Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Redbox rentals won't change for consumers, but will be more profitable anyway

   (Feb 21, 2010 - 12:24 AM)

   What antitrust issues would there be? That's like saying McDonalds can't sell their own hamburgers... The movie studio's sell their own movies now directly, nothing keeps them from setting up their own distribution company and finding outlets for movies, but... last time I checked, their business was making movies. 20-30 years ago, no one ever thought of buying a movie, but now the economics have changed and they sell their movies too.
   
   It's not going to really matter in a few years because renting videos is likely to go away soon, and I'm sure that if you want to stream a Fox or Disney movie, you'll be able to do that from an unlimited number of suppliers whether it's the studio's directly, or some version of netflix or blockbuster. Our grandkids are going to be asking us what DVD's were within 10 years.

2. Comment - Redbox rentals won't change for consumers, but will be more profitable anyway

   (Feb 20, 2010 - 11:48 PM)

   I think the part that you don't understand is that, although the studios probably could do this, then they risk alienating all the retail outlets that would sell their movies. Despite wide acceptance, not everyone in small towns has broadband, so how are the people in the rural areas without broadband going to download the movies? Are they going to get movies mailed to them? Individual studios don't have the breadth of selection that a Netflix can offer. Is someone going to sign up for the Fox version of netflix, then the Warner Brothers version, Disney, and so on, just so they can rent every possible movie? No, they won't, so they go to redbox, or netflix, or blockbuster and rent there.
   
   I can see the value of your proposition, I just don't think you've fully thought out the financial obstacles and lack of penetration and profit the direct selling model you argue would face versus selling at Target, Walmart, etc.
   
   The bottom line is that these companies sell too much product in the current distribution model to change what they are doing.

3. Comment - Verizon soon to face the biggest class action lawsuit yet

   (Jan 30, 2008 - 12:29 AM)

   I don't believe you have to enter any contract with the carriers. After your contract expires, you should be free to change carriers at any time or stay on a month to month agreement. The downside of not having a contract in place is that if the carrier increases their prices (not likely with the competition), you either pay up or shut off your phone.
   
   Consumers usually sign a 1 or 2 year contract because they want a free or discounted phone, even if sometimes the free phone is after a mail in rebate that the provider somehow lost or can't find.
   
   Pay full retail for the phone you want or buy a used or refurbished phone and get a number without any contract. With LNP you should be able to keep your number and switch until you find the right service for you.
   
   Most carriers allow a 2 week or 30 day trial anyway to see if the phone will work in your home or 90% of the area you travel. I can't recall a carrier that claims you will be able to make or receive calls everywhere. It's wireless! It's not going to work everywhere.
   
   I have had Sprint since it started and for the most part I'm happy with it-much better than 10 years ago. Their customer service sucks, but no one's going to be perfect.
   
   I go in to the store with low expectations and I'm never disappointed. Instead, I'm amazed when I receive good service, which is infrequent.