|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Software maintenance costs, get used to it....
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 07-11-2009 09:36 AM
There was something I picked up on some of the latest Dolby literature I wanted to bring to the communities attention. And also to get some feed back on how they feel about it.
Software maintenance as a part of the ongoing cost of owning equipment.
Being from the IT world, this is typical. And a typical cost for it is 20-25% buy price per year.
Considering the evolving nature of DCI, we can expect it to require regular updates going forward. So, for example, if a DCI player is $21,000 to purchase, that would mean at about 20% maintenance, ~ $5000 per year to keep the player up to date.
Now this is typical and required on something like a DCI piece of equipment (Player and projector) due to the evolving standards (Ie we still need to migrate to 4K soonish by the looks of it). The need for software maintenance on sound processors, like we have now, you would not expect such a need... But I must admit, the sound processors coming out are extremely complex and all software based these days.
Dolby has stated that all new equipment, will now require software maintenance (First year free) costs.. AND.. if you lax on the maintenance, a 150% penalty to bring you to to date will apply to get the latest update.
This first shocked me, but after considering it.. This behavior is not unusual for large companies like Oracle, Microsoft or other enterprise service companies.
Cinema owners, I would like your opinion on this.
What do you think a fair price would be.
Typically, software maintenance is phone support and access to the upgrades. You would still have to pay to have them implemented usually. Ie by your local cinema tech support company/contractor.
What should be involved in software maintenance?
A side note, I have been attempting to find out what this software maintenance for Dolby kit would costs.. No one seems to know. Personally I don't think they know themselves. It probably not decided yet. If anyone does know, or has examples of this in other parts of the industry, would like to hear about these examples.
Thanks,
James
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-11-2009 12:54 PM
I'm not a cinema owner, so I can't answer as one.
My whole take on this is: why should I pay for updates? I should just wait until the right equipment is available (fully DCI compliant 4K equipment) and, if the price is right or I get financing kick-back from the distributors saving on the price of 35mm prints, then I may buy.
Meanwhile, nothing wrong with current 35mm equipment and nothing digital really offers to theatre owners that offsets the cost.
Since Hollywood is determined to force 3D only in digital, even though they allow for dual-projection (Imax or custom) and over/under (Sony), which they could just as well allow in 35mm, then I MAY consider a SINGLE 3D digital screen per theatre.
In that case, if I had to buy right now, I'll probably go for the cheapest possible thing I could find and not pay any maintenance fees whatsoever for a long as distributors keep supporting my equipment as, eventually, it's gonna have to go all out the windows and (by then) new equipment will be available up to the latests specs, pbbly 4K, perhaps 8K, perhaps 12fl 3D, perhaps 60fps compatible, etc, etc.
That's what I would do anyway.
Otherwise, I would wait for fully DCI compliant 4K equipment (i.e. Sony) and call it a day.
If the industry is not ready to move to digital due to on-going standards and unfinished products of inferior (i.e. 2K or Sony's manufacturing issues) quality at top prices ... they can kiss my ![[Moon]](graemlins/moon.gif)
Many here will agree that 35mm offers just as good or better images to customers for much lower price. Once the digital issues are resolved, or the price of current equipment lowers to reflects its transitional (<4K, few frame rates supported like not-25fps and not 60-fps, non-DCI compliance), unfinished situation, then it's another matter.
It's also another matter if studios are willing to pay for (obsolete, transitional) equipment that may last 10 years. Then I also wouldn't have problems purchasing it, paying it off with money from the duplication film cost savings, and then 10 years from now throwing it out the window and purchasing "the real stuff".
| IP: Logged
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 07-14-2009 08:10 AM
Julio,
I am not surprised with your attitude. But really, this is quite unavoidable.
A lot of the DCI SMS makers are loosing money. The projector makers are not doing that bad..
The ongoing upgrades and modifications to the software to support more frame rates, legislated captioning and DCI approval levels.... This development is considerable and needs a lot more support then in the past.
Support costs like this exist because it is "commercail". ie it cannot be offered unless such costs did not exist. This is typical in all industries in which software is a major factor to a product. Look at QuickBook, Photoshop, etc
Would you prefer to simply have to purchase a fully new system when required to? Likely costing you even more in the long run?
What happens if the system is not compatible with newer projectors.. Again, purchase a full new system?
The DCI standard is a living standard that is striving to archive a moving target.
Dolby has stepped forward to try and start to introduce you to the new reality of costs for those going digital.
This is "commercial", ie the products cannot likely exist without them. The DCI developers cannot simply keep giving free support indefinatly. If they cannot make money out of it, they will stop making it.
This is a serious issue and I know is likely to make many cinema owners unhappy. I am trying to bring it up here as to start a dialog to get a feel for what cinema owners feel is fair.
What they would prefer.
And really, you should ALL be asking your regional suppliers what this support cost will be. Call them. Ask.
Lets discuss..
Its within your best interest.
James
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 07-14-2009 11:06 AM
You can read in this article from a couple of weeks how moving to d-cinema is still on a wait-and-see in most of the world and how, whatever is selling, is mostly to add a single 3D screen to a complex.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3id499f8aa1018de83a147fc0ed0916566
quote:
So far, conversion of analog screens to digital in developed countries worldwide hasn't happened as quickly as expected. Anthony Marcoly, president of sales and distribution at Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures International, says most of the close to 2,500 digital screens outside the U.S. are one-offs in multiplexes specifically added to show 3-D movies.
As in the U.S., conversion to all digital presentation won't occur until financing sources open, and that depends on the global credit crisis. That isn't stopping aggregators from doing deals in Europe, Asia, Russia and elsewhere based on the U.S. model of "virtual print fees" paid by studios to pay back the cost over time. The money needed now has to be borrowed, and that has not been possible since last fall. So while multiplexes worldwide rush to offer 3-D on at least one or two screens per location, the existing theaters are still firmly in the analog world.
...
That didn't mean the end of all digital, though. "The focus in the recent past has been on installation of digital 3-D screens," says Clapp, who projects that by year's end there will be about 600 digital 3-D sites from a total of 3,600 screens in the U.K.
...
Dowley notes digital eliminates the cost to ship the cans of celluloid, makes it easier to offer advertisers last-minute content changes that can be beamed to theaters. He says their research shows U.K. audiences "are loving the 3-D experience," and his company plans ads in 3-D as well.
It's not just happening in the U.K. or Western Europe. Across developing Eastern Europe, Russia, India and China there's a theater building boom and they all are including one or two 3-D ready screens. The opening of new theaters is inevitably followed by a rise in boxoffice in that territory.
They keep spreading the lie that "3D doubles or triples" income. As Jonas Brothers or Battle for Terra has demostrated, that's not so. Even tenpoles blockbusters like Ice Age opened 3D and all only to SECOND place in BO after (already one week old and pretty-crappy) 2D Transformers 2. Even on Ice Age 2nd week, it couldn't outdo 2D Brüno in spite of the R rating against the PG of Ice age.
Do you think that if movies in 3D really doubled (or tripled) the income, producers of Transformers or Brüno or Iron Man 2 or Harry Potter wouldn't have done them in 3D?
The numbers are doctored to make it look like that but the truth is that, since most 3D movies are top-grossers anyway shown at top (brand new, 3D) houses, with top ticket prices (3D surcharge etc) they often do well, but not because of the 3D.
3D helps some people in some markets. 3D pbbly DOES bring a little (modest) extra profit that offsets the extra expenses (glasses, etc) and perhaps leave a modest premium. But it does not double the profits unless you are the only one showing a big 3D film in an area where your only competition is showing 2D only.
And, still, when the novelty factor wears off and the average consumer has seen 10 to 20 3D films, the 3D will lose a great deal of its appeal.
I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND software/firmware updates in the industry, but the main blame goes to DCI association (bunch of ....) which have not clearly, professionally written up the "standard" they want to follow (KDM delivery mess, FIPS absurdly high and expensive security, lack of frame rates and flexibility). It's their mess, not the theatre owners who are forced to a) wait of b) pay.
The problem with b) is that you don't even know if paying will get your hardware up to specs as software support usually vanishes almost as soon as the new hardware hits the shelves.
If you factor (say) 25% of purchase price per year .... I rather buy now, don't update for 4/5 years (25%x4=100% of the price), then throw it away (sell cheap second hand) and then buy a new (updated, current, better, perhaps cheaper) machine.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 07-15-2009 12:18 AM
Thanks for the feed back guys.
You all have excellent points of view.
The position of sitting on the kit is a reasonable one in many ways.
However, in terms of bugs getting fixed. Outside of a service contract, No. bugs will not get fixed as the software evolves with feature sets at the same time.
So if you want the fix, you need to purchase the upgrade or service contract to move to the latest version.
I know this may seem unfair, but it would not be commercial for the company to spend time/money on non profit making areas when they didn't make enough money to start off. And its surprisingly difficult and expensive to go back and fix these extremely complex systems.
This is only really coming to a head now as Cinedign and the integrator service costs covered all this. But now with "one of" systems with no integrator responsible and no service costs..
No one is going to show up to fix the issues anymore. Not if they are not getting paid.
You will have to pay your local installer to do it ad hoc, and he is going to get charged for the time they dialog with the supplier (Just like if you called Microsoft for support. P.S. Windows7 in only a service pack level change in Vista. Thats a cost upgrade, and get use to Microsoft doing this as standard now on. Like Adobe, like Quickbooks.), These costs will be passed onto the cinema owner.
Money flows up hill you now.
I completely agree that this DCI standard should have been less complex and more complete. But it is not, and really, could it be when this technology is so young. Look at all the different film standards there was before we standardized on what we have now. DCI needs to go though a maturing time as well. 4K has not been possible for a long time, but seems to be getting there now.. And actually much faster then we ever expected, a problem in itself. (2K kit not having enough time to return a profit for those who developed it)
We all knew getting into digital early on would be a bleeding edge exercise. If anything this thread should help those looking at making a decision like digital to understand his long term position, and give him question to ask that are very important to the long term viability of his digital kit.
James
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-15-2009 07:54 AM
OK, bad example. Cisco's support policy blows. And I agree that many of their releases have been problematic (almost every Cisco product that I have encountered that was new in the box has shipped with a seriously broken IOS release).
Consider operating systems as (maybe) a better example. All of the major commercial OS vendors that I am familiar with (Microsoft, Sun, HP, SGI, and IBM) provide bugfix and security patches for free download. As they should.
A defective piece of software should be treated no differently from a defective piece of hardware.
What is especially dumb in this case is that the product in question is an expensive replacement for an existing technology, and it is being sold to an industry with limited IT experience and which is accustomed to equipment that lasts 25-50 years with little maintenance. It is not an easy sell, anyway, and expensive support contracts that do little more than fix defects in the product will not help matters.
All of this reinforces my belief that, at present, the economics for D-cinema do not work for exhibitors or manufacturers, and probably do not work for film distributors, either, if they subsidize the hardware.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic