Is BLU vs. S-DVD the new format war?

[Ernest Rister]

Being a Disney fan, I came across this at UltimateDisney.com...9 pages of wrangling about Blu-Ray killing DVD.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/...=422641#422641

I made a post here a few months back asking why Ultimate Disney seems so anti-Blu-Ray (no Blu reviews, and describing Disney's ads for Blu-Ray as "propaganda"). Joe Cain mentioned that the boards were particularly anti-Blu, and the thread above might be the proof. It seems S-DVD owners are starting to feel the same kind of heat the HD-DVD camp was feeling after Warner's chose their side. The writing is on the wall, but they don't want to admit it.

My personal feeling is the same as it has been since 1998 -- DVD is a transitional format, it always has been. It was doomed to obsolescence from the get-go as the digital conversion was set in stone under the Clinton administration (and yes, I know that digital TV isn't the same thing as HDTV, but it seemed the logical next step).

In say, maybe four years, you may not be able to buy a S-DVD only player. It will include Blu-Ray functionality. So those with S-DVD only collections will eventually become Blu-Ray owners when their existing players break and they go to buy a new player. The arguments the S-DVD camp are making are so familiar to arguments I heard in the late 90's -- HDTV isn't that great, it's a luxury, it won't catch on...and yet HDTV is steadily becoming the norm in America. Blu-Ray will follow suit. The adoption won't be as fast as S-DVD was, but the adoption is inevitable. Where we go from there is the source of much debate and specualtion...but I think we've clearly left S-DVD behind, and the anti-BLU S-DVD collectors need to accept it.

Check out that thread, Blu owners should get a chuckle or two.

[RiseDarthVader]

Why are you calling it S-DVD and not just DVD?

[tntkain]

link doesn't work

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Why are you calling it S-DVD and not just DVD?

Because there is a format called HD DVD. But to the answer the question until the price drops on Blus, more people are gonna continue to support DVD.

Charging 29.99 for a non - new release is just uncalled for. The most you should charge on a non - new release is 19.99 and even that it is pushing it.

[Sussudio]

there is. no. more. format. war.

edit: yes i know the OP isn't talking about hd dvd vs bluray. but there is not a format war between bluray and dvd. that isn't a war. it's a phasing out. over the next few years more and more titles will be released on bluray, less will be released on dvd. blu prices will go down, and the technology machine will do it's thing.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Because there is a format called HD DVD. But to the answer the question until the price drops on Blus, more people are gonna continue to support DVD.

Charging 29.99 for a non - new release is just uncalled for. The most you should charge on a non - new release is 19.99 and even that it is pushing it.

When DVDs first hit the market, they had similar price points. The idea was to undersell laserdisc, but many retailers carried DVDs at laserdisc prices. The MSRP on Disney's infamous "Limited Edition" titles was almost $40.00 in some instances.

That's all going to shake out as the market grows, the same thing happened to DVD. I'm amazed to see certain Blu-Ray titles at B&M stores for $14.99 -- I never would have thought prices would fall that fast so soon.

[york weir]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

When DVDs first hit the market, they had similar price points. The idea was to undersell laserdisc, but many retailers carried DVDs at laserdisc prices. The MSRP on Disney's infamous "Limited Edition" titles was almost $40.00 in some instances.

That's all going to shake out as the market grows, the same thing happened to DVD. I'm amazed to see certain Blu-Ray titles at B&M stores for $14.99 -- I never would have thought prices would fall that fast so soon.

I bought on to DVD in 99 and I don't remember ever paying that much for titles. I think they were $19.99 to $24.99 at my local Media Play.

[Sonny]

I remember when a pizza was $30.
I remember when a CD was $30.


& in a number of years I'll be saying, I remember when a Blu-ray was $30.

[RiseDarthVader]

I don't see the point in calling it S-DVD. It is as pointless as addin gthe extra 'e' into Blu-ray like Blue-ray. If someone says DVD you know it means DVD not HD DVD.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by york weir

I bought on to DVD in 99 and I don't remember ever paying that much for titles. I think they were $19.99 to $24.99 at my local Media Play.

Which might explain why the Disney LE line was considered a giant failure, and the man in charge "resigned" shortly after...Disney completely misread the DVD market in the outset. Expensive discs, with little features, at large prices.

Look at how Disney has approached Blu-Ray. The company has clearly learned from its past.

[Joe Cain]

Okay, that thread made my teeth itch....even more than the last time I saw it.

What really gets my goat is that the number-one BD-hater there is not only an anti(Sony)-fanboy, but a pirate as well---who's offered on the board to DRM-strip iTunes tracks for filesharing purposes because the album in question was so old no one should have to pay for it (my paraphrase of the offered rationale).

[Baked]

Man some of those people have their head so far up someones butt.....Blu-ray has caught on and will be the new media considering the expanding memory of Blu's 400Gb so far.. DVD is old tech period 9Gb. And for someone to say they can't tell the diff between Blu-ray and a DVD they need their ears and eye checked out by a doctor..

[tntkain]

It was pretty funny to read. There really are some blu hater's there. I don't understand the hate at all. At least you can still use your dvd's in your blu-ray player if you choose to.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

It was doomed to obsolescence from the get-go as the digital conversion was set in stone under the Clinton administration (and yes, I know that digital TV isn't the same thing as HDTV, but it seemed the logical next step).

Nearly all the affiliates for major networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC) have their primary ".1" DTV channel broadcasting in HD. ABC and FOX are using 720p/60. CBS and NBC are using 1080i/60.

While it's true "digital TV" doesn't automatically mean "HD," generally speaking HD-quality network television is what is being delivered with digital broadcast technology. I rarely ever watch any of the ".2" or ".3" DTV channels I get over the air. It's usually just some weather radar thing or a Telemundo feed.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

In say, maybe four years, you may not be able to buy a S-DVD only player. It will include Blu-Ray functionality.

Four years is far too conservative an estimate.

All Blu-ray players can play DVDs. Prices on Blu-ray players have dropped to affordable levels. Those prices will drop to cheap levels, probably under $99 for at least a few BD player models by the end of 2009. That situation is going to help Blu-ray players muscle DVD players off store shelves very soon.

DVD players will already be scarce or completely gone from higher end electronics stores like Ultimate Electronics by this coming Summer. They'll be equally scarce in stores like Best Buy or Circuit City by the next fall/holiday shopping season.

By the end of 2010, Blu-ray players should be pretty much the ubiquitous choice for optical disc-based movie players. If someone needs to buy a replacement for a broken DVD player, he's going to be stuck with buying a Blu-ray unit as that replacement pretty soon.

Naturally, it will take more time for Blu-ray to infiltrate the portable player and in-car market segments, but rest assured that is coming.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

I don't see the point in calling it S-DVD. It is as pointless as addin gthe extra 'e' into Blu-ray like Blue-ray. If someone says DVD you know it means DVD not HD DVD.

I agree. And infact, the whole S-DVD thing actually made things more confusing, at least for me at first.

When I saw the thread title of "Is Blu vs. S-DVD the new format war?", my first thought was that S-DVD was a new format that I just hadn't heard of yet. It wasn't until I was pretty far into reading the original post that I started to figure out that it was refering to regular, plain old DVD. And even then, I was second guessing myself on that.

[Beast]

The majority of people over there at Ultimate Disney don't know what they're talking about.

It's pretty much what quit me from posting over there. It's horribly anti-Blu.

[tron3]

No contest. Blu-ray should eventually prevail over DVD. Much in the same way CD prevailed over audio tape which prevailed over records. Not every blu-ray adopter goes blu-sclusive. This may slow the trend.

[york weir]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Nearly all the affiliates for major networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC) have their primary ".1" DTV channel broadcasting in HD. ABC and FOX are using 720p/60. CBS and NBC are using 1080i/60.

While it's true "digital TV" doesn't automatically mean "HD," generally speaking HD-quality network television is what is being delivered with digital broadcast technology. I rarely ever watch any of the ".2" or ".3" DTV channels I get over the air. It's usually just some weather radar thing or a Telemundo feed.



Four years is far too conservative an estimate.

All Blu-ray players can play DVDs. Prices on Blu-ray players have dropped to affordable levels. Those prices will drop to cheap levels, probably under $99 for at least a few BD player models by the end of 2009. That situation is going to help Blu-ray players muscle DVD players off store shelves very soon.

DVD players will already be scarce or completely gone from higher end electronics stores like Ultimate Electronics by this coming Summer. They'll be equally scarce in stores like Best Buy or Circuit City by the next fall/holiday shopping season.

By the end of 2010, Blu-ray players should be pretty much the ubiquitous choice for optical disc-based movie players. If someone needs to buy a replacement for a broken DVD player, he's going to be stuck with buying a Blu-ray unit as that replacement pretty soon.

Naturally, it will take more time for Blu-ray to infiltrate the portable player and in-car market segments, but rest assured that is coming.

I think that's overly aggressive but see it happening a few years after your predictions.

[Blu Titan]

Blu-ray is taking over, and there is little doubt about that. Q4 2008 MARKED the beginning of the end for DVD.

[york weir]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

Blu-ray is taking over, and there is little doubt about that. Q4 2008 MARKED the beginning of the end for 2008.

Q1 2009 MARKED the beginning of the beginning for 2009 as well.