When the deals are renewed in early '12, that's when I expect another price jump.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I still think it's better from a PR perspective for them to increase prices to better reflect their costs in two smaller steps rather than the sticker shock of bumping prices up in a single, larger step. Or who knows, maybe they won't increase prices at all... Time will tell.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

All I am out is the cost of my shoes which I would have that expense anyway if I walked indoors.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I don't understand the business model of the so-called "content providers." They are constantly showing themselves willing to take a bigger slice of a shrinking pie. They have to know that jacking the prices so high will reduce consumption, yet they persist in doing so anyway, as though the moral rectitude they perceive in their decision justifies the Pyrrhic victory. Well, the revenues of the music industry alone have shrunk 50 percent in the last 10 years, yet they persist in their self-destructive ways.

And whose fault is it? Why, the customers' of course! Surely shrinking revenues must be a sign of ill-will -- if not downright illegal behavior -- on the part of consumers! It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that consumers have limited budgets and are focused on things like, you know, putting food on their families' tables.

Given that a corporation is usually regarded as having an obligation to shareholders to maximize profits, entertainment has to be the only field in which corporations are given a pat on the back for driving revenues into the ground in the name of principle.

Not to mention, it never ceases to amaze me that content providers seem to believe that demand for their wares is inelastic and that customers will keep coming back no matter how high prices rise.

Well, I won't. I have a family to feed. A walk in the woods is free, and I find that just as entertaining as a movie anyway.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

As for the music industry, maybe they should consider putting out a better product. Top 40 has always been bad but I strongly think it's even worse today than when I was growing up.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

You must have some rough terrain for indoors.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

"...to better reflect the costs of each."

If the industry would lower costs, revenue would climb. My family still buys DVDs occasionally -- but only the ones that cost less than $10. We don't buy the ones that are priced $15 to $25. I occasionally buy cheap CDs too, although my primary source of music nowadays is secondhand stores. I recently purchased 11 albums (16 CDs) for 27,50€. That's less than I would have paid for 3 CDs at new prices.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

I would not say that artists are overpaid. Their share of the revenues is appallingly low. Do some reading, for example, on how ASCAP distributes royalties to songwriters. Most of their members never see a dime from their songs. BMI is somewhat more fair, but not much.

.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

Indoor shoes wear out too. Maybe a little slower but they still do.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Nor in mine. Of course, we tend not to wear clothes either, but that's another topic.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

Hey, even a blind man could see that Kat2 is HOT, and zombieslayer thinks Kat1 is hot too.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

We don't wear shoes in my house. :)

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool