Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[nec1912]

Why did blu ray not take of like DVD's ? When DVD's came out it was like wow we need to get all these movies and TV shows on DVD ASAP. Not the same with blu ray .

The movies are slowing catching up to blu ray but the TV shows what a disaster. Could this be because of the recession or the people spent so much money and time going from VHS to DVD that they burned out . In other words if blu ray came out in the next 2 or 3 years from now it would been okay DVD been around for long time now that go to blu ray.

Many say Ultra high-definition 4K UHDTV (2160p) or 8K UHDTV 4320p is the next thing of the future . But with blu ray having such hard time I think 4K UHDTV or 8K UHDTV is doomed . May be in 15 or 20 years from now.

So is this public getting tired switching evey 5 or 10 years ?

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by nec1912

So is this public getting tired switching evey 5 or 10 years ?

That may be part of it.

Crummy economy is another factor.

People still don't see a substantial difference between DVD and BD quality, especially since the jump from VHS to DVD was huge and required less hardware upgrades than jumping to high-def optical discs.

As far as TV shows go, it's mostly because sales haven't been good enough for TV BDs; without the certainty of a profit, studios have been slacking on TV shows a lot.

People would probably also list price as a major factor as well...can't say I see why, when I see $3 BDs listed in the deals bar at the top of the page these days.

[Blu-Benny]

most people don't want to have to upgrade to a new medium every 4-5 years....i think that's the biggest problem.

that and people that say they can't see a differenece between blu and dvd.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

most people don't want to have to upgrade to a new medium every 4-5 years....i think that's the biggest problem.

that and people that say they can't see a differenece between blu and dvd.

My brother tells me that very same thing

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by nec1912

Why did blu ray not take of like DVD's ? When DVD's came out it was like wow we need to get all these movies and TV shows on DVD ASAP. Not the same with blu ray .

The movies are slowing catching up to blu ray but the TV shows what a disaster. Could this be because of the recession or the people spent so much money and time going from VHS to DVD that they burned out . In other words if blu ray came out in the next 2 or 3 years from now it would been okay DVD been around for long time now that go to blu ray.

Many say Ultra high-definition 4K UHDTV (2160p) or 8K UHDTV 4320p is the next thing of the future . But with blu ray having such hard time I think 4K UHDTV or 8K UHDTV is doomed . May be in 15 or 20 years from now.

So is this public getting tired switching evey 5 or 10 years ?

I think the biggest issue is people re-imagining how well DVD did. I had several thousands DVDs but even I did not say I need to get all these movies and TV shows on DVD ASAP and most people I know never had an actual DVD collection. DVD came out in Q1 1997 in the US (Q3 1996 in Japan) and studios continued releasing content on VHS until the end of 2005 and some films even in 2006. It is now 2012 and BD only came out in the summer of 2006 so in 2014/2015/2016 we can compare the two and see how well BD is doing vs DVD until then it is just dumb fanboyism of misremembered history.

[djkest]

Blu-ray is fine. One problem with Blu-ray is that 1) some people don't feel the need to upgrade 2) the discs cost more to make. They aren't that expensive, esp. compared to what DVDs used to cost 10 years ago. I think people perceive them as being expensive but it's not accurate, really. Also some studios are lazy and/or cash strapped and can't / wont upgrade their TV shows with HD widescreen scans. I was watching a FF DVD of a TV show the other day, it was pretty painful by comparison to blu.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

I see another reason in my own personal experience....there are certain films that I own that I will likely never watch again. Things I've seen just waaayyyyy too many times, to the point of extreme burnout and, eventually, disinterest.

Hear me out, please:

My generation was the first to be able to own (via VHS) many/most/at least some of the old flicks we waited for (usually late-night weekend) TV broadcasts of while growing up. Not just horror/sci-fi, but many genres.

Then, DVD came along, and it was fantastic! No rewinding, quick load time, lots of catalog choices, etc....times were great! But, I doubt that any of us re-bought EVERYTHING they owned on VHS when DVD came along. There are probably films that you've "grown out of" by the time blu-ray came 'round.

Couple that with hardware/software/firmware problems and/or updates, and you can easily see why it hasn't taken off like it could have. Compound the issue with the occasional revision to a well-loved popular title (like Star Wars, E.T., The French Connection, and . . . . .ummm, numerous others, even those that have gotten me in trouble for speaking out about, lol ), and you can see why the "underachievers" aren't going to get into blu-ray. Ever.

Then there's these issues: video games/consoles competing for entertainment dollars. MP3 players, Ipads, Iphones, and other Istuff doing the same. Add in a horrible economy, and a whole new gen that has grown up with excessive scads of scratched coasters in the house, and you begin to see the bigger picture.

We all know what looks/sounds good around here, and we're all ready to take that plunge to achieve that quality. Other folks will not bother. And, unfortunately, that's MOST people.

Back to my original point, though (burnout): I'll never watch any of the Evil Dead series ever again, as I've just seen them so many times, that they bore me to death. Only Evil Dead's biggest fans will do an upgrade to a film that they like but have seen 30 or more times. Everyone has exceptions, and everyone probably also has a few titles they once loved that they now feel very "meh" about.

Add to that maturity. . . .unfortunate, but true. After having thousands of CDs, DVDs, and blu's, it'd better be something truly special to make me wanna buy it yet again. With maturity comes the realization that they're only trying to SELL YOU SOMETHING, not give you a great experience. Manufacturers don't give a rat's azz wether or not you enjoyed something or not, just so long as you've paid your hard-earned sheckels for the priveledge.

[KRW1]

As far as TV shows are concerened, I think streaming and downloading has hit those hard. I don't think there are that many TV shows I would watch more than once, so streaming is fine for me, and, I imagine, a lot of other people.

The bigger picture, though, I think bluray is doing fine. There will always be naysayers - I worked in a video store circa 2000 and even then, there were people convinced it wouldn't replace VHS because 1) You needed a new TV to get the benefit of the new technology because of widescreen 2) people aren't going to replace VHS collections and 3) you can't record on a DVD.

Number 3 was a very popular argument; ' Digital Versatile Disc? It's not very versatile if you can't record on it, is it?' Was something I heard a lot.

Bluray is fine. When it first came out, I could pretty much buy everything I wanted as it came out each month. Now I have a wants list of hundreds. That's how I measure it's success.

[Johnny Vinyl]

When DVD was introduced the only requirement was to buy a DVD player and you were all set. Didn't matter what TV you had. The introduction of Blu-ray changed that. You needed a Blu-ray player, but also a HDTV to take full advantage of the benefits of said format. This obviously IMO had a lot to do with the lower rate of adoption for the Blu-ray format.

[Steel Panther]

Originally Posted by djkest

Blu-ray is fine. One problem with Blu-ray is that 1) some people don't feel the need to upgrade 2) the discs cost more to make. They aren't that expensive, esp. compared to what DVDs used to cost 10 years ago. I think people perceive them as being expensive but it's not accurate, really. Also some studios are lazy and/or cash strapped and can't / wont upgrade their TV shows with HD widescreen scans. I was watching a FF DVD of a TV show the other day, it was pretty painful by comparison to blu.

The first DVD I bought was Tim Burton's Batman. I paid $30 for it + my $300 DVD player.

My most expensive Blu-Ray (pre tax and shipping - non-boxset) is $20 and my Blu Ray Player(s) were $48, $113 and I think $140. So, I got 3 players for the cost of my original dvd player. It's not a matter of "too expensive" it's a matter of not having to get the newest and best the day of launch anymore.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

When DVD was introduced the only requirement was to buy a DVD player and you were all set. Didn't matter what TV you had. The introduction of Blu-ray changed that. You needed a Blu-ray player, but also a HDTV to take full advantage of the benefits of said format. This obviously IMO had a lot to do with the lower rate of adoption for the Blu-ray format.

You've obviously never met the general public and tried to explain why a widescreen DVD is better than a fullscreen VHS even when viewed on a 4:3CRT telly. The perception was amongst the late adaptors, I found, was that you needed a widescreen TV to get the full benefit of DVD.

Of course, isn't true, but its something I heard a lot.

[DetroitSportsFan]

A point about TV shows - many of them were filmed on SD videotape, which would basically make a BD release pointless. Also, if a show didn't sell well enough on DVD, studios won't bother with a BD release.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

I truly believe that younger generations are, overall, beginning to shun excessive numbers of physical copies of pretty much anything, LOL.

My daughter is 19, in school, very social & well-adjusted girl. She's just not interested in the following things:

car (not a brand new one, anyway)
house/real estate/owning property (ditto; she says an apt. leaves her "free to move")
husband (not yet, anyway....a boyfriend is good enough for now)
huge numbers of kids
large collections of "stuff" that are not kept on some type of Cloud-type storage

.....and the list goes on.

I guess that times are a-changin'.

I do agree with her, though; if these things don't/won't make you happy, don't do/get/buy into them. She apparently has learned very early what has taken me nearly 50 years to realize: Don't let your possessions own you.

I've been really obsessive for decades about my collections (I have several), but I've reduced them all (pretty much) to a manageable and fairly portable size, should I ever need to move.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

well I guess realizing that is a good first step


I don't get your point. is the issue the BD logo, or t6he few inches or fraction of inches differences between the two devices? I could understand someone saying I want a smart TV because it looks neater then having a player on a shelf/piece of furniture and cable going from it to the TV, but once you have one stand alone device or an other, does it make a difference, would the room really become very crowded with a device that is much less then 1/12th of a cubic foot difference?



yes except for some stupid ones (like the guy POed that he has to pay for Netflix because he thought it would be free with the device) they tend to be positive.



no, I have used and seen the Roku, Unlike you(since you admit you have not tried any BD systems for over a year) , I don't make comments based on ignorant fan boy loyalty

As for Roku existing for a long time, I know, I agree and I did not say that when it came out it did not make sense. In early 2008 there were not a lot of choices for people that wanted to stream video without a PC. But we are not 2008 but at the end of 2012 when every console can be used to stream video (360 - end of 2008, PS3 - 2009, Wii -2010) most new TVs are connected (I think the first ones came out in 2010) and many inexpensive BD players (much cheaper then the Roku). If you don't want to admit the reality of today and that the guy making a purchasing decision for watching streaming video does not care about early 2008 but does care about today’s options, then keep sticking your fanboy head in the sand but don't act as if others don't know what they are talking about.

How long ago did you use a roku sine youd ripping on this guy for not using a bluray player in the last year or two lol. Roku fits in your hand... unless they are making bdps smaller then the discs they play you are way off. The interface is far better then any smart tv.. bdp
.. or game system i have yet to see as well and i have seen this years models and both ps3 and 360.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Roku fits in your hand... unless they are making bdps smaller then the discs they play you are way off.

huh? that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Are you saying that you beleive a BD disk is much larger then a 1/12th of a cubic foot? Let's keep it simple, I hope you agree a BDdisk has a diameter<<1 foot, that means the area is << 1 foot and since I hope you can agree a disk is much less then 1 inch thick that would obviously mean that the disk is <<<< 1/12th a cubic foot.

As for what I said, do the math you will see it is true, most BD players size can be found on line.

The interface is far better then any smart tv.. bdp
.. or game system i have yet to see as well and i have seen this years models and both ps3 and 360.

but that is your fanboy opinion based on wanting to make an excuse for the extra money you wasted on the Roku. The same way your fanboyism stops you from realizing that a BD disk is much less then cubic inch let alone that it would be <<< then 1/12th a cubic foot.

But I guess some people would rather make sure the device is small because they spend time holding a useless device and spend hours calling it their pretty instead of enjoying a film.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

huh? that is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. Are you saying that you beleive a BD disk is much larger then a 1/12th of a cubic foot? Let's keep it simple, I hope you agree a BDdisk has a diameter<<1 foot, that means the area is << 1 foot and since I hope you can agree a disk is much less then 1 inch thick that would obviously mean that the disk is <<<< 1/12th a cubic foot.

As for what I said, do the math you will see it is true, most BD players size can be found on line.



but that is your fanboy opinion based on wanting to make an excuse for the extra money you wasted on the Roku. The same way your fanboyism stops you from realizing that a BD disk is much less then cubic inch let alone that it would be <<< then 1/12th a cubic foot.

But I guess some people would rather make sure the device is small because they spend time holding a useless device and spend hours calling it their pretty instead of enjoying a film.

Yeah im the guy with the fanboy vibe

Roku is the size diameter of a disc, sure they make small bdps, not that small though, but when your trying to keep your HT tidy size does matter, no reason to rail on someone if thats the decision they or waf make. Just pointing out its more then a fraction of inches in size difference as you said but you must be one of those people who see anything not blu-ray as the DEVIL. There cheap and another great way to get your entertainment, in a household that shares devices.

[Steedeel]

If you can see past the 1990's picture quality and multi toned skylines i guess streaming tech is great. Me, i prefer my picture rock solid!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Yeah im the guy with the fanboy vibe

Roku is the size diameter of a disc, sure they make small bdps, not that small though, but when your trying to keep your HT tidy size does matter, no reason to rail on someone if thats the decision they or waf make. Just pointing out its more then a fraction of inches in size difference as you said but you must be one of those people who see anything not blu-ray as the DEVIL. There cheap and another great way to get your entertainment, in a household that shares devices.

Again man, this makes no sense. This has nothing to do with BD vs streaming. Did I talk about people using BDs? No, that is irrelevant, up to a point. I just pointed to the obvious, but you hated that I did that. Unless someone has a smart TV to watch their streaming, it does not matter if it is a BD player or a Roku since both are small but take up place in the room, the BD player might be slightly bigger (which I pointed out) but except for people that want to make excuses for why they had to buy a Roku, no one would care since it is a device that will sit on a shelf/piece of furniture. You blew a fuse because I dared to correctly quantified that difference as much less then 1/12th of a cubic foot. If you replied that you did not have that extra space in the room, then that would have been laughable, but it is your room and you are allowed to care or not about such a small difference in size. But I guess seeing it in black and white that it is much less the 1/12th of a cubic foot you realized how small that difference truly is and so you had to attack the facts instead of your delusions.

As for cheap, maybe in quality , but the point is that they are more expensive then the less expensive BD player, I never said that people need to watch BDs on those players. I was explaining why the CEO had to attack BD, BD players are the only competition to Roku. If someone buys a smart TV for the room then they don’t need any stand alone device to watch Netflix, but a new TV is a bit expensive just to watch Netflix. If someone is a gamer and they have a console in the room then they don’t need an other device to watch Netflix. So the only market available to Roku is people that want Netflix in a room without a smart TV, no console and no PC, and then if the guy is smart enough to look at all the alternatives for Netflix streaming then they would see that Roku is a more expensive option and it does not offer anything more for the extra price. I was just explaining why the CEO expressed that BD was going to be obsolete by 2016, it was FUD because they want to get gullible people looking for a stand alone player for Netflix not to look at BD players because reasonable people don’t go out and say “I want to buy the device that is form a no-name brand that is more expensive and has less features”

[krazeyeyez]

Ahh i get it now... you have canadian internet, now i understand the hostility.

Compare the interfaces with those "cheaper" players not to mention the applications and services they support compared to a roku. As for the size.. it might not seem like much to you but it is signifigant in terms of shelf space, portability, etc... especially when you already got bdps, receivers, and game stations taking it up. The roku is a compact light and energy effecient device but why am i telling you... you have used one before right.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Ahh i get it now... you have canadian internet, now i understand the hostility.

no it is that I have a canadian education and so I understand volume and I am not easily fooled by dumb comments.

Compare the interfaces with those "cheaper" players not to mention the applications and services they support compared to a roku.

I have

As for the size.. it might not seem like much to you but it is signifigant in terms of shelf space, portability, etc... especially when you already got bdps, receivers, and game stations taking it up.

but iof you have a game cionsole then why would you need any other device to take up that precious space in order to watch your Netflix films. Are you not bright enough to realize you can watch it on the PS3, 360 and Wii so whichever one you have it will do the trick?

The roku is a compact light and energy efficient device but why am i telling you... you have used one before right.

I agree, did I dispute any of that? what you are missing is that it is an extra device that is expensive and useless since in many rooms people have that option with no device and if people don't then they have cheaper compact light and energy efficient devices to choose from.