Digital Distribution Movies

[Nash]

The issue here is that when you buy physical media, the largest portion of that money goes to covering distribution costs and into the pockets of the studios. Digital gives artists the ability to produce and distribute their art themselves and recieve a much greater percentage of your money, or optionally distribute their art at much lower costs than physical media.

From a consumer standpoint, I don't know why anyone would care about this, or why it would even come into play in the purchase decision. Whether it's the studios or the artists, all that matters is how much money they can make and how much control they can impose. They're not taking into consideration how much consumers can maximize the use and enjoyment of their product.

[Fe 26]

They're not taking into consideration how much consumers can maximize the use and enjoyment of their product.

This isn't really true.

If a company can make you so happy that you will love their brand and products, they will. Look at Apple.

Good businesses want to make you happier than their competition.

[Nash]

This isn't really true.

If a company can make you so happy that you will love their brand and products, they will. Look at Apple.

Good businesses want to make you happier than their competition.

I don't really believe that. I think what really goes through their minds is "How much bullshit can the consumers put up with while still giving us the most money?" Take the iPad for example, since you brought up Apple. The tech was there to implement the iPad 2 features into the iPad without raising the retail price. But I believe they didn't do it so they can roll out a better version a little later down the line to get more money out of people. Also, locking down all their products isn't very consumer-oriented either.

I believe people being in love with the Apple brand has to do with 1) Apple products are well put together and easy to use, and 2) good marketing. I don't think it has anything to do with Apple really taking consumer rights into consideration when developing their products.

[Fe 26]

If they didn't care anything about how their consumers felt, they wouldn't bother to make their products well made or easy to use. They'd make the same shit everyone else does.

[Nash]

If they didn't care anything about how their consumers felt, they wouldn't bother to make their products well made or easy to use. They'd make the same shit everyone else does.

I don't think it directly has much to do about how consumers actually feel, but more about how they can distinguish themselves from their competition and market that as such.

[Drewbacca]

Nash is right. I work with Apple regularly and they do not care about their consumer base. The ease of functionality is great for consumer-end products. Have you ever tried to network an Apple computer? THAT is anything BUT "it works right out of the box". Convenience IS their brand but it only goes so far as the front-end consumer. They didn't CARE about any of that extra techy stuff. Apple willingly hid or removed it (and then, as Nash points out, turned it back on as if it were a feature in the next generation). They need it to sell products - and it's why they didn't sell computers in high volumes during the 90's. Their OS was awful and their hardware was closed and out dated. They updated their shit, reworked their industrial design but kept the closed software. Apple does not care about consumers. Like all businesses they care about money first. They've just got a brand that distinguishes itself with features people find convenient. To do this they threw away a lot of functionality tech nerds like - which is why most tech nerds us Red Hat or Windows 7 (or unix for uber nerds). That's why Apple kept the designer crowd happy. It helped sell their new design sensibility. Steve Jobs truly deserves credit for turning that company around. I'm skeptical to see other executives step in to his shoes. They're going to care about design for a few years, but the customer affinity they've generated since the launch of the iPod will probably sour a bit.

Does Apple care about designers now? Openly they say no. If they did they wouldn't be fucking with Adobe - the designer's bread and butter software manufacturer.

Remember the word BRAND is not a logo. It's the whole corporate identity from the way you buy the product, to the way customer service runs.

[Diff-chan]

Also, locking down all their products isn't very consumer-oriented either.

Eh. I'm of two minds about this. For example, the fact that Flash isn't on iOS has been the source of endless nerdrage on sites like Slashdot, ArsTechnica, etc. But let's be realistic here - Flash on portable devices BLOWS. Even today it's the worst. It opens up security holes, it drains battery life, it sucks up resources. So I think that not subjecting customers to that junk can be construed as consumer-oriented, just not in the way we usually think of it in computing.

A lot of people genuinely do not want to mess around with that shit. I would rather punch myself in the nuts then download custom keyboard programs and shit. So if someone's making a device designed around that I will be drawn to that.

Of course Apple stands to benefit from that. But Google stands to benefit from Android's nature too. A lot of internet freedom fighters have bought a phone built around gathering your information and selling it to advertisers because it is perceived as "open."

[kingoffighters]

I am not sure if I care for buying DD movies. But then again, I buy about 2 blurays a year. Someday, I will get rid of my 60 or so DVDs.

I do love Netflix's streaming because there are tons to choose from, they are in reasonably good quality (especially on iPad) and is cheap.

[Fe 26]

Apple does not care about consumers. Like all businesses they care about money first.

This is kind of an odd thing to say. Yeah, they care about making money. But that money comes from people. They have to get people to want to give it to them.

I think people have a bad habit of confusing love or charity with "caring about consumers." No, businesses don't love you. They do not want to give you free things. They are not a charity. They are not out to save the world for free.

But you ultimately want your customers to like your products. You want them to be happy or think they will be happy. But they will not do it at the cost of their own happiness (continuing to function as money making business).


It is kind of weird to read that from drew, too. He runs a business and I assume he wants his clients to have some level of satisfaction with his work. He might even go the extra mile to make them happy and keep them if they constantly supply him with high paying work. He probably only stops trying to make them happy after they've proven that they are a source of his own unhappiness in the form of being a lot of trouble or having demands that are not worth what they are paying.

its just really bizarre to see people be so cynical about businesses. If you don't think any businesses care about making you happy, what the hell do you think they are selling? Some level of satisfaction kind of goes with any product or service. Sure, they aren't going to come to your house and suck your dick, but on some level they want to be competent in what they provide.

[icarusfall]

Cheeks, I want you to watch a documentary called "The Corporation". It's on Instant and you're doing yourself a disservice by not seeing it.