types aren't as smart. As I said, you are completely removed from reality. I'll even go a step further: the familiarity with downloads in children is likely to be greater than the familiarity with physical disks. Your lack of understanding is really showing here.



It is and it has. But you executive types haven't noticed because you're so fixed on sales revenue only. The downloading of free content is so ubiquitous, and you have no stat to point that out to you, because all you've got your eyeballs on is your bottom line. Sad really. And again, we see how removed from reality your are because of your dogged obsession with only that which you are familiar with. Anything new or disruptive just baffles you.



So slooowwwwww that you're being left in the dust, I see.

4000+ movies available for download? At prices that are exorbitant? Yeah, small wonder.

If it wasn't for pirates giving people an alternative, you wouldn't even be discussing this with us peons, right? Well since you don't want to compete in a real market, the pirates are competing in a market that you absolutely cannot win anymore: free content. Maybe all you sloooowwwww executives should start working a little faster and harder on this problem you've created for yourselves, and earning that lofty salary and those fancy perks, because there isn't anyone shedding a tear over your woes.



Welcome to good-old competition. I'm sorry you all have been away from it for so many decades of price-controls and corporate collusion, but you know, progress marches on. I guess you'll have to actually compete now. We're really sorry for the shock this must be, but you see we've been so busy scratching a living in a real world where prices actually do fluctuate, that we don't really have the time to help you catch up. But you have such big salaries, that I'm sure you can afford to hire a few people to teach you the ins & outs of the American economy again. If you're wondering where to find such talented people, just check down at the local unemployment office, I'm sure you'll find lots of familiar faces of all the people you fired this past decade!



Oh? Has corporatism, integration, and conglomeration made you too big? Was that the "economies of scale" you were referring to? Well, you might want to take a look at what happened to the American auto and insurance industries. They can tell you exactly how you screwed yourselves into this mess.



See this is were we disagree the most. You haven't explained squat. As a matter of fact, you've wasted a whole lot of my time, and the time of the other readers with your insults, your unending meaningless stats, and your FUD. And yet we're still asking the same basic question: why are downloads so expensive? A question you simply don't have an answer to. Now I've given several answers to that question and you have yet to disprove a single one.

So, in your own words: "there is nothing you have said here that has not been repeated time and time again by fan boys in the corporate executives.... No amount of b!tching and moaning is going to change that. No amount of personal onslaughts and opinions on character are going to change that. You can call me every name in the book, and make all the personal valuation on my personality that you choose, but it is not going to change reality, the facts, or the way folks do business...."

You had a lot more insults to add to that as well, including more FUD, but I think the point has been made pretty clearly now: you're a hypocrite who has nothing more to say than bragging about his lofty connections who don't seem to help his incessant pedantry.

I can see right now no matter what explaination is offered, you'll just swat it away so you can rile away on the studios. So, if you hate the studio so much, stop buying their product, sell your oppo, and never purchase another movie, or got to another theater. Everything to you is FUD if it does not fit into your neat little b1tching session. So, you were ignorant when you walked into this discussion, and now you will be ignorant now that this discussion is over. I see you didn't bother to respond to Wooch's post which mirrored exactly what I have been telling you for 4 pages. That is okay, if being ignorant is the best you have, then you will have to work with that.

When a person has an agenda, no rational or logical discussion is possible.

[pixelthis]

THE LATEST in downloading is the agreement by NETFLIX AND SONY
to have PS3 available for movie and TV content from Netflix.
9.95 a month or something like that.
So the trend toward downloading keeps increasing, sir talkys bleating to the
contrary notwithstanding.

[Mr Peabody]

Pix, you took my news. Netflix is really making inroads with this streaming thing.

What worries me about the FCC they don't understand a lot of the technology they have authority over and as we saw with cable vs satelite the FCC has NO sense of fair play.

Remember when Wii hit, the demand for a long time was great but Nintendo couldn't keep up, the units sold as fast as they hit the store and some who managed to get their hands on them sold them at a profit to those who couldn't wait. I believe the stores can stay in stock now and we saw a recent price drop which is probably due to the PS3 and Xbox dropping theirs first, along with soft economy.

[nightflier]

I can see right now no matter what explaination is offered, you'll just swat it away so you can rile away on the studios. ...Everything to you is FUD if it does not fit into your neat little b1tching session. So, you were ignorant when you walked into this discussion, and now you will be ignorant now that this discussion is over. I see you didn't bother to respond to Wooch's post which mirrored exactly what I have been telling you for 4 pages. That is okay, if being ignorant is the best you have, then you will have to work with that.

This pretty much describes how you've been trolling around here, in the discussion that I started.

The reason that I didn't respond to Wooch's post is because it covered a lot of the same things you posted, and I've already explained that I don't agree with much of it through my responses to you. That said, Wooch's post contrasts from yours in one big way: he didn't litter his with insults. See that's the difference, you can't help yourself from insulting and belittling others and it debases most of what you say. It turns people off and it makes the discussion a chore. I've got thick skin, but I'm also disgusted with the constant insults and I have to force myself to respond to your posts. But I do it because I really do believe you are way off base on downloads.

What is truly ironic, is that your points are being challenged by others here too, and you still think you're the one with the only correct analysis of what's happening in the market. You keep marginalizing downloads as insignificant, and yet so much evidence points to the contrary. To quote your own words: "when a person has an agenda, no rational or logical discussion is possible." Your agenda is protecting the only source of revenue you understand, but you do this at the expense of progress. As you well know progress is never held back indefinitely - history has shown that over & over again.

Disks, even BR disks, are an old medium that does not meet the demands of consumers. Lofty sales figures are only as good as yesterday's news. I'm sure that come January, you'll be chomping at the bit to report that this x-mas was be another record year for disks. But this is not a guaranty for the future, as a matter of fact, it's a bubble. Piracy, that you so despise, are like little tiny needles all around this bubble, continuously poking away at it. Yes, there are always patches, but there are also new pirates that pop up faster than you can patch. As I have now been saying for some time, it will take more than patches to address the threat. As a matter of fact, it's going to take bold and open-minded alternatives to survive. Some of these measures will also eat into your profits, but we're no longer talking about saving a few lofty salaries, we're talking about saving the whole industry.

The original article (if anyone even remembers what it said), pretty much echoed what I've been saying for a while: the studio execs are hobbling their own product by not understanding the Internet. Because you are one of those studio execs yourself, you vehemently come here to defend the execs, forgetting all along that you share the same shortcoming: you don't understand the Internet. Because you are a studio exec, you are part of the problem. It's like the old saying: you cannot see the whole picture if you're sitting inside the frame.

Now you can holler foul all you want, but the fact still remains that for all your argumentation, your industry is not recovering. Everything the execs have been doing is either failing, or barely keeping things afloat. That should be a big clue that maybe those who have a different perspective also have some valuable insight. Maybe you should be a little more respectful of the information we are giving you. I happen to know a bit about server farms and programming, certainly more than you, yet you continue to try and educate me on what I do for a living. Most of my posts are written while I'm staring at performance and redundancy charts of our servers. On another screen I'm working on a new proposal to further lower costs using energy-saving measures. Then you come trolling here telling me I don't know this stuff. It's insulting, yes, but it certainly doesn't help you in any way, now does it?

In the end, you turn off the very people that are giving you valuable advice, that is apparently not getting to you through your regular sources. You're willfully ignoring the very real signs that your industry is being assailed from many angles. A lot of the people who read your posts have valuable comments to offer from these angles. Others work in industries that are closely related to yours and are also fighting for survival in this economy. Rather than blasting them with insults, why don't you take a moment to listen to the information they are giving you. It might save your job. Now I know you don't like Pixel's posts the least bit, but that deal between Sony & Netflix, should be writing on your office wall. Maybe physical disks isn't exactly the future and safe seller you can continue to bank on. Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about downloads.

And if you're just here to argue for argument's sake or to have the last word, then you're just wasting our time, and you really should just stop. I don't mind having a thoughtful discussion about a topic, but I have no time for your delivery of it. So either discuss the topic or go away already. I've made some solid points, and you haven't addressed a single one adequately.

[pixelthis]

This pretty much describes how you've been trolling around here, in the discussion that I started.

The reason that I didn't respond to Wooch's post is because it covered a lot of the same things you posted, and I've already explained that I don't agree with much of it through my responses to you. That said, Wooch's post contrasts from yours in one big way: he didn't litter his with insults. See that's the difference, you can't help yourself from insulting and belittling others and it debases most of what you say. It turns people off and it makes the discussion a chore. I've got thick skin, but I'm also disgusted with the constant insults and I have to force myself to respond to your posts. But I do it because I really do believe you are way off base on downloads.

What is truly ironic, is that your points are being challenged by others here too, and you still think you're the one with the only correct analysis of what's happening in the market. You keep marginalizing downloads as insignificant, and yet so much evidence points to the contrary. To quote your own words: "when a person has an agenda, no rational or logical discussion is possible." Your agenda is protecting the only source of revenue you understand, but you do this at the expense of progress. As you well know progress is never held back indefinitely - history has shown that over & over again.

Disks, even BR disks, are an old medium that does not meet the demands of consumers. Lofty sales figures are only as good as yesterday's news. I'm sure that come January, you'll be chomping at the bit to report that this x-mas was be another record year for disks. But this is not a guaranty for the future, as a matter of fact, it's a bubble. Piracy, that you so despise, are like little tiny needles all around this bubble, continuously poking away at it. Yes, there are always patches, but there are also new pirates that pop up faster than you can patch. As I have now been saying for some time, it will take more than patches to address the threat. As a matter of fact, it's going to take bold and open-minded alternatives to survive. Some of these measures will also eat into your profits, but we're no longer talking about saving a few lofty salaries, we're talking about saving the whole industry.

The original article (if anyone even remembers what it said), pretty much echoed what I've been saying for a while: the studio execs are hobbling their own product by not understanding the Internet. Because you are one of those studio execs yourself, you vehemently come here to defend the execs, forgetting all along that you share the same shortcoming: you don't understand the Internet. Because you are a studio exec, you are part of the problem. It's like the old saying: you cannot see the whole picture if you're sitting inside the frame.

Now you can holler foul all you want, but the fact still remains that for all your argumentation, your industry is not recovering. Everything the execs have been doing is either failing, or barely keeping things afloat. That should be a big clue that maybe those who have a different perspective also have some valuable insight. Maybe you should be a little more respectful of the information we are giving you. I happen to know a bit about server farms and programming, certainly more than you, yet you continue to try and educate me on what I do for a living. Most of my posts are written while I'm staring at performance and redundancy charts of our servers. On another screen I'm working on a new proposal to further lower costs using energy-saving measures. Then you come trolling here telling me I don't know this stuff. It's insulting, yes, but it certainly doesn't help you in any way, now does it?

In the end, you turn off the very people that are giving you valuable advice, that is apparently not getting to you through your regular sources. You're willfully ignoring the very real signs that your industry is being assailed from many angles. A lot of the people who read your posts have valuable comments to offer from these angles. Others work in industries that are closely related to yours and are also fighting for survival in this economy. Rather than blasting them with insults, why don't you take a moment to listen to the information they are giving you. It might save your job. Now I know you don't like Pixel's posts the least bit, but that deal between Sony & Netflix, should be writing on your office wall. Maybe physical disks isn't exactly the future and safe seller you can continue to bank on. Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong about downloads.

And if you're just here to argue for argument's sake or to have the last word, then you're just wasting our time, and you really should just stop. I don't mind having a thoughtful discussion about a topic, but I have no time for your delivery of it. So either discuss the topic or go away already. I've made some solid points, and you haven't addressed a single one adequately.

tTHE INDUSTRY IS IN TROUBLE.
Better movies would be a good start, something not based on a comic book or a toy for starters.
Truth is that most in the industry can't beleive the parties over, and it is over.
Industry was shipped overseas, the country bankrupted with deficit spending,
and the middle class told that they could make their living in the "information"
sector. Now that is shrinking or moving offshore.
The middle class that the entertainment sector depends on is broke, mostly
The likes of sir talky wont be able to live the high life selling pap anymore, might even have to find a real job. WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE IS SOME GOOD IN EVERYTHING.
Hey talky, kow how to run a fry cooker?

[Mr Peabody]

It would seem to me that piracy is as much a plague to download as it is to disc, cable or satelite

[nightflier]

It would seem to me that piracy is as much a plague to download as it is to disc, cable or satelite

...but that is why I was suggesting low-quality, but full length downloads, to diminish the attractiveness of the pirated content. Coupled with enforcement, the pirated content would become much too risky and hardly worth the effort. The same can be said for cracking of copy-protection schemes.

On the plus side, this will also allow people to see movies for what they really are:

1. Movies with bad plot lines and bad acting will not generate as much high-quality purchases
2. Movies with special effects and other expensive wow-factor content would probably generate more high-quality purchases.
3. A fairer, market-driven movie economy could result from this - people will spend money on content they feel is worth their hard-earned dollars.

Keep in mind that with high-quality, I'm referring to both disk-based and download-based digital content.

[Mr Peabody]

Then how would we get the high quality version and what would be in it for the movie manufactuers or content providers?

[nightflier]

You would buy it on BR disk or through a high-quality download. For that you would have to pay full price.

For the studios that would be releasing the full-length low-quality downloads on the internet, the main benefit would be to make piracy irrelevant. Most of what is available on pirate sites is already low-quality, so if there were now a legal version out there, then downloaders would rather download that. It would save them from the risks associated with the viruses, rootkits, tombstoning of their gear and being caught by law-enforcement. I'm sure this will not completely end piracy, especially for high-quality content, but that would be a much smaller problem, one that the law-enforcement could probably better address. This is because pirated high-quality content would take longer to download from a known pirate site, making it easier to identify serial downloaders and the associated sites. ISPs would then have more time to block such content before it completes and thus avoid liability on their end.

Pirate torrent sites are hard to shut down because they aggregate content from many different servers to the one computer that is downloading the content. While the knee-jerk reaction to this by the studios, and Sir Whiner, I'm sure, has been be to block torrent sites entirely, that is simply not the solution. (Hmmmm, kind of like forbidding computers from viewing DVDs - I think I'm seeing a pattern here). The reason this is not an option is because torrent sites have tremendous potential for legitimate communications because of how they distribute traffic over the Internet to reduce bottlenecks. For example, an architectural firm can send large CAD files that way, rather than the far less efficient FTP and similar P2P protocols. Contrary to popular belief, torrent technology wasn't designed to avoid detection for pirates. It was developed for the specific purpose of reducing traffic bottlenecks, and to create a system of data transfer that would continue to work even at the most extreme levels of congestion. This is the kind of technology that is specifically designed for the Internet and follows its culture precisely - hence my previous point that the Internet will never shut down entirely from traffic because it is designed not to, but I digress.

So rather than trying to prevent the technology and the progress of it, which is what the studios would like to do and goes completely against the culture of the Internet, I'm suggesting a more amenable approach to combating piracy that does not hobble progress. I am also not downplaying piracy as a problem, but the way that it's been addressed has certainly not worked and actually has fueled more piracy, as we have seen.

Identifying illegal activity within the larger realm of torrent traffic is very difficult, kind of like triangulating a cell phone (without GPS). Typically, the triangulation is not complete before the criminal activity is completed. So, as I'm sure we've all seen in the movies, the effort is made to keep the criminal activity connected as long as possible. This is also how we could better identify illegal downloads on torrent networks. By forcing piracy of movies into longer exposure, it becomes easier to "triangulate" and shut down.

I would actually hope that the ISPs would take on that role and shut down downloads before they complete. This would then forgo the needless and costly process of involving law enforcement, which really brings up costs for everyone, especially the consumers. But I'm sure the studios would never agree to such a liberal approach and would continue their incessant criminalization out of a childish petty desire for revenge. It's this kind of thinking that makes them so hated on the Internet and further fuels piracy.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

THE LATEST in downloading is the agreement by NETFLIX AND SONY
to have PS3 available for movie and TV content from Netflix.
9.95 a month or something like that.
So the trend toward downloading keeps increasing, sir talkys bleating to the
contrary notwithstanding.

Pix, I know you are too stupid to understand the difference between a trend, and following after the Joneses. Sony did not sign the agreement based on the fact that PS3 owners were clamoring for download capability. They did it to keep up with the fact that the X-box was the only game machine that allowed streaming. Wii followed suit as well, so now nobody has that advantage to claim over the other in the world or entertainment boxes.

Did you know that the Wii is going to have a Blu-ray drive in its next machine?