Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Bluyoda]

Are humans perfect?

[Steedeel]

how does a cup of tea taste better after fish and chips!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You're arguing semantics. A format is dead when the industry loses interest in it because of declining sales, not when there isn't a single item produced. I think you can still send a telegram, but that doesn't mean that the telegram isn't dead. I think some manufacturer is still making audio cassettes, but I think we would all agree that it's a dead format. In 2009, the CD had an overall unit share of only 15.53%. Digital singles and albums had a unit share of 64.41%. Between 2008 and 2009 alone, the CD lost 20.5% in units and 21.9% in dollars. Although official 2010 numbers still haven't been released, the declines are expected to be even larger. That's not a viable business and the proof of that is that both EMI and Warner Music are for sale. Every major CD chain is gone: Tower Records, HMV, Virgin, etc.

CDs will never go away completely, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where they'd be in even greater decline than they already are.

This post makes no sense what so ever. CDs still have more then half the sales (in $ which is how people not interest5ed in BS use), why would anyone in his right mind talk aboiout derclining numbers and the labels deciding to drop it? If you where a label today and God told you you have to chose as it is today all VCDs disapear or all DL dissapear would you pick DL so that you would lose most of your sales? no you would keep the one that is still king.

But I'm the anachronism - that's not where the market is.

but CD is still for a little while longer possibly still where the market is, that is why CD sales still bring in more revenue then DL sales.

CDs will never go away completely, but it's hard to imagine a scenario where they'd be in even greater decline than they already are.

but look at 8-track, look at tapes, look at VHS, even look at DVD, they where/are all at much greater decline then CD is today or ever was. That is what dieing formats look like.

[Afrobean]

It's not really accurate to look at the obsoletion of the telegraph of 8track and compare it to the possibility of streaming taking the place of DVD/Blu-ray as the choice method for purchased home video distribution.

The telephone technologically obsoleted the telegraph. Audio cassettes and CDs obsoleted 8tracks. Commercial streaming won't come close to obsoleting Blu-ray's technical performance for foreseeable future. Internet connections won't be fast enough any time soon to match BD's available bitrate potential, and consumers aren't very interested in buying movies without a physical form.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It's not really accurate to look at the obsoletion of the telegraph of 8track and compare it to the possibility of streaming taking the place of DVD/Blu-ray as the choice method for purchased home video distribution.

The telephone technologically obsoleted the telegraph. Audio cassettes and CDs obsoleted 8tracks. Commercial streaming won't come close to obsoleting Blu-ray's technical performance for foreseeable future. Internet connections won't be fast enough any time soon to match BD's available bitrate potential, and consumers aren't very interested in buying movies without a physical form.

Actually, if you look at the history of media, consumers have almost always chosen convenience and price over quality, so the fact that streaming sucks compared to Blu-ray isn't of much relevance to most people. Most people seem perfectly happy watching media on computers, pads and smartphones. And convenience over quality is why MP3 and other compressed formats are so popular and the big hi-fi systems of the past are not. The CD happened to be both (let's put aside analog vs. digital arguments for the moment) but SACD and DVD-A failed. VHS was more available (and therefore more convenient) and had longer length tapes than the superior PQ of Sony Betamax and therefore, it was far more successful. And I disagree with your contention that consumers want physical formats - MP3s are proof of that.

Having said that, people are misinterpreting my comments. I've never said that Blu-ray or CDs are going to soon completely disappear. All I've maintained is that something is indeed "dead" long before the absolute last unit of it is produced (Amazon still seems to sell "new" VHS tapes) and you have to look at the success or failure of media as an objective business analyst, not as a fanboy. Anyone who doesn't recognize that both CDs and the music business as a whole are in serious decline are deluding themselves. Most of the record chains are out of business, two (EMI and Warner Music) of the four major labels are for sale and there are renewed rumors that if Howard Stringer, Chairman of Sony, takes the fall for the security fisasco, the new CEO will dump or spin-off Sony's music business (which comprises both the former CBS/Columbia and BMG nee RCA), since the promised synergies between Sony divisions never happened.

I happen to personally love high quality media. I've still got 500 LPs and 600 CDs in my living room (as well as some reel-to-reel tape). The only time I download a movie is if it's one I really don't care about. But the difference between me and the other fanboys who disparage my remarks is that I understand the difference between loving something personally and objectively analyzing a business (which is part of what I do for a living). In fact, it's rare that anything I really love is a commercial success because the majority of consumers love crap. That's what makes fast-food restaurants and Wal-Mart a success. So I can love Blu-ray but still understand that digital downloads, in spite of the disadvantages, are going to be huge in coming years and may eventually kill off most Blu-ray, leaving it as a niche format the same way Laserdisc was and vinyl is today (in spite of the hype, vinyl sales are a rounding error in the records business.)

IMO, Blu-ray, while ahead of last year, is not growing fast enough because it's not making up for the sales declines of DVD. The problem with this is that the overall decline of physical media "tells" the studios (and Wall Street) that physical media is not the future. Hopefully, the Star Wars set and other big releases will enable BD to finish the year at least 25% ahead of last year, not the 10% or so ahead that it's running right now (don't have figures in front of me).

[Steedeel]

bluray is starting to gather momentum. There is a recession, that's one of the main reasons for slow adoption. Most people will find streaming tiresome until much better broadband is implemented. I keep reading about streaming but here in the Uk i don't know of a single person who has a subscription to any online film service, honestly! If the day comes when bluray is obsolete i will switch to a pay tv system (we have a huge one in the UK, lol) and watch new films that way in Hd. There is no comparison with bluray quality but the quality will be waaaaay better than anything streaming will be capable of. I wont touch downloads until they better bluray quality. So in other words i wont be touching downloads!!!!)

Come on then fence sitters
bluray future how long in years? i will say 12-14 years at least

[Rob71]

Actually YTD is back to around 25%.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

IMO, Blu-ray, while ahead of last year, is not growing fast enough because it's not making up for the sales declines of DVD. The problem with this is that the overall decline of physical media "tells" the studios (and Wall Street) that physical media is not the future. Hopefully, the Star Wars set and other big releases will enable BD to finish the year at least 25% ahead of last year, not the 10% or so ahead that it's running right now (don't have figures in front of me).

So your theory is that Blu-Ray will be dumped in favor of the digital downloads, which _also_ are not growing fast enough to combat the decline of DVD, and in fact are growing slower than Blu-Ray is? And that in spite of having a smaller market share to begin with?

How does that make sense?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

As long as there is a market for a product no matter how small it aint dead. By the way i expect bluray to last a long, long time.

Agreed. There will always be people who prefer physical media, whether for "pride of ownership" or just the satisfaction of having their favorite titles on the shelf available to watch when the mood strikes. Many of those in the mass public who are less discerning with their video/audio tastes will be satisfied with DVD, so it will also survive (my father-in-law still doesn't see a need to upgrade from VHS). Movie enthusiasts and A/V hobbiests that prefer physical media will stick with Blu-ray - it is convenient, affordable, and has a strong corporate base in availability and development of players and media titles. Whatever technology is going to replace Blu-ray in the future will have to demonstrate obvious video and audio superiority - and I can't imagine how that is going to happen unless the public develops a penchant for 100"+ displays. Blu-ray is going to be around for a long time.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

IMO, Blu-ray, while ahead of last year, is not growing fast enough because it's not making up for the sales declines of DVD. The problem with this is that the overall decline of physical media "tells" the studios (and Wall Street) that physical media is not the future. Hopefully, the Star Wars set and other big releases will enable BD to finish the year at least 25% ahead of last year, not the 10% or so ahead that it's running right now (don't have figures in front of me).

LOL why not

IMO, DL, while ahead of last year, is not growing fast enough because it's not even close to making up for the sales declines of DVD. The problem with this is that the overall decline of none quality-media "tells" the studios (and Wall Street) that none-quality media is not the future. Hopefully, the Star Wars set and other big releases will enable DL to finish the year at least close to 25% ahead of last year, not the insignificant growth that it's running right now.


I don’t understand why you feel the need to tie BD to DVD and not DL to DVD just because BD is larger and growing faster then DL.

[Steedeel]

Haven't you heard Anthony? Streaming/dd from next year will be able to make coffee or tea for the consumer while it is buffering! However, you will be charged for extra sugars.

Honestly, there is so much crap on this forum it is untrue. There is a recession guys. That is the main reason disc sales are down. Here in the Uk people can't sell their homes and buyers can't buy homes! Unemployment is through the roof, people can barely afford to run their cars! THAT is why sales are suffering. Bluray is doing very well considering all the obstacles it has to face.
Things will pick up, so the HD DVD backlashers/streaming fanboys need to stop posting the same drivel, quoting disc sales for bad weeks (without mentioning good weeks.)

The people who appreciate quality and have a bit of knowledge of film will buy blurays, people who care for film only on a casual basis will continue to illegally download films. That is why legal streaming/dd is not penetrating the market like some would have us believe. If they are not bothered about quality, why would they pay for it?

To all you streamers, i would love to show you the benefits of watching, say, Minority report or Braveheart bluray on a 50 inch plasma with great surround sound and see if you are able to say 'not much better than dvd' with a straight face!
If i ask friends if they are streaming, they reply 'no, i have something in my eye'! It just aint taking off in the Uk and i for one am delighted about that!

[Captainhawk1]

One word: bandwidth. That's the biggest impediment for streaming/DD is bandwidth. The infrastructure for BD quality is not there... period and there is really no arguing it right now. I work in telecom for a private company and we are partners with Cox Communications. They can't keep up with Netflix streaming right now because it is just simply sucking their bandwidth dry. I pay for 18 -22 MB service for my Internet. In the past month I haven't been coming close to that during peak hours and I've only hit 18 or above twice, once at 2:00 a.m., once at 4:00 a.m. Now you may sit there and ask what I'm complaining about with the speeds above 10 MB but here's thing, I'm paying for 18 -22 MB, Not 10 MB not 5 MB, Not 3 MB. I can only imagine how bad it is for people on basic packages. Here are some random tests I've taken and it doesn't tell the whole story because sometimes i forget to log in.

http://www.speedtest.net/results.php...19bcd681&ria=0

These video services have been basically stealing the bandwidth from ISP's since their inception and it wasn't a problem in the past because the penetration was so low but now it is. The problem is getting worse, not better as more people start taking advantage of Netflix, Hulu and whatever the hell comes next that's already built in to their TV or video game console. The piper is going to ave to get paid eventually and these streaming services are goingt o have to start paying for the infrastructure improvements or else there are going to more caps and limits on usage or the ISP's are just going to just block it altogether.

And there aare ctually people out there that think you are going to get BD quality video/audio via streaming or DD? They can't even handle the High SD/Low to Medium HD right now. Why do you think your cable and satellite providers only go up to 1080i for their channels?

So it's going to be a very long time before that can even be a reality, nevertheless the fact that consumers just happen to prefer tangible media over digital content in general. Now, I can't say for sure if that will ever change but let's put it this way: Netflix expects disc-based media for another 20 years and they want go to an all-streaming model exclusively so bad it hurts.

[slick1ru2]

YouTube and Samsung getting into the movie streaming business. Roku expects triple growth in sales this year.

And then there is this article. http://www.homemediamagazine.com/tks...ra-new-reality

Disc Sales Enter Era of New Reality
4 May, 2011
By: Thomas K. Arnold

So what’s really going on here? The news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed put everything else on the media’s back burner, including the Southern tornadoes and, of course, our own industry report on first-quarter sales and rental numbers. The few stories that did surface blew right through the box office correlation – disc sales were down 20%, while the collective box office earnings of those films was down 25% — and jumped right back into their “discs are dying” mantra.

“Down, down, to obsolescence town – that might just be the broad-view takeaway from Los Angeles-based Digital Entertainment Group's recent sales report, which suggests new DVD sales in the U.S. plunged 20% over the past 12 months,” said Time magazine.

"Disc sales drop 20% as streaming video begins to take over,” observed USA Today.

And a blog posting in PC World proclaimed “DVDs are one step closer to extinction.”

Most stories reported the decline in box office value, as well as the absence of the Easter holiday shopping season in the first quarter of 2011. But no one gave either of those factors any credence, and why should they? It didn’t fit in with their preconceived notion that the disc business is dead.

The truth is, box office is very much a factor in the home video business, especially now that the business is primarily sellthrough. Back in the old days when rental dominated, mediocre theatrical performers tended to perform better on video, but these days, there’s a direct connection, and one that makes sense – if you’re not going to spend $10 to see a film in the theater, you sure aren’t going to plunk down $15 to own it.

The advent of Netflix and Redbox may have triggered a resurgence in rental, and here the old formula still works: total consumer spending on rental rose slightly, even with the down box office.

That said, we are seeing a new reality in disc sales. The novelty of being able to own every movie the day it comes out on home video, at an affordable price, has worn off. We as a society now realize we don’t want to own every movie that comes out, even if it’s priced at $15, or $10, or even $5. We simply don’t have the room.

And in the children’s animated category, the new reality has hit harder than practically anywhere else. Whereas in the past the video-to-theatrical ratio was in the high 60s and even low 70s (meaning an animated feature film that grossed $300 million in theaters could be expected to generate, on average, about $200 in consumer spending on disc sales), the VTR now is down to the low 30s.

Children’s titles are still inherently more “ownable” than most films, but the competition for 8-year-old eyeballs has gotten increasingly intense. There’s YouTube, Club Penguin, hundreds of game apps for Dad’s iPhone, and more.

As Francois de La Rochefoucauld, the famous French author of maxims and memoirs, once said, “The only thing constant in life is change.”

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The truth is, box office is very much a factor in the home video business, especially now that the business is primarily sellthrough. Back in the old days when rental dominated, mediocre theatrical performers tended to perform better on video, but these days, there’s a direct connection, and one that makes sense – if you’re not going to spend $10 to see a film in the theater, you sure aren’t going to plunk down $15 to own it.

That's not how it is for everybody at all, it costs my fiancee and I $38 for 2 tickets (plus food costs extra on top) to go to the movies here in Australia. There are a lot of people who don't see the sense in paying that kind of money when u can wait a very short 2 months for the blu-ray release which costs less and u get to keep the movie forever rather than just paying to see it once.

[punkguy03]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

That's not how it is for everybody at all, it costs my fiancee and I $38 for 2 tickets (plus food costs extra on top) to go to the movies here in Australia. There are a lot of people who don't see the sense in paying that kind of money when u can wait a very short 2 months for the blu-ray release which costs less and u get to keep the movie forever rather than just paying to see it once.

38 dollars? Wow movies must be expensive in Australia.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by punkguy03

38 dollars? Wow movies must be expensive in Australia.

Going to cinemas sure is expensive here. Cinemas here offer a cheap day once every week on a Tuesday (which we refer to as tight a**e Tuesday), it costs $10.50 per ticket on Tuesday's, but every other day tickets cost $17.50 each for 2d films and $19 per ticket for 3d viewings.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by punkguy03

38 dollars? Wow movies must be expensive in Australia.

Not just Australia, $11 on Saturday for one person here so $22 for me and my wife. If it's 3D only (which I wont go to) you have to add another $3.

For those prices I would just rather wait and either rent it later on or watch it on a movie network which cost me $15 a month and I get over 100 movies to watch that I can DVR and see them when its easier for me. The image is better in most case since theaters don't take the time to calibrate or take care of their equipment and I get to see it at home quiet without annoying people talking and texting next to me. I know that going to the theater is a big deal for a lot of people here but this experience is slowly souring for a lot of people and it's one of the reason Hollywood is desperate to find new ways to get people in theaters. Now imagine a family of four, how much to do thing it's costing them to go see Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D?

I know the issue of ticket prices for single guys is not a big deal but for a lot of people, they are not single and they got kids as well. You have to balance things out and figure out if it's worth it.

[Steedeel]

Slick1ru2, that's old news! You really are becoming tiresome now. You do realise that we won't have a HD source of any kind in the future that you imagine don't you? Looking at your equipment i can't see why you would be happy with that. You really baffle me, you have a decent amount of bluray's so you must love film but you are hoping that we will be all watching awful quality streams on our nice expensive plasmas/lcds. That is not a future that appeals to me and if it is truly what you want, you might as well invest in a old tube 14 inch portable tv as that is the only way future streaming is going to look acceptable. The truth of the matter is you are either bitter at losing the hd format war or you have a warped idea of what is acceptable to consumers. Imagine people getting excited about Avatar 2 on a stream! It isn't going to happen. Now stop scanning Internet for stuff to post here and go over and join other bluray bashers on other forums.

By the way if you want to talk future the talk is of a 4k res format with built in 48/60 frames per second technology to fit in with the way cinema is going in the next ten years. So bluray and then this new tech eventually. I would like to see streaming/cloud/crap whatever you call it keeping up with that.

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

By the way if you want to talk future the talk is of a 4k res format with built in 48/60 frames per second technology to fit in with the way cinema is going in the next ten years. So bluray and then this new tech eventually. I would like to see streaming/cloud/crap whatever you call it keeping up with that.

Youtube is already streaming 4k... even though maybe two people might have the hardware to actually take advantage of it.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Now imagine a family of four, how much to do thing it's costing them to go see Kung Fu Panda 2 in 3D?

I know the issue of ticket prices for single guys is not a big deal but for a lot of people, they are not single and they got kids as well. You have to balance things out and figure out if it's worth it.

Amen... with the kids in tow, it's tough to ignore the spectacularly overpriced junk food as well; figure on another $30 for a family of four... $60 is not an unreasonable estimate for a trip to the movies.