Sprint to get the iPhone

Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:09:31 -0500]:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700]:
>>> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>>
>>> Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
>>> ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
>>> collection to more than just current hits.
>>
>>Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.
>
> Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
> offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
> Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
> leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.

They already have issues of not having enough of what people want,
and that's before the whole "burn on demand" structure proposed.

Imagine being 4th in line, you have to wait at least 15 minutes to even
begin making a choice as to what you want to watch. Or to put in your ID
to get what you reserved.

>>Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who left
>>the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.
>
> I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
> people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
> and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.

I have a gen 2 DVD player that doesn't even play burned DVDs, a Toshiba
some model or other that plays any regular DVD thrown at it.

I have CDs that have been "erased" from just a day on the passenger seat

---

› See More: Sprint to get the iPhone

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:23:45 -0600, Todd Allcock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At 25 Jul 2011 21:09:31 -0500 Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700]:
>> >> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk
>with a
>> >> ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
>> >> collection to more than just current hits.
>> >
>> >Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.
>
>>
>> Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
>> offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
>> Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
>> leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.
>>
>> >Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who
>left
>> >the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
>> people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
>> and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.
>Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
>popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
>idea certainly isn't that strange. Some Barnes and Noble stores and
>Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
>allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. (My wife loves this,
>despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!" She retorts
>"but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

You described my wife, with one important difference. When I tell her
we can do it at home, she agrees. ;-)

--
Paul Miner

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:09:31 -0500]:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700]:
>>>> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
>>>> ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
>>>> collection to more than just current hits.
>>>
>>>Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.
>>
>> Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
>> offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
>> Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
>> leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.
>
>They already have issues of not having enough of what people want,
>and that's before the whole "burn on demand" structure proposed.
>
>Imagine being 4th in line, you have to wait at least 15 minutes to even
>begin making a choice as to what you want to watch. Or to put in your ID
>to get what you reserved.

That's why I suggested an online ordering system to get around those
problems.

>>>Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who left
>>>the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.
>>
>> I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
>> people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
>> and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.
>
>I have a gen 2 DVD player that doesn't even play burned DVDs, a Toshiba
>some model or other that plays any regular DVD thrown at it.
>
>I have CDs that have been "erased" from just a day on the passenger seat

Three words: don't do that.

I'm aware that direct sunlight isn't good for burned media, so I avoid
it and have never had a problem.

--
Paul Miner

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:42:10 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:55:12 -0500]:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:18:40 -0500]:
>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:28:17 -0500]:
>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:54:09 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
>>>>>>>onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
>>>>>>>Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
>>>>>>>systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
>>>>>>>capacity isn't used up for video).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
>>>>>> cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
>>>>>pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
>>>>>photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't assuming that.
>>>>
>>>> A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
>>>> I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
>>>> Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.
>>>
>>>Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
>>>these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.
>>
>> As it turns out, I overstated the streaming bandwidth requirement.
>> Apparently, it's less than 2.8 Mbps in practice, rather than 4 Mbps,
>> which we could round up to 3 Mbps to facilitate the math. Dropping the
>> bitrate from 4Mbps to 3 Mbps while increasing the runtime from 90 to
>> 120 minutes leaves us exactly where we started: about 2.64 GB per
>> movie.
>>
>> Two movies a day, every day of the month, is certainly outside the
>> norm, but it's quite possible to do that and still have over 90 Gigs
>> available for other things. I'm not seeing the problem.
>
>Even at those numbers, Mum & dad watching one show, kids watching another
>and it's easy to push into that bandwidth cap.

I think you're stretching things a bit. How many adult couples have
time to watch an average of a full length movie every day, and of
those, how many have kids who are also allowed to watch an average of
a full length movie every day? (Ignoring the complete lack of
parenting for the moment.) Of those, how many will burn up the
additional 90GB of monthly cap, and of those, how many will do it
month after month and not just once in awhile? Are we at zero yet?

>Then there's the whole idea of the stay at home parent watching their
>stories during the daytime.

Get'em a DVR.

--
Paul Miner

Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:58:55 -0500]:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:09:31 -0500]:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700]:
>>>>> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk with a
>>>>> ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
>>>>> collection to more than just current hits.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
>>> offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
>>> Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
>>> leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.
>>
>>They already have issues of not having enough of what people want,
>>and that's before the whole "burn on demand" structure proposed.
>>
>>Imagine being 4th in line, you have to wait at least 15 minutes to even
>>begin making a choice as to what you want to watch. Or to put in your ID
>>to get what you reserved.
>
> That's why I suggested an online ordering system to get around those
> problems.

I guess there could be some "online ordering line", or something.

Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:08:43 -0500]:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:42:10 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:55:12 -0500]:
>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:41:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:18:40 -0500]:
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:38:19 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:28:17 -0500]:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:54:09 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Internet radio's business model depends on piggybacking
>>>>>>>>onto unlimited or high-limit data plans, both mobile and DSL/cable. Yet
>>>>>>>>Sprint is the only major carrier still offering unlimited data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Both AT&T and Comcast now limit data on their U-Verse and cable
>>>>>>>>systems (though to a level that is high enough for audio if the
>>>>>>>>capacity isn't used up for video).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comcast has had caps in place for years. Their current 250GB 'soft'
>>>>>>> cap should be plenty for streaming a couple dozen movies monthly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Assuming you don't use your internet for anything else. Like the aforementioned
>>>>>>pandora, or for downloading new operating systems, or games or upload
>>>>>>photos to facebook or relatives, etc. etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't assuming that.
>>>>>
>>>>> A typical movie streams (in HD) at less than 2 Mbps, but to be safe
>>>>> I'll double that to 4Mbps. That same movie is about 90 minutes long.
>>>>> Doing the math, that works out to less than 2.7GB per movie.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, from Netflix an HD stream is over 2Mbps, and most movies are 2 hours
>>>>these days. Doing the math you can stream for about 4 hours a day.
>>>
>>> As it turns out, I overstated the streaming bandwidth requirement.
>>> Apparently, it's less than 2.8 Mbps in practice, rather than 4 Mbps,
>>> which we could round up to 3 Mbps to facilitate the math. Dropping the
>>> bitrate from 4Mbps to 3 Mbps while increasing the runtime from 90 to
>>> 120 minutes leaves us exactly where we started: about 2.64 GB per
>>> movie.
>>>
>>> Two movies a day, every day of the month, is certainly outside the
>>> norm, but it's quite possible to do that and still have over 90 Gigs
>>> available for other things. I'm not seeing the problem.
>>
>>Even at those numbers, Mum & dad watching one show, kids watching another
>>and it's easy to push into that bandwidth cap.
>
> I think you're stretching things a bit. How many adult couples have
> time to watch an average of a full length movie every day, and of

I know we do, two hours of TV a night is pretty easy. Netflix does a lot
more than just movies.


> those, how many have kids who are also allowed to watch an average of
> a full length movie every day? (Ignoring the complete lack of
> parenting for the moment.) Of those, how many will burn up the

I know of several parents that allow their kids to watch the apparently
large selection of childrens programming Netflix offers. Have you never
seen a 6 year old watch the same movie, say Toy Story, three or four
times in a row?


> additional 90GB of monthly cap, and of those, how many will do it
> month after month and not just once in awhile? Are we at zero yet?

Nope.

It's EASY to hit that cap with cloud services. Download podcasts,
download music, download video games. One video game can be over 10GB
Youtube, facebook, pandora....

Then there's the big gun, online backup. Since these caps are total bandwidth


>>Then there's the whole idea of the stay at home parent watching their
>>stories during the daytime.
>
> Get'em a DVR.

If you have cut the cable and only have internet?

On Jul 25, 7:23*pm, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 25 Jul 2011 21:09:31 -0500 Paul Miner wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700]:
> > >> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>
> > >> Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk
> with a
> > >> ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
> > >> collection to more than just current hits.
>
> > >Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.
>
> > Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
> > offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
> > Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
> > leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.
>
> > >Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who
> left
> > >the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.
>
> > I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
> > people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
> > and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.
>
> Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
> popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
> idea certainly isn't that strange. *Some Barnes and Noble stores and
> Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
> allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. *(My wife loves this,
> despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!" *She retorts
> "but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

There once was an audio cassette service that made custom cassettes
while you waited. Remember that a commercial DVD writer can go a lot
faster than one on a PC too. But I was envisioning a system where you
ordered online and picked the DVD up at the store a little while later
(like ordering a pizza). Remember this is only for the non-new
releases, the new releases would be stocked as they are now.

On 7/25/2011 9:02 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700, SMS<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly, AT&T's VOD rates are obnoxious, and usually MORE expensive than
>>> going to a "real" Blockbuster store.
>>
>> Which is exactly why Comcast and AT&T are determined to hamper streaming
>> services like Netflix. They thought they were going to be the ones
>> selling VOD to customers but they've been side-stepped to a large extend
>> by Netflix. I would still call it VOD whether it's delivered through the
>> mail or streamed over DSL or cable.
>
> Video through the mail is most certainly not what anyone else would
> call VOD.

Netflix streaming is VOD in every sense of the word. Even if they
charged $19.99 a month, which is more than twice what they charge for
streaming-only now, that's unlimited movies for the same price as only
3-4 movies from U-Verse VOD.

I'd probably go up to $2 per movie on U-Verse VOD to make it as good
as driving/walking the 2 blocks to Redbox or the 6 blocks to the
Blockbuster kiosk.

On 7/25/2011 8:57 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:54 -0500, "Ryan P."

>> All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
>> for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
>> course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
>> easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
>> shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't get invited to the room when they negotiate so
> it's hard to say why each provider pays what it pays.

Oh, I know. Like I said, I'm sure its the licensing terms imposed by
the studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of Redbox.

On 7/25/2011 9:37 PM, Ryan P. wrote:

> Netflix streaming is VOD in every sense of the word. Even if they
> charged $19.99 a month, which is more than twice what they charge for
> streaming-only now, that's unlimited movies for the same price as only
> 3-4 movies from U-Verse VOD.

Eventually that could be true, but as of now the streaming content is a
tiny fraction of what Netflix has available on DVD.
>
> I'd probably go up to $2 per movie on U-Verse VOD to make it as good as
> driving/walking the 2 blocks to Redbox or the 6 blocks to the
> Blockbuster kiosk.

I agree. $2 would be a fair price for a movie from U-Verse, Comcast, or
the satellite TV providers. I can walk to a Redbox Kiosk in about seven
minutes. I can walk to the library which has a huge selection of classic
movies, for free, in about four minutes.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:37:44 -0500, "Ryan P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/25/2011 9:02 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700, SMS<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frankly, AT&T's VOD rates are obnoxious, and usually MORE expensive than
>>>> going to a "real" Blockbuster store.
>>>
>>> Which is exactly why Comcast and AT&T are determined to hamper streaming
>>> services like Netflix. They thought they were going to be the ones
>>> selling VOD to customers but they've been side-stepped to a large extend
>>> by Netflix. I would still call it VOD whether it's delivered through the
>>> mail or streamed over DSL or cable.
>>
>> Video through the mail is most certainly not what anyone else would
>> call VOD.
>
> Netflix streaming is VOD in every sense of the word.

Agreed! But Netflix through the mail is not VOD, unless you stretch
the meaning of VOD way beyond recognition.

--
Paul Miner

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:45:43 -0500, "Ryan P."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 7/25/2011 8:57 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:05:54 -0500, "Ryan P."
>
>>> All the more reason the cable providers should charge reasonable fees
>>> for VOD. I'm sure part of it is licensing from the studios, of
>>> course... But if Redbox can rent DVD's, which can be copied pretty
>>> easily, for $1, there's no reason why TimeWarner or Comcast or AT&T
>>> shouldn't be able to do VOD for the same price.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we don't get invited to the room when they negotiate so
>> it's hard to say why each provider pays what it pays.
>
> Oh, I know.

Then how can you be "sure its the licensing terms imposed by the
studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of
Redbox"? :-)

>Like I said, I'm sure its the licensing terms imposed by
>the studios that the cable provides agreed to before the advent of Redbox.

--
Paul Miner

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:10:37 -0700 (PDT), SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jul 25, 7:23*pm, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 25 Jul 2011 21:09:31 -0500 Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700]:
>> > >> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>
>> > >> Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk
>> with a
>> > >> ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
>> > >> collection to more than just current hits.
>>
>> > >Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.
>>
>> > Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
>> > offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
>> > Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
>> > leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.
>>
>> > >Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who
>> left
>> > >the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.
>>
>> > I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
>> > people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
>> > and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.
>>
>> Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
>> popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
>> idea certainly isn't that strange. *Some Barnes and Noble stores and
>> Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
>> allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. *(My wife loves this,
>> despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!" *She retorts
>> "but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")
>
>There once was an audio cassette service that made custom cassettes
>while you waited. Remember that a commercial DVD writer can go a lot
>faster than one on a PC too.

No, but a commercial DVD writer can do more burns in parallel.

>But I was envisioning a system where you
>ordered online and picked the DVD up at the store a little while later
>(like ordering a pizza). Remember this is only for the non-new
>releases, the new releases would be stocked as they are now.

You mean like I described in this thread? It scares me when we agree.

--
Paul Miner

SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:10:37 -0700 (PDT)]:
> On Jul 25, 7:23Â*pm, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>> At 25 Jul 2011 21:09:31 -0500 Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:53:22 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > >SMS wrote on [Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:47:17 -0700]:
>> > >> On 7/25/2011 3:05 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
>>
>> > >> Redbox could do a lot more if they wanted. They could do a kiosk
>> with a
>> > >> ginormous hard drive and a DVD writer and greatly expand their
>> > >> collection to more than just current hits.
>>
>> > >Yeah, because people are going to wait 5-10 minutes for a movie to burn.
>>
>> > Agreed, but I suppose they could stock the most popular titles and
>> > offer to burn the rest of the catalog on demand. Top it off with an
>> > Internet-enabled ordering system so you could order a title before
>> > leaving work and have it waiting as you stop on your way home.
>>
>> > >Also, how many tech support issues will be received from people who
>> left
>> > >the disc in the sun for too long and was unreadable.
>>
>> > I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. An awful lot of
>> > people are already familiar with homegrown DVD's and CD's in the car
>> > and it doesn't seem to be a major issue.
>>
>> Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
>> popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
>> idea certainly isn't that strange. Â*Some Barnes and Noble stores and
>> Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
>> allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. Â*(My wife loves this,
>> despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!" Â*She retorts
>> "but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")
>
> There once was an audio cassette service that made custom cassettes
> while you waited. Remember that a commercial DVD writer can go a lot
> faster than one on a PC too. But I was envisioning a system where you
> ordered online and picked the DVD up at the store a little while later
> (like ordering a pizza). Remember this is only for the non-new
> releases, the new releases would be stocked as they are now.

Then you may as well stream!

On 7/25/2011 7:23 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> Not to mention Amazon already employs a "burn on demand" system for less
> popular titles of CD or DVD that don't warrant a production run, so the
> idea certainly isn't that strange. Some Barnes and Noble stores and
> Starbucks let you buy MP3s in store and sell them to you in CD form,
> allowing you to build your own "mix tape" in-store. (My wife loves this,
> despite my continually telling her "we can do this at home!"

The "burn on demand" system has been available for decades in different
types of media. The studios would probably be thrilled to have a way to
get some extra revenue from older movies by having a way to rent or sell
them. Selling a burn-on-demand DVD of an old movie for $3 or $4 is
upside revenue that would otherwise be lost completely, or partially
lost as the viewer borrowed a library copy, borrowed a friend's copy, or
put it on their Netflix list.

> She retorts
> "but no one will bring me a latte if I do it at home!")

Sounds like she's hinting that you buy a commercial espresso maker and
grinder:

<tinyurl.com/MagisterES60Espresso>
<tinyurl.com/CommercialEspressoGrinder2>

After about 2000 $3 lattes you'd break even, considering the cost
equipment and supplies.