This is topic Blu-Ray players to PUNISH users who hack in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000464
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-18-2006, 06:12 PM:
quote: This page
Blu-ray players to "punish" users who hack their gear?
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
On top of that, consumers should expect punishment for tinkering with their Blu-ray players, as many have done with current DVD players, for instance to remove regional coding. The new, Internet-connected and secure players will report any "hack" and the device can be disabled remotely.
Are they talking about PVP-OPM techniques and rejected HDMI keys, or something else far more sinister? Because apparently "A hacked player is any player that is doing something it's not supposed to do," which open to a pretty fair amount of interpretation—most of which egregious.
Consumers: You are hated! Sony would probably kill you if they could. And eat your babies. God damn it sucks to be hated so much! How can anyone feel bad when these assholes lose money to piracy? I demand an answer to that question!
I'll be god damned go to hell if I plug any electronic device like that into my internet network. I will hack just out of spite!
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-18-2006, 07:51 PM:
Why don't they just drop the BS region thing and sell DVDs?
It's obviously a form of discrimination and I'd like to be the first to sue for a zillion dollars over it.
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 01-18-2006, 09:47 PM:
However, HD-DVD will not be region encoded. Rather, it will use encryption keys like DCI spec digital cinema projectors. And the new machines for both formats will be connected to the internet. God help us all.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-18-2006, 10:47 PM:
Well, here's an idea:
Don't buy it. I'm more than happy to sit out that bullshit until Sony and all those other guys wake the hell up. I've been getting by just fine watching standard DVDs for the past few years.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-18-2006, 11:45 PM:
Who cares about an inet connection? The crackers (NOT a "white" thing but referring to code) will figure a way to bypass the inet and make ALL viewable...just like the current DirecTV "chips" and so on...
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-19-2006, 10:48 AM:
Well here's the good news...The first Blu-Ray players apparently won't have any ability to connect to the Internet, and it's possible that low-end player-only units down the road won't either.
Apparently the big deal with that ability is tied to BD-J (Blu-Ray Java) enabled features, and BD-J isn't ready for prime-time.
So you apparently WILL be able to buy a Blu-Ray DVD player that simply plays movies and doesn't connect to the web or manage your viewing habits (or quality hacking abilities). You might miss out on some Java features. Imagine how troubled I am over that. ![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
quote: TG Daily
SOURCE: TG Daily
CES 2006: First-generation Blu-ray disc players may not be full-featured
Las Vegas (NV) - In what may be one of the more stunning revelations of this year's Consumer Electronics Show, representatives of manufacturers of Blu-ray disc players and equipment - who did not wish to be quoted - told TG Daily that the first generation of Blu-ray high-definition disc players, to be made available soon, probably will not have full on-screen interactivity features after all.
The interactive layer - the component which Blu-ray proponents say makes it competitive with rival format HD DVD - is supplied by Blu-ray Java, or BD-J, an interpreted protocol created by Sun Microsystems. But since the Java interpreters are apparently not yet ready to be implemented in hardware, some manufacturers will apparently release "basic" or "plain" or "player-only" Blu-ray players in advance of BD-J. The watch-word for Blu-ray players with full BD-J capabilities - and with other features the basic players may to omit, such as recording capability - is full-profile.
Yesterday in a press conference, Philips Consumer Electronics President Rudy Provoost told reporters that BD-J interactive content was being interwoven with the main movie content to such a degree that, over time, the viewer would not be able to tell the difference between them. In a presentation today, TG Daily was shown a prototype Blu-ray service connection that allows consumers to pull up movies on-demand by browsing menus consisting of their lead actors' faces. If today's revelations turn out to be true, at least the very first Blu-ray models may omit all that browsing, demanding, and interweaving altogether.
Also left out of the first-edition players will be the capability for them to connect to the Internet and download streaming media, for distribution throughout the home. This capability, we're told, also requires BD-J to be present. News of this omission, in a sense, is also news of this feature's inevitable inclusion. Apparently, one of the bonuses consumers will receive for purchasing full-profile players will be a connection to an Internet-based streaming download service. Previously, we'd reported that the Internet connection served as an authorization channel, and as a key facilitator of both Blu-ray's and HD DVD's copy protection and digital rights management scheme, AACS. The streaming service may serve as incentive for consumers to connect to the Internet in the first place, to allow their media consumption habits to be "managed."
Presumably, the streaming service may create new avenues for the delivery of high-definition content to consumers, including the ability for them to simply press their own movies and pay for them automatically. But the interactivity layer will need to be present in order for such services to be utilized by consumers. This leads to another question: Is BD-J as ready for prime time as we were led to believe?
However, omissions of features such as the interactivity layer may be necessary to knock prices down. Floor representatives told TG Daily today first generation Blu-ray player consoles could sell for as little as half the price of the full-profile players demonstrated here this week, which are being priced for as much as $1,800. A "basic Blu-ray device," we're now being told, could conceivably sell for as little as $1,000, or even less for internal PC drives. Yesterday, Toshiba revealed that its first-generation HD DVD players will sell for about half the price of full-profile Blu-ray console players.
Pioneer Electronics, according to its representatives on the show floor, will not be among the companies selling a "basic" Blu-ray player, at least not this year. Instead, it plans an "Elite" model console, which will sell for around $1,800.
UPDATE: Whether or not you consider Pioneer's initial Elite models "full profile" depends on how you interpret Pioneer's spin on the issue. Reports from observers on the floor say that, although the term "full-profile" has been used to describe the Elite series, the first models to be introduced in the US will not have recording capability after all, though the $1,800 price tag still stands.
TG Daily also learned today that the Internet connection necessary for full-profile Blu-ray capabilities to be realized, will require a dedicated Ethernet cable. Wireless connections will apparently be prohibited, say floor representatives for Blu-ray manufacturers. One representative told us keeping high-definition content off of the WiFi airwaves is necessary for its own protection. This leads to yet another set of questions, the first of which is this: Will consumers be able to wire their own Ethernet connections through their existing Ethernet routers? Or will Blu-ray's connection to the Internet (as well as HD DVD's) be separate and exclusive, like CATV service? We may learn more over the next few days.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 01-20-2006, 09:16 AM:
Sounds like DIVX, version 2.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-20-2006, 10:19 AM:
My thoughts exactly. DiVX 2 indeed. The Internet and phone hook up along with external monitoring and authentication of both player and movie will allow Hollywood to sneak in the pay per view DVD thing once again.
That is the REAL goal behind this thing. The piracy angle is just a ruse.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-21-2006, 04:55 PM:
You do have to feel a bit of sympathy for those companies though.
> They want to make money.
> The "customers" don't want to spend money.
> "Customers" want something for nothing.
> People love to "get away with" things...makes them happy.
> People don't have enough money for the gizmoes they want, but in this day and age they simply HAVE to have the newest toy.
Result: People will do anything they can to "beat" the system so they can get something for nothing, and keep up with their neighbors. Companies will do anything THEY can to "ensure" the customers pay for what they're getting, which then makes the customers think they are being "treated badly" simply because the companies want to get what they are entitled to, which is to be paid for what they are selling.
Technology is going to ruin everything eventually. Might as well get used to it.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-21-2006, 06:36 PM:
The truth is most people buy/rent movies and music honestly.
Most people don't have a clue on how to copy standard DVDs. Many can't even manage to copy a CD. So how are they even going to manage dubbing Blu-Ray or HD-DVD discs? Remember the old cliche of the average American being unable to program a VCR? Well, a lot of that is true. The vast majority of Americans just don't feel like going to the trouble of trying to do all that stuff just to save a few bucks.
I could dub off one of my DVDs with my notebook's dual layer DVD burner. But it's too much of a pain in the ass. You have to run all these different utilities and rip the movie to your hard disc and do some other shit. My time is worth more to me then that. If it's a movie I want to keep I'll just go buy the thing for $7.50 at Wal-Mart.
That truth simply isn't being told by the movie and music industry and the boobs in the press haven't caught onto it either. The effects of Internet downloading are vastly overblown when it comes to pre-recorded entertainment. It is a far greater problem when it comes to computer software. Yet you don't hear the software industry bitching as loud as Hollywood. Strange.
The music industry's crappy sales are all due to crappy product. Simple as that. There is no other cause to blame. Declining DVD sales are the same thing -crappy product. The DVD platform has matured. Most people have filled their collections with all their favorite movies, most of which are OLD and not new.
It will be interesting to see how this copy protection shit plays. All the efforts to protect HD-DVD and BD-DVD discs will be cracked almost immediately, leaving only honest customers having to struggle with needlessly complicated and compromised players that don't really quite do a satisfactory job.
It's a pretty sure fire bet that Hollywood will blame piracy for poor sales of movies on DVD, HD-DVD and BD-DVD. They could never consider the problem being a shitty movie or a badly designed player that makes it too complicated to play that shitty movie.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-22-2006, 01:59 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Remember the old cliche of the average American being unable to program a VCR? Well, a lot of that is true. The vast majority of Americans just don't feel like going to the trouble of trying to do all that stuff just to save a few bucks.
You're talking like an adult there. You have to remember that the vast majority of music is bought/stolen/listened to by teenagers who are very good at copying and so forth. The store where I work sells CDs. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard one kid say to another, "don't buy that...I'll burn it for you" or "Don't buy it, I'll just download it."
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-22-2006, 06:23 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You do have to feel a bit of sympathy for those companies though.
Cry me a river! Those poor, poor multibillion dollar companies! Oh my dear God in heaven Jesus almighty lord Jesus christ help these poor unfortunate souls out. They may have to give up 2 of their 19 Lamborghinis and maybe 3 of their 17 summer homes. They may have to send their bratty li'l white kids to *gasp* public school!!! Those evil middle class people are to blame! How dare they not enjoy being raped in the ass! To hell with them! May they burn forever! I hope every person who makes less than 100K per year gets Hepatitis A and B! And athletes foot! They deserve it! Those poor, poor companies. Thanks Mike, now I won't be able to sleep tonight thinking about all of those starving multimillionares who scheme to violate my privacy trying to rape my wallet every chance they get.
quote: Bobby Henderson
[Piracy] is a far greater problem when it comes to computer software. Yet you don't hear the software industry bitching as loud as Hollywood. Strange.
quote: Bobby Henderson
The music industry's crappy sales are all due to crappy product. Simple as that. There is no other cause to blame. Declining DVD sales are the same thing -crappy product.
Truer words have never been spoken!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-22-2006, 10:53 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
I wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard one kid say to another, "don't buy that...I'll burn it for you" or "Don't buy it, I'll just download it."
Yeah, and I would be filthy rich if I got a nickel for every one of those times a teen said he would dub something but then never got around to doing it.
The geeky teens that actually do get around to dubbing off movies and music weren't even going to be real customers in the first place. In that regard the music and movie industry is counting sales they were never going to get.
Really I have no sympathy for the movie and music industries at all in this manner. If their businesses fail they will fail solely on fielding piss poor product. For the past decade the music industry has been largely guilty of this offense. And the movie industry has been guilty of this for the past few years.
Lagging DVD sales? Point to movie versions of The Dukes of Hazzard, Miami Vice and Bewitched along with so many other derivative "I've seen this movie before" shit as the culprit. Their insistance on piracy being the problem is an act of them sticking their heads in the sand and denying reality.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-02-2006, 06:47 PM:
Big brother is watching, what your watching. Welcome to communist America, run by, and for your friendly greedy corporation. Where is our government, that should be protecting the rights of the people?
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-14-2006, 11:23 AM:
From today's Heise on-line - the delay mentioned will be a small one, only a month or so. But the article does cover how AACS will work to prevent user hacks:
quote:
AACS copy protection for Blu-ray disc and HD DVD delayed again
Last Friday, the meeting of the AACS LA was to resolve the final specifications of the new Advanced Access Content System (AACS). But insiders are reporting that no such agreement was reached. Instead, it is said that an important member of the Blu-ray Disc Association is still voicing concerns about the interaction of AACS and the additional BD+ protection for Blu-ray movies. The next meeting is scheduled for February 23rd and 24th.
Anzeige
Without the AACS specification, the copy protection keys that manufacturers of drives and media need cannot be produced. For instance, manufacturers such as NEC, Pioneer, Samsung, and Toshiba are eagerly awaiting the specifications so they can implement AACS in their equipment.
Hollywood movie studios are insisting that such protection be included in all drives. Without AACS, high-resolution movies can't be played back. A Mandatory Managed Copy (MMC) can, however, be made. Only if the holder of the copyright gives explicit consent may a limited number of copies of the original disc be created; the movie may also not be streamed via a Media Center or to mobile devices without express consent. An online connection is required to check for rights to make a permitted copy. The holder of the copyright may, however, completely rule out copies or demand a fee.
AACS can renew device keys, thereby blocking manipulated drives. BD+ provides additional protection for Blu-ray discs: here, a program in a Java Virtual Machine constantly monitors the movie's data stream and stops playback if there is any manipulation. To prevent the data stream from being grabbed on its path from the player software to the graphics card, Microsoft's Certified Output Protection Protocol (COPP) will monitor the connection. Among other things, COPP is designed to prevent movies from being output to a virtual graphics card that redirects the data into a file. Graphics cards can be upgraded to COPP by means of a driver update; Windows XP supports COPP upwards of Service Pack 2, as will the upcoming Windows Vista.
In turn, HD output is only possible if the graphics card encrypts the digital monitor signal at the DVI output via HDCP or if it has an HDMI output. Likewise, the monitor must support HDCP / HDMI. Without this encryption, the movie will only be played in standard resolutions. The first graphics cards that support HDCP are to hit stores in the 2nd quarter; current models cannot be upgraded because they lack the special BIOS chip required.
Now that the AACS specification has been postponed once again, the sales releases announced for the first Blu-ray burners, HD DVD drives, and stand-alone players at the beginning of March will probably not be possible; we can expect the delay to move the schedule back at least one month. As one Blu-ray manufacturer told heise online, "We need at least two or three weeks to apply for the keys and implement the system." (Craig Morris) / (jk/c't)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-14-2006, 12:41 PM:
quote: Bruce Hansen
Where is our government, that should be protecting the rights of the people?
Yeah, I can just see the government on this one. "OK, big corporation, you are not allowed to take means to protect your property from theft." That'd go over well.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-14-2006, 06:42 PM:
Copyright law states that I have the right to make copies for my own use. I want the government to enforce the law. Greedy corporations must never be allowed to decide the rights of individuals.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-14-2006, 07:13 PM:
quote: Bruce Hansen
Big brother is watching, what your watching. Welcome to communist America, run by, and for your friendly greedy corporation. Where is our government, that should be protecting the rights of the people?
You're really confused Bruce. Communist countries are run "by the people" comrade, not by big corporations. Our government is there to enforce laws. Don't like the laws? Change them! Don't like the product? Don't buy it. Our government is not there to allow you to rip off stuff from legitimate businesses. And trying to always create an image of corporations as "greedy" is just dumb. They are businesses and they are there to make a profit so their stock holders (like you and me) will be happy and they are entitled to that. You say you have a business, well how would you like it if you worked on a project and then someone came along and ripped you off for it? Or, didn't pay you for it? (Same thing)
I really don't have a problem with companies trying to protect their product from thieves. Only thieves have a problem with that.
If you are entitled to make a copy and can't then you have a grievance and you have recourse under the law. Otherwise it sounds like you are just pissed cause you can't get something for free.
Before I buy a product I check it out and if it's too hard to use or a pain in the butt I don't buy it. If I had this gizmo and had to jump through a bunch of hoops to use it I probably would not buy it. That's my choice and yours
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-14-2006, 07:38 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
And trying to always create an image of corporations as "greedy" is just dumb.
I agree. Corporations do a fine job of that on their own and don't need us to point it out with their "make as much money possible by any means necessary" policy.
Can't watch HD movies in full resolution on a regular monitor even if it has the resolution? Yeah, that'll stop thieves. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The best way to stop thieves is to charge a reasonable price for the legitimate product, and don't make them feel like criminals.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-14-2006, 08:50 PM:
So what makes "greed"? Anyone who makes a profit at what they do is "greedy"? Or is there some sort of line and once you cross it then you're greedy? Where is that line? How do you know when you've crossed it? Do you know that on average a "greedy corporation" works on a profit margin of 8-10%.
Sounds like a bunch of whining "have nots" around here.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-14-2006, 09:18 PM:
When the movie industry boasts profits (yes... profits) in the billions each year but still says that piracy will cripple them, that's crossing the line. You are right about the whining have-nots. The studios know how to whine louder than anyone else. Well maybe except for the RIAA. Studio profits for most movies are going to be WELL over 8-10%. I can understand about them being concerned about it and taking preventive measures, but no analog HD output? The ability to disable your player remotely? Forcing you to buy HDMI monitors just to watch HD content? Sounds like they don't want to sell many of these things. I GUARANTEE you that if they were more lenient in their paranoia, they'd sell a TON more than they will and make a TON more money. The DVD industry doesn't seem to be hurting at all. In fact the studios have NEVER made so much money. Prove me wrong here.
Steering away from the issue at hand (studios) just a bit we can talk about the policy of increasing profits "by any means necessary". For example it is typical of American companies to lower manufacturing costs as much as possible to increase their profit margin. How do they lower costs? Cheaper parts, shoddy manufacturing, cheaper (and less) labor, outsourcing to non-Americans. The result is a crappy product for the same price. Look at most American-made cars. They are pure crap on a stick! Anyone who doesn't have diarrhea for brains knows that the Japanese companies makes a better car since they *gasp* take actual pride in their work. Oh wait. Pride is a sin. Can't have that here in Americaland. Public companies piss me off because the companies care more about their loser stockholders than their product. Yes, I know most companies are public and there are even a few that actually care about their product more than the dumbasses who sit on their ass and hold stock. But it seems to me that many American companies are facing severe layoffs not because of piracy, but because they don't know how to run a business.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-14-2006, 09:55 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
So what makes "greed"?
Killing the proverbial "golden goose" for short term gain is a strong example all too evident in America's insanely stupid corporate business culture. America's middle class is the backbone of this nation, but they are getting squeezed more relentlessly than ever for short term gain. Eventually they will be so overextended and suffocated with debt that they won't be able to function as customers anymore. But by then the multinational corporations are hoping that enough "nation building" will have occured elsewhere that a crippled American marketplace won't matter to their bottom line.
But those traitors will wave the American flag in commercials for some good old marketable fake patriotism.
Anyway, to get back to the corporate idiocy in regard to HD movie discs...
Demanding the use of HDCP for HD-quality playback literally makes most of the existing HDTV sets in the marketplace useless for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. That is REAL SHITTY MARKETING. The upside is it will probably be good for HD-cable channels and HD pay per view. I might need to buy some DirecTV and Echostar stock.
AACS and Blu-Ray's BD-Java thingie may both be giant security liabilities. When Microsoft says it is placing support for both standards into the OS-level, that sets off some warning alarms. Hollywood wants remote control of your movie player and computer disc drives. Crackers will find a way to join the party and make some real money and mischief off of the technology.
Anyone remember Sony's rootkit fiasco from a few months back? That little copy protection shitball turned into a quite a portal for virus writers to exploit. The same thing may turn out to be true with the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray drives. I sure won't be placing one of those disc drives in any new computer I buy for quite some time.
quote: Greg Mueller
Don't like the product? Don't buy it.
I won't anytime soon.
The music and movie industry can go fuck itself as long as the product smells like this. When they sell a product worth buying then I might consider it -that is if Hollywood or anyone else is making movies even worth watching by then.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2006, 12:08 AM:
Are either of you guys in business? Do you actually have the first hand experience to make these statements? Or is it just some rhetoric? I mean do you really know what you are talking about or is this one of those "common knowledge" things? Cause I'm in business and have been for decades and all the stuff you are saying is really skewed form the way it really works
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-15-2006, 01:10 AM:
Aren't you in the business of making things out of metal? All businesses don't work the same.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-15-2006, 04:14 AM:
Greg, with all deference, buddy, I know what you are saying, but your business and conglomerate America are not quite the same thing. The studios, the chains, the freakin OIL COMPANIES....they USE the government as a their lackey to forward their money-above-everything-else agenda. Your company doesn't have 200 lobbyist in the halls of congress to make sure laws are passed or changed so that you can out-source your labor to third-world countries, or worse, sell substandard products that won't pass muster here, to those third-world countries not yet sophisticated enough to have adequate restrictions (ala our great non-greedy chemical corporations who sell pesticides that are banned here because they are carcinogens, to third-world countries where they are sprayed on food crops, sometimes while workers are actually in the fields picking those crops).
And your company doesn't have lobbyist in congress plying its members with wine women and song and women and wine and boys so you can obliterate the copyright law to such and extent that there is no such thing as Public Domain which is what the law included to allow US, the Public certain rights. And now even trying to thwart the 1 copy provision.
And you're not a lending conglomerate who has armies of lobbyists in congress making sure that it can charge, just as an example, 29.9% on credit cards debt while at same time making sure their competition, the little guy in that same lending business, gets throw into jail for doing the exactly the same thing....what was that small lender called....oh yah -- the neighborhood LOANSHARK -- at least with him, you get personalized service and don't have to talk to a telephone automation system.
And your company isn't one of the huge oil companies who are making 200% profits, yet they still, somehow, getting congress to allow them to drill in virgin government lands (our lands....yours and mine and our children’s) WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A PENNY rent or tax giveback, all the while the American public is paying prices at the pump that skew their entire economic well-being.
And you're not Exxon and Mobil, giants in their own right, getting Congress, the entity that is supposed to be protecting us, to forget about any concept of anti-trust, ignore the existing anti-trust laws and let them merge so they can accumulate even more power and control so they can make even more profits at the expense of the economic pain of our entire economy. Hell, they control profits greater than the gross national product of many small countries.
Greg, these are world conglomerates which have little or no allegiance to this country, or any country for that matter -- they are world dominating entities in and of themselves with global interests and regulations that mean nothing to them. They will do whatever they need to do to make more profit, regardless if it detrimental to American and the American people. THAT'S greed -- you know, that thing about selling one's mother down the river. They will sell out the American worker to go anyplace they can make their stuff the cheapest and with the least regulation, regardless of how that job drain hurts the American economy.
If you believe for a second that these entities are operating on the same fair-and-square basis as small companies such as yours, or that they operate with an our-megacorp-just-wants-to-make-profits-like-Greg's-company-or-any-other-mom-and-pop-company ethic like you operate under or that they are in any way playing on an even playing field with your company, well, then I think you have Capra's IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE perspective which, as much as we all would love to believe that such a world exists or even existed at one time, unfortunately that world never existed and is no more a reality than the movie.
In real life, even back in that era which folks have been led to naively believe were the "good-old days" when fair was fair....the era of the Rockefeller’s and the Carnegie's, the era of sweat-shops and child labor and the United Fruit Company (which the US government was in bed with and which any historian will tell you was out and out raping Cuba of its land and was the primary motivation and cause of Castro's revolution), in real life, George Bailey's Savings and Loan would have been crushed like a bug.
What's wrong with companies wanting to make profit? What's wrong with companies wanting to have power? Nothing, when there are check and balances; any knowledge of human nature will tell you that both those carrots, when left unchecked, spiral wildly out of control and destroy much that is good in their paths. All you have to do is look at Enron and the rest of them. Profit very easily becomes greed when it is out of control or more to the point, when the power that drives it is in the hands of flawed, human beings who have no checks and balances imposed and no limitations set by law, or have so much power that they can manipulate the law because politicians can be just as flawed, just as greedy and just as corrupt as any of the rest of us.
As one of form members put it so well, when you are talking about mom-and-pop companies honestly eking out a living by creating and selling real products and the mega-world-wide conglomerates, you are not talking apples and oranges, you are talking apples and Mack truck transmissions.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2006, 09:25 AM:
Ok so it's a common knowledge thing. I get it.
All this hate and condemnation because a manufacturer of a product that you are not required to buy has found a way to keep you from stealing their product.
Joe if you are advocating buying foreign vehicles vs American vehicles then you are working contrary to Bobby's notion that all jobs should be kept at home. I guess that means you would be acting in your own best interest and to hell with American workers who you are putting out of work by foreign car manufacturers. Wouldn't that make you greedy from a certain perspective?
Bobby isn't Sony a Japanese company? So they are not a greedy American company cutting the throats of Americans for profit and shipping jobs of shore. They ARE off shore.
Guys all business works on the same principals. If you were to take a course in business at a college you would not have to take one specific to the type of business you are in. Business operating proceedures are pretty generic. Once in business it's pretty easy to see why and how other businesses work the way they do. The real difference is that unless you have operated a business and know how it works you can't understand why it works the way it does and where the money really goes. So it looks extremely different from the outside than it does from the inside
It's the old "Walk a mile in my shoes" thing
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2006, 11:30 AM:
quote: Greg Mueller
Are either of you guys in business? Do you actually have the first hand experience to make these statements?
Are you trying to say that only business owners should have the right to form an educated opinion? Much of what has been written in this thread falls into the category of common knowledge and common sense.
quote: Greg Mueller
Joe if you are advocating buying foreign vehicles vs American vehicles then you are working contrary to Bobby's notion that all jobs should be kept at home.
Actually foreign auto manufacturers like Honda, BMW, Hyundai and others seem to be doing more in the way of building auto manufacturing plants here in the United States while GM and Ford are closing down many of theirs and ship them to China.
I'd rather by a Honda made by American workers and led by a Japanese CEO who makes only 1/10th the salary of his overpaid, American counterpart. At least a Japanese auto executive is going to say he makes cars for a living. A journeyman CEO in America just makes money for a living.
Lots of people love to bitch about the pay of union workers or just workers in general. How about those corporate executives? Even when they get fired for doing a terrible job, most get a "golden parachute." An average employee might expect to get escorted out by the guards.
quote: Greg Mueller
Bobby isn't Sony a Japanese company? So they are not a greedy American company cutting the throats of Americans for profit and shipping jobs of shore. They ARE off shore.
Sony isn't the problem when it comes to the bad design of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. It's the greedy American movie company guys that are forcing Sony and anyone else wanting to sell next-gen movie disc players to compromise their product -and turn it into a shitty product I don't want to buy.
The paranoia and short term greed of Hollywood studios will hurt Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sales a great deal. My feeling is a lot of folks who already have HDTV sets, but without HDCP support, will simply say, "DVD is good enough; I won't buy that new player."
As to Sony being off-shore, sure they are. Nearly the entire consumer electronics industry has been off-shored since the 1970's, thanks largely to trade policies of the Nixon adminstration and kept in effect throughout the tenures of Ford and Carter. They all had no problem with Japan dumping TV sets into the American marketplace well below the cost it took to make them.
But now Japan is getting a dose of their own medicine. Most Japanese electronics nameplates have much of their stuff made in China now. Lifetime employment at a Japanese company is no longer any guarantee for Japanese citizens. Their cost of living remains horribly high. And their population of 127 million is declining; by 2050 Japan will have only 60 million people.
Of course, we're not going to be too far behind Japan if current trends continue. There is no sign anyone will do anything to get exploding health care costs under control. Education prices are escalting far above the rate of inflation. Lots of other costs are creeping up as well. But there is relentless downward pressure on average wages. As this situation continues to worsen, I grow even more determined to never have children. Fewer Americans will have the resources to provide for them. So much for "American Family Values." We're more interested in keeping gays from marrying.
quote: Greg Mueller
The real difference is that unless you have operated a business and know how it works you can't understand why it works the way it does and where the money really goes.
Is that another way of saying, "trust the big corporate CEOs to make responsible decisions for you," or something along those lines.
Greg, this crap isn't just hurting individual American citizens. It's also doing horrible damage to American small business. Health care and workers comp insurance costs are out of control and crippling many of those businesses.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-15-2006, 01:11 PM:
My Honda was made in the US, but designed in Japan. When America can design and build a car as good as a Honda, then I'll happily buy one, though it will take years and years of track records to prove that they can do it. So far it's not looking that great.
Sony is greedy and is a Japanese companies that cuts corners to increase profits. They purposely make bad hardware so that you'll have to buy a new one. The Playstation is a good example. The failure rate is just too high. It happens EVERY time they release a system... with the Playstation, the Playstation 2 and the PSP... it's always the same. They rely on videogamers amassing a collection of games, and when their system breaks they're forced to buy a new one or else that expensive game collection is worthless. No other video game console manufacturer has the problems that Sony seems to. Well except maybe Microsoft, but that's just incompetance. I never said the Japanese weren't greedy. But not quite to the same sick extent we are over here.
Yes, American companies are far, FAR more greedy. Look at what the CEO's make on average. Look at what Japanese CEO's make. America has scandals like stealing people's retirements with no chance of refund to the victims just because the super-rich CEO's were so greedy that they just had to have MORE. Japan is just content to get a bunch of guys in a room and squirting their man-goo all over some girl's face all at the same time. That usually works as an unspoken way of finalizing deals over there.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2006, 02:08 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Are you trying to say that only business owners should have the right to form an educated opinion?
Not at all but if you don't know how things work you just plain don't know the facts. Then you get into spectulation and supposition and that is not an educated opinion.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Actually foreign auto manufacturers like Honda, BMW, Hyundai and others seem to be doing more in the way of building auto manufacturing plants here in the United States while GM and Ford are closing down many of theirs and ship them to China.
I think if you look closely you'll find that a lot of those parts are still made off shore and then imported to the US and assembled so they can dodge import tarrifs.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Is that another way of saying, "trust the big corporate CEOs to make responsible decisions for you," or something along those lines.
Not at all. It's just away to understand why things work the way they do instead of guessing and making assumptions that are inaccurate.
quote: Joe Redifer
Yes, American companies are far, FAR more greedy. Look at what the CEO's make on average.
They make what the market place will allow them to make. There is competition even there. Think about what the company really is. It's a whole bunch of employees. I'll go back to the Boeing example. 80,000 people in the western Washington area make their living working for Boeing. If Boeing fails to compete all those workers are out of a job. If it is determined that by hiring what you refer to as an over paid executive to make the company (through his/her knowledge or connections etc) more competative then all those 80,000 works can have a job and that's what makes the economy work. Yes those guys make a lot of money, but they do a lot to earn it. You might not think so, but it's because you don't know what they do. You are looking at it from the outside and passing judgement without knowing the facts
I really didn't want to hold a class on economics and business theory here. There's just way to many components that go into running and operating a business. If you've never been up against the challenge of running a business you have never been exposed to all the nooks and crannies involved in keeping a business alive and profitable. It's really easy to look at things from the outside (as an hourly employee) and condem business owner/operators without having a clue. Common knowledge is really common assumption which (usually) has no basis in fact.
Condemming stock holders as being fat assed lazy bastards (etc) is one of those very misunderstood assumptions. Anyone that has a retirement plan through an investment company like Edward Jones (etc etc) is a stock holder. They are common working people who are planning for their retirement. They take part of their earnings (which is usually matched to some degree by their employer) and give it to a company like Edward Jones who buys stocks for them so that in the future they will be able to retire and have a little income. They are people from all walks of life and all types of trades, incomes and so on. Anyone with a 401k plan is a stock holder. They are not just guys sitting in leather chairs smoking cigars in skyscrapers. They are common people like you and me that are planning for the future.
If you have the chance to work your way "up" at the company that you work for, you will learn more and more about the real operation of that company and these things become more and more obvious. It's not something I am willing to type a million words to describe and there's just no simple sentences that can describe it. It's very complex and usually takes years to learn and understand and sometimes cannot be understood at all
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-15-2006, 02:22 PM:
Sony is less offshore than you may think. They just opened a huge new HDTV manufacturing plant in the US (in a former car manufacturing plant). The SXRD sets are made there. Sony has made TVs in the US for probably at least 20 years (used to be in San Diego). When I say "made" I mean "assembled".
When did Ford and GM transfer their car making to China? That's news to me.
A lot of wild statements not based in fact are being made in this thread. And a lot of the wholesale condemnation of "big business" is patently absurd.
(edited later to change SCRD to SXRD)
[ 02-15-2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: David Stambaugh ]
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2006, 03:44 PM:
A lot of "Detroit" car parts are actually made in Canada. If you go to a new car lot, I think they have to put labels on the cars now that say where the car is made or what percentage of the car was made where. It's been awhile since I bought a new car
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-15-2006, 06:13 PM:
OK this thread is wandering way too far off topic. It's supposed to be about Blu-Ray players, not how perfectly American business is obviously run (no flaws!).
Greg and/or David S, do either of you agree with everything that is being done in the name of DRM and how they will implement it? I am not asking if you will buy the product or not, just if you see the tactics used as reasonable. How about effective? Also, do you think the consumer will tolerate this? Your opinions and reasons for them, please.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-15-2006, 06:47 PM:
DRM probably affects me a lot less than it does "some" users. All I want to do is play the effing movies I buy. I expect them to play without a lot of fuss. And I want the best quality possible. I'm not going to copy them, share them via BitTorrent, or do anything else like that.
If they come up with some crazy copy protection scheme that interferes with my ability to do the above, then I won't buy the product.
If I have to connect a player to the Internet in order to use it, I would be less-likely to invest in the format and buy a lot of discs. I mean, they'd know how much porn I was watching. I can't have that. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I understand the paranoia about people freely copying digital content and not paying for it (other than buying blank media). If predictions about gigabit broadband coming to every home in the future come true, and if I made my living creating digital content, I'd be scared shitless too.
The task for the content providers is to protect their, uh, content, without making everyone who wants to buy it feel like a criminal even though they've paid for it. And not compromise the quality. If I feel like I'm being treated unfairly by them (or they're invading my privacy), I won't buy their product.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-15-2006, 06:52 PM:
Greg,
Thank you for attacking me peronaly. It gives me a chance to give the same back to you. Look around Greg, you are alone here. Just because you took a class about business (I would guess was taught by someone who is a life long teacher, and not a business person), doesn't allow you to say that you know everything about business, and we all know nothing. As I said, look around.
As you stated, I have my own business (I find it very interesting that you remember this, it says you have some sort of unfounded love-hate thing going on with me here). And Greg, I've got some shocking news for you, you don't need to own your own business in order to understand business!
It is time to leave your Rush Limbaugh brainwashed stuper, open your eyes, and relize that corporate America is destroying this country, and our freedoms, in order to make themselves even richer. Here is a good example of how bad American managment is. Delta Airlines WAY over paid upper maganment-morons whined about how much the pilots were making (forget that the pilots are some of the people who do the work that brings in the money). The pilots took large reductions in pay, and the managment-morons gave themselves a huge bonus. The company was in even worse shape afterword. With managment thinking like that, it is no wonder Delta is in bankrupsy.
So Greg, do you now know what it feels like to be attacked personally? I hope you will grow up, and not do it again. I apologise to the forum, but I felt justified.
Now a comment about the stupidity of the maganment at the "studios". The managment-morons at the studios cannot learn from their own mistakes. Some years ago several studios tried to stop the devel Betamax. If they had suceded, they would have lost untold BILLIONS from the sale of video cassetts. But did they learn anything? NO. Here they are again shooting themselves in the foot. And this kind of stupidity is not limited to the studios. The car makers in this country came real close to putting themselves out of business some 30 years ago, and are now doing the same stupid thing again.
When one person in a company makes the same thing as 1000 workers, and is therefore displacing 1000 workers, the company cannot servive that kind of arragance and stupidity. Don't forget that magament-morons do not do anything that directly brings in money, it's the workers that do the work that brings in the money. This is why strikes work, without workers a company does not produce products or services. Note that even though the maganment-morons are not there on the weekend, work still gets done, money till comes in. It sure looks to me like magenment-morons should only get $6.00 an hour.
Oh, and Greg, one last point. You think that compatision is good for America, but not for any "overseas" companies. Make up your mind.
Wow, that was one heck of a rant. I think I owe a beer to anyone who made it all the way through, bad spelling and all. Look me up next time your in Atlanta.
***BTW, I am told there is a report on ABC Primetime about radio payola between the record companies, and the big radio conglomartes (read that big greedy corporations). This is corporate America at it's worst, controling what you hear, so you will buy their CRAP.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2006, 07:22 PM:
Joe
I find the idea of having to be hooked to the internet to make anything work, to confining. Not to mention having an open door way to all sorts of nefarious potentials that lurk on the net.
Bruce
You call that an attack?
What is "compatision"
Guess you missed the part about having been in business for decades.
See ya comrade
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-15-2006, 07:38 PM:
Everyone loves to hold up the Delta Airlines and Ford and GM as proof that corporate America is completely fucked up. Well, those companies may be fucked up, and they may be big, but they are really a small part of corporate America. For every GM there are 1000 small companies complete with workers and managers and they do just fine. As far as manager-morons, if every manager is a moron, then every company should fail. They don't, so clearly not every manager is a moron. It baffles me why people think every manager in America is modeled after Ken Lay. Someone in every company has to make business decisions and take the risks to grow the business. Those are the managers. Do they deserve only $6 an hour? Are they all morons?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2006, 09:46 PM:
quote: David Stambaugh
When did Ford and GM transfer their car making to China? That's news to me.
Both are building factories in China. And the Chinese are already making counterfeit cars! Yippie!
quote: David Stambaugh
A lot of wild statements not based in fact are being made in this thread. And a lot of the wholesale condemnation of "big business" is patently absurd.
Not every big American business is bad. I think Apple Computer is a good example. They're one of a few large American companies that come to mind who obsess more on the actual product they're selling rather than manipulating balance sheets to look better than they actually do.
There has been a long line of American companies who have done lots of bad things lately. What Enron did was unforgivable. The stunts from Tyco and Worldcom weren't very nice either. I've never had a high opinion of the tobacco industry. The food industry and its powerful lobby can be pretty evil at times too.
The entire health care industrial complex (everything from ambulance-chasing trial lawyers to American pharmaceutical companies) is a fantastic example of runaway greed. The savings that whole Medicare drug bill was supposed to create was more than offset by price increases before the bill was even signed into law. It's rather unique how the drug industry is one of very few areas where the government isn't into outsourcing or allowing cheap imports.
Meanwhile (basically to get back to the point of this thread) some very highly paid people in Hollywood are making what amounts to a series of really stupid decisions regarding how HD-quality movie discs will be designed and sold. They're also trying to force through other stupid decisions that may devastate the commercial theater business (like day and date DVD releases with theatrical releases).
Why are they trying to force through these policies, even when one can make a valid case they are destructive? It's all for short term gain. The executives at many of those movies companies are journeyman types who go from one unrelated company to the next. They didn't work their way up through the ranks and have little if any vested interest in the long term health of the company. They just want the short term gain so the board will give them a big fat bonus. Who cares what the decisions will do for the long term?
If the movie studios, or more exactly their parent corporations had vision a little farther than 1 to 3 quarters in the future they would realize they could make a lot more money by doing things differently.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2006, 09:50 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
They didn't work their way up through the ranks and have little if any vested interest in the long term health of the company.
How could you possibly know that?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2006, 10:00 PM:
I know Mike Ovitz didn't spend his entire career moving up the ranks at Disney. But he did make $250 million for six months time there.
Carly Fiorina didn't come up through the ranks at Hewlett Packard. She worked at other places, like AT&T before then. I don't remember who the CEO of HP is now, but I wouldn't be surprised if the guy sold washing machines in his previous job.
Look at Apple's history. Previous CEOs like John Scully worked at Pepsico before getting hired by Apple. It was Scully who laughed in the face of Bill Gates when Gates suggested licensing out the MacOS back in 1985. They didn't listen, so Gates took his idea and made Windows instead. Gil Amelio didn't come up through the ranks either. But he damned near ran Apple into the ground. Critics said he was more interested in features of the corporate jet rather than developing any good strategy for Apple. It took Steve Jobs, one of the guys who created the company and gave a damn about what it was selling to turn the operation around into a positive direction.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-15-2006, 10:03 PM:
Ahhh common knowledge
Ok you win. You do have all the answers! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-15-2006, 10:04 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
They didn't work their way up through the ranks and have little if any vested interest in the long term health of the company.
Names please, or maybe links to reference material.
Do you know what stock options are? I bet very very few of the management-level decision makers don't have stock options in whatever company they work for. Stock options are a hella-powerful motivator to make sure a company does well. If they make poor decisions, their options are worthless. If they make good decisions, they make more money. Hell, I was a low-level manager for a startup, and I was lucky enough to get some stock options that grew in value over a period of years.
Besides, you're talking about high-profile CEOs. For every one of them, the same mega-company has 10,000 other decision makers helping keep the company on course. Maybe more.
Are GM and Ford building cars in China, or parts? Are they doing it on their own, or in partnership with Chinese companies? If it's parts, then they're late to the party, since most other American companies are already doing that. If it's complete cars, they'll have to be demonstrably superior to existing brands in every way if they're going to take hold.
For the most part, movie makers don't care about exhibitors IF exhibitors aren't helping the bottom line. If market conditions change drastically and more money can be made without exhibitors in the loop, then that's where the movie business will go. Why should the studios be sentimental about keeping movie theaters going? Business is business.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2006, 10:11 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
Ahhh common knowledge
Nevertheless, they are good, specific examples of journeyman CEOs.
quote: David Stambaugh
Are GM and Ford building cars in China, or parts? Are they doing it on their own, or in partnership with Chinese companies?
They're building complete vehicle manufacturing plants there, but I think they're having to do it in conjunction with Chinese companies as well. That should make the counterfeiting process more efficient.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
For the most part, movie makers don't care about exhibitors. If market conditions change drastically and more money can be made without exhibitors in the loop, then that's where the movie business will go. Why should the studios be sentimental about keeping movie theaters going? Business is business.
The movie studios will make that move at their peril. I feel a movie is not a legitimate movie unless it has played in a commercial theater. It's a straight to video made for TV movie otherwise. Without commercial theaters, it's all TV. No better than NBC or HBO (one can make a case of that already being a reality).
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-15-2006, 10:14 PM:
I don't think theaters will disappear entirely. I also don't think there's much if any reason to release movies like "Big Momma's House 2" into theaters. The market has too many movie screens and it will shrink-to-fit over the next decade or so.
Crap! "Big Momma's House 2" has done over $80 Million. Damn - That blows my whole argument to shreds.
Overpaid high-profile CEOs are easy targets, especially when their company falters under their leadership. But to think they're pulling all the strings and making every single strategic decision is attributing more power to them than they really have.
Apple Computer is a religion, always has been. Though I bet the people who've worked for Apple for a long time have plenty of dirt they could dish out if they chose too, same as any other company.
(I edited that previous post while you were responding to it Bobby so things are a little out of sync)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-15-2006, 11:40 PM:
quote: David Stambaugh
Crap! "Big Momma's House 2" has done over $80 Million. Damn - That blows my whole argument to shreds.
I don't consider the argument blown to shreds, especially when one considers how few tickets have to be sold to reach that $80 million mark. The $100 million earnings mark hasn't been impressive in a long time. Some movies hit that mark and are still considered bombs.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-16-2006, 08:52 AM:
Bobby
You subtract the amount it took to create the item from the total sale price which gives you the amount of profit.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-16-2006, 11:13 AM:
The gross box office receipts are only relevant on a per picture basis. If a movie cost $10M to make and does $30M at the box office, it's successful. If it does $100M it's wildly successful. Home video would be the icing on the cake. "Brokeback Mountain" had a production budget of $16M and has done $106M at the box office. That makes it wildly successful.
If a film cost $150M to make and does $250M at the box office, it's a loser (but may recoup it's losses in home video).
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2006, 12:30 PM:
Ticket price inflation makes milestones like $100 million pretty meaningless -mainly in terms of how such figures are hyped to the general public.
Don't get wrong, a $100 million gross is great if your picture cost only $10 million to make and a few million to market. But there are hardly any mainstream releases that cost that little anymore. Marketing budgets on a major release can surpass $50 million. Many indie movies are budgeted well under that, but then they don't get to play in very many theaters either (many often have to recoup their investment on video or with cable channels like IFC, Sundance, etc.).
Back in the 1970's and 1980's it was a pretty big deal for a movie to gross $100 million in North America. Today it takes only 12 to 15 million tickets sold (if even that) to hit the $100 million mark.
At least in terms of press reporting for major releases, I believe the movie industry will need to start counting tickets sold and reporting that instead. I think a movie can be qualified as a legitimate hit if it sells 25 million tickets in North America, and it would be a legitimate blockbuster if it does 50 million tickets. 100 million tickets and the movie is in the league with all time box office champions.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-16-2006, 01:05 PM:
Movie companies will not release figures for actual ticket sales if it doesn't serve their agenda. So if ticket sales have been flat for 5 years, but box office receipts are up, and your job is to spin that, you spin it that box office receipts are up.
There are a million "what ifs" that can be injected into the debate, and a million ways to spin things. The bottom line is the bottom line. Movies are made to make money (if they happen to also create art, it's a bonus). Whether exhibitors remain a major part of the dollar equation is not totally under their control because of rapid technology changes (home video, broadband). It's being argued here that exhibitors should partner with the studios to come up with some technology that trumps 35mm and home video. Actually that already exists (IMAX) but that's pretty much a niche market and will never be successful outside of major markets. An IMAX theater here in Eugene would not be viable. 5/70 will not happen because nobody wants to invest any more $$ in analog film (whether that's a good decision or not has been debated in another thread, ad nauseum. )
The whole thing is about how to capture as much revenue [profit] as possible, as quickly as possible, with or without the help of exhibitors.
Getting back to Blu-Ray etc. a concern I have is that they'll "cheat" when mastering to HD and not give consumers the full capability (resolution) the format is capable of.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-16-2006, 01:43 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Ticket price inflation makes milestones like $100 million pretty meaningless
Next time you're burdened with a meaningless $100 million let me know. I'll take it.
Think you'll ever see that much money (in your pocket)in your lifetime?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2006, 03:33 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
Next time you're burdened with a meaningless $100 million let me know.
You are deliberately ignoring the point.
A $100 million gross is meaningless if it took $150 million to make the movie and another $50 million to market it. You're still in the hole. You're still losing investors a shit load of money, along with mounting interest payments as well.
quote: David Stambaugh
Movie companies will not release figures for actual ticket sales if it doesn't serve their agenda. So if ticket sales have been flat for 5 years, but box office receipts are up, and your job is to spin that, you spin it that box office receipts are up.
Sure, they can spin their "news" whatever way they like. But I have every right to be unimpressed or to see it as bullshit. A $100 million gross in 2006? Whoopie freaking doo.
quote: David Stambaugh
Getting back to Blu-Ray etc. a concern I have is that they'll "cheat" when mastering to HD and not give consumers the full capability (resolution) the format is capable of.
I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Will the discs even list what format will be used (720p, 1080i, etc.)? Even more problematic are the limitations showing up in a lot of brand new TV sets.
I just read a review of a new 52" Mitsubishi "1080P" DLP rear projection TV. It turns out the monitor isn't really true 1080P, but rather uses a 960 X 1080 DLP chip and a "wobbulation" technique to fake a real 1080 native rez image. Other bottlenecks in the electronics prevent the monitor from accepting a true 1080p signal from another source, such as a Blu-Ray player or computer system monitor output. These limitations are common for many HDMI-equipped HDTV sets.
These technical problems suggest even more loudly that it will probably be best to stick with DVD-V for at least the first couple or so years after the Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) formats are launched.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-16-2006, 04:00 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
You are deliberately ignoring the point.
A $100 million gross is meaningless if it took $150 million to make the movie and another $50 million to market it. You're still in the hole. You're still losing investors a shit load of money, along with mounting interest payments as well.
I think it would be you that is ignoring the obvious.
That's why I posted the simple formula about cost of production vs income. Think "Big Momma's House 2" cost more than 80 million to produce?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-16-2006, 09:07 PM:
You are still ignoring the point, Greg.
Answer this question, yes or no. And with no smart aleck comments against me either:
Does a movie made in 2006 have to sell as many tickets as a movie made in 1986 to gross $100 million? Yes or no?
That very simple equation is exactly why a $100 million gross is not impressive anymore as a news item. A very good illustration of this is in how lots of news outlets judge movies now on whether they gross $100 million in the opening weekend.
Also the language has been box office gross. That is a very different thing than actual profit.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-16-2006, 10:00 PM:
So when did we jump from dollars and cents to butts in seats?
The answer is obviously no (if you want to change the topic). But 100 million dollars is still a chunk of change dude! And as I keep trying to teach you GROSS MINUS COSTS = PROFIT This is not a tricky concept. You think these have been "smart aleck comments"? (This is going to be a bigger job than I first thought)
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-16-2006, 10:12 PM:
Bobby, did you even read my posts? I already pointed out the profitability angle has to be considered for each individual release, based on its production (and marketing) cost and its box office gross. Did you not see that? The box office gross is a completely useless figure to work from if you don't know how much the movie cost to make and market.
Here's exactly what I said before:
quote: David Stambaugh
The gross box office receipts are only relevant on a per picture basis. If a movie cost $10M to make and does $30M at the box office, it's successful. If it does $100M it's wildly successful. Home video would be the icing on the cake. "Brokeback Mountain" had a production budget of $16M and has done $106M at the box office. That makes it wildly successful.
If a film cost $150M to make and does $250M at the box office, it's a loser (but may recoup it's losses in home video).
As far as "they have to start reporting ticket sales", why do they have to do that? Who in the general public cares whether they report the number of tickets vs. the number of dollars? Industry insiders are fully aware of the actual number of tickets sold. It's not like they're stupid. (someone will pop in now and say they ARE stupid)
Go to www.regalcinemas.com (investor relations) and look at how a publicly-traded exhibitor reports the numbers. It's all about the revenue vs. expenses. Even the shareholders don't care about how many tickets were sold as long as the company is adequately profitable, which Regal seems to be right now. (I bet the actual ticket sales is contained in their annual report though, for those interested in such things.)
You know what exhibitors should be required to report? The per cap income from concessions! Whether the average moviegoer is willing to spend $10 for a Coke and a tub of popcorn could be a critical leading indicator of how the overall economy is doing.
This side discussion is now officially pointless. I'm dropping out of it (to everyone's relief no doubt).
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-16-2006, 10:21 PM:
Yah go ahead and get the last word Bobby, if it turns your crank. This IS hopeless
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-17-2006, 12:39 AM:
Ummm... he hasn't even responded and you've posted twice.
Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 02-17-2006, 03:11 AM:
If I may butt in... Bobby's original point was simply that a film that does quote: David Stambaugh
over $80 Million
in GROSS sales is not necessarially a good, profitable movie. As well, since the cost of each ticket is higher, it is not as impressive to hear about a film that's raked in $100 Million as it was, say, 10 or 20 years ago.
Honestly, to me, you guys seem to be in violent agreement.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-17-2006, 09:18 AM:
Yes Robert I have acknowledged that, but I'll say it again. It takes less butts in seats to equal $100 million than it did in the past. However what's not being acknowledged is that a movie can still be wildly profitable and still not break $100 million. To something Like Blair Witch which could not have cost more than about a dollar (in costs) and if it were to have a gross of $100 million would have been an incredible success because Gross minus Costs equal Profit. In my example $100 million (gross) minus $1 (costs) equal $99,999,999 (profit)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2006, 10:32 AM:
Yes, I agree, a movie can be extremely profitable and come nowhere close to $100 million in gross sales. Some low budget indie movies do very well in that regard. But then again, most indie movies don't bother to brag about how much profit they made in their marketing. Usually they like to brag about what film festival awards they collected.
I don't classify Big Momma's House 2 as a low budget indie flick. That's a major studio release playing on thousands of screens. Its $80 million gross may just cover the budget (possibly) and then take care of some of the marketing costs. If Big Momma's House 2 took in $200 million I would call it a legitimate hit. The show would have to sell around 25 million tickets to get to that level of attendance today.
Back in 1975 when Jaws reached the $100 million gross level, more than 50 million people had to see the film for it to manage that. To make that show's earnings even more impressive, the United States had just over 200 million in population at the time. We're now at 300 million. So that show had to get a much greater percentage of the population to attend to hit the $100 million level. Drive-in movie theaters were still common. I was only 8 years old when I saw it with my family. My parents, brother and I watched it at the Crest Drive-In in Yuma, AZ at a price of just $2 per carload. One payment brought in four, or however many people, were in a car.
The only way $100 million is impressive for any major release these days is if it makes that $100 million within the first weekend of release. Some press people fault major releases if they come up short of that $100 million. King Kong was a recent example of such criticism.
I still think counting ticket sales would be a better idea. The movie theater circuits and distributors certainly should be tracking it exactly whether they make that information available to the public or not. If they go by dollar figures alone, they lose the crucial data on exactly how well they're doing in attendance.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-17-2006, 11:23 AM:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=bigmommashouse2.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=blairwitchproject.htm
Most films have a marketing budget (in addition to the reported projection budget) of up to a 1/3rd of the production budget.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-17-2006, 03:39 PM:
Ka-rumba!
Anytime you hear of a 10:1 (or even 9:1) return on your dollar, I'm in! (and....it's legal!)
Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 02-17-2006, 04:10 PM:
People almost seem to be taking this thread personally.
I think Bobby is speaking about what's impressive, Greg is talking about making money. They are 2 different things, and have nothing to do with one another.
1980 had 3 films gross over $100 million domestic, 2005 had 19 of them. I am much more impressed by a film that was 1 out of 3 than I am by a film that was one out of 19.
That doesn't mean that the films from 2005 weren't profitable, it's just that the bar of $100 million doesn't mean as much as it once did. To get that same level of 'wow', they would need to gross $237 million or so (looking at the increase in ticket price over those years). Guess what? In 2005 exactly 3 pictures did just that.
Diary of a Mad Black Woman cost 5.5 million to make. It made 50 million dollars. Plenty of profit for the filmmakers. No 'wow' or hype because it's gross really isn't that spectacular. A good business investment, yes. But not a box office powerhouse. There is a difference.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-28-2006, 07:11 PM:
http://gear.ign.com/articles/691/691408p1.html
Another article about how over 3 million HDTVs will not work with the new formats. Do they really think these formats will be any kind of great success? I just don't see it happening.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2006, 08:05 PM:
I'm not going to be buying anytime soon.
Most of the "1080P" HDTV sets can't bring in a 1080P signal -even though video game consoles, computer systems and other devices can provide that or may in the near future.
I'm fixing to pay off my truck a year early. If I buy any nice electronics with that improved cash flow, it's going to be computer related, not home theater related.
Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 02-28-2006, 08:15 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Another article about how over 3 million HDTVs will not work with the new formats. Do they really think these formats will be any kind of great success? I just don't see it happening.
How much money did they lose with the original DivX debacle again? And what was that all about? Screwy overbearing controlling media arrangements? Those who refuse to learn from history, and all that...
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 02-28-2006, 08:47 PM:
I've learned that with anything, early adopters are more likely to get screwed. I'm in no hurry to get any HD DVD because the anamorphic widescreen DVDs I have look fantastic on my set. Even if an HD version of DVD would look better, would it be worth it for me to buy hardly any movies over again? Unlikely. I'll buy them once I have a TV that has the right input for it, and when the HD ones are mainstream and about the same price as the others (at which point the others will start disappearing like VHS is now).
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-01-2006, 06:30 PM:
quote: Evans A Criswell
I'm in no hurry to get any HD DVD because the anamorphic widescreen DVDs I have look fantastic on my set.
There ya go. The above is the reason why the new HD formats are doomed. The current system is good enough for most people, even a demanding tech-minded guy like Evans.
Why don't they "get it?" CD was quick to bury the LP because it was a huge, demonstratable improvement. The fact is, 90% or more of people don't have the TV equipment necessary to see the subtle differneces between regular and hi-octane DVD. SACD is failing for the exact same reason.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-01-2006, 07:10 PM:
SACD (and DVD-A) are also not doing well because those formats are not portable. In fact, that's likey the main reason those formats are stuck in hi-end niche-ville.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will also be affected by the same problem. DVD videos are at least somewhat portable. You can play them in a tricked out car-stereo system. You can play DVD-V discs on most new notebook computers. The copy protection measures used by the two HD-disc formats would likely get in the way of portability (especially if you need an active Internet connection to use the disc). Even without the copy protection measures, there's little benefit above standard 480p DVD of playing a Blu-Ray disc in a car. How many flip down or in-headrest LCD video screens have native resolutions at or above 480p? I'm guessing not many.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-02-2006, 02:08 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
CD was quick to bury the LP because it was a huge, demonstratable improvement.
**shudder** ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-02-2006, 05:15 PM:
I should have added, "for 99.9% of listeners."
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-02-2006, 06:02 PM:
Well not only that, but you didn't have to pick up some ancient needle and place it where you wanted, the access was near-instant, the things were much smaller, you didn't have to have a clean room to store and listen to them in to avoid hearing dust specks, etc etc etc.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 03-02-2006, 10:07 PM:
I agree with Bobby about the portability of SACD and DVD Audio. The HD DVDs will have the same problem. The only SACDs I've bought have been "hybrids" that play on regular CD players as well. I have no equipment that would benefit from the increased quality of SACD or DVD Audio.
Face it. My receiver works best with digital hookups. My DVD players, 2 Laserdisc players, and CD player are all hooked up digitally. The bitstream goes in and is converted by the high-quality D/A converters in the unit (better than the ones in the players).
Now suppose I hook up an SACD or DVD Audio player. I suppose the digital out would be limited to 48 KHz, or else I'd have to use the analog hookups? Suppose I use the analog hookups? My receiver will then resample the analog signal at 48 KHz or 44.1 KHz, not sure which, and then have to reconvert it to analog for amplification. WHy do that? The result would likely not be as good as the PCM bitstream from a CD.
Also, SACD-only or DVD-Audio-only discs would not be playable anywhere else on a normal CD player and could not be easily converted to MP3s easily without using an analog line and recording them that way to a WAV file, then converting that.
HD-DVD will have the same problem. How many people have a second TV in the house where they watch DVD movies? The new HD-DVD discs will not play on a normal DVD player that would be in the other room. A regular DVD would have to be bought to play there.
It's not that I wouldn't notice the higher quality of HD-DVD -- it's just that I'm not willing to go to much inconvenience to deal with it -- like having to hook the player to the internet. My home theatre equipment is on the opposite end of the room from my computer and net connection, and I really don't like the idea of having to have a network connection to play a disc I've bought.
I'll but a new player when it's mainstream and when that's the only way to get new movies to play at home, after the price falls to be not much more than regular DVD.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 03-03-2006, 06:39 PM:
Normally you want to wait for the third generation of a new product. Most of the bugs have been worked out, there are new features, and the price has come down a good bit. After the third generation new features will be few, and far between, but the price will continue to drop. At $1800.00 for a "full featured" model, and $1000.00 for a striped down model they may not sell very well.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2