[robotpony]

This is the crux of the issue: that cinema hasn't caught up with streaming services. There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie, i.e., they could show movies and stream simultaneously, maximizing consumer choice (rather than maximizing cinema profits).

[bunderbunder]

> There's no reason to force people to wait to stream a movie

Wait, what, really?

> maximizing cinema profits

Ah, no, there it is.

This is a fight for survival. Cinema can't catch up; it's an industry that was built for business conditions that existed in a bygone world, back when the equipment for distributing and viewing high-quality video recordings was so prohibitively expensive that it didn't make sense for people to have it in their homes. It's going to (largely) disappear, but it can maybe squeeze out a few more years of existence by trying to use regulation, business deals and whatever other tricks to try and create a simulacrum of the conditions its existence is based on. Like for any middleman, those conditions are precisely a lack of consumer access via alternative channels.

[tracker1]

There's something fun and social about seeing some movies in the theater. I think options like ipic, AMC cinema suites and others, not to mention real IMAX are things you won't ever get at home.

That said, I can see the decline. I cringe every time I think of how much more concessions get priced upwards, in addition to ticket pricing. I don't think the market will bear too much more.

[robotpony]

I should have said that there is no technical reason for delaying a streaming release, nor does it really affect the quality of the watching experience (assuming people have good streaming setups).