Recently, I read a text about, in short, people's strange approach to spending money in the digital world. The author was puzzled, among other things, why she and many others have a problem spending 4 euros on a movie on one of the streaming platforms, but are willing to spend 20 euros on the same movie in the cinema or on a physical medium. Personally, I was surprised why the author was surprised by this state of affairs, and I was really taken aback when her conclusion was "let's buy more apps and digital goods instead of real ones!". On the other hand, I shouldn't be surprised, given that the magazine in which this text was published was aimed at young startup entrepreneurs. But let's take a few steps back and consider both reactions.
Let's start with the author. From a certain perspective, her reaction is fully justified. If we look at the example given from a purely mathematical, dry point of view, she is absolutely right. By buying fully digital media, you get the same product for a lower price. Heck! You can open it on a multitude of devices; anywhere; it doesn't take up space because it's a stream of zeros and ones in a mystical cloud, or on a portable USB drive. Pure. Objective. Advantages.
One could even argue that it's an ecological option because no materials were used to produce that copy of the movie or any other medium. No plastic for packaging, no expensive recording processes on a chosen medium. In the case of something like a Blu-ray, we also save additionally on a specialized player, which costs money, and when it stops working, it becomes expensive electronic waste.
However, in my opinion, one must not approach this issue purely mathematically. Dividing the number of views by the money spent. Why? Let's start with an equally dry approach as the mathematical one, namely ownership matters. I don't know if this fact is familiar to dear readers, but a significant portion of digital media you "own" doesn't actually belong to you. But how come, someone may be offended, I paid for it! Well, you did pay for it, but there are two things standing in the way. Firstly, many platforms (e.g., Steam gaming platform) have in their contracts, which we all accept without reading 20 pages of text, written that media acquired on the platform is only borrowed for an indefinite period. This means that access can be cut off or limited at any whim, ads may be inserted, etc. In practice, of course, this means little; as far as I know, there haven't been any major movements or consequences related to this state of affairs so far. But in the age of streaming platforms looking for new sources of income, I see potential threats to consumption comfort. And Amazon ads are supposed to start in February and be removed only for an additional fee. Welcome to late stage capitalism.
Secondly, when it comes to product ownership, the product generally isn't on the medium from which it's being received. Sure, downloading a game from the internet through Steam or Epic puts it on your hard drive, but the installation files, which are actually important, are not. You only have a digital copy of the game, not the game itself. With movies and TV shows, it's even worse. Not without reason are they called "streaming platforms". The movie flows to your phone or TV like a smooth stream and just as smoothly, with a small buffer, it leaves. Sure, sometimes you can download a movie for a specific time. Wow. Only for it to delete itself after 3 days.
But all of this is a dry response to dry facts. And dry facts hardly interest me, so let's focus on a slightly more emotional side. I don't understand how going to the cinema can be compared to watching a movie on the couch. Let me quote my favorite chimpanzee with a Latin name: "It's one thing to eat candies from a bag, and it's another thing to eat a mountain of sugar." Going to the cinema is, well... going out. You have to dress up, meet friends, interact with people. Not to mention the completely different quality of the movie and sound. Comparing the cinema to the couch is completely off the mark for me. But maybe it's just me.
Similarly, I'm afraid it's just me when it comes to comparing a movie on a platform like Amazon to a movie on a physical medium like DVD, Blu-ray, cassette, or any other wax cylinder of our times. Returning to the purely practical aspect, such a medium can be played anytime, anywhere (assuming you have a player), regardless of internet access. You can copy it, lend it to someone. Heck, you can even sell it. And of course, here comes the emotional aspect of collecting. We as humanity like to have things. Our whole capitalist system is based on our desire to own and collect things through our consumerism.
Regarding consumerism, ecology, and similar arguments, let me add something else. For the sake of honesty, I have no idea what the exact energy costs are to produce one copy of a m ovie on, let's say, a DVD, but I know that producing the same movie on your screen via the internet is also not free. This movie sits somewhere on a server. The server needs to be supplied with electricity, cooled, monitored, and repaired. Then, it has to be transmitted to you via cables or satellite. Which also costs energy and money. I repeat, I don't know what these costs are, and how they relate to the costs of producing one disc with a movie, and when these two graphs would intersect. But one must remember that the internet and computational power are not free! The laws of thermodynamics reach everything and everyone.
Targeting another digital product: cryptocurrencies are currently one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases. All because of a mass of mining computers processing countless computations for the glory of money. When it comes to these topics, I highly recommend Low Tech Magazine. A blog powered by solar panels, dealing with simple solutions to complex problems. Sometimes problems that our ancestors solved a long time ago. The whole idea of this blog is to reduce the energy and ecological costs of running the website.
But let's return for a moment to the article that started this whole discourse. As another comparison, the author of the original text takes a notebook/calendar from Rossman for 7 euros and an organizing app for a similar price. In this case, the app will absolutely perform its task better, but the app is not there. You can't touch it, smell it, or lick it. In every aspect except one, the app doesn't exist. Because one must remember one thing. Despite our lives increasingly existing in a digital, online world, especially as someone working from home, or in the broad sense of IT, we are still physical, fleshy beings. It is much easier and more pleasant for us to interact with things we can see and touch. Deep down, we prefer going out to meet people by going to a movie or wandering between bookshelves to pick out a book at the bookstore.
And please don't think that I am some anti-technological luddite, or a forest hermit without a phone. I grew up with the internet and I've made several websites myself. Some of my best childhood memories are associated with computer games. I realize the usefulness and magnificence of advancing digitization. I don't want you to think that I'm a
Comments