[rolobio]

Agreed. When Netflix had just about everything, piracy took a big hit.

We need a return to Blockbuster-like selection, but streaming. A streaming service should purchases however many copies they are streaming, and replace them on a schedule as the copy “wears out”, like Blockbuster.

[cdchn]

What they could even do is buy physical Blu-Ray and mail the out to people who would return them after a few days, for a subscription fee.

[dylan604]

If that was profitable, the service you describe would not have shuttered.

[cogman10]

It may actually be profitable again. The entire reason media rentals ended up dying is because of Netflix coming out with just about every bit of media available for streaming.

Now that everything has fractured into a million pieces, media rental once again seems like it may make sense. Redbox is still around still lending out blurays. It wouldn't shock me if that model made a resurgence.

[dylan604]

redbox isn't nearly as convenient as having it delivered to your house.

however, it does make me wonder if owning/operating/maintaining all of the boxes is more or less expensive than paying the USPS to deliver and collect on behalf of your service.

[bombcar]

Redbox is about as convenient as the library (or more so, with a cost) and it has all the latest.

The key is they don’t have to pay for mailing, AND I can get something last minute with a short walk or a short drive (which puts three in range).

[bee_rider]

I don’t think that’s true; it might be the case that mailing out dvds is profitable, but too low revenue for modern Netflix to bother with. I mean, it was possible to build a business on it at some point…

[dylan604]

> I don’t think that’s true

Easy to find out by coming up with a business plan, and then pitch it to investors. If you are right, then you'll be the next Reed Hastings. If not, you'll just be another person with an idea nobody else believes is worth investing

[bee_rider]

I disagree that that is necessary to run that experiment, somebody already did it, proving that it is possible.

Also I don’t think suggesting a giant task like starting a business is anything but a bad faith rhetorical tactic. I’m not going to pitch a DVD mailing company to investors for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not it is viable (I’m a programmer, not a businessman, and I don’t care to run a business, for one thing).

[dylan604]

Of course I wouldn't expect some person as a programmer become a CEO of a physical media shipping company. I always forget that I must be explicit in these types of forums where the you is never considered as the royal you. Everyone takes things so personal.

[patrickthebold]

I think your are missing the GPs point. Netflix, of course, started with mailing dvds and recently ended it. As far as I know, it was always profitable. Unfortunately being profitable is not the same as "worth investing", investors are chasing the highest returns and won't invest in something with a low return on investment.

You are kind moving the goal posts with your first statement "If that was profitable, the service you describe would not have shuttered." and this one.

[andsoitis]

The trend has been clear for a long time. The future is a streaming, not physical media. Profitability is necessary but not sufficient to be a successful business over the long term, you also need to grow and change according to market dynamics, otherwise you will find yourself dead.

[dylan604]

No, I'm not missing the point. Yes, I said profitable. But let's all agree that profitable doesn't just mean making one dollar more than all of your expenses. By definition, that's making money which is technically profitable, but that's not what anyone would consider a profitable business. So while technically right might be the best right, it's technically useless in this conversation and does nothing to actually move the conversation in a positive direction.

Saying that a company is profitable but not worth the investment is not going to solve the streaming is our only option. We are looking for a solution other than streaming that is still legal so that people do not have to resort to pirating. If you are suggesting that a service providing shiny round discs through the mail or any other brick&mortar Blockbuster or mom&pop video rental solution is going to be profitable to the point of sustaining a business, then there's a bit of realism that needs to be brought back into the conversation. This seems to not be wanted and instead point back to me not understanding what words mean.

[blendergeek]

CafeDVD [0] is still going strong.

[0] https://www.cafedvd.com/

[therealdrag0]

Is it actually dvd or do they have Blu-ray’s?

[bombcar]

They have Blu-ray all over the site.

[blendergeek]

I believe they have both.

[Mindwipe]

> When Netflix had just about everything, piracy took a big hit.

So never then.

(Also if this is circa 10 years ago every study suggests piracy is lower today than it was then.)

[dgfitz]

Because people don’t know how to pirate anymore. Circa 2000 everyone I knew was pirating everything. There is no Kazaa or bearshare or Napster anymore.

[Ekaros]

And even I'm kinda warry of using bittorrent... Usenet is fine from legal stand-point for sourcing my linux distros. But networks where you share got enough legal trolls to make want not bother. And I don't consume enough linux distros to make any special setups.

[account42]

It is amazing what wealth of linux distros are out there for the taking. And in many cases that's the only way to get them since no one is willing to sell those linux distros to you anymore.