There's one valid purpose to the theatrical release window, and that's to protect an incipient new franchise like Dune, something that doesn't come along every day.
What if AT&T putting Dune on HBO Max had undermined box office so badly that the movie didn't make enough of a profit to get a sequel, spinoff shows etc. Streaming is far less lucrative than box office and I doubt it can be used to launch theatrical franchises.
Just look at Netflix. They've never once created a movie franchise that could do anything at the box office except the bare minimum to qualify for Oscars. But Disney has shown that, when you've got a theatrical franchise like Marvel or Star Wars, you can use that to make streaming series galore. We wouldn't have WandaVision or Loki otherwise.
Netflix has saturated N. America and there's no more growth to be had there. They're trying to grow in Asia, where ARPU is far lower so they don't dare charge as much. They are raising prices in N. America to fund growth overseas.
Their problem is, they are simultaneously getting hit with more competition in N. America so they may have miscalculated here, triggering more cancellations than the price increase is worth. And their share price just fell off a cliff, so investors may not be in agreement with this strategy.
Bottom line, streaming is entering a tougher phase now. The big growth will happen in places where ever $10/month is a princely sum. They can still grow, but it will be with cheaper content. I foresee a lot of reality TV and telenovela style shows being made for this or that country.
The whole field will crunch down to just the strongest competitors: Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and the new Discovery/HBO Max combo. Plus AppleTV+ since they are insulated from market realities and can do whatever they please.
Sorry, Ridley. Theatrical movies have changed and now you need a lot more eye candy and immersive experience to drive people into theaters. This could be through silly comic book stuff, or it could be slightly more elevated, like Dune. But a bunch of medieval people aren't going to do it, not unless it's Game of Thrones: The Movie (and even then, those fans have been so alienated that it's best not to try).
I find that I don't read articles when there's no comments section. Seems pointless now. Some (like the NYTimes) seem well moderated, given the relative lack of totally idiotic comments.
Facebook is ad-based so the advertisers would decide what sensible moderations is. Sometimes they push back hard enough that the platforms do something about the crazy stuff. Advertisers don't like their nice ads being associated with toxic drivel. At least that happened to YouTube but I guess FB advertisers are fine with the insanity.
If the advertisers aren't motivated enough to care about solving the problem, the problem will not be solved. Congress can huff and puff but they aren't the ones footing the bill.
Content moderation at scale is too expensive to be worthwhile in an ad-based business model (or a more-lucrative subscription model, to the extent that model is even being used).
Advertisers do sometimes care about their ads being placed next to crazy Nazi screeds. YouTube got in trouble about that. A subscription model would put the users in charge of what content they consider acceptable. LinkedIn I guess would be a (rare) example of that, and content seems to be a lot less unsavory on that site.
Facebook doesn't care about the culture of any country they operate in. That's not their business. Their business is selling users to the true customers, the advertisers. In any country it operates in, there will presumably be local advertisers or there's no point to them operating at all. So if there are issues in that country, why are advertisers supporting FB? Go after the advertisers. Boycott them till they pull their ads from FB. Better yet, everyone stop using FB.
If my theater-going experience is anything to go by, about half the audience will fail to even look up from their phones and will probably just burn to death.
I get sick of seeing tech companies like Facebook hauled before Congress when it's the telcos that should be brought to heel. I can and do live just fine without Facebook or Twitter, but just try getting decent internet without dealing with a monopolistic telco.
If I were the suspicious type, I might think the furor over the tech companies is a smokescreen for distracting us from the true problem.
Bad behavior by tech companies is much less egregious than bad behavior by telcos. It's possible to live without Google, Amazon and Facebook (I live without the latter just fine thank you) but try getting on the internet without a telco that probably has a monopoly on decent broadband in your area and THAT is the problem.
Let's see the NFL, NHL and NBA do the same. Let's see all four big sports band together for a single sports platform. Let's see this go global and include cricket, soccer, any sport popular across the world. This could be the start of something very big.
Linear TV is fatally broken. The audience has fled except for oldsters who will kick off eventually and then that's it for linear TV. Cable too. The audience has decamped for streaming, where there seems to be little interest in delivering news alongside Squid Game and The Mandalorian.
But will news expand into streaming? Right now, streaming is on track to be dominated by Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. HBO Max may join them if better management can turn it around. AppleTV+ is just focused on a niche premium content service. Amazon Prime shows some sports but none of them seem at all interested in news.
They all have huge global audiences in mind. Shows and movies are easiest to amortize across a global audience. Sports might be more challenging but there are ways. But news? What does a global news operation really look like? CNN is the closest, but I don't think its focus on disasters and political screetching is really the right formula. If news does make the transition to streaming, I think it will take
Broadcasters get paid by advertisers. If they can't track Locast viewers and demand payment from advertisers - assuming Locast viewers watch the ads - then Locast is of no use to broadcasters.
This case really opens up a broader question, namely: as broadcast/cable circle the drain and are replaced by massive global streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, what happens to news? Is anyone actually willing to pay to watch quality news, or are they happen to get nonsense on Facebook for free and call that news?
There could be a Locast like service structured like Netflix. Many people in the world is interested in their local news, but how to deliver that cost-effectively? It can't benefit from efficiencies of scale. News seems to have been entirely forgotten. There are efforts underway to push sports onto streaming in a way that will still attract fans and revenue, but news? Nothing.
Facebook is a machine designed to generate profits for its company. It does that by selling a product (users) to the customer (advertisers). There is no "reforming" that process because Facebook is a machine functioning as designed. It has nothing to do with social good or free speech. It's an ad-delivery system. If you don't like that, then just leave it and don't look back. If enough of the products leave, then Facebook will have nothing to sell and the problem is solved.
Facebook is a machine working as designed. You can't reform a functioning machine but you can pull the plug. The government can't and shouldn't pull the plug. The users - aka "products" to Facebook, being sold to the true customers, the advertisers - can pull the plug by leaving.
So, if you enjoy being treated like a product, by all means continue to use Facebook. But if you develop a bit more self-respect, go head and leave. I did, years ago. I'm doing fine. What is everyone scared of?
The part that's good is that the worthwhile content is now being made directly by streaming platforms, which run $4-$15/month and you only need to get one or two at a time. They're easy to jump in and out of, no arguing with some Comcast rep on the phone.
So if you're happy to actively manage your streaming accounts to get the best deal, it's a bonus. If you don't want to be bothered, then yeah I can see how it would be a nuisance.
Don't pay $65 to Hulu for "live" TV unless you're a sports fan (and even with sports, a better streaming option is bound to emerge). Ad-free Hulu is $12/month. Eventually I'll sample Hulu for a month or two, hoover up anything good that's built up in their library, and then bail. During that time I can pause Netflix and Disney+ so it won't cost me anymore per month than now.
Not being a sports fan is the key here. You can really drive your streaming costs down to bare bones. All the content just sits there waiting for you if it's owned by the streaming platform and won't abruptly vanish, and content being owned by the streaming platform is becoming the standard now.
Streaming is definitely headed for two branches: the Netflix/Disney+ side where you pay to avoid ads; and the YouTube side (nothing new about this) where you get ads in return for free content. Maybe this content will become a bit more professional than the average for YouTube (or more likely it will be old professional content, repurposed over its lifespan).
Platforms like Roku will be involved because even if you can use Roku to access Netflix, they'll be gathering data that would be valuable if they can lure you to their free, ad-supported content. Roku itself can produce and control that side. Netflix and Disney+ are just the lures to get you in their ecosystem.
one valid purpose to the theatrical release window...
There's one valid purpose to the theatrical release window, and that's to protect an incipient new franchise like Dune, something that doesn't come along every day.
What if AT&T putting Dune on HBO Max had undermined box office so badly that the movie didn't make enough of a profit to get a sequel, spinoff shows etc. Streaming is far less lucrative than box office and I doubt it can be used to launch theatrical franchises.
Just look at Netflix. They've never once created a movie franchise that could do anything at the box office except the bare minimum to qualify for Oscars. But Disney has shown that, when you've got a theatrical franchise like Marvel or Star Wars, you can use that to make streaming series galore. We wouldn't have WandaVision or Loki otherwise.
what's really going on
Netflix has saturated N. America and there's no more growth to be had there. They're trying to grow in Asia, where ARPU is far lower so they don't dare charge as much. They are raising prices in N. America to fund growth overseas.
Their problem is, they are simultaneously getting hit with more competition in N. America so they may have miscalculated here, triggering more cancellations than the price increase is worth. And their share price just fell off a cliff, so investors may not be in agreement with this strategy.
Bottom line, streaming is entering a tougher phase now. The big growth will happen in places where ever $10/month is a princely sum. They can still grow, but it will be with cheaper content. I foresee a lot of reality TV and telenovela style shows being made for this or that country.
The whole field will crunch down to just the strongest competitors: Netflix, Disney+, Amazon and the new Discovery/HBO Max combo. Plus AppleTV+ since they are insulated from market realities and can do whatever they please.
just not a theatrical movie
Sorry, Ridley. Theatrical movies have changed and now you need a lot more eye candy and immersive experience to drive people into theaters. This could be through silly comic book stuff, or it could be slightly more elevated, like Dune. But a bunch of medieval people aren't going to do it, not unless it's Game of Thrones: The Movie (and even then, those fans have been so alienated that it's best not to try).
ironic
I find that I don't read articles when there's no comments section. Seems pointless now. Some (like the NYTimes) seem well moderated, given the relative lack of totally idiotic comments.
Re: Re: Re:
Facebook is ad-based so the advertisers would decide what sensible moderations is. Sometimes they push back hard enough that the platforms do something about the crazy stuff. Advertisers don't like their nice ads being associated with toxic drivel. At least that happened to YouTube but I guess FB advertisers are fine with the insanity.
If the advertisers aren't motivated enough to care about solving the problem, the problem will not be solved. Congress can huff and puff but they aren't the ones footing the bill.
Re: Re:
Content moderation at scale is too expensive to be worthwhile in an ad-based business model (or a more-lucrative subscription model, to the extent that model is even being used).
Advertisers do sometimes care about their ads being placed next to crazy Nazi screeds. YouTube got in trouble about that. A subscription model would put the users in charge of what content they consider acceptable. LinkedIn I guess would be a (rare) example of that, and content seems to be a lot less unsavory on that site.
wrong idea
Facebook doesn't care about the culture of any country they operate in. That's not their business. Their business is selling users to the true customers, the advertisers. In any country it operates in, there will presumably be local advertisers or there's no point to them operating at all. So if there are issues in that country, why are advertisers supporting FB? Go after the advertisers. Boycott them till they pull their ads from FB. Better yet, everyone stop using FB.
Re: Re: Why should triggering a panic be legal?
If my theater-going experience is anything to go by, about half the audience will fail to even look up from their phones and will probably just burn to death.
forget Facebook, go after Comcast
I get sick of seeing tech companies like Facebook hauled before Congress when it's the telcos that should be brought to heel. I can and do live just fine without Facebook or Twitter, but just try getting decent internet without dealing with a monopolistic telco.
If I were the suspicious type, I might think the furor over the tech companies is a smokescreen for distracting us from the true problem.
go after telecos not tech
Bad behavior by tech companies is much less egregious than bad behavior by telcos. It's possible to live without Google, Amazon and Facebook (I live without the latter just fine thank you) but try getting on the internet without a telco that probably has a monopoly on decent broadband in your area and THAT is the problem.
just the start
Let's see the NFL, NHL and NBA do the same. Let's see all four big sports band together for a single sports platform. Let's see this go global and include cricket, soccer, any sport popular across the world. This could be the start of something very big.
Re:
Linear TV is fatally broken. The audience has fled except for oldsters who will kick off eventually and then that's it for linear TV. Cable too. The audience has decamped for streaming, where there seems to be little interest in delivering news alongside Squid Game and The Mandalorian.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why would nbc,cbs, not want more people to v
..entirely new forms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: why would nbc,cbs, not want more people to view
But will news expand into streaming? Right now, streaming is on track to be dominated by Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. HBO Max may join them if better management can turn it around. AppleTV+ is just focused on a niche premium content service. Amazon Prime shows some sports but none of them seem at all interested in news.
They all have huge global audiences in mind. Shows and movies are easiest to amortize across a global audience. Sports might be more challenging but there are ways. But news? What does a global news operation really look like? CNN is the closest, but I don't think its focus on disasters and political screetching is really the right formula. If news does make the transition to streaming, I think it will take
Re:
Broadcasters get paid by advertisers. If they can't track Locast viewers and demand payment from advertisers - assuming Locast viewers watch the ads - then Locast is of no use to broadcasters.
This case really opens up a broader question, namely: as broadcast/cable circle the drain and are replaced by massive global streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, what happens to news? Is anyone actually willing to pay to watch quality news, or are they happen to get nonsense on Facebook for free and call that news?
There could be a Locast like service structured like Netflix. Many people in the world is interested in their local news, but how to deliver that cost-effectively? It can't benefit from efficiencies of scale. News seems to have been entirely forgotten. There are efforts underway to push sports onto streaming in a way that will still attract fans and revenue, but news? Nothing.
Re: what Facebook is...
Facebook is a machine designed to generate profits for its company. It does that by selling a product (users) to the customer (advertisers). There is no "reforming" that process because Facebook is a machine functioning as designed. It has nothing to do with social good or free speech. It's an ad-delivery system. If you don't like that, then just leave it and don't look back. If enough of the products leave, then Facebook will have nothing to sell and the problem is solved.
Facebook is working as designed
Facebook is a machine working as designed. You can't reform a functioning machine but you can pull the plug. The government can't and shouldn't pull the plug. The users - aka "products" to Facebook, being sold to the true customers, the advertisers - can pull the plug by leaving.
So, if you enjoy being treated like a product, by all means continue to use Facebook. But if you develop a bit more self-respect, go head and leave. I did, years ago. I'm doing fine. What is everyone scared of?
Re:
The part that's good is that the worthwhile content is now being made directly by streaming platforms, which run $4-$15/month and you only need to get one or two at a time. They're easy to jump in and out of, no arguing with some Comcast rep on the phone.
So if you're happy to actively manage your streaming accounts to get the best deal, it's a bonus. If you don't want to be bothered, then yeah I can see how it would be a nuisance.
Don't pay $65 to Hulu for "live" TV unless you're a sports fan (and even with sports, a better streaming option is bound to emerge). Ad-free Hulu is $12/month. Eventually I'll sample Hulu for a month or two, hoover up anything good that's built up in their library, and then bail. During that time I can pause Netflix and Disney+ so it won't cost me anymore per month than now.
Not being a sports fan is the key here. You can really drive your streaming costs down to bare bones. All the content just sits there waiting for you if it's owned by the streaming platform and won't abruptly vanish, and content being owned by the streaming platform is becoming the standard now.
Re: Re: Don't connect your 'smart' TV to the internet
Apple doesn't have to sell your data. They can be the "buyer" of that data and use it to sell you more gizmos and subscriptions.
Ditto for Amazon. They are their own advertiser.
caveat emptor as usual
Streaming is definitely headed for two branches: the Netflix/Disney+ side where you pay to avoid ads; and the YouTube side (nothing new about this) where you get ads in return for free content. Maybe this content will become a bit more professional than the average for YouTube (or more likely it will be old professional content, repurposed over its lifespan).
Platforms like Roku will be involved because even if you can use Roku to access Netflix, they'll be gathering data that would be valuable if they can lure you to their free, ad-supported content. Roku itself can produce and control that side. Netflix and Disney+ are just the lures to get you in their ecosystem.
More comments from nerdrage >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by nerdrage.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt