Isn't the fundamental issue that aggregators are able to pick the "best" parts they want while the integrators are forced to produce the best all the time?
Wikipedia was a boon for search, as it provides so much value for Google to show direct answers and results. But Google didn't do much for it.
Netflix and Amazon Prime has shown that content can be produced for relatively unknown "brands" and still be highly valuable. Disney is traditionally the owner of intellectual property that they want too monetize.
Doesn't take a genius to understand that at some point Disneys content will be sup-bar what others are offering. Even when they today have a head start.
I have no issue to think about a world where kids will grow up without ever touching Disney content. But some form of Netflix they will for sure have.
Doesn't history tell us how hard it is to adjust to a changing environment?
I am just betting that at a time in the future Disney will not be as relevant as they are today. And I would argue they already suffered over the last years. With less and less people aiming towards blockbusters in general.
Sure maybe they stay afloat but assuming they will constantly produce high quality and that no one is able to overtake them by a bigger margin is not what I experienced over my lifetime.
I'm not sure I totally agree with this. Disney is incredibly talented at telling stories with a long shelf life (both singular stories and franchises). This is a core competency that isn't exactly disrupted by a change in the content distribution model. Not to say it can't happen, but they have been able to execute well on that competency since the 1920s.
This streaming shift also is beneficial to Disney, with more touch points to access their audience and extract value - unconstrained by TV/theater time constraints and middlemen.
I don't know how you support that they suffered over the last years. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has crushed it, Disney Plus has more subscribers than expected (thanks in part to COVID), and many DTC purchases on Disney Plus have been successful. Not to mention this content success begets success in other parts of the business.
> Doesn't take a genius to understand that at some point Disneys content will be sup-bar what others are offering. Even when they today have a head start.
I think Disney's whole business model is built around insuring that never happens, both by hiring the best people and by buying any company that demonstrates a threat to their hegemony.
Have you seen the remakes? Mulan and The Lion King live action remakes were insulting to the originals despite having the budget for the best. Somehow they still made money hands over fist....
Would assume generalizations are bad to make here.
Video Games have:
- Thought me more English than I could ever learn in school especially TALKING (non-native)
- Started many projects for me that helped me later on from learning programming to analytical thinking and strategy
- Learn to work in teams and become part of a community, even though I still had the weekly sports activity and school etc also
- Got me into PC hardware and MS Windows with great detail to optimize my experience
- Made me "escape reality" without waking up with a broken bone somewhere next to the road
Guess there were many more points, some of which I maybe wouldn't attribute towards gaming but where indirectly affected by it.
But I can also see how other generations might have a different experience. You might no longer need to tinker with your OS and hardware to get a great performance.
Creating large spreadsheets to calculate game specific actions and derive decisions is also not needed for many games.
So I guess saying video games are bad is way too generic, as it is to say drinking is bad. Depending on the usage and what you get out of it.
I am more than happy to not have taken jiu-jitsu classes and I would also challenge if that had made it any better for me compared to gaming.
> So I guess saying video games are bad is way too generic
That's not the argument being presented. No one is talking about people who play 10-30 hours per two weeks, which is not an unreasonable amount of time for a hobby. This is largely about people who spend 60, 70, 80, 90 or triple digits per two weeks in games.
Those stories keep fascinating me, ever since I talked about side-channel attacks during my study times.
Re-creating CRT images through walls, listening in on keystrokes through the electric wires of a building or learning about traffic patterns while observing network interface flashing LEDs.
Just a fascinating world when you leave aside what they are aimed towards.
When companies try to become more data-driven, something that I find very often is the tendency to just follow the initial gut feeling process but this time find some supporting data without actually be open and objective.
But I also acknowledge the fact that data is what it is: A pile of information trying to gather via imperfect processes and imperfect representations.
I constantly get back to something I did hear around the topic of marketing attribution couple of years ago:
"The new right is the less wrong".
Clearly you can make many mistakes gathering and analyzing data. But your domain knowledge should also help you identify clear mistakes and improve on them. Which then leads to a better data quality (hopefully you stayed objective enough to not create large biased data points).
But for me the most fundamental advantage remains:
Bringing data makes it easy to test and verify assumptions. You are bringing the full package to the table instead of a hard to qualify able / quantifiable feeling that often times is not easy to communicate.
The last element on this Data vs Human input: The limit quite often for algorithms to work perfectly is having all the information available. That is in many situations a real challenge, so the domain knowledge helps to fill in gaps.
Which has a lot more detail to it