Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Bk_Tan]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The question still remains as to which will achieve significant market share first: digital downloads or BD (not that they can't co-exist.) In the music market, consumers chose convenience over quality with compressed MP3 downloads (although the thing that really killed the music market was the move back from albums to single sales, a factor that doesn't exist for movies.)

I guess I've never had the ability to listen to a track and compare between lossy and lossless but having probably not heard any lossless track, I'll say that it doesn't matter if I do.

Visually, I can see the difference between a DVD and a Blu or a clip of anything in SD and HD but I can't judge what is a good audio standard.

I assume it is harder to tell the difference and of course being part of the generation that grew up with mp3s its the accepted standard so it is harder to break.

What we need is for the film industry is to establish Blu-Ray quality as a standard before digital downloading takes off in a big way, if that is done, consumers will be more willing or likely to only accept Blu-Ray standard and thus the option for HD will replace SD and that will be what everyone bases their comparisons on. If they fail, then convenience will beat out quality because people will be willing to accept a lower quality version for a lower price, as most people will do for non-essentials. Basically you want the industry to be like the tech industry where quality gets better and becomes the standard with each release and not like the music industry where people can't tell the difference or have lived with it so long that it is simply accepted.

What they have going for them now is most pirated copies suck. Yes, people seem to not mind, but that's because it's free. For music, you, or at least I, can't tell the difference between a pirated file and one that isn't so between choosing free and a price there is but one option. So like I said, we have to hope that Blu establishes itself or at least HD does, before digital downloading takes over, that gives us quite a few more years so it shouldn't be too hard.

As for why Blu-Ray should potentially be the last mass consumer physical media, the incremental upgrade in picture and sound quality is the answer. As someone already said, it will be near impossible to tell the difference without huge, unaffordable and inefficient screens once you reach a certain resolution. It was inevitable that the point would be reached because there is only so much an upgrade can be, DVD was as popular as it was because of the monumental difference between VHS but as we all know Blu is not as big an upgrade and to some, doesn't even warrant an upgrade. It is not feasible to have a further format when Blu-Ray has not sold as much as DVD and when the improvement in quality is exponentially less noticeable. The studios would be shooting themselves in the feet, if anything they should get 100GB discs on the market, given it will take away the "2-disc" marketing tool but most people only watch the movie anyway.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

What we need is for the film industry is to establish Blu-Ray quality as a standard before digital downloading takes off in a big way, if that is done, consumers will be more willing or likely to only accept Blu-Ray standard and thus the option for HD will replace SD and that will be what everyone bases their comparisons on. If they fail, then convenience will beat out quality because people will be willing to accept a lower quality version for a lower price, as most people will do for non-essentials.

The industry is already doing far more in terms of BD releases than it should be if you consider the size of the market and the returns. Look at the best-seller list and you'll see that after the fourth or fifth best selling title in any week, titles are selling from 4% to 15% of the best-selling title, which isn't much. Furthermore, in 2009, BD achieved only about a 15% market share for physical media. And, while I still think many BD titles are priced too high in terms of what the market is now willing to pay (or maybe what I'm willing to pay), both player and title prices have dropped much faster than I ever expected, although prices have rebounded from their incredible lows during the holiday sale season.

Also, if you look at the history of electronics in the last few decades, people have only paid for quality if it also coincided with cheap pricing. Laserdisc, Betamax, SACD and DVD-Audio were total failures. Back in the vinyl days, higher quality pressings, like those from Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, were a small niche market. As I've written earlier, the market has overwhelmingly accepted compressed MP3s because of their convenience. There are more portable devices playing movies on 3" screens than there are large HDTV screens in homes. In the case of HDTV, the only reason people are paying the prices for these sets is because, in essence, they were forced to by the elimination of analog broadcasting in the U.S. and because of the demise of CRT manufacturing.

In audio, we've come a far way from the 1950's-1970's when there was an emphasis on "Hi-Fi" and we had the golden age of audio engineering where companies were run by the guy who designed the products and each product line had a distinct sound which embodied the design concepts of its founder: Avery Fisher, H.H. Scott, Henry Kloss, Edgar Vilchur (AR), Sidney Harmon, Bernard Kardon, Saul Marantz, etc., just to name a few.

Sure, there's esoteric audio, but that appeals to a tiny percentage of very rich people.

So IMO, I think it's a miracle that BD has achieved what it has so far, but unless the prices come down enough that it becomes de-facto and manufacturers pretty much stop making DVD players because BD players can be manufactured for the same cost, it could still never become more than another niche medium. But even if only BD players are made, there are still millions of DVD players in homes and it will be years before they are mostly replaced so there will continue to be DVD releases for a very long time.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The industry is already doing far more in terms of BD releases than it should be if you consider the size of the market and the returns. Look at the best-seller list and you'll see that after the fourth or fifth best selling title in any week, titles are selling from 4% to 15% of the best-selling title, which isn't much.

1/30

#5 BD 6.93%
#5 DVD 14.09

BD% of #1 title for the week: 46%

1/23

#5 BD 30.11%
#5 DVD 26.27%

BD% of #1 title for the week: 32%

1/16

#5 BD 18.86%
#5 DVD 20.86%

BD% of #1 title for the week: 45%

1/9

#5 BD 43.20%
#5 DVD 43.82%

BD% of #1 title for the week: 41%

1/2

#5 BD 56.96
#5 DVD 65.13%

BD% of #1 title for the week: 44%

It mirrors DVD sales though.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by kdo

Good question, but again, this is only one title we're talking about.

It is not only one title. I used that title because it sold twice as many BDs and I could say the vast majority. There are many titles that sold more on BD and you can go all the way back to Avatar if you want to see when BD sold for the first time around as many disks as the DVD.

What purpose does this question serve? As if the fact that I don't know all the people in the world is going to change things?

it is not that you don't know all the 7B people,
If you where talking about 6B people then it is extremely significant
If you where talking about 1B then that is statisticly significant
If it is 1M then it is extremely relevent especialy if they are not limited in any way
If it is 1K people then it is an interesting bit of info
If it is 100 people then it is barely relevent and only if they cross sections of the population

But if ity is less then that then it is completely irrelevent and useless
I just want to know what it was.

All this talk about how the studios screwed up before is irrelevant, what's done is done.

you miss the point, it is extremely relevent. The reason they did not floud the market is they learnt the leson that needed learning. In essence you asked why did they not flood the market again and the answer is they learn the lesson and so are acting in a way that is better for them. All it means is that it might take a bit longer to get the BD of the movie someone wants.

They flooded the market and now the majority of the world's population (at least those that are somewhat interested in films) already own all the movies they want on a format that is acceptable to them (DVD that is).

no it is not. If people had the movies they wanted then no one would be buying DVDs now, there is a reason that even thought the top titles every week sell almost and many BDs as DVDs and some give BD a great advantage the total sales still advantage DVD. As to rebuying on BD, that is also completely wrong. I am sure if you look through peoples collections you will see the vast majority have some catalogue titles and before you reply "but that is for people taht visite this site, then explain how Gladiator and Braveheart both made the top 10 of DVD+BD chart when they got released on BD https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-te...ml#post2303148

Problem now, is that the studios are trying to figure out how they're going to keep most people rebuying their products, and make a profit at it. In a lot of ways, the studios sold themselves out with DVD, and now a good chunk of the world (myself included), really has no further use for them. Other than a few catalogue titles I'm waiting on (which for the most part I could really care less if and when they make it to Blu), I've no further use for the film industry. I'm not interested in 3-D, I refuse to pay the ridiculous price to see all the new garbage that comes out at the theaters (which is why I've been to the movies about only 10 times in the past 10 years), and I don't plan on ever replacing the movies I currently have on DVD and/or Blu-ray. I think a lot of what might be going on right now, is the studios trying to figure out how they're going to keep afloat in the future, when physical media isn't going to be selling, and people will do with movies, what they've done with music (just get it all for free, or dirt cheap...)

1) there have always been bad movies and there will always be bad movies. On the other hand there have always been good movies and there will always be good movies. No one can take anyone taht says there is no more good movies that are made (or taht it is just a few) at all seriously.

2) No one is asking you to re-buy the movies you bought on DVD again, many people are, if you want to admit it or not. And using the number of catalogue titles released on BD as an example does not work and I already explained the real reason before.

3) if people pirate that is a different story, if people don't want to re-buy that is also a different story as well. But what advantage do I hav if I buy a movie from Vudu or Appple over BD since it is not cheaper and if we move the discussion to rental the same will apply to that.

They haven't. But most of the new stuff is junk.

but most of the old stuff was junk too. The difference is that you don't remeber the junk just teh few jems that came out in those years.

Yes, BD is growing alright, at an extremely slow, turtle-like pace.

so basically roughly doubling every year is slow. That is like saying the Concord was a slow way to travel.

That's a matter of personal opinion, and I disagree.

not at all, that is a scientific fact that can easily be measured by comparing the original to the BD and the DVD. Now if you care if BDs look better, that is an opinion but also completely useless since all it shows is the persons ignorance. And if it is worth the upgrade that is an opinion but it just shows the persons cheapness.



A few months makes absolutely no difference here. Even 5 years from now, if it's still going somewhat strong, Blu will most likely be nowhere near the 20,000 title mark.[/QUOTE]

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

However, in 2010, DVD had a decline in revenue of 5.7% and Blu-ray had an increase of 28.69%. So while DVD is still killing BD in terms of overall size of market, it's not exactly kicking butt with a 5.7% decline in revenue.

they don't brake down DVD but BD sales actually grew 68% not 28.69% as you mentioned http://www.degonline.org/pressreleases/2011/f_Q410.pdf

Also, one can make the case that it doesn't matter what the overall market is doing because that constitutes a very large number of titles that sell tiny amounts each. That the only thing that counts are the current hits because that's where all the sales are. And if you look at that, BD is doing better than the above numbers imply, although it's still not the majority of sales for most titles.

it is not that the whole market does not matter, it is the way evolution works.

There are a lot of discounted DVDs because at some point there where a lot of new DVDs. The way I like to simplify it is if the new titles on BD get high enough and a studio decides they won't release X on DVD then X will never end up in the DVD garbage bin for the garbadge bin shopper to buy. The “whole market” is trailing the “new market” because cheap people will tend to buy from the bargain bin and stay longer with DVD, but the bargain bins exist because enough people still buy new DVDs so new movies are still added to them several months later.

An other reason is that someone will buy one copy of a movie, so if we take title X and it sold 33% or 50% or 67% on BD you can easily assume that it shows the % of people interested in that title and that format (i.e. the people where interested 2:1 for DVD or 1:1 or 2:1 for BD) but if at a store they sold one BD for 15$ and 4 DVDs for 5$ you don’t know if they where sold to the same person, one guy that bought a 15$ Bd and an other guy that spent 20$ for 4 DVDs or 5 different individuals. And if it is the last case then you need 4 people to go Blu in order to change that while if it is the second one if that guy that bought the 4 DVDs gets a BD player and next time he buys BDs then it becomes 100% BD

Thirdly (I think it was your point) let’s face it, if we use the above example 1BD for 15$ and 4DVDs for 20$ the 4 DVDs have more revenue but that is still 4 DVDs and most likely the BD for 15$ will have more profit.

Also, if you combine DVD and BD sales, the industry experienced an approximate 1.7% decline in 2010.

actually the whole home entertainment market declined, even if you add digital and PPV to the mix (look at report linked to above)

The question still remains as to which will achieve significant market share first: digital downloads or BD (not that they can't co-exist.) In the music market, consumers chose convenience over quality with compressed MP3 downloads (although the thing that really killed the music market was the move back from albums to single sales, a factor that doesn't exist for movies.)

I think it is a relatively safe bet, BD has 3x the market of DD and growing much faster (same link above it has BD & DD # and growth from last year. You can also look at previous years DEG reports and you will see the same thing.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

That was not the point i was making, i fully agree it happens, and many people do it. What my point was, is that i do not agree that this messes with numbers or percentages or sales of any kind when it comes to new releases. The people who generally watch these bootlegs seem to do there very rare dvd purchasing at second hand used type stores for $1 dvd's. These are not the people who would pay $20+ the day of release for a dvd and would see no benefit to blu-ray video or "lossless" sound.

I get what you are saying, and I agree that they probably would not be paying 20$+. But most of the people that I know who DL used to rent (and some had rental circles -rent, make X copies and pass them to the X that did not rent it). That would still be money out of the studios and Home entertainement. In th end it is bound to affect everything. Even in your example where they buy second hand, and the studio would not make a dime, if all the iligal DL went there then second hand prices would be much higher and that would mean discount bins would be a bit higher and maybe more would buy from them.

I always find it too easy to say that not all of them would have been sales as a defence to pirating. Unless I win a mega jackpot in the lottery I will never buy a Ferrari, I just can't afford it, but if I see one with the keys on it and take it, it does not change anything.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

I'm sorry, but how are you qualified to make this statement? Hell, who are you to even make a statement about DVDs?

Somebody's angry! I see I got under your skin. Wasn't my intent, sorry, but if you'll reread most of what I typed, you'll see that it's my opinion and nothing more. As for the statement regarding the future of the film industry, well, ok, maybe that was taking it a little far, but I still think most films that have come out in the past 10-15 years have been crap. As to how the movie industry will fare once people start downloading movies as much as they do music, well that remains to be seen. If it's any consolation, and if it makes you feel any better, I would say that music of the last 10 years has been worse than the films...

It hadn't even taken off when you allegedly stopped going to the cinema, or wait, was it all BS exaggeration, which obviously makes the post weaker than it already is.

Not sure what you're getting at here. All the films I own are catalogue titles, the only two I own from beyond the year 2000 are "Cast Away" and "Cinderella Man." I wouldn't give a nickel for the 10 or so films I've gone to see at the theaters since the year 2000, in fact, a lot of them I left the theater wanting my time and money back, even though I usually only paid $5 or less to get into each, and in most cases (cough - "Star Wars" prequels - cough) I wouldn't watch the films again if someone paid me to.

I wonder, what it is you exactly buy since you can't be buying all the junk that comes out?

Food, gasoline, toothpaste, etc...you know, the necessities .

Talk about ignorance and perceived superiority/elitism or should I just say a Chicken Little.

Yeah, I'm a perceived superior/elitist "Chicken Little" because I feel the entertainment industry (especially music and movies) has gone down the drain ...that's gotta be one of the funniest things I've heard in a while ...

Originally Posted by Anthony P

It is not only one title. I used that title because it sold twice as many BDs and I could say the vast majority. There are many titles that sold more on BD and you can go all the way back to Avatar if you want to see when BD sold for the first time around as many disks as the DVD.

Many? How many? 30 to 50 max maybe? Wow, that's pretty significant , especially considering the tens of thousands of movies that have been made, and how many of those titles are already on DVD and owned by consumers who will not rebuy them on Blu-ray...

it is not that you don't know all the 7B people,
If you where talking about 6B people then it is extremely significant
If you where talking about 1B then that is statisticly significant
If it is 1M then it is extremely relevent especialy if they are not limited in any way
If it is 1K people then it is an interesting bit of info
If it is 100 people then it is barely relevent and only if they cross sections of the population

But if ity is less then that then it is completely irrelevent and useless
I just want to know what it was.

So basically, since none of us know more than 100 people who have DVD and/or Blu-ray collections, we shouldn't assume any type of trend? Sorry, but that's like saying "The Beatles" can't be considered one of the biggest bands ever because I don't personally know more than 100 people who own and/or like any of their music.

you miss the point, it is extremely relevent. The reason they did not floud the market is they learnt the leson that needed learning. In essence you asked why did they not flood the market again and the answer is they learn the lesson and so are acting in a way that is better for them. All it means is that it might take a bit longer to get the BD of the movie someone wants.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. All I was trying to say was that the critical error has already been made, there's no way to fix it at this point, the damage has already been done. Thinking the solution to the problem is to more slowly release titles on Blu, is only going to turn more people over to DVD, digital downloading, streaming, or piracy. Like I said before, I'm patient and willing to wait, most of the rest of the population is not, and will simply resort to a quicker, cheapier, and easier method of acquisition. Here's an example: "American Ninja" (one of my favorite movies) is currently available on DVD only, it has been out on DVD for almost 10 years now, I'm sure that you can probably download it or stream it from any number of places. My guess is that most people who own this movie realize it's never going to look stellar without extremely extensive and top-notch treatment that we know MGM would never give it. Therefore, even if MGM did eventually release it on Blu, it's not going to be all that much better than DVD most likely (like "Escape From New York"). So here's the thing, MGM decides they're going to wait until 2013 to release "American Ninja" on Blu because they don't want to flood the market. In between now and then, how many more people who don't have the film already are simply going to get the DVD cheaply, stream it, pirate it, whatever? Lots. How many of those people are then going to buy "American Ninja" when it comes out on Blu with a cheap low-end release? A small fraction of those who already have the film...

All I'm saying is at this point, the longer the studios hesitate to release more films on Blu, the more likely the majority of consumers are going to be to abandon the format in favor of a quicker, cheaper, and easier solution. May some of those people end up picking up the Blu eventually? Sure, when it's dirt cheap for $7-$10. Other than that, most will just stay with what they've already got, whether it be DVD or download.

but most of the old stuff was junk too. The difference is that you don't remeber the junk just teh few jems that came out in those years.

Yes, I do remember it, but again, this is all a matter of personal opinion.

so basically roughly doubling every year is slow. That is like saying the Concord was a slow way to travel.

Funny that you mention it, but in a lot of ways Blu-ray is identical to the Concord (an elite, fancy, superior, and expensive alternative, that while offering an improvement in service, is not embraced by the majority of the population). While on the other hand is DVD, which in this case, is easily comparable to normal commercial airline transportation (it may not be quite as fancy, but it's more than acceptable). And also just like the Concord, Blu-ray could end up retired, or at the very best, remaining a niche product throughout the span of its life.

not at all, that is a scientific fact that can easily be measured by comparing the original to the BD and the DVD. Now if you care if BDs look better, that is an opinion but also completely useless since all it shows is the persons ignorance. And if it is worth the upgrade that is an opinion but it just shows the persons cheapness.

Yes, but a lot of the problem is that BD has failed, on many occassions, to provide the type of top-quality product that consumers expect at this point. Is it better than DVD, yes, is it as good as it could be? No. And that's just another reason as to why people are sidestepping the format. There has been some phenomenal releases on Blu, but more often than not there has been mediocrity.

[DVDave]

Originally Posted by kdo

Yes, but a lot of the problem is that BD has failed, on many occassions, to provide the type of top-quality product that consumers expect at this point. Is it better than DVD, yes, is it as good as it could be? No. And that's just another reason as to why people are sidestepping the format. There has been some phenomenal releases on Blu, but more often than not there has been mediocrity.

I do agree that it isn't as good as it can potentially be. I remember one of the biggest selling points when the format launched was disc capacity but more often than not we get just bare-bones releases of catalog titles and the extras are simply ported over from the DVD releases in SD and usually they come on a DVD! There's nothing more irritating than getting the exact same content I already got on the DVD and only SD quality trailers. Granted some content was only produced in SD but I would like the trailers in HD but the studios usually cheap out. Basically we end up getting the same disc we got on DVD with the movie-only in HD. The format should showcase the potential of the format to include everything and the kitchen sink and only few select titles really use Blu-ray to its full potential.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by DVDave

I do agree that it isn't as good as it can potentially be. I remember one of the biggest selling points when the format launched was disc capacity but more often than not we get just bare-bones releases of catalog titles and the extras are simply ported over from the DVD releases in SD and usually they come on a DVD! There's nothing more irritating than getting the exact same content I already got on the DVD and only SD quality trailers. Granted some content was only produced in SD but I would like the trailers in HD but the studios usually cheap out. Basically we end up getting the same disc we got on DVD with the movie-only in HD. The format should showcase the potential of the format to include everything and the kitchen sink and only few select titles really use Blu-ray to its full potential.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Cevolution]

Blu-ray hasn't failed and certainly isn't a failure either. Considering what the format has been up against I actually think it's done quite well. Blu-ray has had to battle through 3 major issues since it's release 4 and a half years ago, which a lot of people seem to disregard. The 1st being that blu-ray was released just before the biggest financial hardship the world had seen for over 60 years which people are still suffering from. The 2nd is that blu-ray also has had to contend with digital downloading and streaming right from the start, which is something that dvd didn't have to go through early on in it's life. And the 3rd is that blu-ray also had to contend with an already existing format which is very similar (I'm not referring to P/AQ but more so just being another movie format on a disc that can do similar things) in the form of dvd, which has had an extra 10-15 more years to establish itself.

It was obvious from the start that dvd was going to be a huge success and take over vhs, as it offered far more advantages, and could do things that people had never seen before or thought possible. I bought my 1st dvd player way back in 1999 for $1000, and I remember showing my girlfriend at the times parents how it worked, they were really impressed just over the fact that u didn't need to rewind a vhs tape, and all it required was to eject the disc. Though imaging if when dvd was released it was just another format which was almost identical to vhs, then it would have failed miserably.

Or imaging if blu-ray come before dvd where it was the 1st mainstream disc based format, and dvd was the new latest format (as crazy as that sounds considering blu-ray is a better technology), then blu-ray would now be the dominant format, and it would be dvd which is struggling and having to contend with blu-ray. The next format to come after dvd was always going to be a hard sell, so the reasons why blu-ray isn't and may never be as main stream as dvd has nothing to do with the technology itself, but rather a number of road blocks that has been put in front of it from the beginning which has created some pretty big disadvantages and has contributed to holding it back.

So with that being said, it's kind of ridiculous to ridicule blu-ray it self and label it as a failure when any problems the format might be having has got nothing at all to do with the technology, but rather a chain of unfortunate circumstances and events. What's happening with blu-ray now would have happened to any format to be released after dvd, it was inevitable, and was always going to be like this. If hd-dvd for example was the current format and blu-ray didn't exist, then hd-dvd would be contending with exactly the same issues.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by kdo

Many? How many? 30 to 50 max maybe? Wow, that's pretty significant , especially considering the tens of thousands of movies that have been made, and how many of those titles are already on DVD and owned by consumers who will not rebuy them on Blu-ray...

why would you consider the tens of thousands of movies that have ever been made, no one was buying BDs in the 1920's or 30's or 40's or 50's or 60's or 70's or 80's or 90's, BD did not exist, it only came out in 2006. And it would be ridiculous fo it to be outselling anything back then either. BD started outselling DVD mid last year

So basically, since none of us know more than 100 people who have DVD and/or Blu-ray collections, we shouldn't assume any type of trend? Sorry, but that's like saying "The Beatles" can't be considered one of the biggest bands ever because I don't personally know more than 100 people who own and/or like any of their music.

that is a stupid statement. The Beatles are one of the biggest band ever because they sold millions of copies of their songs what the 100 people you know think of them is immaterial. Let's say I go in the middle of the Amazon forest or some lost part in Asia or Africa and ask 100 people do you know the Beatles and they say no, would that mean the Beatles were not big? There was a girl in the Glee thread (TV forum) on this site that said she does not like the Beatles and none of her friends do, would that be a valid reason to say "no one likes the Beatles so they can’t be one of the biggest bands ever". If by luck a small number of friends mimic the rest of the population then yes it can be right, but if the number is small then it can be completely off. And in this case you and your friends don’t match the general population.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. All I was trying to say was that the critical error has already been made, there's no way to fix it at this point, the damage has already been done. Thinking the solution to the problem is to more slowly release titles on Blu, is only going to turn more people over to DVD, digital downloading, streaming, or piracy. Like I said before, I'm patient and willing to wait, most of the rest of the population is not, and will simply resort to a quicker, cheaper, and easier method of acquisition. Here's an example: "American Ninja" (one of my favorite movies) is currently available on DVD only, it has been out on DVD for almost 10 years now, I'm sure that you can probably download it or stream it from any number of places. My guess is that most people who own this movie realize it's never going to look stellar without extremely extensive and top-notch treatment that we know MGM would never give it. Therefore, even if MGM did eventually release it on Blu, it's not going to be all that much better than DVD most likely (like "Escape From New York"). So here's the thing, MGM decides they're going to wait until 2013 to release "American Ninja" on Blu because they don't want to flood the market. In between now and then, how many more people who don't have the film already are simply going to get the DVD cheaply, stream it, pirate it, whatever? Lots. How many of those people are then going to buy "American Ninja" when it comes out on Blu with a cheap low-end release? A small fraction of those who already have the film...

you are making several mistakes

1) escape from New York looks better on BD, I would recommend you buy it
2) I am relatively sure American Ninja will be WB, Ted Turner bought MGM and then split it apart the original owners got back the MGM studio but he kept the back catalogue, mostly all the pre 1986 movies (except for some franchises like Bond) staid with Turner broadcasting which was then bought by Warner. That is why movies like Wizard of Oz where made by MGM but are distributed by WB
3) you pointed out that you have the DVD, are you planning on buying it again? if not then it is not generating sales from you for DVD, the reality is that for many of these old films people that wanted the DVD have it, it won't sell many copies in the next few months or years. Unless there is a reason like the BD.

All I'm saying is at this point, the longer the studios hesitate to release more films on Blu, the more likely the majority of consumers are going to be to abandon the format in favor of a quicker, cheaper, and easier solution. May some of those people end up picking up the Blu eventually? Sure, when it's dirt cheap for $7-$10. Other than that, most will just stay with what they've already got, whether it be DVD or download.

but there is no quicker, cheaper, easier solution. If they wanted the DVD they bought it already, if they don't want it then they won't be buying it now. Now you will say "but people still buy crappy old movies on DVD in the garbadge bin", yes but if that person does not have a BD player or is just interested in the movie because it is cheap, then having the BD out won't help.

The issue is simple and most people are like this, I go to the store and there are 100 new movies on the shelf, can I afford to get all of them (assuming they are good enough) ? no I might buy 2-3. The next time I am movie shopping, let's say there are 100 new movies again, the same applies and again I buy some. There is no way I (or anyone else) can afford them all. If I buy new movies (these can be catalogue by new I mean new to the store shelf) I am willing to pay top dollar, but for the 90+ I did not buy when they came out, I will only buy them when they are cheap. The studio hurt the value of those films for me. The issue gets worst, go check some of the other forums here, because there are so many good titles that have been out on BD for some time many have already switched to "might as well buy movies that are cheaper because they have been out for some time".

Yes the studios did the mistake with DVD, that is why sales revenue started falling in 2004 before many people even had DVD players. You acknowledge it was a mistake and now you are pretending it is a bad sign because even though you say that you agree you fail to realize the studios don't wish to repeat the same mistake.

Funny that you mention it, but in a lot of ways Blu-ray is identical to the Concord (an elite, fancy, superior, and expensive alternative, that while offering an improvement in service, is not embraced by the majority of the population). While on the other hand is DVD, which in this case, is easily comparable to normal commercial airline transportation (it may not be quite as fancy, but it's more than acceptable). And also just like the Concord, Blu-ray could end up retired, or at the very best, remaining a niche product throughout the span of its life.

no man, the analogy does not work. The issue with the Concord compared to the other jets was that it was noisy, extremely expensive in gas, had very limited number of seats and needed special runways. There are no such issues between BD and DVD for under 100$ a person can get a BD player and the price of movies is very similar. BD only has advantages over DVD.


Also you need to read the definition of Niche, when something sells more then the other it is hard to be credible and call it niche compared to the other one which you believe is mainstream

Yes, but a lot of the problem is that BD has failed, on many occassions, to provide the type of top-quality product that consumers expect at this point. Is it better than DVD, yes, is it as good as it could be? No. And that's just another reason as to why people are sidestepping the format. There has been some phenomenal releases on Blu, but more often than not there has been mediocrity.

No it has not, how do you know what "top-quality" is ? can you share with us your experience with all these none top quality films? you know tell us where there is an issue between the BD and the original digital master that you saw with your own two eyes?

As for better then DVD, that is almost all that matters, since I can't buy the digital master used for the BD or the original film print to make my own digital copy. I have limited choices and out of all of them BD offers the much better experience. If that you don't care for quality then stop pretending it is because BDs are mediocre. And if it is because you are cheap then the same applies as well. But if you care about quality and mediocre is the top quality then why would you live with terrible when mediocre is 10 steps up. I bet you if your boss came and told you I will give you a X$ raise you think , no man that is mediocre, I want a Y$ raise or I might as well stay with what I am making now.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Blu-ray hasn't failed and certainly isn't a failure either...

If hd-dvd for example was the current format and blu-ray didn't exist, then hd-dvd would be contending with exactly the same issues.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

As for better then DVD, that is almost all that matters, since I can't buy the digital master used for the BD or the original film print to make my own digital copy. I have limited choices and out of all of them BD offers the much better experience. If that you don't care for quality then stop pretending it is because BDs are mediocre. And if it is because you are cheap then the same applies as well. But if you care about quality and mediocre is the top quality then why would you live with terrible when mediocre is 10 steps up. I bet you if your boss came and told you I will give you a X$ raise you think , no man that is mediocre, I want a Y$ raise or I might as well stay with what I am making now.

Rather than continuing on arguing back and forth (and getting nowhere) with these massive amounts of text, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that . I'm obviously in one camp regarding the future of the format and you're in another. It's clear we both support and appreciate Blu in our own ways, otherwise we wouldn't be on here, but I don't feel that anything we have to say to each other at this point is going to sway us in our stances. But I will say that I honestly hope Blu's future is as bright and promising as you're imagining/foreseeing it to be...

1) escape from New York looks better on BD

In my opinion, barely...I own it, and don't feel the quality is anything to write home about, and in all honesty, if I could go back, I wouldn't have spent the $11 on it that I did.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

BD started outselling DVD mid last year

In what universe? In 2010, BD achieved a 15.2% market share (in dollars).

Yes, there were a very few titles in which BD sales hit the 50% mark in some weeks, but those were a very few titles. Looking at the latest sales figures of the top 20 titles (01/30/2011), only Inception hit the 50% mark. The #1 title, Red, is at 46% and the #2 title, Secretariat is at 30%.

So I don't know how you can say that BD started outselling DVD mid last year. It's not even close.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

In what universe? In 2010, BD achieved a 15.2% market share (in dollars).

On individual titles. On the highest selling individual titles.

Only reason DVD holds such a huge market share still is the thousands of DVDs which are exclusively available on DVD. If you look at only the top selling items, Blu-ray holds a LOT more than "15.2%".

[Malik True]

Pro-B

When did the discussion enter the classroom where now one must produce graphs, trends and analysis for credibility?

If you choose to completely disregard any of my statements, that’s fine however I am not going to go searching for data to support my beliefs, it’s not that important. My statements are based what I’ve read, what I’ve seen and what others are doing or have done, as trekdude mentioned in regards to his 17 yr old cousin. Do you disagree that DVD is STILL the dominant player in home video? Here we are fourteen years later and it’s still around doing well enough. Do you think Blu-ray which is not at its peak although rapidly approaching will survive as long as DVD and generate similar player sales that what would have to be behemoth at this point between now an 2018? I do not, this is one of the reasons why it's a niche market.

As for your statement suggesting streaming is not yet viable. Part of the definition of the word is workable. Streaming is more than workable, there's currently enough broadband & fiber is in place to make it more than workable.
Amazon, Xfinity (Comcast), Vudu (Wal-Mart), Hulu, RedBox and Neflix, AppleTV and CinemaNow(Best-Buy) are all maneuvering to become the streaming leader. I doubt they would invest resources into the unpractical or unachievable. Obviously you and I disagree on numerous aspects from the longevity of Blu and the future of streaming. Time will continue to show it's hand on what will materialize...

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

In what universe? In 2010, BD achieved a 15.2% market share (in dollars).

Yes, there were a very few titles in which BD sales hit the 50% mark in some weeks, but those were a very few titles. Looking at the latest sales figures of the top 20 titles (01/30/2011), only Inception hit the 50% mark. The #1 title, Red, is at 46% and the #2 title, Secretariat is at 30%.

So I don't know how you can say that BD started outselling DVD mid last year. It's not even close.

What percentage do individual BD titles have to hit to be more profitable than the DVD?

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Malik True

Pro-B

When did the discussion enter the classroom where now one must produce graphs, trends and analysis for credibility?

If you choose to completely disregard any of my statements, that’s fine however I am not going to go searching for data to support my beliefs, it’s not that important. My statements are based what I’ve read, what I’ve seen and what others are doing or have done, as trekdude mentioned in regards to his 17 yr old cousin. Do you disagree that DVD is STILL the dominant player in home video? Here we are fourteen years later and it’s still around doing well enough. Do you think Blu-ray which is not at its peak although rapidly approaching will survive as long as DVD and generate similar player sales that what would have to be behemoth at this point between now an 2018? I do not, this is one of the reasons why it's a niche market.

As for your statement suggesting streaming is not yet viable. Part of the definition of the word is workable. Streaming is more than workable, there's currently enough broadband & fiber is in place to make it more than workable.
Amazon, Xfinity (Comcast), Vudu (Wal-Mart), Hulu, RedBox and Neflix, AppleTV and CinemaNow(Best-Buy) are all maneuvering to become the streaming leader. I doubt they would invest resources into the unpractical or unachievable. Obviously you and I disagree on numerous aspects from the longevity of Blu and the future of streaming. Time will continue to show it's hand on what will materialize...

So far I haven't directed a comment at u and u haven't to me either, so this will be the 1st. Now I think u need to read my last post which is a couple above yours. After reading it, it would be a bit stupid of u to keep stating the obvious over and over. Of course dvd has a bigger share in the market and is the dominant format , because it was here 1st and has been around longer. It was the 1st mainstream disc based media format, and so it should for those reasons be the dominant format after being in the market for 14 years (actually dvd has only been in the market for 11 and a half years here in Australia, since mid 1999), as it's had more time to establish itself. Anyone who even bothers to state or argue that blu-ray will never reach the market that dvd has is a fool, not because u are wrong, but because that's kind of obvious, and is due to some of the factors and reasons I listed in my previous post, and also some from my post before it.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Rob71

What percentage do individual BD titles have to hit to be more profitable than the DVD?

Even if the top 20 sold 100% in Blu-ray, DVD would still probably hold a large portion... possibly even a majority.

DVD just has an ENORMOUS back catalog and even though each one of those DVDs that are years old might not sell well, putting them all together adds up to a far greater sum than BD has a chance to compare favorably against. This is why looking at it industry-wide doesn't provide a good understanding of what Blu-ray is doing exactly. Even if the best selling titles sold at 100%, Blu-ray would still not have even close to 100% industry-wide market share.

[Rolo01]

unless it play on the ps3. there will be no newer disc until the next playstation system comes out. playstation is apart of sony so I don't think they would want to lose there profit now. on blu-ray until blurays becomes old. blu-ray players are still expensive so theres not gonna be a new thing yet or something close to coming to yet. I'd say give it 7-8 years there will be a new developed technology and sony will be working on a new system to attach to the new format. Untill then i wouldn't even mention it.

[Malik True]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

So far I haven't directed a comment at u and u haven't to me either, so this will be the 1st. Now I think u need to read my last post which is a couple above yours. After reading it, it would be a bit stupid of u to keep stating the obvious over and over. Of course dvd has a bigger share in the market and is the dominant format , because it was here 1st and has been around longer. It was the 1st mainstream disc based media format, and so it should for those reasons be the dominant format after being in the market for 14 years (actually dvd has only been in the market for 11 and a half years here in Australia, since mid 1999), as it's had more time to establish itself. Anyone who even bothers to state or argue that blu-ray will never reach the market that dvd has is a fool, not because u are wrong, but because that's kind of obvious, and is due to some of the factors and reasons I listed in my previous post, and also some from my post before it.

Cevolution

My statement was directed specifically @ Pro-B. The bold type highlighted above I disagree with in a BIG WAY. I have also along with many others whom I agree with acknowledged why. As I responded to Pro-B time will indeed reveal all..