Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Neild]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This is also incorrect.

The OD market, and growth in general, is driven by approximately 10% of serious collectors. This isn't an opinion or speculation, it is a fact, also confirmed by Universal's Kornblau.

Additionally, optical media options will be available for a very, very long time. And only bloggers who have never been part of the distribution system and thus do not understand how the production cycle functions would speculate otherwise:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...y-after-never/

Pro-B

OD by its nature is not collectible, and Kornblau would be a conflicted source that I don't think we could regard as objective.

My opinion, we are in the first generation of OD, and the introductory pricing in this generation is insane. It's no wonder adoption is slow and low. The sellers are naively struggling to make $7 from one customer and ignoring how easily they could make 0.70 from 20 customers.

At the same time, Netflix offered the perception of dozens of titles for $8, creating essentially their own flavor of OD market. The response was monumental. And when they tried fiddling with the value/price proposition, they lost customers in hordes and stained their own brand.

I believe that when OD gets the price/value right, they'll find a healthy, steady marketplace awaits.

But for now, they're like the crazy guy down the street selling old bikes worth $20-30 for $100. He doesn't care if almost everyone thinks he's overpriced. As long as he sells that one overpriced bike every summer to a naive or charitable buyer, it validates in his mind his wrong price is actually OK.

And in the bigger picture, true revolutions in marketplaces aren't driven by what the masses want.

Vehicle design and standards changed worldwide due to the rules of one state in one country. Automakers set that state's rules as the common denominator and vehicles everywhere were produced to meet a non-applicable and distant standard.

More recently, one city in one state set new food standards. Food conglomerates obliged, and rather than create different foods for that one small market, they changed the formula for all markets. It didn't hurt that the new formulations, while worse from a nutrition and taste perspective, cost them less to make. So they couldn't make the switch fast enough. Naturally they didn't lower prices to reflect the lower cost of production, they enjoyed higher net earnings.

[Steedeel]

Why do people start posts like this.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Neild

OD by its nature is not collectible...

I am unsure what this statement means.

Originally Posted by Neild

...and Kornblau would be a conflicted source that I don't think we could regard as objective.

I beg to differ. Within the context of this discussion, Mr. Kornblau is definitely a source that can be trusted.

Thanks.

Pro-B

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by Neild

...My opinion, we are in the first generation of OD, and the introductory pricing in this generation is insane. It's no wonder adoption is slow and low. The sellers are naively struggling to make $7 from one customer and ignoring how easily they could make 0.70 from 20 customers...

Yeah...but what if this strategy results in just 5 additional customers rather than the 20 you expect.

I remember years ago a local theater started selling popcorn @ $1 a bag and it was great while it lasted. But, alas...when I returned to the area 1 year later, it had closed.

Today....even my discount theater doesn't discount popcorn. Anyway...there's a moral to this story somewhere.

[Neild]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Yeah...but what if this strategy results in just 5 additional customers rather than the 20 you expect.

We don't need to make a random guess as to whether lower price per movie would drive consumers, because we have examples to guide us. Not only that but we can even see evidence of where price levels become sensitive.

At $8/month for around 3-4 movies (exclusive of streaming), Netflix was a runaway hit. But at $16/month, they are losing customers and reputation.

Some overly detailed person will claim they squeeze out 7 NFLX movies per month and someone else will say they've barely have time for one. Regardless, we're talking about $8 for a single digit number of movies and at that price/value model has been overwhelmingly popular.

So a VOD pricing model of about $2/movie, one could make an educated guess that would be extremely popular.

At $4-6/movie, Netflix is being trashed and abandoned by customers. So it should come as no surprise that VOD at $6-9/movie has had meager adoption.

Instead, I'm hearing the genuises are trying to launch a non-anticipated comedy early on VOD for $59.99. In my opinion that's a step backwards.

Let's see the numbers when VOD is running $2-4/title. I think that will be a much better indication. At $2, VOD is something people would buy every day, multiple times even.

Look at the app store phenomenon. "Apps" have existed for decades. But make them small and charge $1-6 and they sell like crazy. People who haven't bought a software in 10 years are burning through AppStore cards. Low price threshold combined with perceived value for cost can drive big volumes.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

This is also incorrect.

The OD market, and growth in general, is driven by approximately 10% of serious collectors. This isn't an opinion or speculation, it is a fact, also confirmed by Universal's Kornblau.

Additionally, optical media options will be available for a very, very long time.

Originally Posted by Neild

OD by its nature is not collectible, and Kornblau would be a conflicted source that I don't think we could regard as objective.

My opinion, we are in the first generation of OD, and the introductory pricing in this generation is insane. It's no wonder adoption is slow and low. The sellers are naively struggling to make $7 from one customer and ignoring how easily they could make 0.70 from 20 customers.

At the same time, Netflix offered the perception of dozens of titles for $8, creating essentially their own flavor of OD market. The response was monumental. And when they tried fiddling with the value/price proposition, they lost customers in hordes and stained their own brand.

I believe that when OD gets the price/value right, they'll find a healthy, steady marketplace awaits.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

I am unsure what this statement means.
Pro-B

I think I know what's happening here:

Bassoonist, when you first said "OD", you meant "optical disc". Am I correct?

Neil, when you responded about "OD", you were thinking and proceeded to discuss "on-demand", as in streaming. This also correct?

Watch the initials folks.

[Clark Kent]

I do think certain categories of movies will be more resistant to the switch to streaming than others, remaining popular in physical form. Niche and cult titles that frequently change ownership rights will continue to sell, if only because availability over streaming will always be in doubt.

Television and episodic content is done though in physical media, too many consumers view it as disposable and studios hate taking the financial risks in preparing big box sets for shows. That will be the first genre to abandon discs.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Musashi

I think I know what's happening here:

Bassoonist, when you first said "OD", you meant "optical disc". Am I correct?

You are most definitely correct

Pro-B

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Neild

Let's see the numbers when VOD is running $2-4/title. I think that will be a much better indication. At $2, VOD is something people would buy every day, multiple times even.

There won't be anything to see. I specifically linked to you the piece from Forbes. If you are under the assumption that in a near future there will be A-grade content priced at the levels you mention above available for purchase (to own), then you clearly do not have a realistic grasp of the market and do not understand the forces that operate on it. Such pricing will essentially mean the end of film production as we know it in this country. Period.

As I said earlier, physical media (or OD, as "optical disc") will be around for many, many years to come.

Pro-B

[HDMe]

Here's some food for thought...

I see a lot of talk about how people are increasingly wanting to stream or download digital vs buying physical media... and that physical media is a thing of the past because of whatever reason...

But think about before we had digital transmission...

Movie theaters. People go to movies, people have always gone to movies since their invention. Movies were the original PPV... you pay once and watch once and have nothing to own or take home.

Movies were fairly cheap too... in terms of entertainment... and then we got TV.

OTA analog TV was free to anyone within range once they bought a TV and antenna setup.

You can look at analog OTA TV as the original "streaming" of content to the home via "wireless" transmission.

And yet... when VCRs took off, people started wanting to buy copies of movies and ultimately TV shows they liked. Movies for $80 that they could have paid $5 to see in a theater OR wait to watch for "free" on TV.

Prices came down... and we got DVDs... but people were then subscribing to satellite or cable TV... which even in analog days is essentially "streaming" of entertainment to your home.

It's very easy to look at your $50 cable bill as an early form of Netflix except that your content is chosen for you instead of you getting to pick the content at any particular time.

So... people had "streaming" TV to their homes for a monthly fee... no physical media and yet DVD sales of movies and TV shows were climbing!

What's different now?

The economy is in a bad place... so sales of lots of things are down OR not as high as they might otherwise be.

But... history seems to indicate that even if you give people free streaming to the home, they are still willing to pay a premium for physical media to own and watch at their convenience.

I see no reason for this to ever change.

I see SDRAM or something else smaller with bigger storage capacity replacing Blu-ray maybe in the next 10-20 years... but it will still be physical media.

Actually SDRAM would be a cool potential hybrid of digital "streaming" vs owning physical media... because you could have a Redbox type of scenario where you pre-pay for a blank SDRAM and then can put any movie on it that you want for a lower purchase price than buying the pre-loaded packaged SDRAM movie.

It would also allow studios to release a movie quickly to home viewers AND add extras, deleted scenes, etc for optional transmission later.

So, while I could see a transition away from typical retail I don't see the transition away from physical media. At first SDRAM packaged just the way Blu-ray is now... but slow progression towards a RedBox scenario where you go and buy and have your disk loaded immediately... and eventually if ISP bandwidth ever evolves far enough and uncapped enough, people might be able to download and record to an SDRAM in their own home.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

Agreed. I will also add this: If there is one mistake the BDA did, which they should have corrected as soon as Blu-ray won the war, it is the fact that they did not offer a standardized Blu-ray audio format and get all of the music companies on board to revitalize the market.

actualy the BD audio format has been part of the specs from the get go. I think the music industry is in a bit of a shambles and Ces are not ready to bank on peop[le wanting to replace their CD player with an equivalent BD-A player. So there is/was no push on it.

As it is, MP3 files are of horrible, horrible quality, and I cannot see why anyone who cares about the listening experience would want to pay for them. CDs are the better option. IF there was a standardized mass Blu-ray audio market, then the gap in quality would have been even greater.

Pro-B

agree, that is why I buy CDs instead of songs on iTune. But to answer the "why", I think there are two reasons
1) people tend to be short sighted. It is "1$ a song" and that is cheap, so the person knows that one song (heard it at a friends, club or radio) and they don't want the album but that song, later when they hear a second song on the album and like it at that point it is again only 1$ so they go back and get it.
2) people tend to be ignorant, most people don't sit there and compare for themselves, the guy jogging with his iPod just knows there is music coming out of it and that is what matters most. Also in the early days he would search (because who can be bothered to do the test themsleves) and run into a person trying to fool others and possibly himself. And read something like "it was hard to ell the difference but with ....... you can fit 100 songs on a gig instead so I found it better". Some time ago there in an other thread a guy said there was no difference between BD and DL, then he linked to a blog that compared Avatar on BD to Vudu where the guy said there was almost no difference. That means there was a difference and the guy saw it, if he is trying to justify the Vudu (and t6his is not a hit on Vudu, from what I have seen they are one of the best if not the best) stream or not because of something else, it is immaterial.

Be it sound or movies, the difference between quality and sh!t is in the details, small changes, a few pixels here or there in an image, the last of the echo's or vibration here or there. It won't be all of a sudden the main actor disappears or the drumming part of the song.


Now don't get me wrong if someone wants quantity (like 100 songs that take up a Gig ) and does not care about quality there is nothing wrong with "it is good enough" but I think a lot of people are completely misinformed because there has been massive disinformation on how bad that quality really is (be it music or video)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Neild

Because in the example given, you're sending an archival redbook audio CD that your "friend" can listen to. You cannot buy a single audio grade CD for 30 cents, in fact I doubt you could find one for $1.

If I send a CD with music to a friend that is pirating by definition, why would I do that? On ther hand I and everyone else I know has CD-rs and DVD-rs at home and buy them by the spindle. Is it always 100? no

Uhh, you misunderstand postage as well.

Lettermail is a category with costs that start at Permanent stamp level (which is currently 59 cents, not 60, FYI)

The cost goes up based on size, weight, shape, contents, and destination.

agree, that is why I said from he beginning, last time I aksed it was standard mail for the DVD I was sending but people should ask to make sure. That being said look at page 12 of CPs pricing for leter mail http://www.canadapost.ca/tools/pg/prices/CPprices-e.pdf
large size size (which is the most expensive) up to 100g is 1.25$ and a CD is around 15g so more than enough for a CD, even with a case it will be les (but don't see why one is needed for a CD-r). For letter mail it goes up to 500g ~1lb and that is only 3.50 a fraction of the 8$ you mention.

Customers wouldn't take well to their purchased movies being removed from the case and sent with no protection as letter mail. That's why big companies like Amazon have business rates with different sizes and rules and bulk pricing.

the rules are not that different (actualy more or less the same) and yes there is bulk rates but do you think it would be 10x more for none-bulk? don' t be ridiculous.

Doesn't make sense and you've posted a nonsense link.

lol, so canada post does not know anything about sending mail from Canada to the US? let me dumb it down so that you might understand It is OK to include a CD (or DVD or BD) in a "letter" from someone in Canada to a Canadian address. it is not OK if it is ent to the US or any other international location.

While it is theoretically possible to send a bare polycarbonate disc as letter mail, but nobody in their right mind would do that. Once you put the disc in a BD/DVD case, you break the low letter mail spec and it costs more.

lol do you realise how insane that sounds? There was a time when I used to get 20-30 ( if not more) cardboard mailers with disks in them a quarter. YOu can google cardboard CD mailers and find tons of them. Also isn't that what Netflix and Zip.ca have been doing for years? but yet, somehow because you want to pretend it will cost much more it is "no opne in his right mind will do it". Also even in case, it can still fit as letter mail. here is the largest (14.9 x 10.6 x 0.8 in) for letter mail and a standard case is <.5". Even a bubble mailer, like the one I linked to earlier would fit as mail, that is exactly why they make and sell them.

You've still spent $1-2, in other words 200 times as much as a digital transfer.

no, you miss all the costs of sending it digitaly. Do you have an internet connection? is it free? how about electricty to run th computer used to send the e-mail. these add to the cost and so it can't be under 1 cent or even 1 cent.

If you truly believe that production, handling, warehousing, transportion and other costs of physical discs are lower than that of a digital transfer, I don't know how else to educate you.

well I think you should start by educating yourself first, the same way that you beleive it is impossible to ship a CD in a sleave/envalope.

second I did not say the costs are the same. They are two completely different models. So by nature they are hard to compare. If I set up a cheap dedicated server and it costs me 100$ a month and all I do with it is put the data of that one CD I would have sent to my friend in the example, then it would cost me a hell of a lot more. On the other hand if I have 1000 friends that all want it and I only have it for a month or two before they all DL it, it would be a lot less then mailing out CDs.

my issue is that you are assuming if there is a benefit it will be passed on to studios in higher royalty payments to the point where a studio goes "I am making more if the guy watches it on _____instead of BD. The issue is everything else (replication, distribution...) on physical media works with low margins while digital distribution has high margins.

I didn't say that, I actually criticized the way physical and digital albums get similar price treatment.

Yes you did

Originally Posted by Neild

And realize that revenue is not the same as profit, and that margin is much higher on digital which suggests digital is already well ahead.

If a digital download of an album were 10x or 20x cheaper, it might be easier to accept the lower quality and durability, and overlook the increased profit margin.

don’t know why that matters. DVDs are cheaper but I am still buying BDs because they have the quality I want. also 10x or 20x cheaper does not make any sense so I am not sure what you want do you mean 10% or 20% cheaper? 10x or 20x more does make sense ( saying it costs 20$ to mail something is 19x more than the 2$ it costs to mail it. On the other hand 2$ is 90% less then 20$)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Neild

At $8/month for around 3-4 movies (exclusive of streaming), Netflix was a runaway hit. But at $16/month, they are losing customers and reputation.

no

first it was 10$ for 1 DVD+streaming, that changed to 8$ for DVD and 8$ for streaming.

Second the reason they are losing customers is because
1) they mistreated disk customers by skimping on the disks they bought, look at this forum and people have been complaining for a long time on the subject
2) they are not as competitive any more:
- Redbox has a 1$ dvd rental so unless every month you managed to get more than 8 movies Netflix is more expensive, you also don't need to decide what to watch days earlier
- Blockbuster also does mail now and for 12$ it is 1 BD a month (for Netflix that is 9$) plus you can exchange at the local blockbuster instead of having to send it back and wait for a new film. Plus if you are on the 3 BD plan the cost is even closer with 19.95 for Netflix and 19.99 with BB.

The difference that existed until that change was that streaming was included in the price at Netflix and even though people probably did not care that much for streaming (or they would have had the 8$ streaming only plan instead of the 10$ disk plan), it was still seen as a big bonus since if you wanted onn lazy day you could watch 10h+ of video.

3) For someone that wants both it is a price hike. No matter what happens people always complain about them and this is 60% more. When the price of gas goes up do people complain about it? yes, but do people drive a lot less? not usually and not for most.

thirdly it is a specious argument and has nothing to do with your point. That is about price going up and not price going down. You are assuming if price drops more will watch VOD and so studios will be more profitable. Let me ask you three simple questions. If gas prices where to drop by 50% would you start driving more? If more, would it be 2x so that the revenue is the same? Assuming at 50% the price there is no loss, will it be enough (10x or 20x....) in order to maintain the same profitability?

Same here, there is only so many hours in a day, month or year. When I have free time I watch a movie. When I don't I do not. I also watch the movies I want to watch. I am sure it is the same for n everyone. I have yet to meet an individual that wanted to sit in front of the TV and watch a movie but thought "too expensive, I will sit here twiddling my thumbs instead". So the only growth will come from competition (kind of like Netflixes pain is to Redbox and BB benefit). Someone could say "I will watch it on VOD instead of ______ because VOD is more competitively priced now. But if that happens that will hurt revenue and possibly profitability.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by ole geezer

Yeah...but what if this strategy results in just 5 additional customers rather than the 20 you expect.

I remember years ago a local theater started selling popcorn @ $1 a bag and it was great while it lasted. But, alas...when I returned to the area 1 year later, it had closed.

Today....even my discount theater doesn't discount popcorn. Anyway...there's a moral to this story somewhere.

Different set of issues. Move theatres are actually candy stands that happen to show movies. In the early weeks (which these days are really the only weeks) of a film's life in a theatre, the theatre only gets 5 to 10%. That's why you pay $4 for popcorn that costs about 15 cents to make. That's where all the profit is.

The only exception is that for certain theatres in certain big cities (like NYC and Los Angeles), the distributor guarantees the theatre's "nut", which are the basic operating expenses of rent, insurance and salaries. In fact, when Variety still published grosses for individual theatres, they also published the "nut".

But you're correct on the other pricing issue. The fact is that consumers have become incredibly selfish and unrealistic. Media has never been cheaper. Back in the 1960's, music singles used to list for $1 and sell at discount for around 66 cents. That's the equivalent of $4.75 today. Stereo LPs used to sell for $4 (and rose quickly over the years to $9 or so). That $4 in 1966 is $28 today.

If you look in the back of ancient issues of fan magazines like "Famous Monsters of Filmland", you'll see ads for horror movies on 8mm or 16mm film. A five-minute silent excerpt from a movie (and usually from a badly scratched master) I believe used to cost around $10 in 1960. That's $76 2011 dollars.

If the distributors discount either rental or sale movies to $1 or $2, as they already have in some cases in the desire for cash flow, that combined with the desire to release day and date with theatres will kill the theatrical business, which will in turn kill the movie business. Movies will become the equivalent of "direct to video" efforts because no studio will be able to afford the big budgets.

Be careful of what you wish for. It's not impossible for the movie business to become, from both a creative and business standpoint, as bad as the music business (which is now below 50% of its 1999 peak).

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Different set of issues. Move theatres are actually candy stands that happen to show movies. In the early weeks (which these days are really the only weeks) of a film's life in a theatre, the theatre only gets 5 to 10%. That's why you pay $4 for popcorn that costs about 15 cents to make. That's where all the profit is.

The only exception is that for certain theatres in certain big cities (like NYC and Los Angeles), the distributor guarantees the theatre's "nut", which are the basic operating expenses of rent, insurance and salaries. In fact, when Variety still published grosses for individual theatres, they also published the "nut".

But you're correct on the other pricing issue. The fact is that consumers have become incredibly selfish and unrealistic. Media has never been cheaper. Back in the 1960's, music singles used to list for $1 and sell at discount for around 66 cents. That's the equivalent of $4.75 today. Stereo LPs used to sell for $4 (and rose quickly over the years to $9 or so). That $4 in 1966 is $28 today.

If you look in the back of ancient issues of fan magazines like "Famous Monsters of Filmland", you'll see ads for horror movies on 8mm or 16mm film. A five-minute silent excerpt from a movie (and usually from a badly scratched master) I believe used to cost around $10 in 1960. That's $76 2011 dollars.

Hey...you're talking to a guy that paid $1,200 back in the mid '70's for the 1st generation BetaMax recorder.

Chalk it off to just being young....I suppose.

If the distributors discount either rental or sale movies to $1 or $2, as they already have in some cases in the desire for cash flow, that combined with the desire to release day and date with theatres will kill the theatrical business, which will in turn kill the movie business. Movies will become the equivalent of "direct to video" efforts because no studio will be able to afford the big budgets.

Be careful of what you wish for. It's not impossible for the movie business to become, from both a creative and business standpoint, as bad as the music business (which is now below 50% of its 1999 peak).

There's always going to be young movie goers willing to pay whatever they need to pay to see the latest first run super hero or animation movie and that's good. It's not so good if these kind of films don't appeal to you.

It just seems to me that in years past, Hollywood offered much more of a variety of movie genres that appealed to larger audiences and it's a darn shame that that's no longer the case for whatever reason(s).

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Exist2Inspire

Funny thing is that I just did a paper on this for one of my classes haha.

The thing is, and I'm sure we all know this, that physical media will be dead but not for a long, long time. And there are so many reasons why, which I will not bore you with all of them.

1) Take a look at, Avatar or Transformers: Dark of the Moon. They are full blown, 50GB discs with around 49GB used for the video and audio. This, gives us very high bitrate movies and high bit-rate audio. But lets say we want to stream this. Given currently technology, aka Netflix, we will see the bitrate go down significantly and drop the audio to a 5.1 track (of which will be less than DVD quality). See the problem here? I will GLADLY play the $24.99 for Transformers Blu-Ray so I get a much better presentation of the film, rather than $7.99 a month to watch it.

Sure, you could say that Netflix could put the entire 50GB movie online. But lets see.... my internet cap is at 150 GB / Month... so I could watch the movie and only have 100 GB left? Well what if I want to watch it again? Well that's another 50GB. And perhaps next month I invite people over to watch it? 50GB gone again. Perhaps I want to watch both Avatar AND Transformers... look I have 50GB left for the month.

But, If I go out and buy the disc for $24.99 I can watch it as much times as I want.

Oh, but you might be thinking you will have hydro-costs! Well, from doing my research, it costs hydro to stream a movie on a device, rather than just play the movie (granted they gains are minimal, which is why this is moot).

2) Collections. Look at me, I have nearly 2000 physical movies at my place. And I love it... sure, it's a ***** to find something to watch, but that's not the point. Owning this collections brings a sense of joy. Well, except when you think about how much you've spent...

Joking aside, I think we can all agree we have this sense of joy when we own something. Be it movies, Games, music, etc. But then there is the streaming world. You don't actually physically own any of those movies. Sure, the advantage is that you can save space, but what's stopping Netflix from removing your favorite show? Oh wait, didn't they just lose STARZ / ANCHOR BAY? And, especially for us Canadians, there isn't a lot on there. Look at that, I own all the Star Trek DVD's (I don't, but lets pretend), but they're not on Netflix. Or lets say they are on Netflix, but they remove DS9 because it's not being watched as often.

The biggest problem with streaming is the constant negotiations with companies and their contracts. The same COULD be said about physical Media, but at least you have an opportunity to own them, and if they go out of print, you will still have it. With streaming, once it is gone, it's up to Netflix to bring it back... if they want to.


3) In regards to streaming 50GB movies... lets say at this point in time, that the whole neighbor hood is streaming Avatar... Can you say goodbye speeds? The networks simply don't have the infrastructure to run this.


Will we see the end of the physical media era? Sure, but it won't be for a long, long time. I will adopt streaming 100% only when the difference between a film on a physical media source is 99.9%. But again, not for a long long time.

I notice that you mention streaming only? Why? Yes we will see a lot of streaming websites in the future for rental but we will also see the availability to be able to DOWNLOAD and own our copies as well. I believe we are seeing the beginning of this today with the new Ultraviolet program that is just getting off the ground. Studios have no plans to abandon the sell thru market, It may change to downloads instead of Disc but that is still some time away.

[Towergrove]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Studios follow the money, which comes from the tastes and whims of consumers. Physical media is dying because younger people are growing up learning to live without it. It's only a matter of time before the number of people willing to support physical releases dwindles down enough for it not to be a viable market for the larger studios.

The future is low-quality streams and VOD over the provider of your choice. BDs will hang around for several more years, but I would not be counting on it past five or six years from now.

And digital copies that are collectible (UV for example).

[ZoetMB]

Even though I'm a fan of Blu-ray (and CDs for that matter), I have frequently posted that I thought that physical media would eventually pretty much disappear (to my dismay). Most people care more about convenience than quality and there are simply ever-increasing places to download movies from at relatively inexpensive prices, although we've also seen pushback from Netflix customers when Netflix tried to split that business.

However, what I feel now is that there will simply be a fragmented market. The masses probably will download, but there will always be a market (albeit, a smaller one) for those who want to own very high quality physical media.

I was at the Audio Engineering Society convention in NYC yesterday and there was a panel with the people responsible for preserving and remastering the Motown and Verve music catalogs. While part of their job is to service re-issues, much of their responsibility is to put together new box sets. During the Q&A, I asked how much interest the record labels still had in boxed sets considering that physical media is in decline and that the downloads market had turned primarily into a singles market. What they claimed is that there is actually more interest in boxed sets than there has been in a long time, but it was for the "high-end" of the market only. Such boxed sets would sell via Amazon and specialty dealers. They said, for example, that there's interest in putting out a boxed set of all the Ella Fitzgerald singles from the 40's and 50's, before she started recording albums. I'm surprised there's much of a market for that at all. And they implied (although they didn't say directly) that the complete Motown singles collection, which are sets by year of every single ever released on Motown and sell for over $100 per year, were successful, another surprise to me.

So I now think the same thing will happen with BD. There will be the Citizen Kane and Ben Hur super packages for collectors even if the mass market moves to downloads for the rest. The only question is whether the studios will maintain interest in the format if the size of the market declines in favor of digital downloads.

Meanwhile, and in spite of the poor economy, BD has had some pretty good recent weeks. Thru October 8th, BD is now 22% ahead of last year, has a 21.6% share of the physical market and has hit $1.225 billion in domestic revenue. Last year at this time, it was 47.4% ahead of 2009, but had only a 15.3% share of the physical market. What I don't have is the revenue garnered from digital downloads for comparable periods which would be necessary to evaluate where the market is really going.

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Even though I'm a fan of Blu-ray (and CDs for that matter), I have frequently posted that I thought that physical media would eventually pretty much disappear (to my dismay). Most people care more about convenience than quality and there are simply ever-increasing places to download movies from at relatively inexpensive prices, although we've also seen pushback from Netflix customers when Netflix tried to split that business.

However, what I feel now is that there will simply be a fragmented market. The masses probably will download, but there will always be a market (albeit, a smaller one) for those who want to own very high quality physical media.

I was at the Audio Engineering Society convention in NYC yesterday and there was a panel with the people responsible for preserving and remastering the Motown and Verve music catalogs. While part of their job is to service re-issues, much of their responsibility is to put together new box sets. During the Q&A, I asked how much interest the record labels still had in boxed sets considering that physical media is in decline and that the downloads market had turned primarily into a singles market. What they claimed is that there is actually more interest in boxed sets than there has been in a long time, but it was for the "high-end" of the market only. Such boxed sets would sell via Amazon and specialty dealers. They said, for example, that there's interest in putting out a boxed set of all the Ella Fitzgerald singles from the 40's and 50's, before she started recording albums. I'm surprised there's much of a market for that at all. And they implied (although they didn't say directly) that the complete Motown singles collection, which are sets by year of every single ever released on Motown and sell for over $100 per year, were successful, another surprise to me.

....not unlike the old Laserdisc dynamics which lasted for more than 20 years and was supported almost entirely by HQ aficionados and high prices.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

So I now think the same thing will happen with BD. There will be the Citizen Kane and Ben Hur super packages for collectors even if the mass market moves to downloads for the rest. The only question is whether the studios will maintain interest in the format if the size of the market declines in favor of digital downloads.

As you know, VHS and BetaMax recorders ruled the roost from the late '70s to beyond the turn of the century and consumers created quite a collection of recorded movies during that time span. Never-the-less, most upgraded their movie collections to the hugely successful DVD format because it was right for them.

So far with Blu ray and downloads....upgrading just isn't in the picture for most of these folks 'cause it's just not right for 'em.

I think Blu ray's best days are ahead with the introduction of 4k or higher resolutions or perhaps 3D...maybe something combining both technologies...something that appeals to most consumers. Anyway...who knows what's in store.

[Anthony P]

However, what I feel now is that there will simply be a fragmented market. The masses probably will download, but there will always be a market (albeit, a smaller one) for those who want to own very high quality physical media.

give it a bit more time, eventualy you will understand why it won't be that small