Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Enters NetFlix's Business
wcbrown writes "AP reports that Wal-Mart is entering into the online DVD rental arena, currently dominated by Netflix. Wal-Mart is starting out with 13,000 titles, six distribution centers, and competitive pricing. With a seriously tremendous infrastructure and expansive will, Wal-Mart stands poised to overtake Netflix. To say the least, that's not going to be good for business."
This isn't necessarily bad for NetFlix. First, it "validates" the market, and gives NetFlix a bunch of free PR (all the articles about the Walmart entering the fray will compare/contrast with NetFlix), including making tens of millions of consumers more aware of this new sort of rental scheme that they just don't grok yet. Second, it makes NetFlix a take-over target for any other company wanting to join in the competition (perhaps even BlockBuster, if their home-grown offering falters). Then again, maybe NetFlix will get blown out of the water.
To say the least, that's not going to be good for business
Competition is good for the consumer.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
Well as we have seen Walmart has a long and unbroken track record of removing/banning/censoring things too non-consertative/too non-christian/too non-'patrotic'/too 'contreversial' for their perceived vanilla brain dead store-goers. It will remain to be seen what they actually make available.
That when I go to rent a movie, it's usually on a spur of the moment thing. It's like I ask my wife "what would you like to do tonight" and she might say I don't know...wanna rent a movie?
So then we go down to the rental place and look around, not really sure what we want and pick something up and go home THAT NIGHT and watch a movie.
With renting a movie over the net and having it mailed to you isn't quite what we're looking for. We want something we can see that night, not two days from then...because the way we live two days from then we might be doing something else that comes up etc etc. We live by the seat of our pants and never really plan out little things like movie watching in advance.
At least, that's how we play it. Is there really that much need for this out there? Just curious.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
It will be good for the consumer because there will be price competition. As it stands now, Netflix has cut down on service and raised prices since they started. In fact, this is EXACTLY the type of service that Wal-Mart should EXCEL at. Wal-Mart is a master of the supply chain, which is the main issue with DVD rental through the mail.
I don't understand the argument against Wal-Mart in regards to small businesses. If Wal-Mart undercut everyone else, pushed small businesses out of business, and then jacked their prices up I could understand the argument. I haven't seen that though, they're always the lowest price. Lowest price is good for consumers. As for the service aspect - I don't need good service to buy rubbermaid, toilet paper, toys, video games, or dvds. I just need/want low price.
Not good for the consumer? Rubbish. You act as though aggressive competition guarantees an irrevocable market dominance. It doesn't! As soon as your theoretical future-walmart doesn't meet the consumer's desire for quality+low prices+convenience (something it currently does quite well, mind you) another business can rise up to meet that need.
Give the consumer due credit -- when a company takes it's customer base for granted and acts like a "dinosaur" it loses market share to smaller, more nimble companies that give the customer what they want. The business history books are full of examples (see Sears & Roebuck, K-Mark, IBM, etc.)
Result? Problem solved, unless you simply don't believe that capitalism works.
Gee, just what I always wanted! A censored DVD rental company! Sigh. I have lost complete and total respect for Wal-Mart over the years. First they started flexing their muscles to censor the video game industry and made it plain that any video game they didn't like wouldn't be sold by Wal-Mart, thus making game companies cave and self-edit their games. Then they pulled some men's magazines off their shelves that had less female skin than most women's magazines these days. Now they want to start renting out DVDs, which I'm quite sure are censored? Heh, good luck.
YEah! I DEMAND streaming porn on the projector at elementary schools! Who is WalMart to tell us what they will and wont sell! HOW DARE THEY have some morals and make decisions that they feel protect their clientele!
Sheesh.. the NERVE of walmart to think that someone like me may not want my six year old son asking why a mostly naked wrestling chick is on the front cover of STUFF magazine in the checkout line! (Stacy Kiebler.. next month).
Well.. I think I'll take my dollar right down to the local dark wank-in-the-back porn shop to show my outrage! (end sarcastic rant).
Dude.. its their store. They can sell, or not sell, whatever the hell they want. If you dont like it, dont shop there, but dont act like its some crime against humanity that Wal-mart doesnt carry pimply faced teenager prot0-spank material at their registers anymore.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
True geeks, IMO, would be MORE likely to rent the DVD rather than download it. It's the casual movie watcher that's happy with a badly compressed version off of Kazaa. Geeks want to enjoy their movies in their full 5.1 surround sound/THX/whatever glory on their big screen.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Hard, though, to have sympathy for a company that nicknamed their product "Mosaic Killer", AKA Mozilla.
Microsoft may have fscked a number of companies, but anyone entering a market where people are already giving away their product should not be surprised when somebody else comes in and gives away their product.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Yes, Wallyworld can sell whatever they want, measured against whatever corporate standards of decency they so choose.
... but where the hell else can they go?
... but when all that exists is Windows+IE where the hell can I run it?
But it still saddens me. Here's why, and I've seen this happen over and over and over. Walmart moves in to a community. All the smaller book/record/video/newsstand stores go out of business; they just can't compete. Then all that is left for that community at that point, in an EASILY ACCESSIBLE FORM, is Walmart's definition of "decent".
Yes, I can "shop somewhere else", but what if there IS nowhere else?
Is it legal? I believe it is. Competition == good. It's the American Way (tm). We should all be so lucky.
It is good for the community? I believe it is not.
Also sad is Wallyworld's penchant for pressuring publishers and distributors to modify their books/records/videos/etc before they will stock them. That to me falls solidly in a gray area of legality. Sure, the distributors can go elsewhere if they don't want to edit
Sure I can write a better browser