Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[DVDave]

Received this interesting info from our industry insider...

ADVANCED SERVICES/VOD/TECHNOLOGY
Most Consumers Not Interested In VOD
(TV Predictions, February 16)
Washington, D.C. (February 16, 2011) -- Will Video on Demand and Internet streaming soon replace hard media such as Blu-ray high-def discs and DVDs?
Well, a new report says that VOD at least has a long way to go before consumers think of it as their first choice in watching movies at home.
Home Media Magazine reports that a Centris Research survey of 40,000 adults found that 62 percent had either never heard of VOD, never used it or didn't know how to use it. Twenty-four percent said they had used VOD in the past month, but 13 percent said they had not.
The numbers are troubling for companies looking to replace hard media with less expensive distribution methods as VOD and Internet streaming (digital downloads.) VOD has been around for more than a decade but consumers still appear blissfully unaware of its features and benefits.
Similar studies have found that while Internet streaming gets an enormous amount of media attention, a relatively small percentage of Americans are actually watching videos over the Net.
Centris found that pay VOD actually declined one percent (15.5 to 14.5 percent) from November 2009 to November 2010, writes Home Media.
http://www.tvpredictions.com/vod021611.htm

Premium VOD Is Doomed If This Piracy Study Is Correct
(Paid Content, February 16)
A new PricewaterhouseCoopers study casts serious doubt on consumer willingness to pay for movies on digital platforms. Warning: Film-industry executives interested in reading further may want to first increase dosage of any anti-depressants they might be taking.
If, as recent comments made on media-conglomerate earnings calls would suggest, studios are gearing up to charge consumers $20-25 to watch movies in their homes two months or so after theatrical release, the new revenue stream known as premium VOD is headed for quite a bumpy ride.
The PwC study, which surveyed 202 adults last September who engaged in piracy, found that while 76 percent of respondents said “they are somewhat willing to pay a nominal fee if the content can be accessed closer to its release date,” consumers said they were willing to pay no more than $3 to download a movie and less than $1 for a TV program.
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-p...y-is-correct/#

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Teazle

"Chicken Little" thread ... There used to be an "Oh No The Sky Is Falling" megathread where all these would get merged into one great FUDball.

Those were the good old days. Although I'm sure the Mods don't miss the daily troll incursions.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Teazle

"Chicken Little" thread ... There used to be an "Oh No The Sky Is Falling" megathread where all these would get merged into one great FUDball.

Originally Posted by Rob71

Those were the good old days. Although I'm sure the Mods don't miss the daily troll incursions.

Some of 'the days' are still stored here; just go back about 100 pages on this board and re-live it.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Musashi

Some of 'the days' are still stored here; just go back about 100 pages on this board and re-live it.

Nah, that's what High Def Digest is for.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Nah, that's what High Def Digest is for.

By that do you mean thats what their current discussions are for, or their 100-page archives? Or both?

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Musashi

By that do you mean thats what their current discussions are for, or their 100-page archives? Or both?

No, they have a "smackdown" section that consists of a few former trolls booted from here still fighting the fight. Apparently Blu-ray is on the way out from what I gather.

[Bk_Tan]

Originally Posted by Rob71

No, they have a "smackdown" section that consists of a few former trolls booted from here still fighting the fight. Apparently Blu-ray is on the way out from what I gather.

I occasionally lurk that site and have seen you there. How in the hell do you put up with them?

I tried making an account to make a post about the nonsensical nature of the discussion but the verification email never popped up and there is no option to resend it so I decided, why bother, it's not like they have ever listened or engaged in proper discussion.

I can basically summarize why OD sales are declining and why Blu-Ray will never reach the same heights DVD did. DVD was a phenomenon, record household penetration, enormous upgrade over VHS, efficient etc so droves went to buy them and since there was decades of catalogue to mine, sales were huge and revenue as well.

Then, all the good titles were used up, studios released special editions to get people to double dip and whilst some were upgrades, others were cash-grabs and the novelty wore off special features that were crap. Studios had to rely on new release sales only, which trended to make most of the $ anyway.

Blu-Ray enters the market. Not as big an upgrade, people are comfortable with DVD quality for many titles, studios release barebones and half-baked efforts to force another dip, but people don't care enough. The well has been emptied too many times before. Catalogue except for big titles don't move as not cherished enough or not a noticeable upgrade. Sales do not make up because no one is buying catalogue like they did when DVD appeared. They have it and it is not novel.

Sales will continue to decline until they reach a plateau where Blu is dominant but nowhere near the peak of DVD. Sales will be 95% reliant on new releases thus the fluctuations between years will solely rely on quality of movies released to the cinema. I think it is a good model honestly because it relies solely on quality. If the studio wants to sell an old title they have to convince people why. No one is going to triple dip on crap like Year One now and no one will keep rebuying lousy movies. There will be fans of each movie and then would the studio have to concentrate on making a good package as no one else will be suckered into crap.

For all the hullabaloo of home entertainment being a dying industry, it is panic, short-sighted and stupid. How did they think it would continue to grow or continue to maintain the peak? The nature of the industry, of the product, is not so. The only way would be to consolidate titles that are great and keep them in public consciousness with solid constant marketing.

What I find laughable about those forums is that people like Gizmo have no life at all. It really speaks volumes that your life revolves around logging on to a forum only to trash what the forum is for, without any form of logic or intelligence and repeat it not only year in year out but day in day out in any topic. There are good posters with interesting knowledge hence I lurk sporadically but they too waste their time giving people like Gizmo attention. He never makes a solid argument, is too busy trying to be a troll and controversial and repeats what he says every day in every post. I mean, get a life, much? That's so sad, especially when I've just outlined everything here. It's fundamental and execs and doom and gloomers have to be pretty stupid not to see it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Rob71

Those were the good old days. Although I'm sure the Mods don't miss the daily troll incursions.

has it stopped?

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

I occasionally lurk that site and have seen you there. How in the hell do you put up with them?

Comic relief. I can honestly say, I still to this day am occasionally flabergasted by some of their posts. I can take Gizmo. He has plainly stated he is nothing more than a troll. What is funny though are the serious posters who line up lock step behind him and parrot his talking points. But I seriously think that they are all pretty much doing it for the same reason Gizmo does. I mean, I would hate to think that they are seriously that clueless.

I am being 100% honest when I say that I believe their "issue" is they so vehemently defended a format and got kicked in the junk by Warner. Most were able to look at it as a business decision and move on. Hell, most did within a couple weeks. Some saw the writing on the wall and changed even before Warner dropped the bomb. Those were the ones who were in this for the films. Who want the best quality. Take a look at the most voilently anti Blu-ray posters over there now. Do a search of their posts from '06-early '08. They all have something in common. Now their posts are habit more than anything. They would be lost without their "windmill*".

But like I said, it's fun to actually see what they'll come up with next.





* Sorry to just throw that Don Quixote reference in from nowhere.

[DVDave]

Define "market heights." Consumer adoption of Blu-ray was significantly faster than DVD. With big titles like Star Wars and Jurassic Park coming this year you will have even more consumers adopting the format for the first time.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Bk_Tan

I can basically summarize why OD sales are declining and why Blu-Ray will never reach the same heights DVD did. DVD was a phenomenon, record household penetration, enormous upgrade over VHS, efficient etc so droves went to buy them and since there was decades of catalogue to mine, sales were huge and revenue as well.

Then, all the good titles were used up, studios released special editions to get people to double dip and whilst some were upgrades, others were cash-grabs and the novelty wore off special features that were crap. Studios had to rely on new release sales only, which trended to make most of the $ anyway.

Blu-Ray enters the market. Not as big an upgrade, people are comfortable with DVD quality for many titles, studios release barebones and half-baked efforts to force another dip, but people don't care enough. The well has been emptied too many times before. Catalogue except for big titles don't move as not cherished enough or not a noticeable upgrade. Sales do not make up because no one is buying catalogue like they did when DVD appeared. They have it and it is not novel.

Sales will continue to decline until they reach a plateau where Blu is dominant but nowhere near the peak of DVD.
....

I never tire of disagreeing with this "huge upgrade" claim ... PQwise IMO BD is a much much bigger upgrade over DVD than DVD was over VHS. (Not so of course convenience-wise.) Some people out there, myself included, always regarded DVD as mediocre, basically home video's EDTV counterpart, and not worth investing in heavily esp. as HDTV was being introduced, unfortunately for DVD at the same time the latter was peaking. This brings me to my next point.

To me the reason catalogue BD sales haven't been to the studios' satisfaction is mostly b/c people have bought the same content (on DVD) too recently. Much too recently. It doesn't IMO have much to do with the quality difference, despite the difference being just tremendous. DVD launched very late in the standard-def era. Hordes of people didn't realize or didn't care that DVDs weren't future-proofed for a quality (i.e. hi-def) viewing experience even five years into the future. In short, Toshiba and the DVD consortium suckered them with a home video product with the lifespan of EDTV. Whereas good ol' VHS had a nice long 25-yr life. And BD now promises to have a similar lifespan.

Those prescient movie buffs such as myself (to pay myself a little compliment) who were not suckered into an ephemeral format are today laughing hard and loud at the losers who are continually whingeing about their once-pricey DVDs already being obsolete. We go ahead and splurge without scruple and without regret. For example, this morning I picked up Metropolis, Dr Zhivago, King Kong ('33), Network and Last Tango in Paris on BD. I congratulate myself on having had the foresight never to have bought those titles on DVD, which (to repeat) is a mediocre, ephemeral SD format.

For BD catalogue sales to improve two things need to happen:
1. Studios need to release more -- I'd say that the release rate of the mainstream Hollywood catalogue needs to increase by at least a third in '11-'12.
2. More calendar time probably has to elapse so that people won't feel "Hey I just bought this movie on DVD last year." Suckers!

I can see BD eventually attaining up to 80% market share since there will always be a place for DVD for video content originated at SD quality.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by DVDave

Define "market heights."

How about a car commercial touting a model with two blu-ray players for those times when one blu-ray player in your car won't quite cut it.

DVD's market penetration has been phenomenal. Home penetration is in the high nineties and many of those homes have mulitple players scattered about.

BD is doing just fine and will continue to do just fine but using DVD has the benchmark for success or failure might be setting the bar a bit high.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I never tire of disagreeing with this "huge upgrade" claim ... PQwise IMO BD is a much much bigger upgrade over DVD than DVD was over VHS. (Not so of course convenience-wise.) Some people out there, myself included, always regarded DVD as mediocre, basically home video's EDTV counterpart, and not worth investing in heavily esp. as HDTV was being introduced, unfortunately for DVD at the same time the latter was peaking. This brings me to my next point.

To me the reason catalogue BD sales haven't been to the studios' satisfaction is mostly b/c people have bought the same content (on DVD) too recently. Much too recently. It doesn't IMO have much to do with the quality difference, despite the difference being just tremendous. DVD launched very late in the standard-def era. Hordes of people didn't realize or didn't care that DVDs weren't future-proofed for a quality (i.e. hi-def) viewing experience even five years into the future. In short, Toshiba and the DVD consortium suckered them with a home video product with the lifespan of EDTV. Whereas good ol' VHS had a nice long 25-yr life. And BD now promises to have a similar lifespan.

Those prescient movie buffs such as myself (to pay myself a little compliment) who were not suckered into an ephemeral format are today laughing hard and loud at the losers who are continually whingeing about their once-pricey DVDs already being obsolete. We go ahead and splurge without scruple and without regret. For example, this morning I picked up Metropolis, Dr Zhivago, King Kong ('33), Network and Last Tango in Paris on BD. I congratulate myself on having had the foresight never to have bought those titles on DVD, which (to repeat) is a mediocre, ephemeral SD format.

For BD catalogue sales to improve two things need to happen:
1. Studios need to release more -- I'd say that the release rate of the mainstream Hollywood catalogue needs to increase by at least a third in '11-'12.
2. More calendar time probably has to elapse so that people won't feel "Hey I just bought this movie on DVD last year." Suckers!

I can see BD eventually attaining up to 80% market share since there will always be a place for DVD for video content originated at SD quality.

Gotta disagree. BD over DVD is not nearly the upgrade that DVD over VHS was:

1) PQ and AQ aside, DVD offered vast, practical improvements over VHS: chapter selection, no need to rewind, fast-forward, etc., much easier, more durable, more compact form factor, and so forth. It was a perennial step from analog to digital that held real advantages--even for those who might be aurally or visually impaired.

2) The advances in PQ and AQ in BD are inconsistent over their DVD counterparts. Many BD releases simply don't offer the sort 'wow' factor difference over their DVD counterparts to compel consumers (remember when DVD arrived and none of us had to adjust our 'tracking' anymore?...that was truly awesome). Moreover, with many home viewers watching on 720p sets using built-in TV sound, it's tough to argue that BD truly offers a more compelling experience for many consumers, especially considering those who escape to films purely for emotional impact, rather than for a technical showcase.

As a movie buff myself, I generally rent movies on DVD (selection is usually better on Netflix, or what have you), and then I make my BD purchase decisions from there. For my part, movies on BD are still luxury purchases, and with services like Netflix and other digital, on-demand-type options out there, I highly doubt my BD collection will ever grow as large as my DVD collection has.

[nolfoc]

Originally Posted by Sponge-worthy

Gotta disagree. BD over DVD is not nearly the upgrade that DVD over VHS was:

1) PQ and AQ aside, DVD offered vast, practical improvements over VHS: chapter selection, no need to rewind, fast-forward, etc., much easier, more durable, more compact form factor, and so forth. It was a perennial step from analog to digital that held real advantages--even for those who might be aurally or visually impaired.

2) The advances in PQ and AQ in BD are inconsistent over their DVD counterparts. Many BD releases simply don't offer the sort 'wow' factor difference over their DVD counterparts to compel consumers (remember when DVD arrived and none of us had to adjust our 'tracking' anymore?...that was truly awesome). Moreover, with many home viewers watching on 720p sets using built-in TV sound, it's tough to argue that BD truly offers a more compelling experience for many consumers, especially considering those who escape to films purely for emotional impact, rather than for a technical showcase.

As a movie buff myself, I generally rent movies on DVD (selection is usually better on Netflix, or what have you), and then I make my BD purchase decisions from there. For my part, movies on BD are still luxury purchases, and with services like Netflix and other digital, on-demand-type options out there, I highly doubt my BD collection will ever grow as large as my DVD collection has.

every BD is a wow factor compared to DVD.. BD shows us how a film is suppose to look.. grain and all, some movies that are over 30 years old look 1000 times better then they would on DVD.. its all about the Film stock and how it was shot etc. In a nutshell BD is a wow factor, its just too many people are way to picky and want everything DNR'd and EE to death i.e. Predator UHE.. fox gave hte people what they wanted and in reality they please both parties.. because the people that thought the first version waas ehh revisited it after the UHE release and realized how good it really was.. so i strongly disagree with you on this statement.. and i think its even more ridicilous that member on BD.COM would say that, you obviously saw some value in BD to believe it is the best to join this site.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by nolfoc

every BD is a wow factor compared to DVD.. BD shows us how a film is suppose to look.. grain and all, some movies that are over 30 years old look 1000 times better then they would on DVD.. its all about the Film stock and how it was shot etc. In a nutshell BD is a wow factor, its just too many people are way to picky and want everything DNR'd and EE to death i.e. Predator UHE.. fox gave hte people what they wanted and in reality they please both parties.. because the people that thought the first version waas ehh revisited it after the UHE release and realized how good it really was.. so i strongly disagree with you on this statement.. and i think its even more ridicilous that member on BD.COM would say that, you obviously saw some value in BD to believe it is the best to join this site.

So if a reviewer on this site gives a bad rating for video quality on a film, like say the new mega mind that has issues present does he hate the format? is it shocking that not every blu-ray they review is a 10 out of 10 even though they belong to this site.

Just because someone enjoys the format does not mean they drink the blu kool-aid. Unfortunetely attitudes like that are bad for the consumer as they allow studios to pass off sub par transfers, lossy audio tracks (not a biggie imo but still), and we end up with the quality of the original fifth element, full metal jacket, etc...

Your also completely overlooking how these higher resolutions are dependent on environment, screen sizes, viewing distances and the like. I think a ton of older movies have the wow factor and some don't even with a perfect transfer, because as you said these higher resolutions are also dependent on film stocks, lighting, preservation, directors vision, among a ton of other things. Just because someone does not take the position of blu-ray can do no wrong, does not mean they have ulterior motives, or a lesser love of the format etc.... Its surprising to me that this far into the format to where its nothing special anymore just the format i watch my movies on, people still act as if the forum is being attacked by red trolls.

Many people will not see a huge difference, and even those that see some difference will not as the other poster stated get the "wow" factor that will get them to buy into the format. Regardless of the tons of variables that effect HD viewing, you have to admit there have been plenty of movies out there that were hardly worth the upgrade, not to mention different countries getting a wide array of quality on the same releases. I have had to import a number of titles now and was shocked at how bad the american releases were.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I never tire of disagreeing with this "huge upgrade" claim ... PQwise IMO BD is a much much bigger upgrade over DVD than DVD was over VHS.

It is a lost cause. when someone can argue lossy over compressed audio is a big advantage over analogue and SD is a big advantage over SD while lossless does not have advantage over lossy and HD over SD is either misremembering what VHS and DVD where, is romanticizing DVD since it is the format they fell in love with , trying to convince themselves not to upgrade or just trolling.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Sponge-worthy

Gotta disagree. BD over DVD is not nearly the upgrade that DVD over VHS was:

1) PQ and AQ aside, DVD offered vast, practical improvements over VHS: chapter selection, no need to rewind, fast-forward, etc., much easier, more durable, more compact form factor, and so forth. It was a perennial step from analog to digital that held real advantages--even for those who might be aurally or visually impaired.

how are you disagreeing, the guy said

PQwise IMO BD is a much much bigger upgrade over DVD than DVD was over VHS. (Not so of course convenience-wise.)

how does dismissing the PQ/AQ argument and saying that DVD had a lot of convenience factors contradict what he said.


As for your convenience factors, the issue is that you decided to make a list for DVD.
if "chapter selection, no need to rewind, fast-forward..." then how is "bookmarks so that you can go to the exact second that you want, no need to rewind, fast-forward... from a chapter point" not just as an important a convenience factor?


if DVD is more durable then VHS, and that is good how is a scratch resistant hard coat that makes it much more durable not a benefit?

Many BD releases simply don't offer the sort 'wow' factor difference over their DVD counterparts to compel consumers .....

As a movie buff myself, I generally rent movies on DVD (selection is usually better on Netflix, or what have you), and then I make my BD purchase decisions from there. For my part, movies on BD are still luxury purchases, and with services like Netflix and other digital, on-demand-type options out there, I highly doubt my BD collection will ever grow as large as my DVD collection has.

Well maybe if you actually watched BDs instead of DVDs then you would experience the wow factor you assume is lacking on BDs over DVD. Comparing my many DVDs to my BD's I re-bought I have yet to not experience a wow factor on any of them.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

So if a reviewer on this site gives a bad rating for video quality on a film, like say the new mega mind that has issues present does he hate the format? is it shocking that not every blu-ray they review is a 10 out of 10 even though they belong to this site.

I don't read any of the reviews, and I don't know what qualifications a person needs to be a reviewer and I have not seen megamind. But I don't get your point. Let's say I take enough students for two classes and I take the smartest kids and put them in an advanced class and the dumber kids in the other. Will that mean that just because not every smart kid is as smart as the smartest one that they are not smarter then the dumb ones? As far as I know the reviewers don't compare BDs to DVDs but to other BDs.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

how are you disagreeing, the guy said


how does dismissing the PQ/AQ argument and saying that DVD had a lot of convenience factors contradict what he said.
.

Thank you for reading me carefully!

Re: the convenience issue, I reckon one day DLs will offer better convenience than disc but due to file sizes that day is a long way off (for HD movie sales for the mass market). Though I'm digressing.

[ZIPPO]

http://cnettv.cnet.com/8301-13489_53...l?tag=mncol;2n