Lack of 2.0 profile players

[prerich]

The lack of 2.0 BD players indicates something to me as far as the market is concerned....very few people are interested in 2.0. There are only a handful of players that are 2.0 (Playstation 3 and HTPC's are the first ones that come to mind). Most new high-end players are profile 1.1 (but most audio/videophiles don't care about 2.0 - I'm 2.0 capable and I will probrably never use it). What's a the hub-bub about manufacturers coming out with 1.1 players? I think they are just giving the consumers what they really want - good PQ, good AQ, a few features and gimmicks (PIP - see where that went). 2.0 is really just a gimmick to me and adds little value to BD. Question is - should we really be concerned and in a huff because manufaturers still turn out 1.1 profile players? I think profile 3.0 (audio) would be a better feature than 2.0 (although I enjoy 2 channel stereo greatly - actually prefer it over multi-channel, there's just a magic with 2 speakers throwing this huge image) - but that's just me. Let's chime in - shall we?

[moviefan]

I generally agree, but since I will replace my Samsung 1200 with a Sony S550 soon, I want ALL the latest features.
Also I don't understand why any manufacturer would intro a new player that will not onboard decode Dolby True HD and DTS Master Audio. These audio formats are head & shoulders above the previous codecs. After listening to them on my son's Playstation 3 we haven't used the Samsung 1200 for any on our new Blue-ray discs!

[Woody]

I think it has to do with a few different factors:

1. Compatability issues. When there are so many different CE's using different platforms to accomplish 1.1 and 2.0 it is very challenging to get everyone on the same page, so many CEs have just decided to hold off.

2. Lack of consumer interest. Consumers don't really even know what they can expect with 2.0, much less why they need it. The problem IMO is that BR needs other things than just PQ to "hook" j6p. They are hoping against hope that 1.1 and 2.0 are things that we can't get from DVD, and that will push more folks into BR. (I don't think it matters honestly)

3. It isn't a "required" spec by the BDA. If you are a CE, why do it if you don't have to? Why add a level of complexity and a "network card" to these players?

4. As you said, high-end manufacturers don't have a reason to include it based on some of the above reasons.

I personally think that all new players coming in 09' will be 2.0, but who knows.

[Bobby Henderson]

While OEMs continue to release high priced Profile 1.1 players with limited feature sets and slow loading times it will only help Playstation 3 sell a lot more units.

Manufacturers have to start making standalone BD players that support BD Profile 2.0, load BDs as fast as the PS3, load BD Live content as fast as the PS3 and carry price points at or below the price of a PS3. Right now no electronics companies (including Sony) are delivering on that. Until they start doing so the PS3 will remain as the top selling BD player.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by moviefan

I generally agree, but since I will replace my Samsung 1200 with a Sony S550 soon, I want ALL the latest features.
Also I don't understand why any manufacturer would intro a new player that will not onboard decode Dolby True HD and DTS Master Audio. These audio formats are head & shoulders above the previous codecs. After listening to them on my son's Playstation 3 we haven't used the Samsung 1200 for any on our new Blue-ray discs!

10-4 good post. I believe that onboard decoding TrueHD and DTS-HD Master is a must - as well as 7.1 analog outs, much more important than BD Live!

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Woody

I think it has to do with a few different factors:

1. Compatability issues. When there are so many different CE's using different platforms to accomplish 1.1 and 2.0 it is very challenging to get everyone on the same page, so many CEs have just decided to hold off.

2. Lack of consumer interest. Consumers don't really even know what they can expect with 2.0, much less why they need it. The problem IMO is that BR needs other things than just PQ to "hook" j6p. They are hoping against hope that 1.1 and 2.0 are things that we can't get from DVD, and that will push more folks into BR. (I don't think it matters honestly)

3. It isn't a "required" spec by the BDA. If you are a CE, why do it if you don't have to? Why add a level of complexity and a "network card" to these players?

4. As you said, high-end manufacturers don't have a reason to include it based on some of the above reasons.

I personally think that all new players coming in 09' will be 2.0, but who knows.

Hey Woody, I agree with you also - I just can't get with the BD live thing - new players in 09 may all be 2.0 but how many people want to buy a feature they may never use (well...uh some...I fell into the PIP trap years ago and found out that I didn't like playing Eternal Champions in a little box while my wife watched her favorite sitcom !)

[prerich]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

While OEMs continue to release high priced Profile 1.1 players with limited feature sets and slow loading times it will only help Playstation 3 sell a lot more units.

Manufacturers have to start making standalone BD players that support BD Profile 2.0, load BDs as fast as the PS3, load BD Live content as fast as the PS3 and carry price points at or below the price of a PS3. Right now no electronics companies (including Sony) are delivering on that. Until they start doing so the PS3 will remain as the top selling BD player.

My HTPC loads BD's in 3 to 5 seconds - much faster than the PS3 (I Am Legend is one of the fastest to load yet - its one of those count to 3, the menu is up and click play - you're watching the movie). You are right with the loading time issue of standalones but as far as BD live is concerned - its a gimmicky feature, eye candy that very few people will use IMHO.

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by prerich

The lack of 2.0 BD players indicates something to me as far as the market is concerned....very few people are interested in 2.0. There are only a handful of players that are 2.0 (Playstation 3 and HTPC's are the first ones that come to mind). Most new high-end players are profile 1.1 (but most audio/videophiles don't care about 2.0 - I'm 2.0 capable and I will probrably never use it). What's a the hub-bub about manufacturers coming out with 1.1 players? I think they are just giving the consumers what they really want - good PQ, good AQ, a few features and gimmicks (PIP - see where that went). 2.0 is really just a gimmick to me and adds little value to BD. Question is - should we really be concerned and in a huff because manufaturers still turn out 1.1 profile players? I think profile 3.0 (audio) would be a better feature than 2.0 (although I enjoy 2 channel stereo greatly - actually prefer it over multi-channel, there's just a magic with 2 speakers throwing this huge image) - but that's just me. Let's chime in - shall we?

Two BD laptops, both 2.0.
I have used it maybe three times just to see it work.
I am more interested in the best freakin picture I can get than all the fluff.

[quexos]

It makes me all the more appreciate my PS3.
I am still to actually own and see PIP and BD-Live

[blu2]

Originally Posted by prerich

The lack of 2.0 BD players indicates something to me as far as the market is concerned....very few people are interested in 2.0. There are only a handful of players that are 2.0 (Playstation 3 and HTPC's are the first ones that come to mind). Most new high-end players are profile 1.1 (but most audio/videophiles don't care about 2.0 - I'm 2.0 capable and I will probrably never use it). What's a the hub-bub about manufacturers coming out with 1.1 players? I think they are just giving the consumers what they really want - good PQ, good AQ, a few features and gimmicks (PIP - see where that went). 2.0 is really just a gimmick to me and adds little value to BD. Question is - should we really be concerned and in a huff because manufaturers still turn out 1.1 profile players? I think profile 3.0 (audio) would be a better feature than 2.0 (although I enjoy 2 channel stereo greatly - actually prefer it over multi-channel, there's just a magic with 2 speakers throwing this huge image) - but that's just me. Let's chime in - shall we?

It would have been incredibly short-sighted for the BDA have introduced a format without networking capabilities. We're talking about a format that some expect to last for 10-20 years after all, and one can imagine that every other competing delivery mechanism and consumer electronics device to come along will be offering various forms of network interaction/connectivity. Not to mention what we'll start to see the Cableco's do with their JAVA-based platforms.

Personnally, I can think of lots of very useful things that could be done with BD-Live, so I look forward to what creative studios will do with it.

But I can understand there's a segment of people that will consider the only thing of interest to be what's on the screen from the start of the titles to the end of the credits.

Also, there do seem to be many standalone options available currently and forthcoming for 2.0 players. Right now there is a bit of tiering with many entry level players being 1.1.

[CAB]

No 2.0 content out there yet and we all know the reason. . . PS3 is the predominant BD Live player and people who game (PS3 owners) don't buy movies. I'm pretty sure I've read that somewhere.

[kefrank]

i guess this is the standard monthly thread about how BD-Live is just a gimmick and no one really cares about it.

as a counterpoint to the OP's argument, the most popular Blu-ray player (by a large margin) is a BD-Live player. also, i don't think the profile has been around long enough to make any conclusions about consumer or manufacturer trends.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by kefrank

i guess this is the standard monthly thread about how BD-Live is just a gimmick and no one really cares about it.

as a counterpoint to the OP's argument, the most popular Blu-ray player (by a large margin) is a BD-Live player. also, i don't think the profile has been around long enough to make any conclusions about consumer or manufacturer trends.

BD Live doesn't make it (ps3) that popular though - the second and third best players are 1.1 players. (Your remark is concerning the PS3 which is also a gaming machine as well as a BD player - multiple markets my good friend ). Most of the people that I have talked to really aren't concerned with BD-Live.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by prerich

Most of the people that I have talked to really aren't concerned with BD-Live.

well, it sounds like you've done a very statistically-sound survey!

again, BD-Live players and content have not been available long enough for us to draw any conclusions whatsoever. studios have barely scratched the surface for BD-Live's potential. let's give it a year or two before we pass it off as a "gimmick that no one cares about."

[blu2]

Originally Posted by kefrank

well, it sounds like you've done a very statistically-sound survey!

again, BD-Live players and content have not been available long enough for us to draw any conclusions whatsoever. studios have barely scratched the surface for BD-Live's potential. let's give it a year or two before we pass it off as a "gimmick that no one cares about."

For what it's worth, Sony claims 300K people have accessed BD-Live features:

Sony officials also shared that more than 300,000 people have accessed BD Live features, many downloading new content.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/new...ticle_ID=13444

That's not too bad for a start.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by prerich

The lack of 2.0 BD players indicates something to me as far as the market is concerned....very few people are interested in 2.0.

I'm glad someone else has figured this out. While you often see people ranting online about BD-Live or "half-finished-spec," etc., among mainstream consumers its just not a hugely important selling feature. People who are complaining on message boards are a self-selected subgroup of consumers that are obviously more interested in and familiar with the internet and "hybrid" technologies than typical consumers, but they often assume that because others chatting online care about online Blu-ray features that means everyone else does. It's just not the case.

And if you really need evidence... just look at what percentage of PS3s are actually connected to the internet on a consistent basis (only around 1/3, IIRC), or, even better, look at what percentage of that "other format's" players that were connected to the internet (since they all had the capability) -- only about 1/4. And that's among early adopters, who are more tech-savvy than the typical customer.

By the time BD is making major inroads with mainstream customers, the percentage who will actually connect their players to the internet will likely be even lower. That's why 2.0 isn't a mandatory profile, and why many manufacturers don't see any reason to rush all their product lines to 2.0. Studios care far more about BD-Live's marketing potential than typical consumers do about BD-Live's entertainment potential.

None of that is to say anything BAD about BD-Live. The final implementation works decently-well, and there are some good potential uses down the road... but it will still be a useful feature only for the 1/4 or less of people that ever connect their players to the internet. If I were a manufacturer, I would definitely have at least 1 basic 1.1 profile player in my line-up, and use 2.0 as a step-up feature for those that would actually use it. Then again, I would also either build in WiFi or have an optional adapter available for the 2.0 players in the line-up -- but that's a whole other debate, and something that I cannot believe no manufacturer has announced.

Now, by next year, once the players that ARE BD-Live capable have more mature implementations, and the cost of adding the feature across the line-up are reduced substantially (assuming you use the same front-end chipset and OS across the line-up) then it will make far more sense to just add the ethernet jack to all the players in your line-up and have them all be 2.0 compliant. You'll still not have most people connecting them, but it will look better on spec sheets and in-store displays if nothing else. But, most manufacturers just aren't there yet (at least with standalones).

[davcole]

It's not a selling point right now but as features are developed it will be. It is good for the BDA to have the foresight for this feature. Let's hope the manufactures will follow the lead.

[GORT]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

While OEMs continue to release high priced Profile 1.1 players with limited feature sets and slow loading times it will only help Playstation 3 sell a lot more units.

Manufacturers have to start making standalone BD players that support BD Profile 2.0, load BDs as fast as the PS3, load BD Live content as fast as the PS3 and carry price points at or below the price of a PS3. Right now no electronics companies (including Sony) are delivering on that. Until they start doing so the PS3 will remain as the top selling BD player.

Spoken like a true PS3 fanboy if the PS3 is the Ultimate player then why are more and more companys coming out with standalone players and how do you know what the load times are on all the new players

[blu2]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

But, most manufacturers just aren't there yet (at least with standalones).

There are entry level players available/pending from Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic that are all BD-Live capable/upgradeable.

At this point anything released that is still 1.1 only really is half baked. I'm sure it has been discussed to death in past threads but it would be better for consumers if there was one less "confusion" point on Blu Ray and 2.0 was the norm across the board from vendors as mass adoption starts. Nobody wants to find out down the road that they picked the wrong "version".

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by blu2

There are entry level players available/pending from Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic that are all BD-Live capable/upgradeable.

Upgradeable is not the same as here now... and is why I was talking about rolling out the software on higher-end models first. Samsung and Sony have put in the required hardware for the internet connection into their current base models, but neither has released the promised software update -- and you may need to buy a flash memory device for full BD-Live compatibility. They are 1.1 Profile players for all intents and purposes. And Panasonic's model is barely announced (and without a release date) -- hardly a groundswell of Profile 2.0 entry-level players in stores.

Originally Posted by blu2

At this point anything released that is still 1.1 only really is half baked. I'm sure it has been discussed to death in past threads but it would be better for consumers if there was one less "confusion" point on Blu Ray and 2.0 was the norm across the board from vendors as mass adoption starts. Nobody wants to find out down the road that they picked the wrong "version".

There's been a grand total of 2 standalone Blu-ray players actually released that are currently 2.0 compliant -- and neither could be considered "value-oriented." Are you saying everything else on the market is half-baked? I think you're just overestimating the importance of a feature that the majority of people will never use even if they had access to it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the need for most players to be BD-Live enabled. Not that it really matters. Right now, most standalones are not, and all the internet whining won't change that. Next year's models almost all will be, after being rolled out in higher-end models this year (and -- yes -- offered as a f/w update on some lower end players). The software will be done, and the cost of inclusion at that point will be negligeable. Still, even next year, I think you'll see that many low-end players don't have the flash memory built-in, while higher end models will.