Slashdot Mirror
Netflix Will Delay Renting New WB Releases
DesertBlade tips the news that Netflix will delay renting new releases from Warner Brothers for 28 days, and adds "Luckily I am so far behind in my movie watching that I will probably never catch up anyway." "It's part of a strategy by several studios to create staggered releases of DVDs so that the most profitable transactions are available first and cheaper rental options take effect further down the road. The move could be copied by other studios, forcing consumers to wait nearly a month if they want to rent popular movies from Netflix. ... The studio is hoping that the four-week window will push consumers interested in watching movies at home to buy the DVDs or pay a premium to rent them from stores like Blockbuster or from Internet and cable video-on-demand services. Warner Bros. already imposes a 28-day window on $1-a-night kiosk firm Redbox."
Seriously, how many people are so eager to see a movie that they'll be pissed by a thirty day delay in being able to rent it and yet didn't bother seeing it when it first hit the theaters?
If you are pissed off because you had to wait thirty days to rent a specific movie that you didn't care enough about to see in the theater, you need a life.
"The studio is hoping that the four-week window will push consumers interested in watching movies at home to... seek or create an alternative distribution source."
That was my first thought, because I've already switched to the alternative--not from Netflix, but from cable movie channels.
After time for DVD sales, then the rental window, then On Demand, by the time a movie hits HBO or Showtime, it's a golden oldie.
So I've canceled all the premium channels that don't have significant original content, and get my movies from an alternative source.
It's cheaper, faster, and in many cases not only do I get movies before they are available to rent, I get them before they hit the theatres!
Jeez what a whiner.
Pick any one of those issues you just posted, I get maybe one of them once a year....
Maybe you didn't have any friends to swap tapes with?
Leave it to a Slashdotter to grasp at every possible chance to feel superior to people he doesn't know. But if by "swapping tapes" you mean copying them to blanks you bought at the store, then that's obviously not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the video sales market. I'm talking about going down to the video store and shelling out $35.95 for a brand-new VHS copy of Prizzi's Honor. Or are you claiming you were so rich you didn't have anything better to spend your money on? Most of the VHS tapes I saw in peoples homes were either A.) the huge-selling, high-volume titles I mentioned; B.) secondhand copies bought at video rental stores; or C.) taped off Cinemax or dubbed from rentals. Even if you did buy a few, you "swapped" the rest. Compare to DVDs, where they have copies of Kung Fu Panda and The Klumps on sale for $12 in the checkout aisle at Safeway. The people I knew who hoarded VHS tapes were anomalies -- mom's basement types. But if I saw one DVD in someone's house today I'd expect to find 30 more.
But hey, don't take my word for it:
In VHS’ peak sales year – 2001 – there was enough VHS tape stock manufactured to reach from the earth to the moon more than 987 times.
. . .
In 2002 annual world production of DVD surpassed VHS cassettes. And in 2003, DVD-Video sales increased to 12.1 billion while VHS sales dropped to 2.4 billion.
How do I know VHS tapes didn't sell as well as DVDs? Because nothing did.
Breakfast served all day!