I'll tell you why movie revenue is dropping... - <AUTHOR> http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111228/COMMENTARY/111229973/ <comment><USER2> I think Alamo Drafthouse in Austin is doing it right:

1\. Food & beer/wine served with movie -- convenient and much preferable to overpriced popcorn.

2\. Cellphones must be turned off.

3\. They take talking seriously, and preface each film with a strongly (and amusingly) worded statement to that effect.

4\. No babies allowed except on specified baby nights.

5\. Creative and fun special events, such as quote-alongs, sing-alongs, live comedy (Master Pancake, which is sort of like live MST3K), movie/food pairings, etc...

I pretty much refuse to go to any other theater, and judging by their crowds, they seem to be doing quite well with this formula.

<comment><USER3> I went to an Alamo in Houston and while I liked the concept, the theater was a bit dank (which I worry is an inevitable result of serving beer and food) and not a place I'd prefer taking my kids --- which is relevant because "family of four" seems to be the core market for blockbuster films.

I _like_ Alamo, don't get me wrong, but there are downsides to the model.

<comment><USER4> I don't think you could take your kids to Alamo unless it is a special event. It is 18+ only.

<comment><USER5> One of their household rules is that "Minors must be accompanied by a parent or guardian". [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/10/alamo.draft...](http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/10/alamo.drafthouse.league/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _2\. Ticket prices are too high. People have always made that complaint, but historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants._

I had to check this claim, because inflation and purchasing power can fog people's memories. Using average U.S. ticket prices[1] adjusted to 2010 dollars[2], I get the following:

Year | Price | 2010 price adj. w/CPI

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

2010 | 7.89 | 7.89

2005 | 6.41 | 7.15

2000 | 5.39 | 6.83

1995 | 4.35 | 6.22

1990 | 4.22 | 7.04

1985 | 3.55 | 7.19

1980 | 2.69 | 7.12

1975 | 2.03 | 8.23

1971 | 1.65 | 8.88

1967 | 1.22 | 7.96

1963 | 0.86 | 6.13

1958 | 0.68 | 5.13

1954 | 0.49 | 3.97

1948 | 0.36 | 3.26

Assuming my calculations are fair and correct, it appears that movie ticket prices quickly outpaced inflation until the late 60s, saw a peak in the 70s and then began a steady decline until the mid 90s. Since then they've been on a march upwards again.

So prices aren't historically high - that honor goes to the 1970s. And compared to sports events and concerts...?! I don't have the data, but I'd bet tickets for those have risen even faster, both of which, incidentally, suffer from the same competition movies do: high quality home theater setups and internet streaming. Which of course is the real problem - ticket prices need to drop against inflation, because entertain distribution options are not the same in 2011 as they were in 1971. The movie theater or concert venue does not have a monopoly on high definition entertainment any more.

Sources:

[1] <http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm>

[2] <http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl>

<comment><USER7> 7.89 for movies? What? Where? I'm guessing this data is skewed by the low prices of rural and suburban centers that are underpopulated. Here in the urban world where most of the population lives, movies start at 11 or 12 dollars and then there's a 3D surcharge of a couple bucks. When my gf and go to the movies here in Chicago its about 30 dollars before any snacks. Toss in a few bucks parking too. Oh, want to order online? That's another two dollars per ticket.

At the end of the day, Hollywood is asking us to drop 30-40 bucks to see yet another disposable experience. On the value vs cost curve, Hollywood is losing.

Meanwhile, Netflix streams to all my computers and my Boxee. Vudu too. I think I can wait a few months until its on Vudu or On-Demand for a fraction of that price. Even then its still not a compelling experience. I'm in my 30s. Where are the Scorsece's, Allen's, Spielberg's, and Coppola's of my generation? I'm not sure, but they aren't getting work in mainstream Hollywood.

<comment><USER8> The prices he lists are "…adjusted to 2010 dollars…" based on the linked calculator.

EDIT: Please ignore this comment. See reply below. Sorry for missing the point here.

<comment><USER9> 2010 was last year (Ok, it will be the year before last in a couple of days, but...), inflation is not sufficient to effect it that much when compared with this year.

Like the grand-parent, this does not fit with my experience. When I got to a new release I usually pay around $13 per person at a decent theater in Las Vegas, and up to $18 per person for Imax 3D.

But the other thing that may skew the results is budget or "dollar" theaters that show older releases. I frequently take my kids to those for around $2 per ticket.

<comment><USER8> I just realized that I misread the comment, and for that I apologize; I totally missed the boat with my reply.

I actually agree that the average ticket price is way below what I'm used to paying here in Los Angeles. At the same time, I suppose that's the point, to take into account both the high and low ends of the pricing spectrum.

That said, I'd gladly pay $7–8 for a movie!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like that some independent films are beginning to branch out in their strategy. For example, one of the best films of the year -- Margin Call -- was released on a variety of streaming services the same day it was available in theaters.

Sometimes I like watching a movie at home, other times I'm looking for a chance to go out. Dates will probably always involve movie theaters for my girlfriend and myself -- even if I have a very nice home setup.

That being said, I think the film industry is in for secular decline due to the compound effects of high quality home theaters with streaming content, some piracy, unrealistically high ticket prices ($32 for two tickets?!) and high quality television production.

I do think the most significant threat is high quality television productions though. Downton Abbey, Mad Men, and many other cable dramas are produced with extremely high artistry both in production and story values. Several times I have found that rewatching these TV series on Netflix has been far more rewarding than the latest 90 minute theater affair.

<comment><USER11> Totally agree on the TV. The Christmas episode of Downton a few days ago was encroaching on the length of a movie and much more interesting than nearly all of them. Let alone the fact that it's free to watch and we could record it etc.

<comment><USER12> Come on, Christmas episode of Downton Abbey is a disappointment: annoying dude popping up all the time when Mary was talking to other dude, predictable Bates story, ghost of the dead bride wishing Mary and annoying dude happiness, and most of all, mixed servant-master ball (after two self-served events, because servant had time off)?? Seriously? What's up with that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> One thing that's become an issue for me, at least at my local theater (and I admit I may be in the minority here), is volume.

Now, before you pull out "too old" or "don't be a wuss", I'll say that I'm only 29, and I play in a _loud_ rock band, and go to many loud concerts. I am no stranger to loud things, and have permanent tinnitus to prove it. I still enjoy concerts as much as I ever did, but I've found myself bringing earplugs to movies. They can be downright painful at times.

<comment><USER14> Sounds like a bug in your local theater's sound setup. The local theaters here seem to have it set up about right: loud when it should sound loud, quiet when it should sound quiet, and never painful.

<comment><USER13> I thought so too. In fact, I complained multiple times at one movie. They said they have no control over it, and couldn't turn it down if they wanted to. I'm not sure I believe it; _someone_ must be able to turn it down, but I may believe that the average employee on a random Saturday may not be able to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I guess... and of course I defer to Ebert on all things cinematic... but these are all critiques you could have leveled _with equal force_ in 2002. There've been good years in the preceding decade.

Except for 3D. But how much of an effect is 3D having? Most movies aren't 3D.

I'll say this: I went to see Super 8 at an old 60's-70's style theater in the far-out suburbs, one almost identical to the ones I saw movies in when I was a kid. No stadium seating. Simple seats. No cupholders. Massive screen. Minimal concessions. Maybe it was just the movie I was seeing --- like how watching South Park on your computer enhances the experience --- but it was awesome.

Ultimately, my bet is that the problem with theaters is simple: for the core market (the family of four that wants blockbuster mainstream product), the substitutes are just too good now. Mainstream consumers have, relative to 1995, _spectacular_ home theater setups, and diverse options for feeding content to them. Is it any wonder theaters suffer?

<comment><USER15> > these are all critiques you could have leveled with equal force in 2002

Netflix streaming wasn't around in 2002. This (and similar services) is the biggest factor in theaters losing market share.

<comment><USER16> Don't forget Amazon and iTunes rental streaming. Since I've gotten my appletv 2 I have found that waiting for it to stream on iTunes has replaced netflix and most of my theater trips.

Its nice to be able to pause and go to the bathroom at home. Do I miss some of the movie theater experience? Yeah, but not having kids kicking my seat, or people talking during the movie/etc... basically makes me not care about the plight of pre streaming movie distribution.

<comment><USER17> And Xbox Live streaming (or 'Zune' as it's called)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In addition to ridiculous ticket prices, the actual movie doesn't start until 15 minutes after the scheduled showtime. While you're waiting, you're expected to watch advertisements. I don't have any concrete data to back this up, but I feel it wasn't always this bad.

<comment><USER10> Not sure why you've been down-voted, but this has infuriated me more than any other single thing.

I pay a good deal of money to see a film in which I am so bombarded with ads beforehand that its ruined the film experience. The last film I saw had a full 15 minutes of ads and trailers before it started! My girlfriend asked me if we could just leave and get our money back.

<comment><USER19> I don't so much mind seeing trailers before a movie. It seems like a tradition, and trailers can be fun to watch. However, ads for other stuff like cars, or soft drinks cheapens the experience. I'm at a damn movie theater, don't remind me that it's really just a big TV screen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd add two more:

1\. Kids get bored quicker, This year, I've left the cinema four times before the movie finished because the kids were bored. This makes me less likely to go back, they prefer to stay home on the xbox/lappy or go out for pizza/bowling instead.

2\. Mass appeal movies are shit. There's just no quality or focus anymore, every movie is trying to be everything to everyone and ends up crap.

Don't get me started on the overuse of CG.

Instead of learning from filmmakers, the CG guys picked up tips from animators, that's why every CG creature walks and talks the same, with over emphasised, unrealistic, and ridiculous movement patterns that don't fool anyone and ruin the moment. You know why Jurassic Park is still awesome? and ghostbusters, and all those other heavy animation movies? Because they don't look obviously fake.

<comment><USER19> I actually find it very difficult to watch Jurassic Park these days. The CG has not aged well at all. With Ghostbusters, the effects look terrible in a few scenes (the claymation dogs spring to mind), but it's not so jarring in the context of a comedy.

<comment><USER21> > The CG has not aged well at all.

Really? I look to Jurassic Park as what CG should look like in movies. The opening reveal of the brontosauruses is still amazing, especially when you think of when the movie was made. What hasn't aged well?

Other movies from the mid-to-late 90s, on the other hand, have not aged well. Many of these used CG for the sake of having CG and did not take any care of ensuring it integrated into the rest of the shot.

<comment><USER22> No one is disputing how awesome it looked when it first came out, but the same thing could be said for quake 1. As our eyes adjust to the ever increasing details in movies and games, what used to look awesome begins to look awful. Here is the scene with the Brontosaurs While it seemed photo-realistic when it first came out, it now looks choppy, grainy, and artificial. Most low-budget T.V. shows have better CG now. But that's just the way computer animation works.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlmYh27MHg>

<comment><USER23> I appreciate the link, but I definitely disagree with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I still go to the movies. It's still a great excuse to turn your phone off for an hour or two, tell your friends to shut up and sit still for an hour or two, crank the volume all the way up for an hour or two, and have animated discussions about the thing you just watched with people who also just watched it and paid attention to the whole damn thing.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hard to argue with anything Ebert says in that article. As a kid I loved going to the theater. I tried to see a movie every time I had a free weekend.

However, these days going to the movie theater gives me an immense amount of anxiety. Despite the cost going up, my moviegoing peers seem to care less and less about actually watching the movie they paid to see. If it's not blinding cell phone screens, it's people talking way too loud and way too often.

As a result there are very few movies I'm not willing to wait for watching it in my own home.

Plus, most of the movies I hear about are ridiculous sequels or odd sounding takes on old properties. A Battleship movie? Really?

<comment><USER25> Agreed, I find that the independent movie theaters cater to a crowd that actually cares about film. They also show a mix of old and new films so you can catch the classics on the big screen. The Harvard Film Archive just had a great retrospective on Clouzot and the experience of the theater is really impressive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The problem is movies have become too expensive to make. When a movie cost 100-200 million dollars to make, studios believe that to be successful they must make, or more typical take, a brand and develop a movie around that brand. Studios need a brand that ideally people already know that they can franchise into a cartoon, plush dolls, a theme park ride, and 3 sequels in hopes to try and get the 150 million back. This why we end up with Land with the Lost and a baker's dozen of Charlie's Angels movies.

I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America.

edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?

<comment><USER27> You say that like it is some force of nature. Movies don't have to be expensive to make and Ebert specifically called out that the bright spot for 2011 was independent films.

You are correct about branding, but the movie studios decided to make these big budget movies. They are gambling big for a big payoff when they certainly could make great movies significantly cheaper.

I bet if you looked at studio executives' compensation packages, you could draw a link between their compensation and the 'go big or go home strategy'. I would bet they make a lot more money in bonuses if the studio has a huge year than one with good year over year growth. Add that to very little downside if they create flops (just blame the pirates!) and you have a recipe that likely explains the current behavior of the systems. Just a guess.

<comment><USER26> Thanks for the reply.

You are right that movies don't have to be expensive, but I do believe to get the kind of revenue that the big studios want, the studios believe the movies need the big name actors, the explosions and special effects, and 3D. The indies and docs were a bright spot in terms of enjoyment for the movie goes, but I do not know whether the studios believe they are a bright spot or not.

<comment><USER28> You can actually get decent effects and explosions these days for "cheap". District 9, one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies, had a budget of $30 million and was amazing. If they made movies around that size, they would lower their risk profile, while still having enough effects punch to make a blockbuster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> _Ticket prices are too high._

Yes. When movie prices were at around $6/ticket when I was younger, I went to watch a movie about once a week or two. Now, at $14.67 per general admission ticket (after tax, at Scotiabank Theater in Toronto) and $21.46 per IMAX 3D, it's almost impossible to justify going to a theater, rather than downloading a movie.

I don't know any other industry that raises prices in a seemingly elastic market, while competition increases and gets cheaper.

</comment><comment><USER30> Some good reasons, especially regarding competition with other forms of entertainment, which is one of the bigger factors IMO. But I can't believe he didn't say anything about sequels. The top 7 grossing movies of this year were _all_ sequels ([http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm](http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011&p=.htm))

On the one hand, this suggests that sequels are successful. On the other hand, the total revenue of those sequels was much lower than other top films of comparable prior years (just change the year in the URL and do some custom math), and if you account for ticket price inflation it's even worse. I think this points to studios not wanting to take on as much risk; sequels (and the proliferation of remakes... another Superman series already? really?) are low- risk because there's already some sort of existing awareness/fanbase to tap into... but I think they are also proving to be lower reward as people get burned out and don't care about going to see these sequels/remakes because the other reasons (prices, experience, etc) outweigh existing possible interest.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is all anecdotal evidence of course, but last night I went to see Hugo at a new megaplex that just opened by my house. Not only was the movie incredibly heartwarming and reminded me of why I love the movies, the experience was great.

There were no commercials or PSAs, and only 4 trailers before the feature started. A nice woman politely told us to turn off our cell phones, as opposed to an annoying loud surround sound gimmick. The tickets were only $11 for a 3D film. Parking was free. And the film was absolutely perfect.

There was a time that the movie experience was bad. Theaters built during that time are still bad. But the new ones are fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't know how many others get this benefit, but I live across the street from a library. It's awesome. Dvds are free for a week, they have tons of old and artsy stuff, they have a great collection of educational stuff (especially the Great Courses -- <http://www.thegreatcourses.com>), and things you put on hold they deliver to the library of your choice.

On top of that, I most of the time I get out a book or dvd at the same time, also free. Right now I'm borrowing a Richard Feynman book and 4-Hour Body, just because I saw them lying there at the library ... and they're free. If I don't get around to reading them, no big deal.

I have to wait for movies to arrive at the library, but that turns out to help me. Without the opening hype, you choose more based on quality and other people's reviews.

I should be careful talking this way, though. The movie and book people might shut the libraries down.

Anyway, there are reasons the cost of living in Manhattan is worth it. Culture is more convenient than cars here.

</comment><comment><USER33> I never go the theater anymore. The largest factors for me are the cost and comfort.

The cost is almost as much as buying the Blu-ray on launch week from Amazon or Best Buy, I'm not including the beverages or popcorn and candy (I don't ever buy those anyway). I can own it or I can watch it once in an uncomfortable, cold, dirty cineplex. Hmm, I've waited this long, what's a couple months more.

The comfort level at all the theaters around me make this an unpleasant experience. Chairs don't recline and are much to upright to sit at for 2+ hours, it's sticky and dirty all around. I get dried out soda and candy on the bottom of my shoes. Usually the air conditioning is set so cold you need a winter coat.

It's just not worth the cost to not have an enjoyable fun experience. I just wait for the Blu-ray.

</comment><comment><USER34> Now with HD and home digital projectors, I've lost all interest in going to the theater.

Watching a 2 hour movie at home takes, 2 hours. Watching one in a theater is 4 hours (getting ready to go, going there, waiting in line, waiting for it to start, sitting through the ads, going home), and going there with a group cost $$$$.

Besides, having "movie night" with friends at home is so much more fun. You can drink beer and make loud, snarky remarks about the movie, pause if someone needs a potty break, replay the naughty bits, fast forward to see if the piece of crap movie gets any better, adjust the volume so if you aren't already deaf the movie won't make you deaf, etc.

The movie theater is going the way of the drive-in.

</comment><comment><USER35> I haven't seen a movie in months and don't plan to for the foreseeable future and the movie going experience is a major reason why. I will pay the ticket price without too much trouble, I don't mind kids(going to midnight showings during the week helps with that) and I never eat concessions so I don't care how expensive they are. My problem is once I get into the theater. Most movies today aren't shown correctly(I have no idea why they expect some kid making minimum wage to run 20 screens at once to know what he / she is doing), the watermarks every 20 minutes, and the poor sound quality. But the worst part by far is the commercials. I find it incredibily insulting that I pay $12 for the privilage of watching ads for 15 minutes straight. No one likes a double dipper.

<comment><USER36> I agree about the commercials. With TiVo, I don't ever watch commercials at home any more, why would I watch them when I've paid so much money for a movie ticket? Plus I've found that I have no tolerance for them anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The problem is simple. Hollywood is conservative and hates taking chances. Every movie that's come out the last couple of years has been a sequel, another comic book franchise, or a remake of an already epic (unneeded remake) movie.

I see a deeper issue though, most of the directors/script writers who Hollywood desperately needs to inject life into its lifeline are off creating movies with all the cheap/newly accessible tools outside the system. _Think iOS/Android app developers who left Apple/Google_

Plus HBO/Showtime/FX who need a reason for people to subscribe now that movies are accessible elsewhere, so are enabling these independent teams by funding them. I haven't seen more creative TV or stories than I have the last few years on premium cable. The budgets are minuscule, but the teams are well adept at running slim already.

The creativity is there, it's just untamed and Hollywood is scared of it. Ebert blames the theaters themselves, but if there are great movies, people will go see them.

</comment><comment><USER38> Movies now days are like commercials designed to last an hour long. I especially love when they blatantly promote products in the movie. Did I really have to know that the main character uses iTunes and drinks Pepsi? Fuck you Hollywood.

<comment><USER19> How do we know your comment isn't product placement? :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Sequels, remakes, remakes of sequels, remakes of remakes.

No need to go any further.

<comment><USER40> Which as it turns out are the movies that make money.

<comment><USER39> When you only make a kind of movie, it's expected that's the only kind that will make you money.

Actually, it's the distribution channels that block other kinds of movies from catching audiences. They only want "safe" blockbusters. Eventually, that will be their demise.

<comment><USER40> 133 movies this year opened in more than 1000 theaters. There was plenty of choice, every single weekend of the year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm in Toronto (Canada), it's pretty much the same thing in terms of "*plex" experience.

Some reality check, they maximized things for profit so much that:

1\. Most Hollywood movies suck to a extraterrestrial degree.

2\. The food sucks and its expensive.

3\. Say whatever you want, 3D still sucks comparing to the default 2D experience.

4\. Way too expensive for what the experience provides.

5\. Niche theaters with quality stuff are always sold out.

6\. 15 min of commercials.

7\. Noisy teenagers.

8\. Most of these movies are a 1 hour long product placement

Finally: if they decide to compete with the home, they loose, my TV is huge, my speaker set is awesome, my food is better, my sofa or bed are more comfortable.

They need to find other ways to convince me to move my ass, pay $$$, and be there.

</comment><comment><USER42> Other reasons... BBM, Facebook and Twitter.

When RIM had their outage a few months ago, everywhere (in real life) was packed. People actually left their lying down position and went outside, visited friends and the movies. It lasted for all of 3 days then things went back to 'normal'

PS: Nigeria is a VERY BlackBerry centric country.

</comment><comment><USER43> I was sure he was going to say that it was partly because every movie now seems to be a sequel or based on a comic book. It's so rare to find a mainstream 100% original movie anymore it seems...

<comment><USER40> Top ten movies for 2011-

1\. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

2\. Transformers: Dark of the Moon

3\. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1

4\. The Hangover Part II

5\. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

6\. Fast Five

7\. Cars 2

8\. Thor

9\. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

10\. Captain America: The First Avenger

Yes, every single one is a comic book or a sequel. That's why they get made, they're what people pay to see. Everyone complains about it, everyone sees 'em.

If you want different movies to be made, go see different movies.

<comment><USER44> Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If most of what they make are movies in these genres, that's what people will see. I don't even _rent_ many movies any more, and I used to rent a lot! There just isn't much that's interesting, and i have pretty low standards when it comes to action / guy-flicks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Lets see..... at home I have a 60" Plasma, surround sound, comfy chairs, great food & drink, and 6-8 hand selected guests to watch a DVD I paid on average $15 from Amazon on our personally selected date and time.

Or.... Huuuuge screen, maybe good maybe bad sound (definately played way tooooo loud), sticky/wobbly/uncomfortable chairs, crappy overpriced snacks, and a room full of obnoxious self absorbed strangers, watched when and where the theater tells us, all at $12 (plus snacks) per person.

Yeah, boggles my mind why movie revenue is dropping.

</comment><comment><USER46> to me it's simpler - big budget, well-made TV series are flat out better than movies.

id rather spend the same money as two theater tickets a month for HBO / Showtime and watch Homeland, Game of Thrones, 24/7 etc.

Example: Girl with a Dragon tattoo would be an unreal premium TV series. A 2hr 40min movie seems rushed and messy whereas a 12-18 episode TV season could do this and other amazing books justice.

</comment><comment><USER47> "6. Lack of choice. Box-office tracking shows that the bright spot in 2011 was the performance of indie, foreign or documentary films. [...] Instead, all the shopping center compounds seem to be showing the same few overhyped disappointments. Those films open with big ad campaigns, play a couple of weeks, and disappear."

For me, it's always been the quality of the content. SO many movies are such garbage, and, at least to me, that was more true in 2011 than in recent years. Look at all the reboots that came out this year and think how many of them were worth seeing at a premium in theaters...

Ebert came close to hitting it with that point, especially at the end, but missed it a little. I don't think people prefer indie, foreign and documentaries because of what they are, nor because of the theaters they are shown in. Those movies have better turnout because they are better than most of the big Hollywood titles.

</comment><comment><USER48> I'll tell you the two major reasons I don't go. 1: Nothing worth seeing and 2: When it IS worth seeing, it's not worth the price of the movie and concessions. I can get a 12 pack of soda for what they charge for a "small". No thanks. I'll wait for the DVD. I can buy the DVD for the price of getting into the movie anyway.

</comment><comment><USER49> One of the major reasons I don't see many movies in the theater is that the movie companies have made much cheaper alternatives available.

I won't pay twelve dollars a ticket to watch a movie in the theater when it probably will be just as enjoyable at home. That goes for a lot of comedies and movies that lack the cinematography to justify seeing on the big screen. I'll still see the ppv movies and pay to do so, but not at the cost of going to the theater.

The blockbusters mentioned in the article - Batman and Avatar, were blockbusters largely because they were worth seeing on the giant screen and even worth dealing with the cost and hassle of 3D. I'll keep going to films with big visuals, but not the rest.

</comment><comment><USER15> > 5\. Competition from other forms of delivery.

This is by far the biggest reason.

All of my peers own Netflix streaming accounts and watch most of their movies this way.

<comment><USER50> Don't forget the bit he dropped in that same bullet point about better home theater technology. Instant availability and movie delivery would still leave a lot to be desired compared to the theater if we were watching it on boxy 27" CRTs with stereo sound and "tracking...tracking...tracking" on the media player.

Flat screens measured in feet and thinner than a ream of paper and surround sound (all digital) are now within reach of a large segment of the population. The higher quality of picture and sound at a theater, relative to a home setup, no longer outweighs the negatives, many of which have gotten worse in the last ten years (price, distractions, miscellaneous theater rigmarole).

IMAX is pretty much the only theater experience I still leave the house for. The screen size and sound are still novel enough to draw me in, and I find that the audiences tend to be more focused on the movie-going experience as opposed to being obnoxious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm not trying to discredit the merits of watching independent films, but I think that they are disproportionately popular on netflix because netflix's streaming selection is terrible to begin with.

People don't care if a movie is domestic or foreign, so long as it is well done. I think the popularity of independent films is due to the fact that a higher percentage of the best independent films show up on netflix vs the percentage of popular Hollywood movies.

Its obviously going to be much easier to negotiate a contract with an independent studio that needs the money than it will be to do the same with a movie studio executive that hates the fact that your business even exists.

</comment><comment><USER51> I will add anecdotal evidence.... Movies this year suck. We have Grandma the babysitter around and my wife and I only took advantage once. After seeing Sherlock Holmes none of the movies beat Netflix.

It isn't just the context, it's the content too.

</comment><comment><USER52> In its most simple and irreducible form, the challenge is this: big-screen movies need to offer an experience so preferable to home viewing (or video games, or TV, or other uses of leisure time) that customers will pay time and ticket prices for it.

That's becoming harder and harder, because _all_ sides of the equation have been getting hit. On the pricing side, it goes without saying that higher prices place a greater burden on entertainment value. But on the entertainment side, we now have a) alternatives (Netflix, video games, etc.) that are increasingly attractive, inexpensive, and readily available, and b) movie offerings that have, at best, held steady in their general entertainment value.

Interestingly, the theater-going experience itself has been improving over the past few decades. But at the heart of it all, customers aren't there for the window dressing; they're there for the content. A juicy piece of IP, such as Harry Potter, would drive people to a run-down shithole of a theater if they had to go -- but conversely, a shitty product wouldn't attract people to the nicest theater ever built. So, while we can all applaud the efforts of theater chains to improve their general offerings -- atmosphere, food, dining, etc. -- we shouldn't believe that such improvements are wholly sufficient, or ever could be. (At worst, if the cost of such atmosphere, ambience, furnishings, services, etc., eventually leaks into the ticket prices, then theaters are making the game even harder for themselves).

In summation, I place the burden for the future of the big-screen movie business primarily on the shoulders of the movie studios. Not the exhibitors. Studios can't keep rehashing the same, warmed-over crap each year and expect anything more than a dice roll from the outcome. They need to place bigger bets with breakthrough IP. They need to wean themselves from the largely mistaken belief that uber-expensive movie stars drive box office attendance (overseas, they do; domestically, there's almost zero correlation). And they need to go all-in on the bets they do place. No more licensing, buying, or developing 100 properties to produce 2. Borrow a page from the Apple product philosophy, and launch only the titles you are dead serious about supporting. Fewer, but better.

Finally, as a whole, the industry needs to stop being so stridently anti- consumer. Enough with the war on piracy, the DRMs, the 50 super-uber-ZOMG- uncensored-platinum-edition releases of every title on DVD and Blu-ray, and so forth. Studios, you are product companies. Focus your time, your attention, your budgets, and your people on your products. And make every product count.

<comment><USER53> > They need to wean themselves from the largely mistaken belief that uber- > expensive movie stars drive box office attendance (overseas, they do; > domestically, there's almost zero correlation).

I hate to tell you this, but the formula of using big movie stars for oversees growth won't be changing anytime soon: Hollywood had another record year in their _actual_ growth market, which is the foreign box office.

I'd love to see a more robust domestic box office, but wishing won't make it so. At the cost of films these days, global box office results will continue to dominate, and I expect 2012 to be even more lopsided.

Before the decade is out, I expect the US to be down to less than 20% of total worldwide box office.

<comment><USER52> All absolutely true, but what it tells me is that the same product isn't really working in both markets, with the occasional big exception. There's no question that the overseas markets are the growth engine of the business, though.

But I wonder how long the era of one-size-fits-all product for all territories can last. Eventually, specialized studios for each market could swoop in with better localized product using the same stars. It's tempting to think that the era of globalization will give us a homogenous set of middle-class consumers worldwide, all with roughly the same tastes. In practice, though, local culture and preferences still matter in a big way. The question is whether local culture is on its way out with globalization, and accordingly, whether local tastes are simply artifacts of the pre-global marketplace. Or, frankly, if a new global homogeneity is emerging, how likely that standard is to be set outside of the US. Twenty years from now, which consumers will be deciding what's cool for the rest of the globe? The US middle class seems like a largely spent force in that role.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I don't think movie houses have been friendly to anyone above the age of 30 for quite a few years so I'm not sure that chasing that demographic will help the industry. In fact if anything they really need to figure out how to make Gen Y and their younger peers feel more at home by embracing their technology (free wifi, offer the ability to download the film when done watching, encourage opening night parties, etc.). I also think that biggest opportunity for theaters isn't films but being a place to see streaming of live events like concerts and plays (and that will attract an older audience).

</comment><comment><USER55> I can't emphasize enough how important Ebert's 6th point about "Lack of choice' is. I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are about 50 Kilometers and while I simply prefer watching movies on my admittedly better than average setup with decent 720p projector and very good A/V receiver and speakers, it's mostly the selection of movies those cinemas offer which keeps me away from them. I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar and those cinemas don't just have little to offer in those departments, there is simply nothing for people interested in documentaries, indie films or other movies that just don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept.

Of course i guess this is a different situation in urban areas where some cinemas certainly cater to interests like mine. However if there's anything to 'the Long Tail' mainstream cinemas are of course still losing audiences. These cinemas serve the purpose of showing big films for a very short period of time before they rapidly become meaningless. With the growing the popularity of on demand services like Netflix, iTunes, amazon and so on this time frame doesn't matter any longer. People can dive into special interests, classics and films that once were only catered to a niche audience and see them immediatelly. So the limited selection and the instant availability from alternative sources hurts those mainstream cinemas twice. That said, the cinemas I know wouldn't see me even if I lived just across the street.

<comment><USER56> > I live in a very rural area in germany, the nearest cinemas are about 50 > Kilometers

It's worse in America, which you would expect, given relative sizes and population densities: My nearest cinema is only about 8 km (5 miles), but that's a small four-screen place with very few interesting films. After that, it's 160 km (100 miles) to the next larger cinema, which still isn't that much larger. It's almost 600 km (350+ miles) to the nearest cinema that might be showing a film that isn't one of the week's designated 'blockbusters'.

> I enjoy movie that are a little off the radar and those cinemas don't just > have little to offer in those departments, there is simply nothing for > people interested in documentaries, indie films or other movies that just > don't fit into the whole blockbuster concept.

Same here unless you're in a fairly major urban center. Out here we don't even get all the 'blockbuster' mainstream films.

I am very happy to have the Internet, a good video rental place, and Turner Classic Movies on satellite TV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Countering a few of Ebert's points:

"historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants. Not so much any longer."

I'm not experiencing this. The cheapest concerts in my area are generally $40, with older popular bands going for at least $80. Sports games start at $20 for crappy seats for crappy teams during regular season, more like $100 and up if you want at least one of the good things (seat, team, playoff game). I'm all for bringing movie prices down and I think it will help (which may be Ebert's real point), but comparing them to other things isn't doing him any favours, even going back historically.

As for concessions, dear lord, I never buy food at the movie theatre. And I _still_ think it's kind pricey. Well, at least the base price; you can easily buy coupons for Cineplex/Famous Players that reduces the original price by 30%.

And frankly, I can't recall the last time I was annoyed by the other patrons at the theatre. Is it because I only go to the latest showing? (Speaking of which, I would appreciate a return of 11pm and midnight showings... may not be as cost effective, but keeps up interest in theatres.)

So I think the winning arguments go to home theatres being way better, intense sequelitis this year, and as Ebert says lack of choice.

<comment><USER58> What concerts are you using as comparison? There's a world of difference between a major concert of a band that's been a household name for decades and a live show at a small local venue. If you live in a reasonably sized city with an active music scene then finding live shows in the $10 - $20 per person range is easy. The same is true for major league sporting events as well. I can go see a baseball or soccer game for about the same per person cost as seeing a movie.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I can tell you why... most movies suck. Not only do they suck, but they suck expensively because they rely on production values to compensate for the lack of plot, premise, and acting. As I understand it, Woody Allen is a solid money making enterprise because he makes good films with good actors and good scripts, and which cost an order of magnitude less to produce than crappy films based on car chases, laser guns, and heavy-handed soundtracks.

</comment><comment><USER60> I used to go to the cinema all the time. Unfortunately, as my local cinema no longer has a projectionist and no staff are apparently watching the movie people talk, they text.. some even get up and run around. I don't bother going much now.

I was watching the Harry Potter part 8 movie and teens came with their dad. They talked on and off for the first half of the film. Their dad did nothing. It wasn't until I turned around in my seat and told them to shut up that they actually did.

Flash back about 10 years. Maybe a bit more. There was a projectionist. There was often a staff member sitting by the entrance of the movie. Some kids would mess around. The staff would wait to see if it settled down for a minute or so then a flash light would come on and out would go the talkers.

I forget what film it was but there were 4 major distractions where staff had to come in and order people out. As we left staff members apologised and handed out vouchers because they knew the screening had been ruined.

I don't mind people gasping or saying "Oh no he didn't!" during scary films. There have always been idiots at the cinema. They have only started ruining films of late because cinemas have lost the will to deal with these people.

</comment><comment><USER61> What does it take to have movies that are in theater streamed to your home?

Would you not watch more movies at theater prices if you could watch it on your couch at 12:01am Friday morning?

I think the problem is at the theater, the companies get $12/person, $12 PER person.

How can we come up with a solution where they still get their dollars, but I don't have to leave my couch to go sit in a dirty, loud theater to watch it?

<comment><USER19> I'd pay double, maybe even triple the regular price of streaming rental (~$5) to see movies at home on the day of release.

<comment><USER62> ^-Same here. However that is not going to happen due to the fact that Hollywood is devoted to protecting their brick and mortar distribution network, a.k.a, the theater.

<comment><USER63> I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they can't get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie _at home_ , so the theater model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise.

I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course, but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised to really disrupt that market.

<comment><USER62> ^ "I think Hollywood could care less about movie theaters. That said, they can't get people to pay them $10/person to watch a movie at home, so the theater model allows them to take advantage of customers, price-wise."

\- I stand corrected. I think you just might be right.

"I think there's just way too much inefficiency in Hollywood -- the video game industry provides much better entertainment value-per-dollar (in terms of hours of entertainment, at least). That's partly due to the medium, of course, but I can't help but imagine that if someone could develop hollywood-like films without actually being part of the hollywood apparatus, they'd be poised to really disrupt that market."

I agree. However, is not Netflix trying to go this route as a content producer? I hope they succeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> IMO, the problem is that the guaranteed short-term profit strategy (MBA?) has infested Hollywood. These days they will only make a movie that has already done well. That means sequels and remakes. Every time you think your seeing an original Hollywood film in the last "I don't even know how many" years you're actually just seeing a foreign remake (e.g. Shall we Dance, Departed, 13, 3 idiots, etc.). These days they're waiting less and less time to remake popular foreign films. 3 idiots is from 2009 and they're already copying it.

Some people are saying "but this is what makes the most money!"... weren't we just complaining that revenues have fallen? They may make the most money of any of their other offerings (which are just more of the same!) but they're making less over all.

People still try to have the movie experience as we have for so long but then why pay so much? I can watch a well made series on free TV and then I only need to wait a week to see the next episode instead of 2-3 years.

</comment><comment><USER65> The biggest reason why I believe movie revenue is dropping is the ability for anyone to pick up a camera (high tech low cost now), create a movie, and upload it to the eyes of many people (like on youtube). Because of this, there are just so many more options to catch ones visceral media experience. I really like Science fiction and while there were certainly some good Sci-Fi movies (and television) out in the past year or so, there were many more interesting and thought provoking movies and shorts (going back to the previously brought up idea of short attention spans) on youtube than there were movies I would actually want to go to a theatre and pay for--and to be quite honest, I am sure that some of the things I saw on youtube recently were far more enjoyable than some of the things tossed at me by Hollywood. It's not so much a money thing for me, it's a time thing, and I want to spend it wisely.

</comment><comment><USER66> I think point #5 (home viewing) is the most important one. The other issues have, more or less, existed for quite sometime now. It's only fairly recently that the average person could afford a pretty nice home theater setup. I've had a home theater with a projector for the last 5 years or so and the idea of going to a theater to watch a movie seems ridiculous to me. It's like going to a concert hall to hear a CD played over the PA. Why bother? The industry has to focus on delivering content to home-viewers the same day it's released to theaters. They do all this marketing for a new film and exclude a huge portion of its potential audience who would rather watch at home?

</comment><comment><USER67> Movie revenue is dropping because it's simply too expensive for the average American family to go to the movies regularly.

I love going to the movies. I love the experience, the big screen, the large sound system, etc.

But it's a luxury that can easily be discarded when it's too expensive. Lower the price of movie tickets to what they were 5-10 years ago and watch Hollywood smile, as more people start going back to the theaters. Drop the price of concessions a bit, same result.

Let me reiterate: I LOVE MOVIES. But movies will never be a necessity, always a luxury. The sooner Hollywood understands this, the sooner they can stop complaining and start brainstorming solutions to what is really a very simple problem.

</comment><comment><USER68> I live in Auckland, NZ and am from Wellington, NZ. Auckland has a few decent theatres but Peter Jackson has just opened up the most beautiful theatre in one. Of Wellington's suburbs <http://www.roxycinema.co.nz/> the best part is, it's cheaper, AND more civilized. This is what going to the movies needs to be these days as my ps3 and 40" Bravia do a damn fine job day to day.

</comment><comment><USER69> Here in Berkeley we have the local Shattuck Cinemas. They are taking a different approach on movie viewing as well. They provide couches (literally) instead of seats.

[http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac...](http://www.landmarktheatres.com/mn/shattuck/shattuck_lovesac.html)

It's a wonderful way to watch a movie, and something that brings me out of the house and into the theater...

</comment><comment><USER70> The one and only reason I stopped going to the movies was 20 minutes worth of obnoxious commercials that preceded every movie.

</comment><comment><USER71> I think it's basically #5 in his list:

> _5\. Competition from other forms of delivery._

If you look at the film industry as a whole, it's projected to grow over the next several years:

[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led- by-e...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/film-industry-led-by- electronic-200881)

</comment><comment><USER72> Two reasons I don't hit the theaters as much:

1\. Quality

Very rarely do they release a movie I feel is a must see. MI:4 was probably the most recent, but it's still not Batman or Avatar.

2\. People

As others have said, the amount of texting, talking, and overall noise/distraction is unreal. People kicking my chair, non-stop talking, laughing, etc.

</comment><comment><USER73> Wow, it's not because of pirating? Spot on Mr. Ebert.

I predict 2012 will magically bounce back because of a few AAA features hitting next year: The Hobbit, Dark Knight Rising, and the incredible Prometheus by Ridley Scott (who is returning to Scifi - finally - after 20+ years).

<comment><USER74> If the directors of the first two Alien films are returning to sci-fi, I wonder if David Fincher will follow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I've been saying it forever, but theaters need to adopt seating charts.

I _will_ pay you more money for a center/center seat, and people sitting in the front row, and the front-corners should not be paying much-of-anything for a ticket.

<comment><USER76> Interesting idea, but the results would be worse than horrendous. It would drive up costs running a theatre massively, and it smacks of classism. Can you imagine how pissed people would be that they had to sit in the shit seats while the rich people seats were empty? Or you let people move when the movie starts, and the people that paid for premium tickets feel ripped off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> I went to a VIP theater in Mexico City a few years back. Amazing. You get your own private cabana with drapes on the left/right and a fully reclining sofa that turns into a bed.

And they serve alcohol/proper meals.

</comment><comment><USER78> He brushed against this, but we have more (nearly) free ways to instantly entertain ourselves than anyone else has had throughout history.

Thank you, Internet. We have hit post-scarcity for fun.

</comment><comment><USER79> Pretty sure #5 should be a bit higher on that list. As soon as we see more movies make iTunes debuts at the same time as theatre debuts it'll surely get worse and worse.

</comment><comment><USER58> There were more sequels and remakes in the theaters in 2011 than in any previous year in history. Some sequels can be good movies, but that tends not to be the norm.

</comment><comment><USER80> Two more reasons (1) aging populations (2) high unemployment.

</comment><comment><USER81> We've been hearing that economy is bad, but this indicator of movie business is a proof that economy is really bad. So that's one reason why revenues are down. Logically, with the outpouring of 3D movies and additional cost, the revenue should be up, but obviously the 3D has not helped. I think people are also realizing that 3D is only a gimmick. Besides few forced scenes, typically a 3D is hardly a 3D. Hugo this year obviously made a difference but I wonder if others are going to follow?

</comment><comment><USER82> I'm curious about his disparagement of "noisy fanboys an girls". Is fanboy now just a generic term for someone we don't like?

</comment><comment><USER83> The problem is that the studios are going to read this and try to come up with even more ways to screw up streaming.

</comment><comment><USER84> There's no pause button at the cinema.

</comment><comment><USER85> I thought of dozens of ways to improve on the current big movie theatre model but ultimately decided it was much simpler and easier to just have a good home theatre system for private use. Also I figured it was so obvious how to improve and innovate in that area that if it hadn't already been done by now there were probably nasty little complexities or political/bureaucratic swamps involved. Because there were no significant purely physical or technical challenges.

</comment><comment><USER86> Movie revenue is dropping for the same reason buggy whip sales decreased with the deployment of engines. Movies are a dead medium walking. Interactive beats mindless observation.

The mpaa wont go down without taking a handfull of civil liberties with it though.

<comment><USER87> Interactive entertainment is a markedly different form of entertainment from movies. You're comparing apples to oranges I'm afraid.

<comment><USER88> That said, there's only a certain amount of time each person can spend on escapism. If gaming is occupying more of that space it is intrinsically encroaching on other forms of entertainment. Ebert is notorious for writing off the gaming industry, so I'm not surprised it wasn't mentioned in this article.

<comment><USER89> The MPAA has been having record profits, 2011 was a very odd year. I don't think the gaming industry has much to do with it.

<comment><USER88> I'm not sure that profit is relevant here; you would have to look at revenue or (even better) head-counts of moviegoers. My understanding is that domestic (US) ticket sales peaked in 2002 at 1.58B while revenue continued to rise until 2009 due to rising ticket prices. Source:

<http://www.the-numbers.com/market/>

Anyway, my original point was that if you assume aggregate leisure time has changed little over the last decade -- it's impossible to ignore competition from other entertainment activities vying for the same space -- especially when you've got absolutely meteoric growth in the gaming industry.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-york-retail-vacancy/572911/?single_page=true <comment><USER3> I live in manhattan and I feel this story is a bit exaggerated, or at least I don't see the author's reality. (Him quoting a Real Estate firm, which is interested in activity, doesn't give credence to the data).

The turnaround of restaurants and bars here is amazingly fast. When one fails, another one springs up. The same street will have very different storefronts each year. I once asked a restaurant owner, on how is this possible. He told me: Rent is expensive, and if you open a restaurant that is not doing well (attracting the clientele to afford staying afloat), is it much better to shut it down otherwise it becomes a huge money pit. What often happens is this: One person signs a long term lease for some kind of business (retail, food, whatever). The business is not doing well, he decided to shut it down and sub- lease the space. (this is easier when the market rates have risen). The second guy does give a try to his dream bar/restaurant/retail. If it doesn't work, he is forced to shut it down as well, rinse and repeat until you have a business that has the right winning formula and sticks around. This is 'creative destruction' on steroids.

What I have seen in manhattan since I moved here in 2013: More hipster style coffee shops. More pizza places. Less "cheap" retail, and more luxury good stores.

So, he is right, that cheap retail is generally pushed out because of the amazon effect, but in the other hand things like "thrift / second hand clothes" stores, are doing well.

What is replacing those 'cheap' stores is generally things in the food business: Cupcake stores, Ice Scream Parlors, Yogurt bars, and yes nail saloons as well.

But my success story (at least for my part), are coffee places. Birch Coffee, Tobby's Estate, Greggory's Coffee, etc.... all started in NYC, and they are striving and opening in countless locations.

<comment><USER4> > The turnaround of restaurants and bars here is amazingly fast. When one > fails, another one springs up. The same street will have very different > storefronts each year.

Is that supposed to be a positive thing? Sounds pretty unstable and a terrible detriment to developing an actual neighbourhood.

<comment><USER5> Not generally. The good stuff will stick around. The stuff that isn't as good wont.

Most cities are about change, and while nostalgia is great, cities that look the same as they did 20 years previously usually are not successful cities.

The reason is simple. Cities tend to attract younger folks. As the generation of people they attract changes, the tastes they need to cater to also changes.

<comment><USER6> > The stuff that isn't as good wont

Tons of good stuff closes in Manhattan.

<comment><USER7> San Francisco too. Three of my favorite restaurants closed in the last year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems to me like in big cities, as this article describes what eventually will happen is the rich will buy up the property because nobody else can afford it, service workers won't be able to actually live within a reasonable distance in order to work there, and the city will exist mainly for 1) wealthy professionals, 2) people who use real estate to park their money, and 3) tourists. Regular working-class folk disappear.

When one visits the city in the daytime, it seems like it has activity because of the tourists, but it has no real indigenous activity.

Perhaps that's the steady state, because there are enough tourists to keep the city going economically.

<comment><USER9> Anecdotally, that doesn't really seem to be the problem with New York and definitely not the problem the article is talking about.

Ground-level stores don't seem to be suffering from staffing issues, largely because in New York it's not uncommon to work in Manhattan but live in Staten Island or Jersey.

Instead, ground-level stores seem to be disappearing because commercial lease agreements are just insanely expensive and onerous. Landlords refuse to reduce rents (for several purported reasons) in an increasingly buyer-friendly real estate market.

<comment><USER10> And, this feels like an issue that will naturally fix itself over time, as landlords realize what they're asking for isn't reasonable.

<comment><USER11> > And, this feels like an issue that will naturally fix itself over time, as > landlords realize what they're asking for isn't reasonable.

Except it won't, exactly because landlords are rational actors. Let's say the upkeep for a space is $400/mo, and the rental for that same space is 3000/mo. A storefront could be vacant for 2 years and a landlord would still turn a hefty profit if they were able to get someone to sign a one-year lease after the 2 years of vacancy.

NYC is a big place- for every 30000 people that think that the rent is unreasonable, there's 1 person who thinks that it is, and landlords only need that 1 person. Renters have no leverage here.

<comment><USER12> This is why property and land taxes are good. Land is, as they say, the only thing they're not making any more of. If you're owning it and not putting it towards any productive use you ought to pay back into the commons for the lost utility.

<comment><USER13> In this case property tax (the non-land component of it) only exacerbates the problem though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you want to see a ghost town - Tahoe City Ca is decimated by AirBnB+Money.

I grew up there, and I was there last weekend for my Dad's memorial service.... I hadnt been back to Tahoe City for some time - and man, its freaking depressingly bad.

The "mall" \-- the Boat Works, has basically 4 shops any longer, the retail spaces near Tahoe City Golf is boarded up and has weeds - many retail spaces are empty, the freaking BANK had to close, restaurants arent doing well according to several people I know who have worked in them for ~35 years (at SunnySide, for example)....

and all my Dad's freinds/contemporaries blame SV Money + AirBnB -- in that there are no places for anyone to live. Houses arent being rented to people who would want to live there - both seasonally or long-term.

All the cheaper houses were bought up over the last decades and rebuilt with $1MM++ homes in their place (This happened to one area which was the "ghetto" in the 80s when I was a kid - where all the houses were replaced with >$1MM homes and became one of the most expensive zipcodes in the country - <USER2> it was where all the "poor" kids lived in the 80s)

<comment><USER12> I think a lot of economic models severely underrate the extent to which overheated real-estate markets eat economic vitality alive. It's because most of the costs they impose (initially) aren't that easy to quantify, but you're basically grinding your seed corn by making it impossible for working people to be able to afford to live and making it impossible for small businesses that aren't bars or restaurants to have a viable business model. Where's your next generation of innovation going to come from when you've done that? What happens to the community that lives in a place when the people with all the land and political power have no stake in the community itself?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I lived in NYC from 2009 to 2017 and can affirm the author's feeling. Over the span of those years, and mostly as of late, I saw many of my favorite brick and mortars (Rare books, sporting goods shops, record stores, etc.) all be replaced by coffee shops or juice places.

Granted each of the above mentioned places have challenges with their respective industry but the feeling still stands.

Having been born in North Texas, I can also affirm the changing topography of America due to traditional brick and mortars being ousted. My hometown was once called the "Little Austin". It's now overrun with mini-mall strips that hold duplicates of things set up on the other side of town. (How many mattress stores and Sonics does a town of 100,000 need?)

The recent bankruptcy of Sears is another example where we will likely see large buildings across the country left empty and whose re-purposing will be contingent on state/city zoning laws (Texas doesn't have any) and rent. That is, why should I pay to reuse Sears's old building when the state/city will let me build a brand new building right down the highway?

<comment><USER16> "How many mattress stores and Sonics does a town of 100,000 need?"

[http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mattress-store- bubble/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/mattress-store-bubble/)

<comment><USER17> [https://www.wsj.com/articles/mattress-firm-files-for- chapter...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/mattress-firm-files-for- chapter-11-bankruptcy-1538745006)

Short answer: fewer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's not just Amazon. The next generation is far less materialistic than generations of the past. No one can blame them for not wanting to spend 500$ on a Gucci gucci bag or 400$ on overpriced jeans, especially when they've got all that student debt. Workplace clothes are changing as well. Less people are opting for the fancy suits. Retail needs to keep up with the changes and start offering something people actually want, like: coffee bars, museums, libraries, book exchanges, 2nd hand stores, places that offer experiences (like sculpting classes, etc). Or here's a crazy idea: let's actually start using some of the 2nd floor+ space for housing/residential and maybe the place won't be such a ghost town when more people can afford to live there.

<comment><USER9> > The next generation is far less materialistic than generations of the past.

Ehhhh, I dunno that I'd go that far. It's just different shit. I think we all know plenty of people lined up the second a new iPhone or Pixel is announced.

<comment><USER12> Materialism probably isn't the word, but conspicuous consumption of consumer goods (say that 5 times fast) is definitely less of a thing among the urban set than it used to be in the 80s and 90s. I wouldn't categorize smartphones as conspicuous consumption per se, because even when blinged out in gold they still tend to be pretty understated in comparison the the dinner-plate sized Breitlings that finance bros used to wear.

The culture at one point used to be REALLY insistent on showing off that you drink only the finest wines, eat the fanciest steaks, and so on. Trump is basically like, a distilled down and exaggerated throwback to this sort of tendency to buy stuff more to announce "I'M RICH BITCH!" than to actually enjoy the thing itself.

Insofar as millennials are still materialistic, I'd categorize it more as conspicuous consumption of "experiences." So rather than buying fancy things to announce how rich you are, you just post instagram pics of yourself in fancy places. If not for the carbon emissions from jet fuel, it would probably be a way more environmentally friendly way of being a status-whore all things considered.

<comment><USER9> > I wouldn't categorize smartphones as conspicuous consumption per se, because > even when blinged out in gold they still tend to be pretty understated in > comparison the the dinner-plate sized Breitlings that finance bros used to > wear.

Trust me, "finance bros" still have plenty of insanely expensive items that are largely meant as signals to the people they work with (other people in finance).

Further, just because it's more understated doesn't mean it's not primarily meant as a status symbol or signal to other people. Remember when the rose gold iPhone was more expensive than the other colors, and it sold out immediately?

> So rather than buying fancy things to announce how rich you are, you just > post instagram pics of yourself in fancy places.

Is that really better? Maybe it's not materialism in the strictest sense of the word, but the underlying desire (to signal status to others) is the same. The only thing that's changed is the artifact of that desire.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Let's recap the author's main points:

\- Retail revenues are not rising as fast as rent

\- Hence, shopping/merchandise stores are being replaced by bars/restaurants/coffee-shops etc

Ie, businesses that sell stuff are being replaced by businesses that sell experiences.

Great!

Consumerism and materialism is a black hole for your soul. What I really care about are vibrant experiences. Interesting bars/restaurants where my friends and I can hang out. Great live theater where I can watch the arts. And yes, even stimulating coffee shops where I can spend the day reading and writing.

Want to go shopping for goods? Go online where you can shop to your heart's content. I'm glad the city's valuable real estate is being taken over by businesses that are more focused on human interactions.

For the record, I've lived in Manhattan for many years in recent times, and it has never once felt like a ghost town. I've heard many complaints about the city, but I've literally never heard anyone else complain about it feeling like a ghost town, or anything even similar. Living in suburbia though...

<comment><USER20> Paying for experiences like this is still consumerism.

<comment><USER19> On a technical level: depends on how you're defining consumerism. See:

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumerism](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/consumerism)

[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer- goods.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer-goods.asp)

At a deeper level: research has shown that spending money on experiences enriches your life far more than spending money on "things". That's what I'm referring to.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-28/why- you-s...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-28/why-you-should- buy-experiences-not-things)

<comment><USER21> "Consume" literally means "eat". So eating out is definitely consumerism.

<comment><USER19> By your definition, I guess any caveman who didn't go on a hunger strike, was living up the consumerist lifestyle

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've lived and grew up in NYC for almost 30 years and I agree with the author.

Manhattan has become an unaffordable ghost town. Walk down West Village, Union Sq, Flatiron, etc.., you see rows of closed stores that have gone vacant for a very long time now. In contrast, I was in London recently and that city was thriving compared to Manhattan, it was lively and beautiful.

In addition, NYC Subway and transportation is a disgrace. It is on its way to becoming a third-world country equivalent. This was due to mismanagement and corruption. You won't notice how Manhattan has deteriorated until you leave the U.S. and visit other cities in Europe and especially Asia. Even Thailand's subway system is a hell of a lot better than the NYC subway.

<comment><USER23> The thing I find craziest about Union Square is the number of drugstores. Just along the south end of the square, you've got Walgreen's (a national brand) and Duane Reade (which used to be independent, but is now a local brand for Walgreen's) 600ft. or so apart from each other. How in any way is that sustainable?

<comment><USER24> Across the street from my apartment on 14th and 1st there is a Duane Reade and CVS literally attached to each other. It's pretty crazy. The CVS is old and grungy, Duane Reade newer and larger (3 floors). I suspect those differences, plus possibly prople's dependence on a certain pharmacy brand (thanks to their health insurance) is what allows them both to stay open.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Here's my opinion on what will happen on a longer time scale:

Eventually the tourists will stop coming, because there are other parts of town with more atmosphere. Businesses will start moving out to other parts of town because of the cost of rent and lack of customers (due to no residents or tourists), and eventually the "city center" will defacto move. The only people who will lose out are the people who used it to park their money!

<comment><USER26> I think this is sort of happening in NYC: The center of gravity is sort of moving to Brooklyn since it's cheaper, there's more space, it's more interesting, etc. And depending where you are, Manhattan is still very accessible.

Obviously the key NYC tourist targets aren't moving, but anecdotally I am seeing an uptick of tourists in my 'hood. For what it's worth.

<comment><USER27> I haven't been in Brooklyn for getting on 10 years. Can you elaborate on what popular tourist friendly areas are now about? (I'm in NYC in March '19)

<comment><USER28> Sign up for the New York Road Runners NYC Half (March 17th - St Patricks Day!) As of 2018 the new course starts in Grand Army Plaza Brooklyn, down Flatbush Avenue and run across the (closed to traffic) Manhattan Bridge, along the FDR, through Times Square and finish in Central Park (lottery and charity only though).

Spend a half day around Brooklyn Bridge Park, Dumbo and the Brooklyn Heights Promenade - especially the latter given the area is about to go through a major upheaval as the BQE cantilevered section is due to go through some major renovations lasting 6+ years.

A half day in Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, Botanical Gardens, Prospect Park.

Checkout the breweries and coffee shops of Gowanus and Carroll Gardens.

Do the Made in Red Hook tour and check out some really interesting local makers. [1]

Visit one of the oldest buildings in the city [2]

Take a Brooklyn Pizza / Chocolate / Neighborhood tour [3]

[1] [http://www.madeinbrooklyntours.com](http://www.madeinbrooklyntours.com) [2] [https://wyckoffmuseum.org](https://wyckoffmuseum.org) [3] [https://www.asliceofbrooklyn.com/](https://www.asliceofbrooklyn.com/)

<comment><USER27> Thank you very very much for the detailed reply, i'll do my best to see a few of these spots during my visit =))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> In Boston, there was a debate recently about 50 empty ground-level retail spaces on Newbury Street, an old street in the center of town long considered a place for luxury boutiques/salons/etc. But others questioned the data:

[https://www.universalhub.com/2018/lot-empty-storefronts- newb...](https://www.universalhub.com/2018/lot-empty-storefronts-newbury- street)

<comment><USER30> I live in that neighborhood, and as the article says it looked like it was mostly a ton of turnover. There's a lot of it on Newbury, which is a problem in its own right, and the places that remain are largely regional and national chains. The costs are also driving people to move to other neighborhood and towns, with Eastie, Somerville, and Southie growing much more than the traditionally desirable neighborhoods in Boston.

Anecdotally, the company my wife works for has a presence on Newbury, they're a large national chain, and the store (a flagship) has one of the lower sales volumes in the entire region, despite being one of the most expensive rents the company holds. The problem is manifold here - rising business rents pushing businesses out, rising residential rents pushing people that aren't tourists out, and likely more that I'm less familiar with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I had read a bunch of these stories before going to NYC as a tourist a few weeks ago. I didn't see a single block that was full of empty storefronts and the whole city was packed and vibrant as usual. Bought some clothes at temporary popups as well.

</comment><comment><USER32> I think it's more of a result of absentee landlords building a real estate portfolio that they don't really give a fuck about as building managers. They're flipping these buildings just like houses were being flipped before the financial crisis. Having renters in there just complicates things.

There's a metro stop out here in northern Virginia that has a beautiful office building on top of it designed by a top architect and it's _empty_. For at least a year now. And they're building two more office buildings in the same location. They're probably just all going to end up being managed by WeWork.

The whole thing reeks of a bubble to me.

</comment><comment><USER33> Is there some legal issue at play here that the article isn't drawing attention to? Why is it a better idea to leave a property vacant than to have a short-term tenant?

<comment><USER34> Landlords can take tax write-offs for empty properties, so they're incentivized to sit on empty storefronts until the perfect long-term lease comes along rather than rent to a less ideal shorter-term tenant.

<comment><USER35> A tax write off is going to be worth, at best, ~35% of the value gained from actually leasing the property. That makes it considerably worse to hold on to.

<comment><USER36> Its far more complicated than that. Most of the owners of these properties are institutional, not individuals or small groups. They are far more concerned about the valuation of the real estate than it's cash flow. The cashflow side has issues too, but from a valuation perspective, once you sign a rent at a lower rate, then that will trigger a shift from the inflated, unrealized rent in the valuation model, to the actual rent in the lease. It's entirely likely that the dip in value from the signed lease is more impactful than the actual cashflow from that lease. It doesn't matter that you couldn't get the rent in the model today, since pushing out the assumption results in less of a hit in value than signing an actual lease would. This all gets billed as "the market will bounce back".

Remember there are a lot of upfront costs for the land lord as well. They put in a lot of money upfront for buildouts/base building work, and it may be 2-3 years before they actually break even on the money they put into the space. If you're not sure that the business model is going to last that long then it absolutely makes sense to sit on the vacancy.

Source: worked at a nationally invested REIT that had a good number of properties that have this same issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> village-idiot I actually think that we no longer live in a capitalistic system. A lot of firms continue to behave in ways that capitalism should punish, but doesn't. My current running theory is that our economy is more based around rent extraction, largely from land and companies that wield effective monopolies or oligopolies, rather than competition. This explains why we keep seeing things that make no sense from a capitalist point of view.

<comment><USER37> Sounds like you're discovering Marx independently?

<comment> village-idiot Probably. I've only read parts of Capital, it's too dense for me to make good headway on.

I'm also heavily informed by the Anarchist Sociologist David Graeber's book of "Bullshit Jobs, a Theory". He points out that a significant percentage of jobs—he estimated 40%—don't even serve an economic purpose, let alone a moral or social one. This is something that capitalism in theory should not allow, which is why I think we're trending to somewhere else.

<comment><USER38> Recommend reading Bakunin if you are interested in 'anarchist socialism' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin) Marx was a pied piper to nowhere IMO and in league with the oligarchs and bankers of his era

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Gentrification of the wealthy?

</comment><comment><USER40> Paying rent is for suckers.

<comment><USER41> Or, you know, for people who can't afford to buy.

<comment><USER40> If you can't afford to buy, then you doubly can't afford to rent. Money spent on rent is essentially burned. Do everything you can to avoid it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I live in Manhattan and the cost of rents and housing has been increasing primarily through rent-seeking behavior which limits housing density creating an artificial scarcity in land leading to a high cost of living. Simply fixing the zoning density restrictions would reduce the rent-seeking or "market failure" and would lower the cost of living in NYC. See Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser's work for more details.

Build Big, Bill [http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill- article-1....](http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill- article-1.1913739)

There is a NY State mandated minimum wage law that has been hurting many stores and has increased the cost of food in grocery stores, for instance.

It was mandated to $11 / hr to $13 (today, I think) to $15.

Thus, the real issue is the market failures in housing caused by politicians who limit the zoning density. The State, addressing the high cost of housing not by fixing the rent-seeking instead decided to increase minimum wage to a level that many independent establishments can no longer afford to stay in business.

</comment><comment><USER43> It became a ghost town because of the elites and their supporters like theatlantic.

Manhattan now is just a place where people from the outer boroughs, nj, connecticut, etc come to work and then go home.

For a city that pretends to "never sleep", it is just a dead city at night.

Queens, brooklyn, etc is more lively and other cities around the world like prague, barcelona, seoul, tokyo, osaka, etc are far more vibrant.

Manhattan is just a hellhole now for the world's wealthy and annoying tourists who are too stupid to realize that sbarro's isn't real ny pizza and all the worthless trinkets they buy are trash. But at least there is a bank every other corner.

The sad part is manhattan is a blueprint other cities love to copy so in 10 or 20 years, most cities around the world will be boring tourist traps like manhattan.

<comment><USER38> We are seeing the same pressures and bland out in San Francisco

<comment><USER44> lol SF never had 1/10 the vibrancy NY had, or has.

<comment><USER38> True. Very different culture and not a late night city...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nuitka: a Python compiler - <AUTHOR> http://nuitka.net/pages/overview.html <comment><USER2> I tested this with a large project that uses asyncio, Tornado and RabbitMQ and it, surprisingly, worked. Took half an hour to compile though.

<comment><USER3> Nuikta is very much magic to me.

The author is alone, making steady progresses on a crazy complicated project, always communicating regularly, in an humble tone.

Then you download the stuff, and it works.

I'm still amazed on things like this happening. I though those events stopped existing after the 2000 bubble.

<comment><USER4> I completely agree with your comment.

It seems like most people here are bashing on this in one way or another. People talking about Cython, people talking about how they don't even use Python anymore, etc. etc. This makes me super sad, because this is seriously one of the most technically amazing projects I have seen in several years. It is a labor of love by one single guy who frequently posts status updates where he's accomplished some new thing that was thought to be impossible.

It's really an inspiring story of somebody who isn't stopped by the haters, building something that he wants, that lots of people have told him is impossible or useless, but yet he still continues to make steady progress plugging away at it.

I really used to identify with the average commenter on this site, and feel that there was really a time when something like this would be truly understood and appreciated... But now, rather than some Python expert explaining how incredible this is, or some compiler wizard spotting this, being interested and offering to help we have lots of sniping from uninformed people who just seem to be annoyed that this won't magically speed up their Python _now_

Can we have a technical deep-dive on what this guy's accomplished? A few clever curious hackers tearing about the code spotting all the brilliance and sharing bits of it with us with commentary? No. Let's just all go on and on about how we should just rewrite everything in Rust. Again.

<comment><USER3> BTW, I donated to the project, and I invite everybody with any remote interest in compiled Python to do so.

It goes a long way, and it's easier than contributing if you have no C++ background.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If performance is your only motivation, I recommend you have a look at cython (previously pyrex). It basically makes writing C modules a breeze for a python programmer because you write them in type annotated python. Regular python is transpiled into mess of python calls, your typed tight loop will be "raw" C.

<comment><USER6> I've been using cython for years, it is indeed great. I don't recommend anyone write multi-platform raw C any more unless you have a really good reason to. You can even make C-extensions for things like Ruby!

But I have a new project now that needs to be both highly concurrent as well as reasonably fast and I'm considering giving Numba a try since it seems like it's both faster and easier to work with.

Does anyone with experience with both have a comment as to the downsides of Numba vs Cython?

<comment><USER7> Is it easy to compile standalone executables with Cython? Or do you always have to drag around the full(-ish) Python environment? For me, shedskin was the sweet spot on paper, unfortunately it doesn't work very well - I can never get its output to compile properly. Also it's Python 2.x only.

<comment><USER8> [https://github.com/cython/cython/wiki/EmbeddingCython](https://github.com/cython/cython/wiki/EmbeddingCython)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I tried this one a couple of years ago on two existing project (one fairly new product in development and one mature product) after some irritation with pyinstaller, etc.

But ran into compatibility problems with most libraries we used (one application were a native QT-based and one were for web based on Falcon). Not sure how it looks today but if it's anything like before I'd recommend developing with it in mind from scratch if you want to use it.

<comment><USER10> Haven't peeked at using python since making portable executable programs was just so frustrating. How is Python now compared to a few years ago?

<comment><USER11> The Talk Python To Me podcast just did an episode on this [0] It's mainly an interview with Glyph (author of Twisted) about his PyCon 2016 talk "Shipping Software To Users With Python" [1]

[0] [https://talkpython.fm/episodes/show/127/shipping-software- to...](https://talkpython.fm/episodes/show/127/shipping-software-to-users)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BqAeN-F9Qs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BqAeN-F9Qs)

<comment><USER10> Thanks. Good talk. He does say my favorite thing about Python. Python is the second best language for anything. I use R for stats now because that is mostly what I use for work and I use Racket because I can punch out a bug free easy to compile program in a short afternoon for everything else right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> if you want to try a compiled lang. with Python like syntax and speed comparable to C I would strongly recommend Nim.

</comment><comment><USER13> Previous discussions: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Nuitka%20points%3E3&sort=byDat...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Nuitka%20points%3E3&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0).

</comment><comment><USER14> Works well with pyqt as well. It's a dream environment writing cross platform apps, and since they're compiled, distribution (especially on win/osx) is really simple. Highly recommended!

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't understand why Python people aren't more intent on getting it into web browsers. Or are they?

<comment><USER3> Oh we wish. People tried (brython came close). But any attempt are currently not practical as the runtime is very heavy, not to mention the stdlib.

So we are stuck unless the browser vendors decide to ship a Python VM next to their JS VM. And they won't do that.

<comment><USER16> ClojureScript does very well despite the parent Clojure having a big runtime and largish stdlib. Good tree shaking (dead code elimination) helps a lot.

<comment><USER17> Specifically, tree shaking through the venarable (and somewhat confusingly named :) Google Closure Compiler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How does this compare to PyPy in terms of speed and optimizations?

<comment><USER19> It is generally slower and much more predictable and regular

<comment><USER20> Which one?

<comment><USER21> I would imagine Nuitka is slower, because it cannot apply dynamic optimisations which are the key technique for making a language like Python fast, but more predictable and regular as the dynamic optimisations that PyPy uses are vulnerable to performance cliffs.

<comment><USER22> Yes, compare to LuaJIT. On a good day, it can bite C's shiny metal ass, but consistent and reliable application performance requires intimate knowledge of those performance cliffs.

<comment><USER23> _> it can bite C's shiny metal ass_

Can it actually? I've certainly seen benchmark's where a JITed program is comparable/marginally faster than a C program, but I've never seen one where it outright trounces C.

<comment><USER24> Yes. A jit compiler can compile based on both code and data, and can compile all the dependencies. In contrast an aot compiler must only use the code and links to other pre-compiled binaries.

Further, a jit can compile to specific hardware. An aot must anticipate what hardware is possible. If you aot compile to several possible hardware configs, then you'll bloat the binary.

<comment><USER25> > In contrast an aot compiler must only use the code

Not since the development of "profile-guided optimisation", no.

<comment><USER24> Ok, then you've got the code and the profile. The actual data and hardware it happens to be using is still better information.

<comment><USER25> > The actual data and hardware it happens to be using is still better > information.

That's certainly what HotSpot's promoters want us to believe, but I'm not convinced there's a lot of extra value in having detailed data on the current run, compared to 'static' profile-guided optimisation. I'm not sure if there's been any serious study of this question.

As to the specific hardware: this might matter for things like SIMD, yes, but often won't make any appreciable difference. Some Linux distros have the user compile almost everything locally, but aren't all that much faster for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there a simple example somewhere of the types of optimizations Nuitka makes? I clicked around the site and couldn't find one.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wish there was as much money spent on python as there is for javascript.

<comment><USER28> I often think the same, then some well-intentioned corporate drone comes along trying to reinvent java WARs in Python and I feel so nostalgic of when I was the only one in my office who knew what Python was.

<comment><USER29> Isn't making Python easy to deploy a pain point for people though? It is for me.

<comment><USER30> It is easy, just use setuptools and create your own setup.py then ./setup bdist_wheel and you have a single easy to deploy (pip install <package>, or put in an internal PyPi repo) package.

I especially encourage to use virtualenv too keep your application completely disjoint from the rest of your system. It really helps when in the future you decide to upgrade the OS.

<comment><USER31> I often write little helper apps for our business. If I want other people to deploy them they want a windows exe to run, because thats what they are familiar with. Not just your average user, but also lots of IT support have no knowledge whatsoever of tech that wasn't on their Microsoft course.

Being able to package as an MSI or exe is a fundamental requirement for adoption of Windows client side applications.

<comment><USER30> Never used it myself, but if you use setuptools, you should also have bdist_wininst target (e.g. ./setup.py bdist_wininst) which supposed to create a windows installable package.

The nice thing with using setuptools is that you can create different distributable package types depending on the need.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/williamalden/the-sec-just-fined-a-unicorn-startup-for-the-first-time <comment> chroem- It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.

<comment><USER2> How about Slack ($5bn) and Stripe ($9bn)?

That being said, when you get that big, of course there's problems. You have targets on your back, you're managing thousands of people, etc. Especially if you're entering into a market with regulations... someone is going to fight back.

<comment><USER3> There's a ton of dirt on Stripe. Info in my comment history, I won't dig it up.

<comment><USER4> I was curious, so I searched a bit. No mention of stripe at all within the past 372 days of your comments. Mind sharing now that you've piqued my interest?

<comment><USER5> It appears he had a bad experience with them:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11833815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11833815)

and is writing a book about it:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12749364](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12749364)

<comment><USER3> I didn't have a bad experience with them. I clean up their mess on the regular. It's a steady source of income for me — you know, people who rely solely on their payment processor to protect them from fraud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the relevant SEC document: [https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/33-10429.pdf](https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/33-10429.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> Zenefits paid a fine for misleading investors (with some contribution from the founder). The company is financed by investors, so in other words they indirectly paid the fine for being misled. Ironic?

<comment><USER7> That is sort of the joke about all securities litigation. Shareholders will often sue companies that experience price drops due to "misleading investors" and, as you mentioned, the fine or damages end up being paid for by the investors themselves.

<comment><USER8> This is a recurring theme in Matt Levine's Money Stuff.

 _One thing that I occasionally mention around here is that every bad thing a public company does is also securities fraud: If you did the bad thing and didn 't first disclose it to shareholders, then they can claim to have been defrauded by your failure to disclose it. (If you did the bad thing and did first disclose it to shareholders ... why?)_

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-22/stock- buy...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-22/stock-buybacks-and- securities-fraud)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In addition to the fine, the SEC notes that the founder lost $65 million dollars as a result the drop in price and compensating early investors for that drop.

<comment><USER10> This seems like a pretty strong example in favor of the idea that the SEC doesn't need to do much to protect investors in private companies, because they tend to be more sophisticated (better at protecting themselves).

<comment><USER11> Is this a sarcastic comment?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Url changed from [https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/26/sec-fines-zenefits- nearly-...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/26/sec-fines-zenefits- nearly-1-million-for-misleading-investors/), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER13> Since when did Buzzfeed cover business news?</comment>