Blu-rays are 8 years old and DVDs still cling to them like a cancerous tumor. Why?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

I think it was easier to sacrifice quality for quantity with music because audio is a secondary function; many play music in the background, while at work, in the office, in the yard, in the car, while reading... etc. Music doesn't have to be the main thing you're doing. Your ears can listen to it while you're doing something else.. Movie's, on the other hand, you have to look at with your eyes. There is no debate, no argument. Movies are a primary function, so people might not give up quality as easy as they did with music.

.

It's true for us, not for the Youtube generation. Tv is just a distraction while they tweet etc., it's just background and tragically not important to them.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

It's sickening that this is even being discussed as a possibility. I can't even begin to understand how people could even want this as the future of home theater entertainment. Of course, none of us on this site want this to happen but we make up such a small percentage really.

I agree and I hope it never happens. However if everything is miniaturised and in future people turn to devices for all entertainment it's inevitable.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This is the first EVER drop in tv ownership in the UK. You can't ignore that.

I'm not ignoring the acorn, Henny Penny. I'm simply rejecting the notion that the acorn is a piece of the sky and that the rest will be along shortly.

In the US household tv penetration has been in the high nineties for decades. I would imagine the numbers are fairly similar in the UK. Plummeting from 98% to 97% is not a sign of impending doom. Unless of course one is looking for signs of impending doom.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Regardless, a dip can turn into something far worse. Look how widespread hi fi systems were twenty years ago. How many do you see now?

Well, that depends on where I look. If I look in a Best Buy I'll see quite a few. If I look at Amazon I'll see more. A lot more.

Are you seriously suggesting audio separates as an example of doom and gloom that has come to pass?

Because from what I can see the market for audio separates is pretty robust.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I agree and I hope it never happens. However if everything is miniaturised and in future people turn to devices for all entertainment it's inevitable.

But things aren't getting smaller anymore. Miniature isn't the way things are going. Years ago, when cell phones were clunky, it was ideal to imagine a "smaller is better" device. SNL and even Zoolander spoofed this and created scenarios where cell phones were tiny. But that never happened, even though it could. If anything, the Droid and now the iPhone 6+ are getting larger! these new smartphones are actually like tablets

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not ignoring the acorn, Henny Penny. I'm simply rejecting the notion that the acorn is a piece of the sky and that the rest will be along shortly.

In the US household tv penetration has been in the high nineties for decades. I would imagine the numbers are fairly similar in the UK. Plummeting from 98% to 97% is not a sign of impending doom. Unless of course one is looking for signs of impending doom.



Well, that depends on where I look. If I look in a Best Buy I'll see quite a few. If I look at Amazon I'll see more. A lot more.

Are you seriously suggesting audio separates as an example of doom and gloom that has come to pass?

Because from what I can see the market for audio separates is pretty robust.

Why is it plunging at all though? It's a new thing. How soon until that percentage drops below 50 percent?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Why is it plunging at all though? It's a new thing. How soon until that percentage drops below 50 percent?

It's not plunging.

The article you linked says the number of tv households in the UK went from 26.33 million to 26.02 million. Even if we take these numbers at face value and assume that there are no tvs in any of the 'tv free' households it would still be huge stretch to describe a 1.1% drop as a 'plunge'.

And where does that ballpark your second question? Somewhere around forty-five or fifty years before household penetration drops below fifty percent?

And let's say the 'plunge' accelerates and household penetration drops below fifty percent in only thirty years. There's absolutely no reason to believe that will happen but let's say it does.

So what?

If decades from now TVs are still readily available - and they will be - what do I care if my nephew's neighbor's buddy has one or not?

[AtomicCowboy]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

CED was an incredibly crappy technology. Why would anyone use CED, which still used a stylus to "scratch" a recording rather than the far superior laser-driven LD? It was based on old technology developed in the 1960s. Also, the CED cartridges, while having the advantage of protecting the disc, were very unwieldy. It was painfully obvious to me from the day it was announced that CED could not make it. We had both CED and LD machines in the office and after a demo or two, we basically ignored the CED machine.

No. I don't think CED was "an incredibly crappy technology" (You're gonna have to be a little more sensitive to other people's beliefs and not knock it). Bulky? Yes. Cumbersome (flipping over for part 2)? Yes.

I think the half inch of the magnetic tape was more susceptible to wear and tear vs. the CED's much finer grooves in the vinyl record with much smaller electrode stylus. You can play both a number of times but you would see degradation sooner in the VHS tape.

Refering back to the this post original title, people hung onto crappier technology, even at an earlier generation. The general public migrated towards DVDs when manufacturers no longer released movies in VHS...not because they were smart to make the jump forward.

[AtomicCowboy]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

One other factor is that as you age, you've been around long enough that you begin to resent having to dip multiple times to purchase the same media. So you just say, "screw it" and keep what you already have, especially in the cases where you don't have unlimited resources. And if you don't have good vision, some of these improvements are barely perceptible.

In my original post, I was making an assumption of the general public (i.e., "IMOP").

You were implying "You" a lot in your last paragraph. You don't even know me. Are you speaking from personal experience? Say so, or don't make that assumption of me.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's not plunging.

The article you linked says the number of tv households in the UK went from 26.33 million to 26.02 million. Even if we take these numbers at face value and assume that there are no tvs in any of the 'tv free' households it would still be huge stretch to describe a 1.1% drop as a 'plunge'.

And where does that ballpark your second question? Somewhere around forty-five or fifty years before household penetration drops below fifty percent?

And let's say the 'plunge' accelerates and household penetration drops below fifty percent in only thirty years. There's absolutely no reason to believe that will happen but let's say it does.

So what?

If decades from now TVs are still readily available - and they will be - what do I care if my nephew's neighbor's buddy has one or not?

Wish I had your confidence! Many websites are saying it's the death knell for the tv.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

See, that depresses me. Not to be able to watch my big screen tv and having to squint to watch a smartphone screen. Thats not a nice prospect. I wonder what the tipping point is for tv sets to become obsolete. Less than 5 percent of the market? I would just give up watching films if ihad to watch on a phone. Even worse over the next couple of years, smartwatches will be video devices. (When they become more powerful) my long predicted future of smartwatches being the only way to watch stuff is getting closer to reality. Replace the current lovefest of smartphones with watches five ir so years from now and you can see my point? Even tablets are on the slide.

Repplace your family scenario of laotops tv and smartphone and replace with everyone has a smartwatch to watch content? Far fetched? Im told so but if peoole are already sacrificing a tv screen for a phone is it that much of a push to imagine one step further? Two inch screens(if that) for everyone.

Just like just about everything else, the market will become more fragmented, but no one device or media is going away, except where they become completely redundant, as in the case of no longer needing an MP3 player if you have a smartphone. Fewer people may buy TVs because they're happy watching on their Pad or whatever, but that doesn't mean that TV is going away. And most people will have multiple devices, which is what the manufacturers want anyway.

What we used to call the "hi-fi" market is far smaller than it was decades ago, but there's still tons of choices of 2-channel and multichannel equipment to buy at all price ranges from the incredibly inexpensive (5.1 channel receivers for $250) to the ludicrously expensive (like speakers that cost $40,000 each and turntables that cost $15,000).

So while some people, especially younger people, may use computers or Pads to watch TV, that doesn't mean we're not going to be able to buy TV sets. Hell, you can still buy a radio with AM (in the U.S.) and if there's anything that should be obsolete, it's AM radio.

And while people might actually watch some programming on their watch, it's not replacing anything. In fact, in the case of the Apple Watch, you HAVE to use it with another device - it doesn't work by itself.

Younger people tend to live an incredibly mobile lifestyle and for that lifestyle, mobile devices make sense. Once you settle down and especially if you have kids, your needs change and most (but not all) of those people will feel the need for a large-screen TV. That doesn't mean they'll stop using their portable devices or that they'll only use the large-screen TV, but it doesn't mean that they won't own a television.

So I think you're being a bit paranoid. And even though I think there's overhype, even vinyl LPs have returned.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by AtomicCowboy

In my original post, I was making an assumption of the general public (i.e., "IMOP").

You were implying "You" a lot in your last paragraph. You don't even know me. Are you speaking from personal experience? Say so, or don't make that assumption of me.

I was using "you" in the general sense, not you personally. Perhaps I should have used "we" or "people". Sorry for any confusion.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by AtomicCowboy

No. I don't think CED was "an incredibly crappy technology" (You're gonna have to be a little more sensitive to other people's beliefs and not knock it). Bulky? Yes. Cumbersome (flipping over for part 2)? Yes.

I think the half inch of the magnetic tape was more susceptible to wear and tear vs. the CED's much finer grooves in the vinyl record with much smaller electrode stylus. You can play both a number of times but you would see degradation sooner in the VHS tape.

Refering back to the this post original title, people hung onto crappier technology, even at an earlier generation. The general public migrated towards DVDs when manufacturers no longer released movies in VHS...not because they were smart to make the jump forward.

Sorry, I disagree with all your assumptions. And I wasn't comparing CED with VHS, I was comparing it with LaserDisc. Find me one credible analysis that compared CED favorably with LaserDisc. This isn't religion (although to some people it is). It's about the facts. The FACTS are that CED, if only because it still used a system in which a stylus touched the media, was obsolete on the day it was released. It also didn't permit the kind of interactivity that LaserDisc enabled.

As for whether people migrated to DVD from VHS because the manufacturers stopped making VHS tapes or because they found DVD superior is a chicken and egg question. While I don't have sales stats handy, I will maintain that they found DVD superior because of its better image and sound quality, smaller physical size, ease-of-use and lower cost. Even as late as five years ago, there was still a surprising amount of pre-recorded VHS available on Amazon and Amazon STILL has over 6000 VHS titles available, so that alone proves (IMO) that your analysis is incorrect.

The one thing I will agree with is that the marketplace does generally choose convenience over quality. And that the marketplace doesn't really care about "extreme quality" - so audio formats like SACD, DVD-Audio and even today's Blu-ray Audio aren't making much of a dent. High resolution formats are making a dent among audiophiles, but I think that's a tiny market, although I don't have stats on that either. I do have stats on the LP market, which this year will probably come in (in spite of all the hype) at under 5% of U.S. industry dollars. I have to believe that the high-res share is far smaller than the LP share. The RIAA reported only $400,000 of sales of SACD and $400,000 of sales of DVD-Audio in the first half of 2014. Sony has pretty much abandoned SACD in the U.S.

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Just like just about everything else, the market will become more fragmented, but no one device or media is going away, except where they become completely redundant, as in the case of no longer needing an MP3 player if you have a smartphone. Fewer people may buy TVs because they're happy watching on their Pad or whatever, but that doesn't mean that TV is going away. And most people will have multiple devices, which is what the manufacturers want anyway.

What we used to call the "hi-fi" market is far smaller than it was decades ago, but there's still tons of choices of 2-channel and multichannel equipment to buy at all price ranges from the incredibly inexpensive (5.1 channel receivers for $250) to the ludicrously expensive (like speakers that cost $40,000 each and turntables that cost $15,000).

So while some people, especially younger people, may use computers or Pads to watch TV, that doesn't mean we're not going to be able to buy TV sets. Hell, you can still buy a radio with AM (in the U.S.) and if there's anything that should be obsolete, it's AM radio.

And while people might actually watch some programming on their watch, it's not replacing anything. In fact, in the case of the Apple Watch, you HAVE to use it with another device - it doesn't work by itself.

Younger people tend to live an incredibly mobile lifestyle and for that lifestyle, mobile devices make sense. Once you settle down and especially if you have kids, your needs change and most (but not all) of those people will feel the need for a large-screen TV. That doesn't mean they'll stop using their portable devices or that they'll only use the large-screen TV, but it doesn't mean that they won't own a television.

So I think you're being a bit paranoid. And even though I think there's overhype, even vinyl LPs have returned.

Indeed, I read a report recently that sales of vinyl records in the UK have gone up to their highest level for 20 years or so.

I would not read too much into that article, I am always suspicious of such figures and how they come to such a figure. The chaos at my local supermarkets on Black Friday when people where fighting over £150 40" TVs makes me believe that households with TVs probably have more than one in them, with the previous "large" living room sets being put into kids bedrooms to make way for the new one.
When I was a teenager I had a 14" in my room and we had a 28" in the lounge. Now my teenage sister has a 40" in her room. I'm thinking of putting my current TV in the kitchen when I buy a 4K one after Christmas.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Just like just about everything else, the market will become more fragmented, but no one device or media is going away, except where they become completely redundant, as in the case of no longer needing an MP3 player if you have a smartphone. Fewer people may buy TVs because they're happy watching on their Pad or whatever, but that doesn't mean that TV is going away. And most people will have multiple devices, which is what the manufacturers want anyway.

What we used to call the "hi-fi" market is far smaller than it was decades ago, but there's still tons of choices of 2-channel and multichannel equipment to buy at all price ranges from the incredibly inexpensive (5.1 channel receivers for $250) to the ludicrously expensive (like speakers that cost $40,000 each and turntables that cost $15,000).

So while some people, especially younger people, may use computers or Pads to watch TV, that doesn't mean we're not going to be able to buy TV sets. Hell, you can still buy a radio with AM (in the U.S.) and if there's anything that should be obsolete, it's AM radio.

And while people might actually watch some programming on their watch, it's not replacing anything. In fact, in the case of the Apple Watch, you HAVE to use it with another device - it doesn't work by itself.

Younger people tend to live an incredibly mobile lifestyle and for that lifestyle, mobile devices make sense. Once you settle down and especially if you have kids, your needs change and most (but not all) of those people will feel the need for a large-screen TV. That doesn't mean they'll stop using their portable devices or that they'll only use the large-screen TV, but it doesn't mean that they won't own a television.

So I think you're being a bit paranoid. And even though I think there's overhype, even vinyl LPs have returned.

Ok, you are entitled to have that opinion of me. I hope beyond hope you are right.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by jono3000

Indeed, I read a report recently that sales of vinyl records in the UK have gone up to their highest level for 20 years or so.

I would not read too much into that article, I am always suspicious of such figures and how they come to such a figure.

Actually that statement is accurate, but almost no LPs were sold in 1994. In the U.S., the RIAA reported sales of just 1.9 million LPs in 1994 (compare that to sales of over 662 million CDs in that year).

In the first half of 2014, the RIAA reported sales of 6.5 million LPs in the U.S., so we're on track to hit 13 to 15 million units for the full year. The last time that many LPs were sold was in 1989, when 34.6 million units were sold (in 1990, it dropped to 11.7 million units as CDs really hit their stride with U.S. sales of over 286 million units). CDs hit their peak in 2000 with sales of 942.5 million units. In that same year, only 2.2 million LPs were sold.

But if you also consider that there have been a fair number of LPs that have each sold over 10 million units (certified "Diamond" by the RIAA), it's still an incredibly tiny business - the entire vinyl business is less than what just one blockbuster album used to sell over time, like "The Eagles Greatest Hits" and "Thriller" ("Thriller" hit 20 million units by October of '84, the year the CD was introduced. It's since gone on to sell 29 million units by 2009, but that includes CD sales). The CD, which is supposedly "dead", is still going to sell over 110 million units in the U.S. this year.

[bruceames]

Wow, so vinyl sales are about 15 million and CD only 110 million? That's a 12% unit share for vinyl (and probably much higher in revenue) Never thought it would be that high, what a comeback.

[crazyBLUE]

I cannot believe that this thread has said all this today

Home theater is not going anywhere IMO & people are posting things 100 years away people worry to much & life is to short for that

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

I cannot believe that this thread has said all this today

Home theater is not going anywhere IMO & people are posting things 100 years away people worry to much & life is to short for that

I like your

[Race Bannon]

One thing that I believe was a mistake -- when blu-ray's first came out, they were too expensive. Rather than roll them out and say "this is the better format, adopt it," they tried to use it is an opportunity to charge premium prices.

The market reacted -- many concluded "this is not for me, I'd rather have the cheaper DVD." And it delayed adoption.

Now prices are what I would consider reasonable -- but the ship sailed for some people and they think of blu-rays as a premium priced, waste of money.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

This board is very educational. I had never heard of a CED before this thread.

Originally Posted by Race Bannon

One thing that I believe was a mistake -- when blu-ray's first came out, they were too expensive. Rather than roll them out and say "this is the better format, adopt it," they tried to use it is an opportunity to charge premium prices.

The market reacted -- many concluded "this is not for me, I'd rather have the cheaper DVD." And it delayed adoption.

Now prices are what I would consider reasonable -- but the ship sailed for some people and they think of blu-rays as a premium priced, waste of money.

Not sure I agree with this completely. Yes, Blu's were quite expensive when they were first released, but so is every new format when it was first released; VHS tapes were astronomical if you wanted to buy them outright in the '80's & even the '90's. And, it does take the general public a while before they adopt the new technology. I waited a while to get my first DVD & later Blu players. Sure, I was waiting for prices to go down (on both the players & the Disks themselves), but I also wanted to see if the format was worth investing in before I spent any $ - i.e., was there going to be enough material out there that I wanted to justify me getting a player?! I didn't want to spend money on a format that would become another Laserdisk, Beta, etc.

Plus, remember that in the early days of Blu there was a format war between Blu & HD. So, I'm sure a lot of folks were waiting to see how this would play out before they decided to invest in the winning format...

And, Blu's are not like DVD's, VHS tapes, Beta, Laserdisks, etc. because Blu-ray players are backwards compatible with DVD's - this is the first time in the history of home video that an older home video format is compatible with a newer one. So, even today someone could conceivably get a Blu player & only get 1-2 Blus, and then keep their DVD library. IMHO this has a lot to do with why Blu's may not be selling as well as they could be. If John Q. Public goes to a store & sees a DVD & a Blu side-by-side, there will typically be a price difference between the two (The Blu will typically be 1-3 dollars more) - there is even more of a difference for TV series on DVD/Blu. So, IMHO many folks out there will just opt to buy the regular DVD & save a couple of bucks (or more)...

I think it's fairly clear that most of us on this board are unusual in that we don't represent the general public when it comes to our desire for high-def, etc. So, while I myself don't like watching many DVD's on my High-def TV because the PQ isn't always that great & the color is dull/washed out, etc. - many others simply don't care, and are fine with watching a average print of a movie or TV show...

Case in point:

Originally Posted by AtomicCowboy

Refering back to the this post original title, people hung onto crappier technology, even at an earlier generation. The general public migrated towards DVDs when manufacturers no longer released movies in VHS...not because they were smart to make the jump forward.

Agreed 100%. Most people out there are truly clueless when it comes to PQ, home video formats, etc.