Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
04-15-12, 04:08 PM
#26
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
04-16-12, 04:14 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
But supposing you didn't? Supposing you grew up in a world where streaming was completely dominant and everything was in a digital afterlife?
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.
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.
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.
Streaming is turning the net into a TV broadcast system, and a damn inefficient one at that.
05-13-12, 05:20 PM
#28
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
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.
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.
05-14-12, 12:46 AM
#29
New Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
05-14-12, 06:44 AM
#30
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
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.
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.
05-14-12, 07:47 AM
#31
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
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.
05-14-12, 07:53 AM
#32
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
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.
05-14-12, 11:05 AM
#33
DVD Talk Reviewer/Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Formerly known as L. Ron zyzzle - On a cloud of Judgement
Posts: 14,485
Received 1,838 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
05-14-12, 12:02 PM
#34
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Is The Decline Of Discs Exaggerated ?
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.
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.
