15 Companies That Might Not Survive 2009 and Six Flags is on the list....

I'm guilty too. I get news from the internet but also read the newspaper. I use a landline and also have a cell phone for emergencies only. However I don't use IE. I grew up with Beta, VHS and vinyl records and still enjoy having a physical copy of my movies and music, even though they are on DVD and CD now. If that makes me old-fashioned so be it. I only buy on the internet if there is an advantage, such as a much lower price. If I can go to a store and get something on the day I decide to buy it for the same amount of money, that is what I do.

Blockbuster and Starbucks are both rip-offs, in my opinion. The iced coffee at McDonald's is really good and much cheaper. I have independent DVD rental stores nearby which are 1/3 to 1/4 of Blockbusters price. Although, I very rarely rent movies anyway.

If I can go to a store and get something on the day I decide to buy it for the same amount of money, that is what I do.

I generally do the opposite. If I need something right away, I might go to a store for it. But, if the prices are even comparable, I'll order online every time. My time is worth something, too, and it takes about 10 minutes to find and pay for something online---I haven't even arrived at the store in 10 minutes.

Edited to add: but there are a few things that this doesn't work for. I want to try on clothing, for example.

When it comes to that kind of situation, it usually depends on whether I'll be near that kind of store. If I want to get a DVD on the day of release and happen to pass a Best Buy, I'll go there and get the Reward Zone points. If I don't have time to go to Best Buy, I'll order it online and use the savings (amazon.com is usually cheaper) to pay for overnight shipping so I have it close to the actual release.

matt. said:
It's not really a matter of believing the numbers because they're easily countable. And the fact that lots of people still read papers and have land line phones isn't really part of the argument because it's a static number, and isn't relevant to the trend itself. Lots of people still read newspapers - that doesn't mean that they're not dying all around the country left and right because indeed, they are.

It is, actually. The argument is, that change is not rapid, and sudden as you assume it to be. Video Stores are not going anywhere anytime soon, and I do not see them going away in the near future. What the market has given us, is more option to purchase goods. It has not changed people's buying preferences. Print newspaper sales may be declining, but that doesn't mean it is dying. Not everyone is willing to spend time online to read the paper, especially at work. Until we actually see extensive, and free Wi-fi service, you are still going to have commuters buying papers. What has aided in the decline of tne paper, is the advent of free papers, and alternative papers. So again, we have greater options when it comes to reading a paper.
I think the total demise of print paper will occur, when cheap portable readers come out. The Amazon Kimble is the beginning.

Bringing up analog television is actually the perfect argument because no matter how much you want to stick with analog TV, the market's already moved on. In just a few weeks it just won't be an option any more, just like you can't buy VHS tapes anymore, just like you can't find parts for old roller coasters anymore, just like someday soon most of us won't have a local video rental store unless we live somewhere with enough niche-interested customers nearby .

Analog TV's are still going to be around. You just need a digital converter box, which have been around since the advent of cable. All the analog channels will now be digital. This doesn't mean that analog TV's are going to disappear. You can still use them. Speaking of the market, there is still a market for VHS tapes out there. People actually make the trek to thrift stores to purchase VHS tapes,

I was making a point before facetiously, and listen guys, I get it, some people like having a physical DVD in their hands to own and that's fine, but that doesn't have any meaning when the current crop of 2 year olds out there could really care less by the time they're cognizant enough to have an ITunes account.

I think you are putting far too much faith in the current level of technology changing people's buying habits. To put in bluntly, it's not going to happen.
Some sort of physical medium is going to exist long into the future. And people are still going to go to a store to purchase it.
You are missing one significant aspect of purchasing a DVD, or looking for a movie: THE experience. Something that online purchasing, and viewing can never replicate. To be blunt, only lazy people, and the truly anti-scoial would subscribe to making all purchases online. As I said before. We have more options. But in no way, is online purchasing, viewing going to become the ONLY option. Just not going to happen. And there is no way a parent will let a child spend all it's time on a computer, or in front of a TV.

On a final note: Vinyl sales are increasing. Go figure.

If you think technology ISN'T going to replace things in this world we live in, you're wrong and you'll be left in the dust with your Betamax, 8-track tapes and slide-rule.

And although I find this incredible difficult to type, I agree with matt. on each and every one of his points, whether he was being facetious or not. He's right, people and business that continue with the same old same old will be left behind.

El Gato Coastro said:
It is, actually. The argument is, that change is not rapid, and sudden as you assume it to be. Video Stores are not going anywhere anytime soon, and I do not see them going away in the near future.

I'd take on your full post but there's no point, you're setting up a straw man argument.

I'm talking about changes that are 10, 20, 30+ years in the future. You'd like to pretend that I'm saying video stores will be completely non-existent in the near future because that's the argument you'd like to make. That's not what's going on. Same applies to everything else in your post.

Let's look at it this way, guys. The first digital music players were introduced in the late 90s. The first iPod came out in 2001, was 5GB in capacity, and was 400 bucks.

7 years later you could buy an 120GB version for $250 that plays video and has better battery life and a myriad of other doohickeys and doodads to go with it that the earlier ones didn't. Meanwhile iTunes is selling billions of songs every year when just a little while ago nobody had ever heard of iTunes. That's not even considering the billions of downloads from other legit online vendors and of course the billions being downloaded illegally.

Video stores will still exist in some capacity. Newspapers, DVDs, CDs, etc will still exist in some capacity. But if you don't think that for a vast segment of consumers the way we procure and enjoy media will be dramatically, freakishly different from the way we do now 10, 20 years from now, you're just not paying attention or delusional.

And as the new ways gain traction, the old ways die.

Here's a story from December about the end of VHS manufacturing:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-vhs-tapes22-2008dec...2342.story

Video stores will still exist in some capacity. Newspapers, DVDs, CDs, etc will still exist in some capacity. But if you don't think that for a vast segment of consumers the way we procure and enjoy media will be dramatically, freakishly different from the way we do now 10, 20 years from now, you're just not paying attention or delusional.

And as the new ways gain traction, the old ways die.

Here's a story from December about the end of VHS manufacturing:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-vhs-tapes22-2008dec...2342.story

Well we are in agreement to some degree, then. Of course things will change, and some tech will die, or disappear. My whole point, is that technological is a gradual process, and some tech will never catch on. Until a older tech is replaced, people will have greater options. What I got from your posts, is that people embrace any sort of new technology quickly, and that is not true. Especially when it comes to online shopping. It will never replace going to a store.
Yes, eventually the vast majority will switch to a new technology, assuming it is cheap, and readily. That takes time. Sometimes decades/
Some technology have been known to outlast newer technology. Vinyl, for instance. People are still buying it!
And about newspapers. Until a portable reader is available that allows people to read it, without a laptop, the newsprint is still going to be around. Wi-fi isn't that extensive to enable online reading everywhere.

I certainly get where matt is coming from and I didn't mean people will never embrace new technology, or that sometime in the future new technology will totally replace the old. As matt says, it will be forced upon us, just like our Detroit newspapers cutting back their printing and the analog to digital switch.

I guess my point is not everyone is going to embrace new technology until it's forced upon them for one reason or another. Certainly things are going to be a lot different as we old farts die off and younger generations who are more easily swayed by new tech grow up.

My son purchased a new PS3 and came home for a day because his apartment wireless connection wouldn't allow him to download upgrades or games. We high high speed internet, but, once again, he hit a roadblock because Comcast, once they noticed the high download, cut back the speed to a crawl.

That's an example of new technology that isn't quite as convenient as you'd think. Or during the NE/Midwest blackout of a couple of years ago when we were one of a few families that still had phone service as we hadn't switch to digital and didn't have to rely on our non working cell phones due to the overloaded systems.

Call me old fashioned, but sometimes, my old technology ways have saved me when something happens to take all that new technology down.

CPLady, complementing my cordless land line phone, I have a corded phone in the bedroom, because when the electricity goes out, it still works.

Now that Matt. has said that tech isn't going to change the world overnight, I'll somewhat agree with him. Who knows what the future has in store?

Sales at my newspaper haven't dropped at all. As a matter of fact, sales have very slightly gone up. Our county newspaper even got a new competitor recently. I will say that my area is a little unique to what's going on in the rest of the world.

Perhaps, but that's the exception, not the rule. Papers are bleeding right now.

I must be the only person to get his news from printed newspapers, national network news and the Interwebs on a daily basis.

Our Akron paper, the Beacon Journal, is hurting just like everybody else. They keep slashing the jobs/roles of what had previously seemed to be integral and necessary functions of the paper. "Gosh, we don't need a dedicated cartoonist," or "Let's fire our movie critic and rely on the critics from other papers." The sad part is, I still don't think it's going to be enough.

The Akron Reakin' Urinal. :)

I guess it makes me sad because newspapers, even newspapers who post online, have struck me in a lot of places as the last significant form of journalism. Granted, countless small town papers are terrible, but most papers in major markets seem to be pretty good. But even the New York Times struggles now, and they're damn near the gold standard in terms of writing, style rules and relatively ethical journalism.

I'm just not sure if Internet media can replace that. It doesn't seem motivated to do so. Even in the tech news, an area I follow, the only blogger-journalist I can really think of is Om Malik. If we have to rely on TV and local jerks-with-blogs to cover news, we'll forget what real news is.

I think that blogs have done their part to reduce the significance of internet journalism. While there are some respectable websites out there, many have taken on that "blog" mentality where anyone and everyone is supposedly a serious journalist. There are some great magazines and newspapers out there but I fear most will soon disappear. A very good newspaper here in northern NJ seems to be on its death bed, and I had always assumed it was very healthy.

The Miami Herald in on the brink of extinction and the Sun-Sentinel here in South Florida isn't far behind. Newspaper staffs are eliminating specialty writers, local political writers, etc.

Just to try to plug the holes the Miami Herald is actually contracting with the rival paper to deliver their newspapers.

The end is near for the printed newspaper.

I still purchase CDs, read a newspaper and have a landline. Not because I have some innate resistance to technology and change (like Gonch would have you think), but because there is nothing available to me that totally replaces any of them.

A lot of the music I like is off the beaten track stuff that I'm not sure is available as a download. A lot of it is just becoming available on CD! I also started questioning why I should be paying for a song for the 4th time that I already have in 3 other media. The newspaper provides me with a lot of local information that I'm not going to find on TV or online> Maybe it will improve, but even the paper's local website carries only a fraction of the information that the paper itself contains. I've read health or feature articles in my paper that show up a week later on msn.com.

As CPLady already pointed out, cell phone networks aren't foolproof and don't have infinite capacity. I still have a portable phone and a big honking 60's model Western Electric wall phone (made in the USA!). Neither of them has ever been lost, stolen, or ended up underneath a roller coaster or in a toilet, or scattered to bits on a concrete sidewalk.

Technology is good only if it provides an easier or more efficient way of doing something. So while ordering videos online works, ordering groceries doesn't (there was a company that tried that).

So as long as we're talking about the wonders of new technology, why hasn't anyone mentioned that Sirius is on this list?

RatherGoodBear said:
Not because I have some innate resistance to technology and change (like Gonch would have you think), but because there is nothing available to me that totally replaces any of them.

I'm out to get you, RGB. Boogey boogey boogey!

My take on the issues being discussed:

CDs - haven't bought one since 1999. Prior to that my collection was in the 600 range. In 2004, I ripped all of them and converted to mp3 and then traded them back to one of the CD exchange places for cash. I figure the difference between what I paid and what I got back is my cost for 'buying' the mp3's I ripped. Been doing mp3's exclusively for new music for almost a decade now.

Newspaper - been on the internet since 1997. Been doing high speed with a neat ISP home page since 1999. Every ISP I've had has all the world, national, and local headlines along with sports, weather and entrtainment updated essentially in real time. I can't think of a single thing of interest to me that I haven't read online before a newpaper around me printed and distributed it. For breaking issues, the TV is just fine. I am however, partial to the Sunday newspaper offering. I like the ads and the comics. Also, when we're in a hotel I'll skim the USA Today if that counts. Again, about a decade since a newpaper felt relevant to me.

Phone - We just started discussing giving up the landline. The thing is it doesn't cost dick so there's not a lot of incentive. Been a Vonage customer for almost 4 years now. VoIP and all cordless phones - My home line goes down if either the electric or internet goes out. Luckily both rarely happen. We lost power for like 12 hours when the hurricane winds came through last fall...before that I think we lost power once for an hour or so back in 2006. The internet has it's moments, but no extended outages.

I still prefer to have long conversations on the landline, but I'm the only one who really uses it. My wife and daughter use their cells for everything and my son is too young to be a phone kid yet. Just out of curiousity I checked my Vonage account and the home phone received exactly 8 calls in the last month and two of those are numbers I don't recognize. So 6 calls that mattered. Our landline is all but dead, but I just can't let go quite yet. Although in contrast to other opinions, I feel from what I've seen that it's far more likely for your landline to go down and the cell to work that the opposite.

So as long as we're talking about the wonders of new technology, why hasn't anyone mentioned that Sirius is on this list?

Funny you mention that. After experiencing satellite radio first hand last week on both the plane to Disney and in our rental car, I'm extremely interested. My car has an satellite capable radio, but the feature wasn't installed when I bought it. I'm thinking of going back and having the dealer put it in for me.

A lot of the music I like is off the beaten track stuff that I'm not sure is available as a download.

Give Rhapsody a spin. It's a subscription model---$10-$15/month to listen to anything in their catalog. And, the catalog is surprisingly large.

It's $10 if you only listen on machines connected to the mothership. $15 if you want to download to a Rhapsody-DRM-compatible device and carry it with you away from network access. I do the latter, and it's functional enough that I don't really buy individual tracks anymore. When a new album comes out that I'm interested in, I just download it to my player. I'll listen to it on the treadmill, or maybe the drive home, and then as often as not chuck it. One subscription covers up to three portable devices, so I've got one and my wife has one. The kids will have to pay for their own subscription when the time comes.

For example, I gave Slumdog Millionaire a spin a couple weeks ago. Wasn't really my cup of tea, but didn't cost me anything "extra" to try it out.

I'm a little surprised the entire Midwest isn't on this list right alongside the State of California.

One of the unforeseen problems of everyone dropping land lines is that "random digit dialing" for surveys/sampling has lost its randomness. Instructor last semester asked how many students in class even HAD a land line. About 10-15%. All luddites and old people...people like me. How can you say something about "people in general" when the only people you can ask to achieve baseline rates no longer represent the gamut of opinions, behaviors, and the like?

You have to think of new ways to draw your sample, I guess. Truth be told, that kind of sampling has always been challenging due to the lack of incentive to participate and the difficulty in reaching people at all.