

The Release Windows Archaism - phaet0n
http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/11/25/the-release-windows-archaism/

======
qeorge
The OP is begging the question. The Release Window never had anything to do
with technology. Its has always been about money. Money is not an "analog era
relic".

Obviously the content producers have considered doing away with release
windows, and for now have chosen not to. Its safe to assume they've decided
they'll make the most money this way. So why? That is a much more interesting
question.

Some things to think about:

1) iTunes/Amazon/Google pay the content producer each time they sell something
(basically consignment), instead of making a big purchase upfront and then
reselling the product (like DVDs, or even Netflix). The DVD model seems much
better for the content producer, as the DVD saler is taking some of the risk
whereas iTunes/Amazon/etc assume none of the risk.

2) Cannibalization is a bigger issue than we might think. Streaming with no
release delays is basically an a la carte model. Its likely this would reduce
the content producer's total take.

Chris Dixon has a great article on why bundling can be a win for both sellers
and buyers here: [http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-
sellers-a...](http://cdixon.org/2012/07/08/how-bundling-benefits-sellers-and-
buyers/)

3) The author is probably overestimating the increased sales generated by an
earlier DVD/streaming release.

4) Not everyone is willing to pirate content, simply because it is illegal to
do so. For some people, not being a thief is more important than seeing
Homeland Season 2 _right now_. Thus the growth of piracy may be limited in a
way the OP does not understand (not by viruses or technological hurdles, but
just because some people don't want to be pirates).

Perhaps there's a model where simultaneous releases do make more sense for the
sellers. I'd certainly welcome it. But its not obviously better for the
sellers, and protecting your revenue stream is not equivalent to being stuck
in a "wasteful rear-guard fight for the preservation of an analog era relic",
as the OP claims.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Hold on a minute. The release window was originally an accident and very much
dependent on technological limitations. Back in the 1980s, for example, it
took time to produce a vhs version of a film movie, and that was a big factor
in creating the "release window" in the first place. As technology changed and
production has become all digital there has become less and less of a
technological reason for the window, but it has persisted because publishers
have decided they think it's a good idea, for monetary reasons.

Whether that's true or not is still an open question because nobody has
actually had the guts to complete eliminate the window and see how it affects
business.

------
Hupo
Speaking of archaisms, especially in case of video/film content, there's also
one other thing... exclusive licensing.

Seriously, exclusive licensing has absolutely no place whatsoever in the
digital market. Yet they're still generally bundled with physical licenses
like DVD rights and whatnot and then you end up with digital stores region
locked to a single country because they haven't "licensed" it to stores
operating in other countries or they have licensed it to some entity in said
country that doesn't give the slightest toss about serving people in a nice
digital manner.

Think about it: if exclusive licensing didn't exist for digital distribution,
all TV shows and whatnot would be given out to any interested party. It could
actually be feasible to have some real competition on what entity gives you
the best service instead of what entity has the most content licensed. Sure,
we have that now too, but I'm fairly certain that this would accelerate it
quite dramatically.

And the biggest reason why digital exclusivity is completely dumb is because
_it isn't actually exclusive._ If your content is popular, it's bound to get
pirated, and they sure don't care who or what might happen to have an
exclusive license for legitimately streaming or selling that particular show
in whatever particular country an user might be downloading from. Keeping up
this game of pretend about "exclusivity" does ultimately no good for anyone.

------
phaet0n
On the perpetually debated issue of technologizing old-media all I can say is
this: the big players, the Googles, Facebooks, etc., simply need to stop
playing the waiting game and fully commit to producing their own content. To
do this they have to be savvy enough to hire the right visionary and give them
enough leeway to scout talent, produce content, buy programming, invest in a
studio, and whatnot to make the inevitable future happen.

The question I can't answer is if there is any advantage to being a first-
mover? And that's perhaps why no large technology player is taking that first
step.

~~~
coliveira
The big technology players don't want to enter this game because it is too
dangerous. Everyone knows that a movie big flop can complicate the whole
quarter for a movie company. Why would Google and others expose themselves to
this risk? Also, they would become much less credible as technology providers
for other content companies, which by itself would reduce a lot of the profit
they generate. In other words, I wouldn't expect this happening anytime soon.

------
curiousdannii
Some companies are doing it right: here in Australia Doctor Who was available
on iView at the same time it was shown in the UK a _week_ before being shown
on TV here.

Only problem is iView quality is rather poor.

------
ixacto
Looks like the author has never heard of usenet.

~~~
voltagex_
Neither have we.

