Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#71

Post by xapata »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #69
scarface74 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockbuster used to have a really crappy selection of mostly mainstream movies, And that’s what most people buy and rent and that’s where the money is. That made perfect sense for Blockbuster. I strongly suspect that the new AMC Stubs subscription program will be a long term success even though it costs more and you really only get access to mainstream movies. Many of them rarely realize how crappy the selection of N…

A movie being popular is half quality and half marketing. Unless we abolish huge advertising budgets, there's no reason to assume that the mainstream viewer would actually give the best ratings to mainstream movies.

Yet people care sometimes more about popularity than quality. You want to watch the same movie everyone else did so that you can chat about it.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#72

Post by sonnyblarney »

I don't think that social influence critical masses were really a factor here.

Blockbuster was brick and mortar, and 'on demand from home at $10 a month' is going to kill that business on the basic fundamentals.

There's no special science here.

Blockbuster executives were fools - not so much to 'not see it coming' (few did) - but to not react when the writing was on the wall.

Video streaming might be hard but it's not rocket Science, and a lot of people still wanted to rent videos.

Using the massive installed base, stores, and gazillions of customers to launch an 'on demand' service that was 'pretty good' might have snuffed Netflix.

After all - Netflix had to make the switch from DVDs.

I worked at BlackBerry and saw kind of the same thing - sitting on the Titanic watching the iceberg get closer ... not at all alone in my concern, however the large ship was unable to change course.

Especially as Netflix was just getting into streaming, and however we can point fingers, the fact remains that Blockbuster had all the opportunity and advantage, it was squandered.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#74

Post by mikekchar »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #70
mikekchar wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but the Canadian copyright act is actually quite readable: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-42/ As a programmer, I'm someone who depends on copyright for my living, so I always thought it was a good idea to understand what it says. While, the advice to get a lawyer is a good one, I think it's actually pretty clear that it is not legal. It falls pretty clearly under "(f) in the case of any l…

It's not at all clear that it's 'to the public', when it's only being sent to the renter. But that won't stop you from getting charged anyway.

Feel free to consult a lawyer, but there are 2 parties to which the copyright act refers: the public and researchers. The definition of researchers is given in the act. The public is everybody else -- you, the renter, anyone else that isn't a researcher.

The way it works is that the act outlines all of the circumstances in which copying could be infringing. It then defines infringement in section 2. In section 2 it says that it is not infringement if you have an agreement with the copyright holder (i.e. a license).

You may be thinking that "the public" infers a large group of people. This is not correct. The copyright act doesn't distinguish between numbers of people except in very specific circumstances (private copying with respect to audio recordings of music is an example). There used to be a section dealing with "making available", but it seems to have been removed (I haven't lived in Canada for a decade, so I haven't kept up with the copyright act).

Generally speaking, copyright infringement is a civil matter, but commercial copyright infringement is a criminal matter so it is doubly important to get a good legal opinion before venturing into that territory.

But, like I said, the act is quite clear IMHO. If you disagree, then feel free to get a legal opinion (which mine is not). I would literally be shocked if any lawyer told you that it was legal, though.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#76

Post by nightfly »

smelendez wrote: post #59
chiph wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still on the disc-by-mail plan because I get the full quality the disc has. No dropouts, no (additional) compression artifacts, no reduced resolution because of network congestion.[1] I will say that their long-tail catalog isn't as long as it used to be. About a third of my queue is titles that they recognize, but do not have in stock -- presumably they used to have them but don't anymore. Still better than the…

I feel about DVDs the way you feel about streaming. Every time I've been somewhere where someone's shown one in recent memory, the disc has been scratched or dirty and the player starts going berzerk. And half the time there are difficult-to-skip previews and copyright notices. I'd rather go back to renting VHS tapes than deal with DVDs.

Rural areas often have local thift stores with massive VHS collections. You can buy a tape for, usually, a $1, keep it as long as you want and donate it back if you decide you don't want it taking up space any more.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#77

Post by jdietrich »

pmoriarty wrote: post #5

Blockbuster used to have a really crappy selection of mostly mainstream movies, but often it was one of the closest video rental stores around, as they seemed to be everywhere. They also censored and cut their movies, which was really annoying. I don't know what their agenda was on that front, and why they couldn't just let mature adults watch the full films. My friends and I used to much prefer going to independent…

>Many of them rarely realize how crappy the selection of Netflix streaming is, as they've been brought up on a diet of crap

It's worse than that. Netflix have used UI sleight-of-hand to disguise the fact that their selection is just crappy full stop, Hollywood or indie. Of the top 250 movies on IMDB, less than 50 are available on Netflix in any region. In some regions, it's less than 20. The UI leans heavily on recommendations and subtly guides you away from search, because if you think of a movie, they probably don't have it.

If you're a young person trying to discover cinema and you've believed Netflix's bullshit, you'll miss out on nearly all of the classics. Trying to work your way through the IMDB top 250 or the list of Best Picture winners is fruitless - you'd be better off with a library card than a Netflix subscription.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#78

Post by lotsofpulp »

scarface74 wrote: post #41
lotsofpulp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the malls around rich people are doing okay. You can spot these by searching for Apple and Nordstrom’s, also where you will find the wealthier side of any urban area.

Even those traditional closed in malls are being upended by pedestrian friendly upscale mixed uses communities with stores and townhomes. The local Apple Store just moved from the local mall to one of those communities. It also has the standard cliched collection of yuppie stores - a Tesla showroom, Whole Foods, Gap, Bonobos, Container Store, Pottery Barn, a Pilates Studio, etc....

Yes, it's also about separating upper class from middle/lower. Indoor malls became the norm, so a shiny new outdoor one can signal itself as something more upscale and different. The outdoor lighting also probably helps instagram pics when having mimosas and/or dinner at sunset.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#79

Post by lotsofpulp »

scarface74 wrote: post #66
burger_moon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you described is literally the same thing SouthPark makes fun of in the Sodosopa episodes. https://imgur.com/gallery/Xgea4Ot It's amazing how on the nose they are.

That's frighteningly close to the place I was referring to... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm5BOoS3ihA http://www.experienceavalon.com/ I just watched the video of "sodasopa". If they didn't have the South Park characters in it, I would have thought it was a real ad for either Avalon or one of the other areas in Atlanta.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/business/hotel-developmen...

I think that's an article about that space too.

Re: A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014)

#80

Post by lotsofpulp »

burger_moon wrote: post #63
scarface74 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even those traditional closed in malls are being upended by pedestrian friendly upscale mixed uses communities with stores and townhomes. The local Apple Store just moved from the local mall to one of those communities. It also has the standard cliched collection of yuppie stores - a Tesla showroom, Whole Foods, Gap, Bonobos, Container Store, Pottery Barn, a Pilates Studio, etc....

What you described is literally the same thing SouthPark makes fun of in the Sodosopa episodes. https://imgur.com/gallery/Xgea4Ot It's amazing how on the nose they are.

Seems to be working so far.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/business/an-alternate-uni...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/realestate/commercial/the...

Post reply on HN