Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   No Subject Given

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 1:35pm

   
   

   Integrate with software that is already playing back television and skip the set-top box. If this service worked with Windows Media Center, Sage or MythTV, I would cancel my Netflix membership.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: No Subject Given

   

   jcyr, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 1:48pm

   
   

   I agree with the poster above about an online component. Maybe the market isn't yet large enough? Still, with Vongo and others, it is hard to imagine paying for a movie per download now. Even more difficult for me to imagine buying a set top box, let alone having it clutter up my house.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Better business model ideas without all the inform

   

   Adam, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 1:50pm

   
   

   I wouldn't be surprised if the $200 price of the box is already a reduced cost for consumers. Think of the methodology used by game console creators like Nintendo. They sell their consoles at a loss, and make up for it with revenue gained by the game sales. Though MovieBeam may not be giving the box away, it is possible it could already be giving the box at a dramatic price reduction.
   
   If the original cost to produce is $400, then $200 becomes a good deal. Making the concept of 'free' a bit too overly ambitious, atleast for my own business sense saftey zone. But then, the market is all about risks sometimes. We really gotta start giving these companys a bit more benifit of the doubt. Unless we know exactly the intent and ideas on the minds of the people running these companys, we can only do so much speculation on viable distribution options. After all, they have full time paided employees who understand alot more of their business and plans than we do.
   
   Anything else like assuming giving the box away for free would be a better option is almost premature without full knowledge of the entire marketing, company/manufacturer deals and restrictions to maintain those deals, distribution costs as well as legal and patent costs and etc, etc. Otherwise, yes giving away access to the service does make logical sense in the first thought, but more research into the full business application and inner workings of the company would be needed to fully quantify the viability of that option.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   subsidizing won't work

   

   obvious, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 1:52pm

   
   

   You can't subsidize a set-top box with a HDD - everyone and his aunt will get one just to extract the hard drive.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: subsidizing won't work

   

   Kit Triforce, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 2:17pm

   
   

   Dish Network newer DVR's contain just that, an extra hard drive that stores on-demand pay-per-veiw movies that apparently can be ripped with a streamripping utility. I'm surprised their move hasn't generated more publicity.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Better business model ideas without all the in

   

   Jamie, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 2:45pm

   
   

   You are right. Without knowing the business details, we can't know what the company is even able to do. much less what it should do. Free might not be a viable option for the company. But that doesn't change the main point of the article. Consumers have no good reason to purchase the device as long as the device doesn't offer any real value over movie rentals. The way it is being offered now it is most likely to fail.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Better business model ideas without all the in

   

   Mike (profile), Feb 14th, 2006 @ 2:47pm

   
   

   I wouldn't be surprised if the $200 price of the box is already a reduced cost for consumers.
   
   Oh, I'm positive that the $200 is subsidized already.
   
   That doesn't matter.
   
   What matters is getting consumers to use the service, and you don't do that with a huge hurdle, even if it is below cost. The customers don't care about the cost of the box. They care about the value of the service.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Better business model ideas without all the in

   

   Jim, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 3:07pm

   
   

   When the service is an unknown, consumers DO care about risking $200, especially when the competing services are already paid for (TiVo, cable, sattellite) or have no up-front fees (NetFlix, BlockBuster, etc.)
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   stupid idea

   

   Adam, Feb 15th, 2006 @ 6:14am

   
   

   With the two-day turnaround, netflix is effectively video on demand. Why would I pay $200 for something that gives me a choice of only a few movies in any given week, as opposed to tens of thousands?
   
   The other joy of netflix is the so-called "long tail", catching up on classics or cult films or foreign things. I can't imagine this set-top box will have a deep selection.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Not worth it

    

    Texan, Feb 21st, 2006 @ 7:08am

    
    

    I already have a large selection of MOD with my current digital cable service. The prices are the same as at video stores and the selection is decent. I'm not going to spend $200-300 for a service I already have. In fact, even if they gave me a free box, I don't see how I gain any additional value.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: No Subject Given

    

    danno, Mar 10th, 2006 @ 9:09am

    
    

    i used to work as a product tester for MovieBeam, and i heard that broadband connectivity and a usb antenna were comin' down the pipeline... so maybe just maybe we have ourselves a netflix killer. and jeez... no @!#$ scratched discs!!!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment