Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Thursday, Thu, 2013/07/04, Mark Watson wrote:
> I wonder if you can tone down the invective. It's not helpful or
> appropriate.

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

  Invective \In*vec"tive\, n. [F. invective.]
     An expression which inveighs or rails against a person; a
     severe or violent censure or reproach; something uttered or
     written, intended to cast opprobrium, censure, or reproach on
     another; a harsh or reproachful accusation; -- followed by
     against, having reference to the person or thing affected;
     as, an invective against tyranny.
     [1913 Webster]
  
           The world will be able to judge of his [Junius']
           motives for writing such famous invectives. --Sir W.
                                                    Draper.
  
     Syn: Abuse; censure; reproach; satire; sarcasm; railing;
          diatribe. See {Abuse}.
          [1913 Webster]
 
I have attacked lines of reasoning with reasoning of my own
I've asked  questions. 
I have not attacked any of the messengers (if you feel I have please point 
out where precisely so I can avoid doing it again)

As such what I've said does not qualify as invective as I understand the 
term.

> > Quite obviously that easily allows a serious price differential
> 
> No, this is not obvious at all. You're ignoring the costs of producing
> the content in the first place, which is the dominating factor.

First the dominant factor of price in a competitive market is marginal cost, 
that's basic economics.

Second the chinese, indian and nigerian producers are operating at several 
orders of magnitude lower production cost, so obviously it's possible (and 
no, wages do not explain the difference)

CGI is now within reach of hobbyists
Prosumer cameras are better then professional cameras where a decade ago
Production has never been cheaper, or more widespread.

Yes hollywood will have to curtail its trowing money out the windows left, 
right and center.
Current Hollywood practice is insanely wastefull. It doesn't have to be that 
way, and given new technology it can't remain that way.

> > But lets look at a practical experiment with video:
> > 
> > - Louis CK sold his show "Live at the Beacon Theater" 
...
> > => In other words cutting the price to a 3th or more is easily doable
> > while increasing profits (for the content producer) massively

> For a piece of content with a relatively low cost of production.

A-list movie stars get payed 20+ million per movie. That's 20+ million for a 
couple of months work. [1]
Eliminating that kind of budgetary insanity would lower the cost of 
production by several orders of magnitude.

According to [2] the nigerian industry is currently making movies with 
production costs ranging from 17k-23k per movie, and at a rate of 2000 per 
year.

Even accounting for wage-differences it's quite obvious that production costs 
do not need to be at Hollywood levels.

Hollywood can adapt to the new reality or die trying to keep the outdated 
models alive.
What hollywood can't do is justify outdated business models and prices 
simply by crying 'but we like to spend a lot when producing movies'. That 
just doesn't fly in todays reality.

[1] http://www.hollywood.com/news/brief/770607/hollywood-com-sounds-off-
hollywood-s-a-list
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Nigeria#Distribution
--
Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 23:25:34 UTC