Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[biznus97]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I don't think you'll find many people repurchasing a DVD boxset on BD, that looks and sound exactly the same, just for convenience. Is that what you were suggesting?

Right, the next big selling point is NO disc for a lot of people. Heck, if I could get PQ and AQ superior to BD and still get all the features I'd support it. While I love collecting films, I don't necessarily love collecting discs.
However, I don't see digital distribution being done as cleanly as it is in other markets like PC games (i.e. Steam). There you have an account that allows you to download the game as many times as you need to so for me there is no worry about disc failure. If digital movies can be delivered like that I'd be fine with it. It would also make things like recalls a lot simpler. Though I'm not sure that would be a good thing for studios.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Though I'm sure if anyone was to offer him a choice between the DVD or blu-ray of the same movie for free, or the studios were to sell every blu for the same price as the DVD, he would choose the blu-ray in almost every circumstance.

I only have blu ray/1080p capability in only one room in my house, seeing how I watch a lot movies on my laptop and many movies on my small widescreen tv in my office, I would choose a dvd over a blu ray if given the choice. I already do that in many circumstances when I rent from the library where they have the blu ray and dvd side by side.

But, if it were the Dark Knight Rises with the IMAX sequences, or Sound of Music, or maybe Patton...I would go with the blu ray.

[ack_bak]

To answer the original OP, "Why did Blu-Ray not take off like DVD?"

The answer is complicated. DVD was simply in the right place at the right time. VHS was cumbersome and expensive and the studios and retailers were more than happy to push VHS out the door. DVD was smaller to stock on store shelves, and was cheaper to manufacture. DVD offered a whole revolutionary experience versus VHS such as not having to rewind movies, having chapters and navigation menus, improved quality, smaller form factor, extra features, etc, etc. Again, right place at the right time.

Blu-Ray is almost entirely an improvement on PQ/AQ. Yes, there are some additional advanced features, but outside of PQ/AQ, the format is not quite as revolutionary as DVD was to VHS. It is more expensive to manufacture than DVD. Blu-Ray is often more expensive to buy for the consumer and many people are simply content with paying less and getting lesser quality.

In addition, there are a lot of mediums to get content. DVD. Streaming. Cable and sat on-demand and VOD. Redbox vending machines. Etc. Consumers have never had so much choice in delivery and content wit home video, so we may never see a single format dominate the way DVD did for years.

The American public, for the most part, is content with still watching content in standard definition. Look at cable/sat channels and streaming for example. The vast majority of content is standard definition and people seem content with it.

Aside from all this though, look at the revenue. Optical media, which includes both Blu-Ray and DVD, is still a huge cash cow. Collectors still flock to optical disc in droves and spend billions of dollars a year buying shiny discs. That is not going to change anytime soon. I think digital movie sales will continue to grow slowly, but I see that medium as more of a rental medium and I suspect many collectors, like myself, will continue to buy packaged optical media because it gives us the best experience at a reasonable price. Best PQ, best AQ, extra features, media artwork, etc. We collect. We like the tangible case that we can hold in our hands.

Blu-Ray is most definitely a successful format. Not as big as DVD was, but I would argue that we may never have another format like DVD again. It (Blu) pulls in billions of dollars a year in revenue in North America alone and there is still more upside to the format. I don't see it going anywhere. For many years to come it will still offer the best PQ/AQ and 1080p will be the standard for years to come. I don't see any of this changing in the next 5+ years.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

I only have blu ray/1080p capability in only one room in my house, seeing how I watch a lot movies on my laptop and many movies on my small widescreen tv in my office, I would choose a dvd over a blu ray if given the choice. I already do that in many circumstances when I rent from the library where they have the blu ray and dvd side by side.

But, if it were the Dark Knight Rises with the IMAX sequences, or Sound of Music, or maybe Patton...I would go with the blu ray.

I don't see why you would not want to go with more pixels. Even on a laptop or smaller screen Blu-Ray is superior. You don't need a large 1080p screen to see the difference, and from a rental perspective, the cost increase is marginal at best.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by biznus97

Right, the next big selling point is NO disc for a lot of people. Heck, if I could get PQ and AQ superior to BD and still get all the features I'd support it. While I love collecting films, I don't necessarily love collecting discs.
However, I don't see digital distribution being done as cleanly as it is in other markets like PC games (i.e. Steam). There you have an account that allows you to download the game as many times as you need to so for me there is no worry about disc failure. If digital movies can be delivered like that I'd be fine with it. It would also make things like recalls a lot simpler. Though I'm not sure that would be a good thing for studios.

Ultraviolet is supposed to address a lot of these concerns, but for me, until streaming/downloads can match (or even better exceed) the quality of Blu-Ray from a PQ/AQ perspective it is tough to even consider buying or renting movies this way. I do like the convenience factor, but I buy most of my movies via Amazon. Shipped to my door in 2 days via Prime and I don't have to buffer, download, jump through hoops, etc. Put in the movie and it plays....

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by ack_bak

I don't see why you would not want to go with more pixels. Even on a laptop or smaller screen Blu-Ray is superior. You don't need a large 1080p screen to see the difference, and from a rental perspective, the cost increase is marginal at best.

My laptop cant do blu ray nor can my small office tv.

[biznus97]

Originally Posted by ack_bak

Ultraviolet is supposed to address a lot of these concerns, but for me, until streaming/downloads can match (or even better exceed) the quality of Blu-Ray from a PQ/AQ perspective it is tough to even consider buying or renting movies this way. I do like the convenience factor, but I buy most of my movies via Amazon. Shipped to my door in 2 days via Prime and I don't have to buffer, download, jump through hoops, etc. Put in the movie and it plays....

Agreed. I just won't be sticking to BD when/if a superior downloadable format is available and addresses my loss of library concern. It's the same reason I moved on to Blu-ray when the pricing became tempting and the releases continued to get better. Better quality is better quality.

[Bluprint]

Because America like alot of other places is all about the cheaper alternative. Add that with the average consumer belief that the TV makes it look good and not the player or disc then surround that with first quarter prices of hardware and software and we have the answer

[img eL]

Originally Posted by biznus97

Agreed. I just won't be sticking to BD when/if a superior downloadable format is available and addresses my loss of library concern.

When/if? If that's the case you will be sticking with Blu ray for a long time to come.

[biznus97]

Originally Posted by img eL

When/if? If that's the case you will be sticking with Blu ray for a long time to come.

Nobody's arguing that . We can talk about it in the "Why didn't digital downloads take off like Blu-ray?" thread in the future. .

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by biznus97

Right, the next big selling point is NO disc for a lot of people. s.

Of course, and that is already here, I know a few people who do not care to store blu rays, books, or cds.

The future for ownership will be bluray, the future for renting and mass consumption will be streaming and downloading. Some movies are just fine on iTunes or Netflix, but something like The Dark Knight Rises begs to be watched on blu ray......not so for a movie like Driving Miss Daisy or Hope Springs....

[mig0]

Originally Posted by biznus97

Nobody's arguing that . We can talk about it in the "Why didn't digital downloads take off like Blu-ray?" thread in the future. .

In the future? We should be talking about that now. Digital downloads should be booming with all those ipads and iphones sold, all those android devices. Roku wishes that set top box sold like blu-ray players.

[img eL]

Originally Posted by mig0

In the future? We should be talking about that now. Digital downloads should be booming with all those ipads and iphones sold, all those android devices. Roku wishes that set top box sold like blu-ray players.

Digital downloading streaming is booming, the video & audio quality of streaming is not booming

[MStallard]

Originally Posted by img eL

Digital downloading streaming is booming, the video & audio quality of streaming is not booming

I think that is the issue though. I dont think people think about what they are going to do in the future if there is a lack of physical media. Think about streaming an 4 or 8k film. . . .yowzers. . .

streaming is great for availability, but for quality, not so much. . .

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by mig0

In the future? We should be talking about that now. Digital downloads should be booming with all those ipads and iphones sold, all those android devices. Roku wishes that set top box sold like blu-ray players.

studios need to get out of the US-only mindset if they want digital and other mediums to take off. i find it funny that they use Ultaviolet as a selling feature here in Canada but the small print says "United States only". same with some of the features on the blurays. but it is a matter of market. in Asia, video-cd was still selling big time long after dvd was introduced. if i read right, there is still some version of HD-DVD being produced there too.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by MStallard

streaming is great for availability, but for quality, not so much. . .

Streaming is good enough for those who just really want to watch the movie. I have watched many movies via streaming, just watched The Tourist on Netflix the other day, a movie on my laptop on YouTube, and DVD last night in up conversion on my blu ray player and very soon the Dark Knight Rises. I would not of watched the the YouTube movie on blu ray nor would it be worth watching the Tourist on bluray either.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm sure that's how you're using 'draw a line' and I don't disagree. At some point companies have to look at the numbers and say 'okay, this is done...time to move on'.

But that's not the sense I get when I usually see calls for studios to stop producing DVDs. When people talk about killing DVD they're usually arguing that studios should take away the 'bad' choice so that consumers will be more inclined to make the 'right' choice and that's simply not necessary.

It is true, I have seen in the past where someone has said studios should stop DVD “now”, so I can understand that pointing out when that line does not make sense (and I have done when I have seen that.)

But I did not really see something like that in the post you originally replied to, and definitely there was none of that in my post when I originally replied to you when you first objected to drawing a line.

In the end, like you pointed out in this post “At some point companies have to look at the numbers and say 'okay, this is done...time to move on’” and so there is nothing wrong with talking about “drawing a line” but there is something wrong with believing and saying “People will stop buying DVDs when they don't want DVDs anymore. That's why companies don't have to draw lines or pick winners and losers”. A company can’t wait until that point to drop an old dying format, a retailer can’t go out and say “I will buy 5 copies of the new movie on the old format just in case someone like pagemaster will decide once in the store that this title is not worth the price difference and so he will prefer to pay less and buy the old format instead” just to eventually sell one copy on the old format (because 4 out of 5 looking at that decision for that movie decided it was worth the extra $) after many months and several price drops and they lose money since the 5 copies they bought from the studio (distributor) cost them more than the profit made on the one that was sold. It is also equally hard for the studio, they need to decide what to produce (quantities and formats) months before they are on store shelves and bought by the public.

You can’t say X’s statement was extreme and unreasonable and so I make a claim that is even more ridiculous.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Streaming is good enough for those who just really want to watch the movie. I have watched many movies via streaming, just watched The Tourist on Netflix the other day, a movie on my laptop on YouTube, and DVD last night in up conversion on my blu ray player and very soon the Dark Knight Rises. I would not of watched the the YouTube movie on blu ray nor would it be worth watching the Tourist on bluray either.

It is good enough for people who have low standards. Me, not so much.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by biznus97

Nobody's arguing that . We can talk about it in the "Why didn't digital downloads take off like Blu-ray?" thread in the future. .

why the future? that is what I find interesting. If you look at people in tun with the industry they see BD as doing well while on the other hand http://www.homemediamagazine.com/tks...ling-downloads

EST, for “electronic sellthrough,” remains essentially a nonstarter."

digital DL is going no where. On the other hand here we have to pretend DL is doing well enough or some fan boys will start *****ing and moaning and BD is not doing well.

[biznus97]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

why the future? that is what I find interesting. If you look at people in tun with the industry they see BD as doing well while on the other hand http://www.homemediamagazine.com/tks...ling-downloads digital DL is going no where. On the other hand here we have to pretend DL is doing well enough or some fan boys will start *****ing and moaning and BD is not doing well.

Because we are busy talking about why Blu-ray didn't take off like DVD.