DVD Talk
Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?


dvdshonna
04-13-12, 06:33 PM
I don't doubt the declining sales figures for DVDs and Bluray,
but I was wondering how much the secondary (used) market
is hurting new sales.

I don't plan on streaming any movies in the near future.
I was wondering if the big push is comming from studios who
don't make any money on all the used dvds that are being resold.

I don't know what the studios make on Amazon downloads, but
$2.99 to rent and $9.99 to buy a download seems completely out
of line.

--
http://buzzhonna.tumblr.com

Jay G.
04-13-12, 09:07 PM
Wow, first post in the DVDTalk forum. Welcome!

A quick formatting tip: you don't have to press return after every line, just at the end of paragraphs. The forum will automatically wrap your text to fit the browser window. If you do hit return after every line like you do, some people may see your posts as oddly formatted (e.g. lines with only one word on them).


As for your post, it's pretty much impossible to say what impact used disc sales have had on the new disc market. However, this isn't a recent phenomena; there's been used disc selling/trading as long as there's been DVDs. Every previous video format has had to deal with the second-hand market, as has every other type of entertaiment media: music, books, comics, video games, etc. Before online piracy of music, the recording industry regarded used CD sales as the great evil sucking away revenue from new sales.

Speaking of online piracy, that's likely the major reason for movie and TV studio's reluctant pursuit of online streaming and downloading. There are people who want to bypass physical media and simply get the content now, and if they can't get it via a legal venue, they'll get it via other means. Of course, there's others who simply pirate material so they don't have to pay, but as iTunes has proved, there's plenty of people who will pay for content if they can.

As for what studios make, typically for purchases, the online distributor gets a 30% cut, while the studio gets the rest. This can vary, depending on what behind-the-scenes dealing the studio and distributor have engaged in. In regards to streaming like Netflix, those deals are largely unknown, although I think typically the studio gets a large fee upfront for access to a chunk of its catalog. There could also be per-view fees collected.

Regarding your suggested prices, the cost to price ratio for downloads is extremely low, so the prices could theoretically be lower, However, discs are also extremely profitable; the cost to make a disc isn't that high. So studios are loath to offer downloads for a price that may undercut sales of the more profitable disc sales, especially for new releases. For new releases, many retailers have historically sold some as "loss leaders," meaning for less than what they paid in order to get customers into their stores. This meant that for a $29.99 MSRP title, the studio might get $18, the distributor $4, and the retailer selling for a loss at $19.99 or $14.99. Whereas with a digital sale of $14.99, Amazon gets a 30% cut instead of a loss, and the studio gets around $10 from it.* This is why many studios are throwing in free digital copies with disc sales: they still make more on the disc sale than on selling a digital copy directly.

As for rentals, studios have major deals with on-demand with cable companies, and don't want to undercut those too severely either. This is why most new releases are $4 rentals on Amazon instead of $3.


*Note: numbers are hypothetical and meant as an example; what studios actually make on sales of discs and downloads is largely unknown.

orangerunner
04-13-12, 11:07 PM
I agree with what JayG said. Almost every product in the marketplace has to compete with second-hand product.

The DVD industry has the advantage of always being able to come out with a constant stream of fresh product, there's always something new.

I still feel streaming and downloading is what the studios will eventually find the most profitable. With physical discs there is the manufacturing process, distribution costs, transportation costs, warehousing costs and dealing with a wealth of middle-men and retailers.

Downloading/streaming eliminates most of those costs and gives them the added benefit of having at least some control over their own product.

dvdshonna
04-14-12, 12:32 AM
So what do you do with these movies you purchase and download? I know they're on your hard drive (which I assume takes up a lot of space). I also assume there is some concern about backing them up before your hard drive crashes. Which would lead back to storing them on disc again (without the artwork).

--
http://buzzhonna.tumblr.com

kd5
04-14-12, 07:33 AM
Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated?

I think it's exaggerated by the people who push streaming. For myself, streaming doesn't appeal to me at all, so the streaming industry won't make any money from me, and I'll continue to buy discs just as I have been.

Seems that whenever there's some new technology or some new gadget that does anything other than what the current gadgets do, all the sheeple flock to it and so it must be the next new thing and all things that came before it are suddenly obsolete. If it ever becomes an absolute necessity to me, then I'll look into it, until then the sheeple can flock. -kd5-

Jay G.
04-14-12, 08:37 AM
The DVD industry has the advantage of always being able to come out with a constant stream of fresh product, there's always something new.
There's always going to be new releases, but the "golden age" of DVD was driven by two factors:

1) DVD was the first video format that the mass audience purchased in quantity. VHS was predominantly a rental format, and LD was a niche product. Prior to DVD, TV shows were not typically sold in complete season sets, if at all.

2) When DVD first came out, there was a large back catalog of older titles that could be released and sell well.

Nowadays, people aren't buying DVDs in the numbers they used to, especially with catalog titles. Rental is increasing in popularity, and you can see studios struggling against this trend with their "rental-only" discs stripped of special features. Studios have run out of the major catalog titles on DVD, and have resorted to double and triple dips, which are of decreased interest. Blu-ray hasn't really picked up the slack. Ironically, the studios did too good a job selling DVD to the masses, that many still don't see a need to upgrade.


I do agree with you that studios will eventually see the majority of their revenue via downloads and streaming, but I think the profit per-sale will decrease, especially for new releases. It does open up a venue for releasing titles that the studios never felt were big enough to warrant a DVD release, to the detriment of those that prefer the disc format.

So what do you do with these movies you purchase and download? I know they're on your hard drive (which I assume takes up a lot of space). I also assume there is some concern about backing them up before your hard drive crashes. Which would lead back to storing them on disc again (without the artwork).
I think for people with large collections of digital copies, most are likely backing up their hard drive on another hard drive. Also, iTunes recently introduced a feature where movies and TV shows purchased or activated on their service (like some digital copies that come with discs) can be redownloaded for no charge. This is largely to deal with the limited amount of space on iOS devices, but it's to the benefit of even PC/Mac users. Ultraviolet digital copies also typically allow either a limited number of redownloads, or a limited time period for redownloading, or both. They may open this up to be less restrictive to compete with iTunes.

Walmart is introducing a service that will convert your DVDs to digital copies for $2, and you get to keep the DVDs. They mark the discs to prevent people from trying to get multiple digital copies from the same disc (e.g. from a rental disc).
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-12/walmart-disc-digital-conversion/54204908/1

BobO'Link
04-14-12, 12:33 PM
I think it's exaggerated by the people who push streaming. For myself, streaming doesn't appeal to me at all, so the streaming industry won't make any money from me, and I'll continue to buy discs just as I have been.
Exactly. I have *zero* interest in streaming at home, and very little elsewhere. It just depends on where I am, how good the network connection is, and how bored I am. A once-a-year type proposition at best. If the physical DVD goes away, which I do not anticipate in my lifetime as you can *still* purchase vinyl recordings if you wish, I'll be very content with what I own.

...Blu-ray hasn't really picked up the slack. Ironically, the studios did too good a job selling DVD to the masses, that many still don't see a need to upgrade.
Not really so much a "good job selling DVD to the masses" as there was a marked improvement in image quality *and* product reliability when going from VHS to DVD. That does not exist in such a pronounced way going from DVD to Blu-ray which is a lot of why the format hasn't caught on as well, not to mention the somewhat common belief among the sheeple that you have to upgrade your library to make the switch.

Class316
04-14-12, 03:21 PM
Walmart is introducing a service that will convert your DVDs to digital copies for $2, and you get to keep the DVDs. They mark the discs to prevent people from trying to get multiple digital copies from the same disc (e.g. from a rental disc).
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-04-12/walmart-disc-digital-conversion/54204908/1

Wait a minute. So I can pay $2 for a digital copy AND have my disc defaced as opposed to making my own digital copy for free?

I'm in!

Trevor
04-14-12, 03:46 PM
Wait a minute. So I can pay $2 for a digital copy AND have my disc defaced as opposed to making my own digital copy for free?

I'm in!
Well, to be fair, I imagine Walmart has the proper licensing for this and personal ripping of DVDs isn't quite legal.

Trevor
04-14-12, 04:01 PM
Is that because you have to bypass the encryptions?
Yep. I guess it's legal to rip them if they are no encryptions, but I'm not sure if anyone makes DVD without them.

dvdshonna
04-14-12, 04:23 PM
Walmart is introducing a service that will convert your DVDs to digital copies for $2, and you get to keep the DVDs

And you get to keep your DVD too? That's damn christian of them considering I paid for the DVDs.

Along with the streaming, I think I'll pass on this one too. The fascination with these mobile gadgets (ipods etc.) is lost on me. Even more so when it comes to watching movies.

--
http://buzzhonna.tumblr.com

Mr. Salty
04-14-12, 05:11 PM
The fascination with these mobile gadgets (ipods etc.) is lost on me. Even more so when it comes to watching movies.
There are "mobile gadgets" larger than iPods, such as tablets and laptops. I'm guessing you must not travel much, because having a few movies with you when you're stuck in airport layovers or long flights is a godsend.

dvdshonna
04-14-12, 05:28 PM
There are "mobile gadgets" larger than iPods, such as tablets and laptops. I'm guessing you must not travel much, because having a few movies with you when you're stuck in airport layovers or long flights is a godsend.

This is true. But neither do most of the people I know who are so fascinated with their little gadgets. Whatever makes them happy. It's their money.

I didn't know they let you take tablets and laptops on the plane. I thought you had to turn them in with your underwear.

--
http://buzzhonna.tumblr.com

Class316
04-14-12, 06:55 PM
Well, to be fair, I imagine Walmart has the proper licensing for this and personal ripping of DVDs isn't quite legal.

That makes all the difference for me, gotta go shell the $2 and have my disc defaced!

joliom
04-15-12, 01:57 AM
The fascination with these mobile gadgets (ipods etc.) is lost on me. Even more so when it comes to watching movies.



I know what you mean. I get the value for traveling, commuting to and from work on the subway, etc. but it's hilarious to me how many people watch movies at home on iPads or laptops when they have a 50" HDTV sitting right in their living room. My sister does that all the time. I gave her a 32" Samsung LED HDTV and a blu-ray player for her bedroom and she still watches all her Netflix movies on her macbook instead. She also can't ever actually watch a movie - she has to text and facebook on her phone the whole time. I don't get her generation at all.

The Bus
04-15-12, 03:59 AM
When DVDs came out, buying a lot of them was the only way to have a huge library at your fingertips. This was now more convenient and cheaper to do than when VHS was around (and the discs themselves were better than tapes).

We're getting to a point, very soon, where it will just be easier for the majority of people to turn on a device and pick from a library of movies to see.

I just don't see the benefit of buying a lot of discs and having a cable TV subscription if I can get 80% of what I need through Netflix and Hulu, at 10–15% of the cost.

The Bus
04-15-12, 03:59 AM
I know what you mean. I get the value for traveling, commuting to and from work on the subway, etc. but it's hilarious to me how many people watch movies at home on iPads or laptops when they have a 50" HDTV sitting right in their living room.

It's much more convenient.

Regulus
04-15-12, 06:38 AM
There are "mobile gadgets" larger than iPods, such as tablets and laptops. I'm guessing you must not travel much, because having a few movies with you when you're stuck in airport layovers or long flights is a godsend.

I Second This! In 2007 I had the misfortune to be on a long flight with no movie to watch and no scenery to watch because the airline switched me from a window seat to a center seat. :( Needless to say I was BORED OUT OF MY GOURD! :boring: As soon as I returned home I purchases a Portable DVD (One with a 12-Hour Battery) and that has been the end of THAT Problem! A couple of years ago The Player solved a dilemma of a Family who was seated behind me on a 3 hour flight. They had two children, ages five and six they'd do everything they could to make everyone else on that plane MISERABLE. :mad::mad: Then I broke out a Cartoon DVD and put it in my player, then the kicking and fidgeting stopped! Then I felt someone tap my shoulder, looking up I saw their father in the aisle, pausing the player he said the kids were peering through the cracks between the seats, at the cartoons I was watching. I had one of those "Splitters" that let you attach two headphone s to one jack, so I switched seats with him and used the splitter so the kids could listen to the program I was watching. When the plane landed, The Parents told me that was the quietest time they ever had with their children! I told them to purchase a DVD Player to take with them the next time they travel, saying it's the best $100.00 bucks you'd ever invest in! :D They told me as soon as they got to their Destination the first thing they'd do is BEELINE to a Wally's to procure themselves a player and some DVDs for them to watch.

PS The Portable DVD Player also serves me AT My Destination, as I can use it to watch whatever I want in my hotel room, since their "Proprietary" Cable System is worse than the Residential one. :mad2: I also use the player whenever I have to go somewhere where a Waiting Room will greet me, sure makes that time fly by! :lol:

orangerunner
04-15-12, 11:47 AM
I know what you mean. I get the value for traveling, commuting to and from work on the subway, etc. but it's hilarious to me how many people watch movies at home on iPads or laptops when they have a 50" HDTV sitting right in their living room. My sister does that all the time. I gave her a 32" Samsung LED HDTV and a blu-ray player for her bedroom and she still watches all her Netflix movies on her macbook instead. She also can't ever actually watch a movie - she has to text and facebook on her phone the whole time. I don't get her generation at all.

As a generalization, the younger generation's biggest fear in life is boredom. There seems to be a constant need for something or someone to amuse them at all times.

I guess it is just what you're conditioned to. You see it in kids TV shows like Spongebob and iCarly. They are wall-to-wall noise and screaming. The ad breaks are actually a relief from the noise!

I can sit on a bus for an hour and look out the window with my thoughts and I'm content. I look around and everyone under 35 has some kind of gadget to pass the time.

Having quiet time to collect your thoughts is important to me but maybe for some, constantly distracting themselves is the new norm.

BobO'Link
04-15-12, 12:55 PM
There are "mobile gadgets" larger than iPods, such as tablets and laptops. I'm guessing you must not travel much, because having a few movies with you when you're stuck in airport layovers or long flights is a godsend.
I'd much rather have a good book. I'll take some type of player and a small CD case of TV series disks (bigger return for the size) for use in the room, but even then the book tends to get first use. The book needs no battery or power outlet either. No - I do not use ereaders - they don't have the satisfaction factor of the "real deal" and suffer from many of the same issues as non-physical film/music media.

Nebiroth
04-15-12, 01:23 PM
I just don't see the benefit of buying a lot of discs and having a cable TV subscription if I can get 80% of what I need through Netflix and Hulu, at 10–15% of the cost.

You will when a favourite movie gets permanently pulled from the internet virtual library for all time - then you'll be thinking "gee, I wish I owned my own copy of that, like on a DVD kind of thing"

I always chuckle when people say that streaming gives them 'control'.

It is illusory. Streaming is nothing more than the theatrical model - but in your sitting room. You choose which movie theatre to go to (pick what film you want to see), pay your fee and watch.

The reason the studios love streaming so much is that it puts control where they've always wanted it: in their sticky fingers. They have never liked the idea of the audience being able to assume permanent ownership of a high quality copy of a film or TV series.

And streaming features geolocking - it's like region coding, only ten times worse and very difficult to defeat (they analyse your IP address and billing address to ensure that non-domestic users are totally blocked)

That's less important to people in the US, but here in the UK, I probably own more non-UK discs than domestically produced ones. If I had to rely on streaming, then I just wouldn't see those titles.

I also have no doubt whatever that once streaming reaches a critical mass, the prices will go up, pay-per-view will come in, and there'll be unskippable advertising and all the rest of the rubbish that blights broadcast TV (including subscription TV). There'll be a huge fuss, then everyone will get used to it and it'll be the accepted norm.

The reason the modern generation likes stuff like this is because it satisfies their instant-gratification, constant stimulation, mayfly attention span lifestyle. The one they grew up with. To wait for anything is unacceptable. To do without being constantly entertained in some way, by a movie or a vacuous 'conversation' is to be bored.

On a purely IT background level, I hate the sheer inefficiency of streaming. It already takes up about 25% of all available bandwidth and is about the most inefficient use of internet resources imaginable there is because it's a one-to-one single use service. If you watch a movie, all of the data has to be copied to you - and you alone. Watch it again, and yes, it gets copied all over again. The traffic multiplies by the number of people watching because they each get their own individual one - it's like a movie theatre having to be sent a film copy for each individual in the audience, then when they leave, all the copies are burnt and new ones sent out for the next lot.

The Bus
04-15-12, 02:24 PM
I Second This! In 2007 I had the misfortune to be on a long flight with no movie to watch and no scenery to watch because the airline switched me from a window seat to a center seat. :( Needless to say I was BORED OUT OF MY GOURD! :boring:

I'd much rather have a good book. I'll take some type of player and a small CD case of TV series disks (bigger return for the size) for use in the room, but even then the book tends to get first use.

:up: Two books provided me with more entertainment than the equivalent-sized DVDs and portable player. Now, a laptop with media on it is a different matter.

You will when a favourite movie gets permanently pulled from the internet virtual library for all time - then you'll be thinking "gee, I wish I owned my own copy of that, like on a DVD kind of thing"

Anything I watch often enough I have on disc.

I always chuckle when people say that streaming gives them 'control'.

It is illusory. Streaming is nothing more than the theatrical model - but in your sitting room. You choose which movie theatre to go to (pick what film you want to see), pay your fee and watch.

The reason the studios love streaming so much is that it puts control where they've always wanted it: in their sticky fingers. They have never liked the idea of the audience being able to assume permanent ownership of a high quality copy of a film or TV series.

It's another option.

And streaming features geolocking - it's like region coding, only ten times worse and very difficult to defeat (they analyse your IP address and billing address to ensure that non-domestic users are totally blocked)

And yet here I am, in Australia, paying a US company to watch US content.

That's less important to people in the US, but here in the UK, I probably own more non-UK discs than domestically produced ones. If I had to rely on streaming, then I just wouldn't see those titles.

I also have no doubt whatever that once streaming reaches a critical mass, the prices will go up, pay-per-view will come in, and there'll be unskippable advertising and all the rest of the rubbish that blights broadcast TV (including subscription TV). There'll be a huge fuss, then everyone will get used to it and it'll be the accepted norm.

The reason the modern generation likes stuff like this is because it satisfies their instant-gratification, constant stimulation, mayfly attention span lifestyle. The one they grew up with. To wait for anything is unacceptable. To do without being constantly entertained in some way, by a movie or a vacuous 'conversation' is to be bored.

On a purely IT background level, I hate the sheer inefficiency of streaming. It already takes up about 25% of all available bandwidth and is about the most inefficient use of internet resources imaginable there is because it's a one-to-one single use service. If you watch a movie, all of the data has to be copied to you - and you alone. Watch it again, and yes, it gets copied all over again.

Caching aside, how is this different from any other data on the internet? Each of us get our own copy of the forums when we visit them.

Mr. Salty
04-15-12, 02:31 PM
I'd much rather have a good book. I'll take some type of player and a small CD case of TV series disks (bigger return for the size) for use in the room, but even then the book tends to get first use. The book needs no battery or power outlet either. No - I do not use ereaders - they don't have the satisfaction factor of the "real deal" and suffer from many of the same issues as non-physical film/music media.

On my iPad right now I have about a dozen books, all the magazines I subscribe to, several episodes of TV shows I'm behind on, a couple of movies and access to every CD I own. And I tuck an HDMI cable into my suitcase so that if the mood strikes me I can watch streaming content on the TV in my hotel room. I can watch or read whatever I'm in the mood for without having to carry around a ton of stuff, and the battery says a couple of days at the level I use it. The iPad uses the same charger as my phone, so there's no extra burden there.

As far the "satisfaction factor," since you don't use an e-reader I don't know how you would know this. What I do know is that I don't miss lugging around books when I'm on the road.

Regulus
04-15-12, 03:19 PM
Speaking of online piracy, that's likely the major reason for movie and TV studio's reluctant pursuit of online streaming and downloading. There are people who want to bypass physical media and simply get the content now, and if they can't get it via a legal venue, they'll get it via other means.

Some people resort to piracy because a studio REFUSES to release certain titles, usually because of Royalty Issues, (1966 Batman anyone?) or "Political Correctness" (Song of the South).

dtcarson
04-15-12, 03:52 PM
I think I've watched a DVD on a flight maybe twice. I bring a book or two. I'll admit I have watched a DVD in the waiting area before, and I've streamed as well if they have free wifi (catching up on Simpsons from fox.com), but I'm usually fine with a book. Or on the flight I'll nap.
The generational/age difference is a big part of it. As much as I use my computer and my smartphone and my home theater, sometimes i'm fine sitting on the sofa reading a book or a magazine. I don't *always* have to have a device, and I don't *always* have to be 'multitasking'.
I like having choices, but not sure I'm a fan of 'my' media being defaced. At least they're trying creative and novel methods.
I do still buy dvds, but my backlog is so large that I don't buy much or spend a lot.

BobO'Link
04-15-12, 04:08 PM
...As far the "satisfaction factor," since you don't use an e-reader I don't know how you would know this. What I do know is that I don't miss lugging around books when I'm on the road.
I have an iPad provided by my employer. The only thing it is good for is basic email. Reading on it sucks, although I *do* keep technical manuals on it for reference when needed. After about an hour the backlit display takes its toll and tires my eyes, plus it has *massive* glare and is almost impossible to use in a area with lots of overhead fixtures *or* outside. I frequently spend half my time just finding an angle where I can actually *see* the display. It's also heavier than most hard cover books (no, there's no added keyboard attachment - only a very lightweight cover). If I do nothing but read the battery will last about 8 hours. Using the wi-fi drops that to 4 hours max. The need to use iTunes (biggest piece of crapware I've *ever* used) to get personal stuff on/off is a pain. As I refuse to purchase *any* form of non-physical "digital entertainment" (music, books, magazines, or videos) everything must be converted first. That brings us back to the crapware known as iTunes. I have an MP3 player that's about the size of a pack of matches and doesn't require special software to load it with files. No, it doesn't hold my entire CD collection but neither will the iPad. If all I were going to do is read I'd chose either a Nook or Kindle but then we're back to that spectre of being locked into a digital copy over which I have *zero* control. Can't sell it, give it away, loan it for extended periods, etc., not to mention that digital copy cost almost as much, if not more, than a physical book. Like my DVDs and CDs I'll take physical *every* time.

Nebiroth
04-16-12, 04:14 AM
Anything I watch often enough I have on disc.

But supposing you didn't? Supposing you grew up in a world where streaming was completely dominant and everything was in a digital afterlife?



And yet here I am, in Australia, paying a US company to watch US content..

This is a bit vague. Do you mean you are using Australian based services? If so, it's no unusual for these to be owned by a US parent company and to offer US content.

But this is not the same as accessing a US based service.

Netflix US, for example, entirely bans non-US customers; you can't even look at their website.

There are certainly ways around this, although they require a modicum of technical know how. The billing issue is somewhat more difficult although not all of them do it - they just rely on IP addresses.

Moreover, some of the technical fixes are much less useable once you move beyond computing devices. It's much more difficult to disguise the location of your TV or BluRay player than it is your PC.



Caching aside, how is this different from any other data on the internet? Each of us get our own copy of the forums when we visit them.

As you point out, there is caching, but the main problem is the sheer size and volume of traffic.

Streaming is turning the net into a TV broadcast system, and a damn inefficient one at that.

big e
05-13-12, 05:20 PM
When DVDs came out, buying a lot of them was the only way to have a huge library at your fingertips. This was now more convenient and cheaper to do than when VHS was around (and the discs themselves were better than tapes).

We're getting to a point, very soon, where it will just be easier for the majority of people to turn on a device and pick from a library of movies to see.

I just don't see the benefit of buying a lot of discs and having a cable TV subscription if I can get 80% of what I need through Netflix and Hulu, at 1015% of the cost.

I agree with you on this, especially the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. I think over the last few years the allure of owning DVDs has steadily declined and with services like Netflix and Hulu being built into DVD/BR players, game consoles, and TVs, it's far more convenient and cheaper to turn your device on, launch the app, and search for what you want to watch.

I think we are moving back to the home video model that was in place in the '80's and '90's where you have film buffs like us who buy movies and the general population who just rent, although in this case they would be streaming.

Wernski
05-14-12, 12:46 AM
plus it has *massive* glare and is almost impossible to use in a area with lots of overhead fixtures *or* outside. I frequently spend half my time just finding an angle where I can actually *see* the display.

I believe there are pretty cheap screens you can get, made my Apple, that cover the screen of your ipad (I have one on my iphone; but I'm pretty sure they make 'em for the 'pad, too) that takes care of this. Had the screen on my phone about two years, never had to replace it or anything (even though it came with a spare), and I carry that around in my pocket and stuff all the time.

Trevor
05-14-12, 06:44 AM
When DVDs came out, buying a lot of them was the only way to have a huge library at your fingertips. This was now more convenient and cheaper to do than when VHS was around (and the discs themselves were better than tapes).

We're getting to a point, very soon, where it will just be easier for the majority of people to turn on a device and pick from a library of movies to see.

I just don't see the benefit of buying a lot of discs and having a cable TV subscription if I can get 80% of what I need through Netflix and Hulu, at 1015% of the cost.
While I'll never give up my physical media, I see this as being a big factor in "the decline" and even influences me to a degree.

Until recently, if you wanted a large library of films at instant access, you needed to purchase titles. Renting was an option if you lived in an area with rental stores with good selections, and you didn't mind paying almost as much (or more) to rent than to buy; but instant streaming wasn't available.

If I was coming into film collecting now as opposed to 1998, I would probably buy a heck of lot less. And if I, one of the hoardiest hoarders here, can say that; then I imagine that Netflix and other streaming availability affects the film buying habits of Joe Consumer greatly.

ChuckWL
05-14-12, 07:47 AM
When DVDs came out, buying a lot of them was the only way to have a huge library at your fingertips. This was now more convenient and cheaper to do than when VHS was around (and the discs themselves were better than tapes).

We're getting to a point, very soon, where it will just be easier for the majority of people to turn on a device and pick from a library of movies to see.

I just don't see the benefit of buying a lot of discs and having a cable TV subscription if I can get 80% of what I need through Netflix and Hulu, at 1015% of the cost.

If your talking about streaming libraries and other teathered forms of video consumption, you must remember what is streaming today may not necessarily be there tomorrow as many of the streaming rights expire or go away after a few months. The only way to have a consistent collection, always available at your fingertips is through purchasing, not renting. That's why I see Ultraviolet taking off, and it is, you can store your purchase in the cloud, on your hard drive, DNLA server a disc however you choose but it's yours after you make the purchase.

ChuckWL
05-14-12, 07:53 AM
You will when a favourite movie gets permanently pulled from the internet virtual library for all time - then you'll be thinking "gee, I wish I owned my own copy of that, like on a DVD kind of thing"

I always chuckle when people say that streaming gives them 'control'.

It is illusory. Streaming is nothing more than the theatrical model - but in your sitting room. You choose which movie theatre to go to (pick what film you want to see), pay your fee and watch.

The reason the studios love streaming so much is that it puts control where they've always wanted it: in their sticky fingers. They have never liked the idea of the audience being able to assume permanent ownership of a high quality copy of a film or TV series.

And streaming features geolocking - it's like region coding, only ten times worse and very difficult to defeat (they analyse your IP address and billing address to ensure that non-domestic users are totally blocked)

That's less important to people in the US, but here in the UK, I probably own more non-UK discs than domestically produced ones. If I had to rely on streaming, then I just wouldn't see those titles.

I also have no doubt whatever that once streaming reaches a critical mass, the prices will go up, pay-per-view will come in, and there'll be unskippable advertising and all the rest of the rubbish that blights broadcast TV (including subscription TV). There'll be a huge fuss, then everyone will get used to it and it'll be the accepted norm.

The reason the modern generation likes stuff like this is because it satisfies their instant-gratification, constant stimulation, mayfly attention span lifestyle. The one they grew up with. To wait for anything is unacceptable. To do without being constantly entertained in some way, by a movie or a vacuous 'conversation' is to be bored.

On a purely IT background level, I hate the sheer inefficiency of streaming. It already takes up about 25% of all available bandwidth and is about the most inefficient use of internet resources imaginable there is because it's a one-to-one single use service. If you watch a movie, all of the data has to be copied to you - and you alone. Watch it again, and yes, it gets copied all over again. The traffic multiplies by the number of people watching because they each get their own individual one - it's like a movie theatre having to be sent a film copy for each individual in the audience, then when they leave, all the copies are burnt and new ones sent out for the next lot.


This is opposite of what I'm hearing in interviews and in my own conversations at forum events with studio heads where they indicate they would rather you purchase your media than rent it. It's why most of the studios have signed on to Ultraviolet.

Kurtie Dee
05-14-12, 11:05 AM
I'd also assume telecom companies would much rather have you and millions of others paying monthly rent to watch, rather than paying only on those limited occasions when you choose to buy a disc.

ChuckWL
05-14-12, 12:02 PM
While I'll never give up my physical media, I see this as being a big factor in "the decline" and even influences me to a degree.

Until recently, if you wanted a large library of films at instant access, you needed to purchase titles. Renting was an option if you lived in an area with rental stores with good selections, and you didn't mind paying almost as much (or more) to rent than to buy; but instant streaming wasn't available.

If I was coming into film collecting now as opposed to 1998, I would probably buy a heck of lot less. And if I, one of the hoardiest hoarders here, can say that; then I imagine that Netflix and other streaming availability affects the film buying habits of Joe Consumer greatly.

streaming options are Also location centric as many in rural areas have no access to high speed Internet.