Barnes & Noble was just sold...

[Brian861]

At the ripe old age of 46, I listen to all my music digitally. Have for years now but still have a ton of CDs stored away. Just felt wrong to throw them away.

I'm still into hard disc for movies though. Still cheaper to rent a movie from Redbox than to rent it digitally or stream it. Which I don't get because there's no physical media involved. Why is that?

[mhatchett]

I still listen to CDs in the car and at work sometimes.

[Dan Hocker]

All digital copies aren't alike; mp3s and lossless files aren't the same, and with streaming, you're always at the mercy of the provider's choices.

But even were quality uniform, CDs need possess no quality advantage, because many consumers (me, and others who buy what I buy) who prioritize audio quality also prioritize control over the nature of the product (digital in hand is not synonymous to digital out of hand), and this "caring" is the opposite of the apathy that defines the "instant gratification generation" to which you refer, what I call the "top 40 crowd," those casual consumers who flock to the lowest cost/easiest delivery model every time. That crowd is huge in number and defines most of the industry, but not all.



"Audiophile" is definitely not synonymous with "pro-vinyl;" the vinyl vs. digital debate has been just that, a debate, since CDs hit the scene. Artists releasing the CD/Blu-Ray material I referenced earlier tend to simultaneously release vinyl editions - audiophiles are generally united in their fondness for physical media.



I'm not talking about supporting the industry; "outliers" = "niche," which is what I'm saying: that CDs shrunk from "default" to "niche" (as opposed to extinct), and "niche" I believe it will remain.

Look I agree with you about physical media. We can argue this all day, but I just fundamentally don't agree with you about CDs place in the market and their staying power. I think the people who care about physical media are a dying breed and at some point we'll be forced out. It's basically already happened to PC video games and the consoles are on their way there. Honestly had Microsoft had their way 6 years ago they already would be there. There's just no reason to believe that that trend will stay isolated to video games and computer software alone. It'll hit music and movies eventually as well. The publishers, record labels, and movie studios just won't give us a choice.

[Dan Hocker]

I'm still into hard disc for movies though. Still cheaper to rent a movie from Redbox than to rent it digitally or stream it. Which I don't get because there's no physical media involved. Why is that?

It's mostly because the overhead on Redbox is basically nothing and the movie studios don't have any control over RedBox's pricing. RedBox buys the movies once then rents them out, they don't have to pay a "per rent royalty". The digital renting prices are negotiated between the studios and the company doing the renting, the company renting gets a cut and the movie studios get a cut. They're also not really looking to compete with Redbox in terms of pricing. The way they compete is in convince.

[Sock Monkey]

I'm not a big music fan and no where near an audiophile so I don't have a dog in that fight. I am, however, a big proponent of movies on physical media. Streaming is nowhere near as good as a Blu-ray and sometimes you can't even track down titles digitally. My nephew had never seen the remake of THE GRUDGE and we searched for it streaming somewhere and no dice. Now I'm not going to argue the merits of THE GRUDGE remake (it's not that great), but you'd think that someone somewhere would be streaming this.
Also, no special features. There is a HUGE difference between a movie on Netflix and a Criterion or Scream Factory disc. Thick booklets with well thought out criticism and historical perspective and multiple features of either shorts, student films or interviews that are more than just five minute fluff pieces. These are components that don't just make it a hard copy of a disc, but a comprehensive appreciation of a film. Yep, most people are into that, but it's surprising how many truly are or develop into that love over time.

[Sock Monkey]

It's mostly because the overhead on Redbox is basically nothing and the movie studios don't have any control over RedBox's pricing. RedBox buys the movies once then rents them out, they don't have to pay a "per rent royalty". The digital renting prices are negotiated between the studios and the company doing the renting, the company renting gets a cut and the movie studios get a cut. They're also not really looking to compete with Redbox in terms of pricing. The way they compete is in convince.

Most people think that it was Netflix streaming that killed Blockbuster and the like. I had an employee at one shop tell me before they closed down that it was actually Redbox. You just can't compete with a buck a night. That being said, I've never been a Redbox person, not just because I tend to buy the majority of my movies, but because I hate the idea of just standing in line waiting to look through a selection and then when it's your turn you can't really browse as people are breathing down your neck for their turn.

[Dan Hocker]

Most people think that it was Netflix streaming that killed Blockbuster and the like. I had an employee at one shop tell me before they closed down that it was actually Redbox. You just can't compete with a buck a night. That being said, I've never been a Redbox person, not just because I tend to buy the majority of my movies, but because I hate the idea of just standing in line waiting to look through a selection and then when it's your turn you can't really browse as people are breathing down your neck for their turn.

I've heard that theory as well. But Blockbuster had been struggling for awhile before RedBox became popular. Netflix didn't add streaming until something like 2007 and Blockbuster was already struggling at that point. I think it was a combination of Netflix's mail DVD service, Redbox's rising popularity, and Blockbusters high costs and high late fees (and probably over saturation) that really killed them. I mean looking back at it, who would want to bay $7 to rent a movie for the weekend when you could pay $15 a month for Netflix and get 3 movies at a time and be able to keep them as long as you wanted.

On a side note, you've heard why Redbox is called Redbox right? They started the company in the hopes that they would get bought out by Netflix. Also you can skip the lines with RedBox, I believe you can browse the selection from you phone, reserve it, then just go to the specific Redbox and pick it up.

[Brian861]

Most people think that it was Netflix streaming that killed Blockbuster and the like. I had an employee at one shop tell me before they closed down that it was actually Redbox. You just can't compete with a buck a night. That being said, I've never been a Redbox person, not just because I tend to buy the majority of my movies, but because I hate the idea of just standing in line waiting to look through a selection and then when it's your turn you can't really browse as people are breathing down your neck for their turn.

Yeah! What Dan said, Keith LOL. Standing in line is a rookie move Although, you do have to wait til the box browsers clear out to get your movies. I've really never ran into that issue though.

It is convenient to rent from home but I'm too cheap. Although I don't think Redbox's streaming service is that much more to rent.

[Sock Monkey]

Yeah! What Dan said, Keith LOL. Standing in line is a rookie move Although, you do have to wait til the box browsers clear out to get your movies. I've really never ran into that issue though.

I was wondering why all the kids these days point and laugh when I'm at the Redbox...

[LUCIOTTO]

Whichever way I genuinely trust physical book shops can urdu news proceed for a long time. The experience of shopping face to face, especially for books, is an encounter that web based shopping can't supplant.