Sure, after they stole Tivo's technology. Since Dish is bigger and has more money to work with, their dvr's have become some of, if not, the best out there.
So then it can't be considered a bust.
Dish signed the ridiculous contract.
But it was stated that it was Dish that squandered the deal, but how is signing a long contract squandering? It sounded like Voom couldn't produce what they promised.
Blockbuster could have been re-vitalized. The disc-by-mail service never had the selection, the amount of distribution centers or the speed of Netflix.
And somehow this was supposed to be made magically better by Dish?
Their stores had as much space reserved for selling useless junk and used discs as they did for rentals. I don't know about you, but I didn't go to Blockbuster to buy used movies or action figures or magazines. I went there to rent movies and they had cut back on their selection immensely after Dish bought them. The only money that was invested in the stores were the Dish Hopper systems that were installed and new racks that were shorter and didn't hold as many discs.
The brick and mortar disc store system was collapsing, hence Blockbuster going under. You seem to be thinking that Dish could have saved the entire industry.
If DVDs are dying, then why am I still getting them from Netflix? Are you trying to tell us Netflix is losing money? Last I checked, they were doing pretty well. My BB@home DVDs by mail service was truly awful; I was lucky to get one OLD disk/month. Dish invested nothing so far as I can tell, beyond their initial $320B. They bought no recent disks, and never went significantly into streaming either, except to Dish receivers.
But Blockbuster didn't have streaming rights to the media... only hard copies. There was a streaming system, but that was pay VOD. If Dish wanted to invent a new streaming Netflix, they didn't need to touch Blockbuster at all. All they had was the mail order portion of the system, which is more expensive to maintain and run.
I'm with Mike. This was a jaw-dropping missed opportunity. They had a chance to build a Netflix-like service and do quit well.
This is flat out false. Netflix pays a fortune to have streaming media rights. Blockbuster had virtually no streaming media rights. The only media you can stream with BB@home are movies like Epix, MGM, etc. Nothing that can be streamed came from the BB acquistion.
They invented BB@home just as Netflix stumbled.
Netflix didn't stumble... people overreacted. The exact same paylines exist today and Netflix is doing just fine.
But due to abject lack of investment,
You mean hundreds of millions of dollars to obtain streaming rights that they could have purchased without even buying BB in the first place?
...they just finished running the service into the ground.
It was in the ground... bankrupted already... would have closed earlier.
Sure, their fall-back position was just to buy the name and liquidate. But their initial press release make it look like they really intended to make a run at the Netflix business.
Not really. We read way too much into what they stated.
The reality is that what BB offered to Dish was no where near what was needed to create a Netflix competition. Netflix is a lot about streaming, BB had none. All BB had were discs (which are actually worth something and Dish probably got more out of selling the catalog than would have gotten trying to push the dead mule past the finish line). Dish was letting subs get a disc for nothing at all, but probably ran the numbers and figured that it wasn't cost effective and if they charged for the service, people wouldn't sign up for it.