I mean, it's sort of obvious. If a movie has a big enough pull for you to go drive to a theatre to watch it, the company that owns the movie realises you're willing to pay a direct rental fee for the movie off itunes or something. I'm going to wing it and say the studio might make 2-3 dollars on a single movie digital rental, but maybe 20-30 cents of your 8 dollars a month if they stuck it into a streaming service.
Do you really expect to get a pile of movies and TV you'd willingly pay, idk, 30-40$ a month for if bought individually in an 8$ streaming package? Netflix doesn't have big films because the people who own big films know that on the bottom line, their product has enough draw to be worth more when sold alone. And I mean, sure, a subscription model has more reliable cashflow sometimes, and maybe they can trade product worth for popularity and bulk sales and make more money, but who knows what might happen? Combined with the fact some of these studios have enough content to make their own web distribution services and remain in control of their web presence, and the worry that putting too much content on the web might kill the money they make from TV, it's just an iffy decision to shake up everything and put stuff on the streaming web until somebody comes around and makes a netflix people are willing to pay 20$ a month for - maybe even the 40-50$ you'd pay for a nice cable package, and can offer them some real royalties.
what how god how do you think corporations work? do they have magic money trees?
we, in conglomerate, purchase THQ, give their games away for free and then what, fire all their developers, close all their studios and sell all the buildings, revelling in our destruction of the future of gaming so everyone can gave some games today for free?
there was much better discussion on this topic on reddit.
i mean, i don't see what's wrong with it, even by today's standards. she probably didn't work, so it's practically just a relaxed maid contract. i mean, hiring a woman you shared kids with solely as your maid would be weird by today's standards, but bigoted? don't see it.
...whaaaat a neckbeard. really, what sane commentator says unequivocally to not buy something because of (present, yes, and bothersome, yes) but niggling issues that really don't interfere with the core functionalities of an operating system?
right, so people in the past are able to predict the future of software markets and sysadmins have complete control over where a company's development resources go. okay, got it.
You are generalizing quite a bit here. We are specifically talking about web browsers. Plenty of developers stuck with Netscape then Mozilla and wanted to support them. And sysadmins have lots of control at some level. "We can only support browser X, but not browser Y. As a firm we only support IE". Anyway, good luck getting off of XP and those old IE's. The rest of the world is moving on. When IE10 comes out, I'll email the link to my mom, etc and they'll be upgraded in minutes. Corporate America? Well, there are a lot of overpaid people working on it.
