Geoff
Well-known member
Aren't these services pay per play? I don't see how they are equivalent to a rental service. It is a difference business model and likely subject to different terms with the movie studios that license their content for digital distribution.
Why would Netlix voluntary hold back releases for the first month? So Blockbuster can clean their clocks via local distribution? Any cost savings, as you suggest, would be lost in potentially alienating customers (such as yourself) that care very much about watching movies as soon as they are released. It just doesn't make sense from a business perspective to reduce services and allow your competition to gain an advantage.
Netflix has arranged a pricing deal where they pay far less for content in exchange for waiting 30 days before putting the big box office movies into their rental pool. They think they'll make more money this way since they are now IP streaming more content (mostly older content) than by-mail DVDs. If you look at their annual report and financial press releases, they say they expect to be mostly in the IP streaming business a few years from now.
If some other competitor offered new releases and the same IP streaming library, I'd change in a heartbeat. Nobody else seems to be stepping up to compete with Netflix in that space. When you have such a dominant market share, you do what you think makes you the most profit. Apparently, that's waiting 30 days for new releases to pay much less for the content.