Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It’s a very small set of buyers that are in that price range. Total annual domestic box office revenue is like $10 billion, maybe $50 billion for global TV and film. And that’s revenue, not profit, and a lot of costs are going to marketing, not to filming and casting. That’s a lot of money, but it’s not the scale that OpenAI and Anthropic are at.

Video generation would only make sense at that scale if it was targeting individual consumers, but then it’d need to cost something that consumers are willing to pay - which practically is probably a few hundred per year at most among US consumers, and much less globally, so again it doesn’t solve for the size of the AI companies.

I don’t see a way that video generation becomes a big industry without making generation much much cheaper.

 help



Aren't these two largely separate questions? Viability versus if a given incumbent has interest in a market of a given size. With the combination of (at minimum) streaming platforms, the box office, and advertisements video and audio generation would be viable at a remarkably high price point (as compared to the current token prices for other sorts of things). And as the price comes down presumably the market would grow larger - by how much I have no idea but there are certainly a great deal of currently underserved niche markets.

I think the idea that people are willing to consume an even more slopful Netflix is dubious.

There's has already been a decade of complaints about trash content in excess of available viewing hours.

The thing with media consumption is that there exist a finite number of eyeball-hours available, and it's a zero sum game against other non-media consumers.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: