Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news.mindspring.net!user-33qs1cv.dialup.mindspring.com!user
From: david...@mindspring.com (David)
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.games.video.xbox
Subject: Re: Linux on Xbox? (was: Canada vs. Microsoft)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:18:38 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <davidz11-2311011218390001@user-33qs1cv.dialup.mindspring.com>
References: <m1vggadl39.fsf@inconnu.isu.edu> <9t587f$u0k$1@slb1.atl.mindspring.net> <m16688ybnc.fsf@inconnu.isu.edu> <20011118142520.02d39ada.Stefaan.Eeckels@ecc.lu> <2t0gvtgcgrimf8prg7eo2g2ldr9urbj6sp@4ax.com> <m1r8qu1nej.fsf@inconnu.isu.edu> <davidz11-2011011241460001@user-33qs197.dialup.mindspring.com> <3BFAA71B.3020208@quiotix.com> <uadxh42y7.fsf@synopsys.com> <u5ulvt461mlhd6m8o3uiv7djuu7icjmths@4ax.com> <davidz11-2111011331410001@user-33qs1rm.dialup.mindspring.com> <f84ovt03eglsa43oehgnpqp3b08t4arllc@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.05.9f
X-Server-Date: 23 Nov 2001 18:19:47 GMT

In article <f84ovt03eglsa43oehgnpqp3b08t4ar...@4ax.com>, t...@voicenet.com
wrote:

> Strolling through comp.os.linux.advocacy, I heard David say:

> >That's less true today than yesterday.  Going to theaters is one of my
> >favorite pasttimes, but everyone has limits.  Theater screeners future
> >will lie in making "the theater experience" a good deal better than
> >staying at home.  With generally more people having HDTV, high-quality
> >screens, hi-end audio systems and playback systems in the *preferred*
> >comfort and security of their own home, that's going to be a challenge. 
> >(Screeners probably have a much better future overseas in markets without
> >widespread market penetration of these.)
> 
> That's just as true yesterday as today.  There is no reason to think
> that there is any end to the process.

There will likely be a public theatre [cinema] industry, sure.  I'm not
saying it would *disappear* any more than film destroyed theatre or L.P.s
destroyed concerts.  My point is that *most* people, assuming consumer
electronics develop as above, would be just as happy to stay at home if
the entertainment is perceived as FREE.  Particularly after shelling out
for the electronics.

Let me guess: you don't care HOW any industry might survive, it merely will.

So you probably wouldn't care if that might mean lots of screen and
location closings, more monopolization of local markets by fewer
exhibitors, exorbitant ticket prices and so forth.

 
> After the introduction of home video, the prices in most theaters
> starting rising greatly, and perhaps in the large cities they might
> remain pretty high.  But in all cases competition does its job, and
> theater owners were forced to back off of the 'speculative pricing'
> which caused the reactionary increase in price.

Where did this occur?  Ticket prices have "backed off" of previously
higher levels, you're saying?  Can you elaborate?  I don't recall anything
of the sort.


> Another way of seeing this is that attendance at theaters went down,
> just as your hypothesis predicts, and so theater owners had to increase
> prices to stay in business.  Once consumers realized the value of the
> social experience of seeing a movie with friends in a theater,
> attendance came back up.  As always has and always will happen, anyone
> trying to predict the demise of an industry gets their hat handed to
> them.

Had anybody cut a block of ice out of a lake for you lately?  Consumer
devices can and do 'eliminate' industries, enough to re-direct spending
and profits away from previously profitable enterprises for all but
fractions of the market.


> >If you respect Spielberg so little as to deny him compensation, why see
> >his films? 
> 
> How have I denied him compensation?

If you watch an unlicensed copy of his film, you do.  If you pay whatever
ticket price to see it exhibited at a theatre, you don't of course.


> >Or pick any director or film you like.  Why should you get it
> >for free?
> 
> Because they can make money giving it to me for free.  They make a
> killing at the concession stand.

Are you aware most ticket revenue goes to the distributors and studios,
with a fraction of it retained by the exhibitor?  The exhibitor makes its
money at the concession stand and gets nickels and dimes out of your
ticket price.  Less in the first week(s) of a release, more so for long
runs when they get as much as 50% of the ticket price.  More multi-plexes,
incidentally, have a side effect of shortening long runs (and ultimately
the exhibitor's ticket revenue) by screening multiple prints at a single
complex.

But don't "second-guess" the exhibitors - they found a way to make a
profit.  If you think they make a "killing" at the concession stand, well,
that's the price of not paying the exhibitor for the film.  No lessons
there... mmm.


> Like the underlying issue of Windows v. GNU/Linux, it seems some people
> can't manage to grasp the idea of a change in business model.  This
> comes from lack of understanding about how supply and demand works, how
> competition ensures that you have no need to trust the butcher, and why
> it is "chicken little-ism" to claim that an industry will go away
> because they make less money now than in the past.

Called your chimney sweep lately?

David Z
Houston TX