Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The difference when DVD was released was that there were no web-based forums like this one where any idiot (like me) can express a personal opinion, not support it with facts and expect people to accept it.

And there was no such thing as a troll (except for a few of my friends and relatives ....oh yeah and my ex-wife).

Actually, DVD was the most successful consumer electronics launch ever, but things have changed drastically since, as the pace of adoption is much faster. DVD reached 1 million hardware units in 21 months. By comparison, it took satellite radio 23 months, CD players 28 months, MP3 players 28 months, radio 39 months, TV 40 months, DVRs 53 months, VCRs 58 months and cable/satellite TV 144 months. (All numbers from Greystone Communications, the Yankee Group, but I will confess that I don't know whether those are U.S domestic numbers or worldwide numbers).

But have times changed. It took Apple only 28 days to sell 1 million iPads and in 14 months they've sold 25 million (worldwide).

DVD had the lucky combination to be both much higher quality than consumer formats like VHS and niche formats like laserdisc and also be incredibly convenient. I frequently maintain (to the disagreement of many on these forums) that consumers almost always choose convenience over quality, but DVD had both.

While BD has higher quality, it's exactly as convenient, but with increased competition from both other leisure time activities and downloads/streaming, its growth rate is a bit slower. Year over year to date, BD is only 10% ahead of 2010. The bad economy probably isn't helping either.

Thank you for the well thought out and pretty detailed explanation. I didn't know all the figures that you pointed out. Good points too that I hadn't thought of.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by Matty_J

Really?!! I hope people don't take them seriously...

I did. Tons of facts there. Like for instance I didn't know it was a 50/50 chance that any given Bluray disc would work. Man I've been lucky! Out of close to 400 movies I've only had one that messed up and once it was replaced it worked fine.

[DMAN]

Originally Posted by octagon

Yes. Obviously Star Wars will sell some discs (but even that won't be the 'run out and finally buy a player' killer app some people make it out to be) but disposable income is going to be the biggest factor in the growth (or not) of all types of entertainment spending and that doesn't appear to be going anywhere in the next six months.

Curious, what do you guys think would be the "run out and finally buy a player" killer?

I think for DVD it was Matrix that boosted things

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I frequently maintain (to the disagreement of many on these forums) that consumers almost always choose convenience over quality ...

1. This isn't always true. (a) E.g. grocery delivery. You can take a quality hit in exchange for hugely improved convenience -- someone else picks your (often bruised) vegetables for you and brings them to your door. Yet delivery companies like FreshDirect haven't exactly taken over the grocery business. Most people still willingly suffer the tremendous inconvenience of driving to the supermarket. Why??

(b) Sometimes consumers don't accept an improvement in convenience even where there's absolutely no quality trade-off. E.g. screwtops for nonmaturing wines. Consumers usually reject these and insist on laboriously pulling the cork for cheap plonk wines, for which the cork does nothing to improve the quality.

2. Corollary of 1. I think the tradeoff between convenience and quality needs to be evaluated case-by-case. With audio mp3s the tradeoff is well worth it (to many consumers) for portability, ability to make custom playlists etc etc. Perhaps not so for video, esp. feature film. Who's going to watch Lawrence of Arabia on their cellphone? Ditto for iPads. Feature film (NB, that's the bulk of the home video market) doesn't play so well on puny crappy screens. Is the quality sacrifice worth the added convenience?

3. It's not always up to the consumer to decide between digital and physical formats. Avatar is not available for streaming and won't be any time soon. But then there has not exactly been a public clamour for DLed Avatar -- or if there has, I haven't heard it.

4. Sometimes the convenience argument favours disc, not digital. Physical looks set to persist in the video games market probably for this reason. This week we learned that Nintendo's next game console will use a disc drive. So Nintendo has committed itself to supporting disc til about 2018 or thereabouts. Maybe all the titles will also be available for DL; maybe not. Some consumers will no doubt choose the disc versions of Wii U games because that's more convenient for them.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Banned User

I did. Tons of facts there. Like for instance I didn't know it was a 50/50 chance that any given Bluray disc would work. Man I've been lucky! Out of close to 400 movies I've only had one that messed up and once it was replaced it worked fine.

Me too, I guess I've had a lot of luck, I've only had 2 not work, and once Sony updated firmware they worked just fine... took about 3 days...

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Year over year to date, BD is only 10% ahead of 2010. The bad economy probably isn't helping either.

Avatar had as much to do with it as anything. There hasn't been a movie anywhere NEAR the popularity Avatar this year, and Avatar sold >100 million dollars worth of Blu-Rays in its first 3 weeks.

Barring an extremely good week the last week of May, that means Avatar's first 3 weeks outsold an entire month of Blu-Rays this year.

It doesn't take much to realize that Avatar is an anomaly making Blu-Ray look a LOT worse than it's actually doing.

Typical titles in the top 20 are doing way better on a case-by-case basis than a year ago...again barring Avatar.

[FinalEvangelion]

Blu-ray is doing good enough that studios will keep supporting with new releases and catalog titles. That's really all I care about as a consumer. If someone down the street prefers downloading and watching lower quality transfers with lots of macroblocking or they think DVDs are good enough, that's fine with me. There are already enough people that enjoy the quality that Blu-ray offers.

Personally, I held off on purchasing many DVDs because I knew an HD format was going to spring up. Thus, Blu-ray came along and now I'm building my collection faster than ever.

But, seriously, any one saying that Blu-ray is comparable to the success (lack thereof) needs a serious reality check.

Blu-ray is here to stay, so is downloading and streaming. I don't understand why both can't co-exist and give people options.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by devilnamedBuena

My problem with it is that Deadline has a higher readership than Home Media. An uninformed readership at that.

so does that mean we should be as uninformed? go back to 2006 and 2007 there where a lot of very uninformed articles and people on HD-DVD, did that help HD-DVD or hurt BD? The guy that has a BD player will not care what the guy has to say. The guy that does not probably does not care any more then the guy that has, if his friends have BD and he sees value in it, he will get a BD player, if he does not see value (or no one that he knows has one to get him informed-including stores he shops at) then he wont. Also will a person believe a dumb article meant to mislead or what he sees with his own eyes (i.e. if he buys movies he sees that the aisles of DVDs are replaced by BD, if he is buying electronics he sees that DVD players are being replaced by BD)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Ummm... just curious if someone could tell me, since I really wasn't aware of DVD until it started hitting my hometown, which meant it had already penetrated the market. But did DVD have as much hate and nonsense written about it that Blu-ray does now when DVD was released? No big long explanation needed I'm just wondering... I DO remember the "You can't record onto a DVD so it'll never take off" then boom there were DVD burners being released...

I don't think it was as bad, but then again the internet was not what it is today, so people did not feel the need to BS as much and the ones that did, did not have a podium.

I also think BD has two disadvantages, in this respect, that DVD did not. DVD had a format war with DVIX (the format and not the CODEC) but it was very short lived and only limited availability (one of the key players in its development was circuit city- so many other chains did not carry it and the ones that did had no real incentive to push it), so for the most people against DVD where the people that just did not want to need to upgrade.

Now when one looks at BD you have a lot of bitter HD-DVD fanboys (people who now blame BD for the $ they wasted on HD-DVD) and you have the DL companies that know they can't really offer their product (i.e. yes a few people watching a bit of crappy content is not an issue, but look at what is happening, AT&T put in a Cap, comcast put in a cap here in Canada the network providers have added more restrictive caps and Netflix decreased the default quality http://blog.netflix.com/2011/03/netf...by-23-for.html so now it is even crappier, now imagine what would happen if many or most people did DL movies? The quality would drop a lot and people would leave, so they are all around hoping that in the future they will be the movie version of itunes when the network will be able to handle it, but if BD takes off, that would affect them negatively in two ways:1) people might not feel like jumping on the next thing, 2) people will expect better quality since they will be used to watching BD)

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Ummm... just curious if someone could tell me, since I really wasn't aware of DVD until it started hitting my hometown, which meant it had already penetrated the market. But did DVD have as much hate and nonsense written about it that Blu-ray does now when DVD was released? No big long explanation needed I'm just wondering... I DO remember the "You can't record onto a DVD so it'll never take off" then boom there were DVD burners being released...

Sure it did. Those screen shot analysts at AVS were taking pot shots at DVD's PQ just as they're doing today with Blu ray. And, just like today....who cares.

Big difference is DVD appealed to just about everyone and Blu appeals to.....well, lets just say, not everyone.

[silverado]

Found this piece and would like some thoughts.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/23000...truggling.html

Blu-Ray is a better way to watch movies than DVD, but it's more subtle -- the big draw is really, really good quality rather than really good quality. It faces competition galore: a far-flung, overlapping mishmosh of choices including Apple TV, Netflix, Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, TiVo, Roku, Boxee, Google TV, and lots more. You can consume vast quantities of high-quality video without ever getting near an optical disc.

When Blu-Ray was under development early in this century, it was obviously meant to be a DVD replacement: a new box that everyone would buy to replace their old box. That's not going to happen. Some early-adopter types (like my friend Louis Gray) are just skipping Blu-Ray and moving directly to movies that don't involve physical media. Extremely late adopters will stick with DVD for now -- and Blu-Ray may have come and gone before they're ready to retire their DVD players.

[Terjyn]

He took one survey and turned it into a Digital Downloads will take over article.

Worthless journalism.

PS - He pulled the same journalistic bull that's plagued Blu-Ray since day 1. DVD turned _6_ in 2002, not 5. I'm so tired of DVD getting a free year for no apparent reason.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by silverado

Found this piece and would like some thoughts.

No, this isn't why you posted here, but I like the article (very poorly written), so I would give you my thoughts:

PC World have been anti Blu-ray (and HDDVD for that matter) right from the get-go. So, not surprising that they still are.

Now, let me ask you a question: Why do you think Netflix changed their tune and are refocusing on Blu-ray?

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/net...ack-disc-24127

Sarandos said that even with a $2 monthly surcharge for physical rental compared with streaming-only, the value proposition of Netflix’s disc programs (which include streaming) remains so strong for the foreseeable future that management plans to revisit all facets of the business.

This includes increased marketing efforts in regions of the country with low broadband penetration that would be better served with a stronger disc rental option.

Pro-B

[U4K61]

-1
How does it work out for me if I have already retired my DVD players and get by on just Blu? Got to wonder where they got their info from.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

No, this isn't why you posted here, but I like the article (very poorly written), so I would give you my thoughts:

PC World have been anti Blu-ray (and HDDVD for that matter) right from the get-go. So, not surprising that they still are.

Now, let me ask you a question: Why do you think Netflix changed their tune and are refocusing on Blu-ray?

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/net...ack-disc-24127



Pro-B

That home media piece never mentioned Blu ray----- just DVD.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

That home media piece never mentioned Blu ray----- just DVD.

that's because they use DVD in the generic, short hand for Blu-ray and DVD or physical media. In the end DVD stands for either Digital Versatile Disc or Digital Video Disc and both those acronyms apply to BD.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that's because they use DVD in the generic, short hand for Blu-ray and DVD or physical media. In the end DVD stands for either Digital Versatile Disc or Digital Video Disc and both those acronyms apply to BD.

While I may agree that in some cases the media's use of the term "DVD" may sometimes include Blu-ray, I don't believe the converse is true as in Pro-B's post.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
No, this isn't why you posted here, but I like the article (very poorly written), so I would give you my thoughts:

PC World have been anti Blu-ray (and HDDVD for that matter) right from the get-go. So, not surprising that they still are.

Now, let me ask you a question: Why do you think Netflix changed their tune and are refocusing on Blu-ray?

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/net...ack-disc-24127



Pro-B

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

While I may agree that in some cases the media's use of the term "DVD" may sometimes include Blu-ray, I don't believe the converse is true as in Pro-B's post.

I am unsure why you are confused. There are facts and speculations.

Facts:

Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos — who credits disc for helping Netflix make its foray into streaming — says the subscription rental service plans to turn its focus back to physical distribution.

Speculations:
You speculate that disc/physical distribution excludes Blu-ray. But:

http://gotchamovies.com/news/netflix-to-focus-on-discs

Switching Gears Already?

So why the sudden change of plans? Isn't it a bit odd to recognize that you are the number one reason people use the internet in the U.S. and then revert your focus to your old business model?

Well, maybe not entirely. After all, Blu-Rays have become more popular over the years, as well as more accessible. The format was something that Netflix had stayed clear of for awhile, and when they did eventually welcome the medium it wasn't necessarily with open arms. Going back to Blu-Rays and giving your customers a better chance to rent them may be a step in the right direction, given that the current streaming model isn't compromised as a result.

In other words, Anthony P is correct

Pro-B

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I am unsure why you are confused. There are facts and speculations.

Facts:


Speculations:
You speculate that disc/physical distribution excludes Blu-ray. But:

http://gotchamovies.com/news/netflix-to-focus-on-discs



In other words, Anthony P is correct

Pro-B

There's also ACCURACY which I hold near and dear to my heart. To begin, you posted this:

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
No, this isn't why you posted here, but I like the article (very poorly written), so I would give you my thoughts:

PC World have been anti Blu-ray (and HDDVD for that matter) right from the get-go. So, not surprising that they still are.

Now, let me ask you a question: Why do you think Netflix changed their tune and are refocusing on Blu-ray?

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/net...ack-disc-24127

Pro-B

I responded with this post:

Originally Posted by ole geezer
That home media piece never mentioned Blu ray----- just DVD.

....and my statement was totally accurate. Blu-ray as such was never mentioned in that Home Media article. Any "speculation" and/or confusion between our exchange... is on your part. Now, enough of this nonsense.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

....and my statement was totally accurate. Blu-ray as such was never mentioned in that Home Media article. Any "speculation" and/or confusion between our exchange... is on your part. Now, enough of this nonsense.

There was no speculation on my part, there was clarification, which was meant to highlight the fact that you misinterpreted the text (most likely because you were not aware of what Anthony P also clarified for you). In other words, it is not a matter of "speculation", it is a matter of proper interpretation of what was reported. And your interpretation was not accurate.

Pro-B