[deleted]
It's an archaic word, not related to throwing anything: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throe
The death throes of an industry
31–40 of 82 posts
Re: The death throes of an industry
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kickstarter-ish models for production is just surreal - it is the complete opposite of on demand and that's a critical component for the future. Tell that to these guys: http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/the-kickstarter-film-festiva... I'd happily pay for Pat Metheny to produce his next album before I can get my hands on it with a mechanism in place that would revert the money if he never released it, and even withou…
Yeah it works when it's novel , now imagine that it's normal ... instead of going to Netflix and streaming a movie tonight you go to kickstarter-for-movies.com and book what you're hopefully going to watch for Christmas. I cannot imagine a worse way to be entertained, it actually returns us to the pre-internet days with the added plus of gambling on and paying in advance for everything we want.
You don't go to "kickstarter-for-movies.com" to be entertained (unless you find that kind of thing entertaining, obviously). You go there to support the kind of entertainment you want to see more of. Anyone supporting a prospective project in that way and expecting immediate returns doesn't understand the model, at best.
Your argument seems to be that since crowdfunded alternatives can't immediately supplant the incumbents, there's no point to even bothering with them. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that they can't coexist, with the new model picking up slack that comes available as the old model withers. In point of fact, that's exactly what I expect to happen, at least to some degree.
(EDIT: TL,DR: streaming and crowdfunding are utterly orthogonal; I'm having a very hard time understanding how and why you're conflating them.)
Re: The death throes of an industry
#33Re: The death throes of an industry
#34> Maybe that will mean that there will be no more media superstars.
Why would that be? The superstars are the ones most likely to survive in some sense. You need to 'think at the margin': http://journal.dedasys.com/2012/01/21/thinking-at-the-margin - it's the little guys on the edge of doing their art full time or not that are the ones most likely to be buffeted around by the winds of change. The Rolling Stones will still make lots of cash somehow.
Also, the ransom model has been with us for a while - it was proposed as a way to fund open source software too. So far, it hasn't worked that well (a few anecdotes notwithstanding). It can, in some cases, but most consumers want to have a look at something, evaluate it, and then get their instant gratification, not wait another N months for it to actually be produced.
Re: The death throes of an industry
#35Steven Blank made a much more in depth analysis of this phenomenon on his:
Why The Movie Industry Can’t Innovate and the Result is SOPA[1]
In a nutshell, it shows how much the movie industry always fought change, it always lost, and it always made more money out it.
[1] http://steveblank.com/2012/01/04/why-the-movie-industry-cant...
Re: The death throes of an industry
#36I'm not convinced that just because you'll soon be able to fit the world's entire electronic cultural output into your pocket the media companies will necessarily be out of business. They're pushing for controls on the way the rest of us consume content, and they may well be successful in the end. They don't have to be 100% successful, just successful enough to make money.
Re: The death throes of an industry
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it works when it's novel , now imagine that it's normal ... instead of going to Netflix and streaming a movie tonight you go to kickstarter-for-movies.com and book what you're hopefully going to watch for Christmas. I cannot imagine a worse way to be entertained, it actually returns us to the pre-internet days with the added plus of gambling on and paying in advance for everything we want.
You don't go to "kickstarter-for-movies.com" to be entertained (unless you find that kind of thing entertaining, obviously). You go there to support the kind of entertainment you want to see more of . Anyone supporting a prospective project in that way and expecting immediate returns doesn't understand the model, at best. Your argument seems to be that since crowdfunded alternatives can't immediately supplant the inc…
The kickstarter model and 'ransoming' has been offered as an alternative in a world where the MPAA is dead.
That's one short hop from kickstarter vs netflix - are the movie studios that literally are the MPAA supposed to still be making most of the movies that most people want to see after we/they/technology killed the MPAA, aka their collaborative effort to protect themselves?
Re: The death throes of an industry
#38I think there's a larger picture here. It's time to declare war on middlemen, period.
There are producers and customers. There is no place for anything else in the 21st century.
Here's a startup formula for you all:
1) Identify a place where a middleman is taking a cut or gate-keeping an industry.
2) Design a system, technology, or service that either eliminates the middleman entirely or replaces it with something far more efficient and much lower margin.
3) Profit.
Re: The death throes of an industry
#39I do a great deal of work with youth marketing so I have a slightly different perspective. I can't speak to music -- but films cost a great deal of money to make, and YouTube videos just won't replace that. If you look at the next generation of consumers (kids) they're watching more broadcast television than any other demographic, they're camping out overnight to see films like the Hunger Games and this may surprise…
Why are they paying if they can get illegal copies ? and why watch broadcast tv when they can get on-demand content ?
Re: The death throes of an industry
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it works when it's novel , now imagine that it's normal ... instead of going to Netflix and streaming a movie tonight you go to kickstarter-for-movies.com and book what you're hopefully going to watch for Christmas. I cannot imagine a worse way to be entertained, it actually returns us to the pre-internet days with the added plus of gambling on and paying in advance for everything we want.
You don't go to "kickstarter-for-movies.com" to be entertained (unless you find that kind of thing entertaining, obviously). You go there to support the kind of entertainment you want to see more of . Anyone supporting a prospective project in that way and expecting immediate returns doesn't understand the model, at best. Your argument seems to be that since crowdfunded alternatives can't immediately supplant the inc…
I think we already have this so called new model. I buy movies I like from Amazon. Movie studios look at their sales numbers and make more movies like the ones I want to see more of. Then people complain the studios only produce more of the same.