Yeah, really, I know it is expensive (*way* above anything I could ever afford, unless - as Carlo said - I hit the Powerball), but this would be the "holy grail" for some movie buffs, right?
) I wouldn't want to spend $500 just to show a movie for 24 hours. I would think that to be fair, Hollywood should for $500 let you:
The guy may not be a billionare. The article said he was an "energy company investor who made his money off solar panels" (green subsidies off the government of California and the feds) Either way, money may not be an object (until those taxing us & borrowing to provide subsidies can't get anymore and can't pay the interest on what is borrowed).Carlo Medina said:You know what I really have a problem with? Not the cost of the device, or the ancillary costs of building a home theater that really needs to rival a small theatrical experience...it's the 24 hour window that you get the movie for $500 a film.
Honestly, even if I won Powerball (and I should check my ticket, that reminds me
[*]Show the movie for at least several days - chances are super rich people also work a lot of hours and one of the benefits of watching a movie at home is that you can stop it and re-start at your pleasure
[*]Then, after your purchase window is up, the movie becomes disabled, until it enters the purchase market (Blu-Ray/DVD release date) at which point it becomes active again in your system. Because for $500 I think that's fair.
[/list]
But it's very clear from that article that the people making this are aiming squarely at billionaires (they actually say "make billionaires giddy") so I guess for them any of the points I've made is a moot point. Because even if I won Powerball at $300 million, after taxes I'm still nowhere near a billionaire so I guess I just don't have the point of view that those people would have. They probably throw $500 away like I refuse to pick up dirty pennies off the street.
