The reason it ended is because the general public doesn't care.
The reason it ended is because the general public doesn't care.
DVD "extras" help bootstrap film students.
Less film students, less future films for general publics.
I was thinking about this. Normal people bought maybe one or two Disney movies a year? Now Disney Plus cashes in 20 eurodollars per month and they don't have to share it with anyone.
We truly live in the Cyberpunk timeline.
Because the general public "doesnt care" we are in a world you can own nothing, control nothing, repair nothing, keep nothing a secret, do nothing without going through gatekeepers. In short, idiocracy.
kinda funny to think you are not subject to constraints when your access to the limitless potential library can be revoked at any moment.
pressumably you also don't own any house, car, books, clothes, etc. as that gives you limitless potential to rent stuff.
Unlike practically every example you provide, I am typically watching a film once. I may revisit it years later but I am not consuming it on a frequent basis.
I am not arguing that there should not be alternatives but rather customers don’t want those alternatives so the cost to make a dvd/Blu-ray for less than .1% of your market can be quite expensive.
I worked in the film industry, in DVDs, at the height of that market. Sales of DVDs tumbled. End of story. There was nothing for the studios to do because the ROI was dead, and their previous efforts (which were terrible natch) to manipulate the DVD market (cheaper, limited play product) were dumb.
DVDs were great, streaming ate their lunch.
Calling capitalism's market economics an idiocracy is.. tautological.
Thats definitely not true. The most ardent and smart defender of markets argued that they operate and optimize within the boundaries that society decides. If you legislate that people should be able to repair, own, exchange etc. stuff then markets will deliver exactly that. If you let them race to the bottom thats also exactly what you will get.