Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[dissident]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yep XBMC and a couple of 2TB hard drives to me is more attractive than shelves full of discs. Clean. Minimalist... and with the mkv format copies can be made that are more than acceptable for 4-10GB depending on the movie.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by dissident

Yep XBMC and a couple of 2TB hard drives to me is more attractive than shelves full of discs. Clean. Minimalist... and with the mkv format copies can be made that are more than acceptable for 4-10GB depending on the movie.

Utter tosh in my opinion. Humans need to collect. It is part of our DNA. We need to own things. It is part of us and always will be.

[Tok]

A couple of 2TB HDDs couldn't even hold a quarter of my collection. Any serious collector is concerned about quality and storing a large quantity of movies on servers requires a large number of drives and possibly compression.

It's much cheaper to just have a disc on a shelf than spending $1000s on server equipment.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Tok

A couple of 2TB HDDs couldn't even hold a quarter of my collection. Any serious collector is concerned about quality and storing a large quantity of movies on servers requires a large number of drives and possibly compression.

It's much cheaper to just have a disc on a shelf than spending $1000s on server equipment.

Of course it is. Discs all the way.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Utter tosh in my opinion. Humans need to collect. It is part of our DNA. We need to own things. It is part of us and always will be.

I think you're confusing "humans" with "western consumers & capitalists". Collecting is most certainly not part of our DNA because most humans were originally nomads and could not bring anything but essentials from place to place.

Once civilizations were developed, except for the ruling class, which was largely by inheritance, the vast majority of humans were poor and didn't own very much. Perhaps they desired more, but it was a moot point.

Only with the development of capitalism (and largely only since the end of World War II), where publicly traded companies must have ever-increasing sales (or the stock falls) has there been such an emphasis on consumerism and therefore "collecting". It has been the marketing of the "American Dream" and "Keep Up with the Joneses" that has resulted in consumers collecting and buying so much crap. It might now be part of the western world's DNA, but it is by no means part of human DNA.

People who "go digital" are still collecting -- they're just not collecting physical objects. In the case of media, it's the content that counts, not the physical manifestation of it - that's just the delivery mechanism.

Having said that, I do think there's a difference between kids growing up seeing a library of books on a shelf and those same books only existing on a digital device. Having those spines in front of you and displayed imbues a kind of importance to those volumes. Having them only in digital form makes them invisible. There's a certain amount of cultural literacy that is attained simply be remembering titles and their authors.

But regardless, that does not mean that collecting is part of human DNA. While we've gone through an era of the McMansion, the tough economy, population expansion, the decline of the middle class and higher energy and labor costs are going to lead to both lower home ownership rates as well as smaller homes. I'm not making the claim that consumers will buy less, but I think we will definitely see media purchases become digital over time and we'll have less junk on our shelves. It's already happening and there is no question that younger people especially don't see much need for physical media any more than they see a need for a landline telephone. Having said that, a very large new record store selling CDs and vinyl just opened up in Williamsburg, Brooklyn -- a hipster neighborhood filled with young people. But we'll see if it lasts.

[Steedeel]

[QUOTE=ZoetMB;8494171]I think you're confusing "humans" with "western consumers & capitalists". Collecting is most certainly not part of our DNA because most humans were originally nomads and could not bring anything but essentials from place to place.

Once civilizations were developed, except for the ruling class, which was largely by inheritance, the vast majority of humans were poor and didn't own very much. Perhaps they desired more, but it was a moot point.

Only with the development of capitalism (and largely only since the end of World War II), where publicly traded companies must have ever-increasing sales (or the stock falls) has there been such an emphasis on consumerism and therefore "collecting". It has been the marketing of the "American Dream" and "Keep Up with the Joneses" that has resulted in consumers collecting and buying so much crap. It might now be part of the western world's DNA, but it is by no means part of human DNA.

People who "go digital" are still collecting -- they're just not collecting physical objects. In the case of media, it's the content that counts, not the physical manifestation of it - that's just the delivery mechanism.

Having said that, I do think there's a difference between kids growing up seeing a library of books on a shelf and those same books only existing on a digital device. Having those spines in front of you and displayed imbues a kind of importance to those volumes. Having them only in digital form makes them invisible. There's a certain amount of cultural literacy that is attained simply be remembering titles and their authors.

But regardless, that does not mean that collecting is part of human DNA. While we've gone through an era of the McMansion, the tough economy, population expansion, the decline of the middle class and higher energy and labor costs are going to lead to both lower home ownership rates as well as smaller homes. I'm not making the claim that consumers will buy less, but I think we will definitely see media purchases become digital over time and we'll have less junk on our shelves. It's already happening and there is no question that younger people especially don't see much need for physical media any more than they see a need for a landline telephone. Having said that, a very large new record store selling CDs and vinyl just opened up in Williamsburg, Brooklyn -- a hipster neighborhood filled with young people. But we'll see if it lasts.

Big difference between New York City and where I live. Everyone still has a telephone line here. Every single person I know.

Pretty sure the cavemen were collecting things by the way. There were eyewitnesses.

[mredman]

our internet went down every minute a couple of days ago because of a massive storm. We could not see anything on netflix. You know what we did we put on a blu ray

Another one of the big reasons there will never be only streaming/downloading

[Packerfan75]

Originally Posted by mredman

our internet went down every minute a couple of days ago because of a massive storm. We could not see anything on netflix. You know what we did we put on a blu ray

Another one of the big reasons there will never be only streaming/downloading

I hope you're right.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by mredman

our internet went down every minute a couple of days ago because of a massive storm. We could not see anything on netflix. You know what we did we put on a blu ray

Another one of the big reasons there will never be only streaming/downloading

I never implied there will only be streaming/downloading. These technologies will co-exist, just as cable/satellite and OTA TV co-exist, but something like 80% of U.S. households get their TV reception from satellite/cable.

Giving an example of where a technology fails or has disadvantages means nothing. That's like saying that they'll never get rid of elevator operators because sometimes the electrical controls short out or they'll never get rid of the telegraph because wireless communications sometimes fails.

Generally, consumers do not choose the best technology, they choose the most convenient technology. VHS was more convenient than the superior Beta, but VHS was available from more manufacturers and had more pre-recorded material. Many would contend that analog vinyl has many advantages over CDs, but CDs are definitely more convenient to use and take up less space. Digital downloads are mostly inferior to CDs, due to compression (although high-end downloads can be superior), but many people, especially young people, find digital downloading more convenient that purchasing a CD at retail.

People eat crappy frozen food not because it's better or cheaper, but because it's easier. Etc.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I never implied there will only be streaming/downloading. These technologies will co-exist, just as cable/satellite and OTA TV co-exist, but something like 80% of U.S. households get their TV reception from satellite/cable.

Giving an example of where a technology fails or has disadvantages means nothing. That's like saying that they'll never get rid of elevator operators because sometimes the electrical controls short out or they'll never get rid of the telegraph because wireless communications sometimes fails.

Generally, consumers do not choose the best technology, they choose the most convenient technology. VHS was more convenient than the superior Beta, but VHS was available from more manufacturers and had more pre-recorded material. Many would contend that analog vinyl has many advantages over CDs, but CDs are definitely more convenient to use and take up less space. Digital downloads are mostly inferior to CDs, due to compression (although high-end downloads can be superior), but many people, especially young people, find digital downloading more convenient that purchasing a CD at retail.

People eat crappy frozen food not because it's better or cheaper, but because it's easier. Etc.

but how is it easier if the internet goes out because of a storm.
the easier thing is to watch a blu ray with higher quality

[JakeytheJoker]

If laser disc could survive as long as it did then I don't see Blu Ray having any problems lasting quite a while.

[Nerdkiller likes BD]

Originally Posted by dissident

spot on, champ. Bluray's successor will be out around the 2015 time frame. These predictions of 50-60 years were just silly and people back then making them should have known better.

Not to mention you're quoting from a banned member.

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by JakeytheJoker

If laser disc could survive as long as it did then I don't see Blu Ray having any problems lasting quite a while.

As far as i know they are STILL making VHS tapes, so they didn't really go out. Maybe the movie companies don't make any of them anymore, but you can still buy recordable ones.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Tok

A couple of 2TB HDDs couldn't even hold a quarter of my collection. Any serious collector is concerned about quality and storing a large quantity of movies on servers requires a large number of drives and possibly compression.

It's much cheaper to just have a disc on a shelf than spending $1000s on server equipment.

agree, all his post showed was how crappy AV he is willing t live with in order to fit a lot of films on his 2TB drive.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Giving an example of where a technology fails or has disadvantages means nothing. That's like saying that they'll never get rid of elevator operators because sometimes the electrical controls short out or they'll never get rid of the telegraph because wireless communications sometimes fails.

your examples don't really make sense an elevator operator is much more likely to be sick (or need to go to the rest room) and so not be there then an elevator to short in such a way that a manual elevator would still work if it was in place. As for the telegraph it also does not make sense, telegraphs were also wireless in a way (remember Marconi in the 1800's that sent a message across the Atlantic). What killed the telegraph was the phone, why send a short text to a central place that then needed transport when you could jut talk to someone (once there were wired phones in most homes).

Generally, consumers do not choose the best technology, they choose the most convenient technology.

that is not true. Some will pick the worst tech but not always. There is no such thing as a monolith called Consumers> Different consumers pick different tech.

VHS was more convenient than the superior Beta, but VHS was available from more manufacturers and had more pre-recorded material.

there is some faults with that comment. Beta1 was slightly better quality than VHS, I agree with that, BUT Beta1 had an extremely short record time (the original L-500 tapes in B1 had 1H of play/record). So it was an issue when people wanted to record stuff (i.e. why have several timers on the machine when you can barely record a show and might miss a few minutes at the beginning or end). Second it was completely useless for movies (do you know movies that are that short, especially if you add the previews) so beta1 was not used for film distribution but the later developed Beta3 speed was used and that was actually lower quality than VHS. Plus if you record a snowy channel (back in the 70's early 80's most TV was OTA with bad reception) 250 lines (if someone chose to record in B1) vs 240 lines did not make any difference in the snow you saw on the picture. You are also missing the obvious, people that wanted quality went to LD. So what you goty was that there was no room for Beta. People that wanted quality went LD, people that wanted the ability to record all their shows during an evening out or a sporting event went VHs, people that wanted both those things had LD and VHS and so there was very little market left for Beta.

Many would contend that analog vinyl has many advantages over CDs, but CDs are definitely more convenient to use and take up less space. Digital downloads are mostly inferior to CDs, due to compression (although high-end downloads can be superior), but many people, especially young people, find digital downloading more convenient that purchasing a CD at retail.

and all 3 exist because different markets see different benefits in each format.

[JakeytheJoker]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

As far as i know they are STILL making VHS tapes, so they didn't really go out. Maybe the movie companies don't make any of them anymore, but you can still buy recordable ones.

Yeah but I was saying that since Laser Disc was never as popular as VHS and the fact it was able to survive even for some years after DVD came out then I Blu Ray would have no problem at all. If you go to the-numbers.com and check out the highest selling blu rays for each year they have listed you'll see that Blu Ray is doing just fine.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by dissident

spot on, champ. Bluray's successor will be out around the 2015 time frame. These predictions of 50-60 years were just silly and people back then making them should have known better.

What are you even talking about there has been no indication of a successor to blu ray. Its stronger than it ever was. You really should be banned for digging up a 5 year old thread. Wow man thats insane to even do

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by dissident

spot on, champ. Bluray's successor will be out around the 2015 time frame. These predictions of 50-60 years were just silly and people back then making them should have known better.

It's opinions. Look at vinyl. People were throwing those things away but had they kept them, they would be still be able to use them. I know people who are gutted because they disposed of loads of LPS and now new decks are coming out. Yes, it is only a small niche but that's not the point.

By the way, 4k won't be a successor it will be another high end option.

[meremortal]

Originally Posted by JakeytheJoker

If laser disc could survive as long as it did then I don't see Blu Ray having any problems lasting quite a while.

Two completely different eras. Laserdisc collectors were a very small minority of the home market pool in their day. By today's inflation, an average movie on that format ran roughly $45-50 for a non-special edition release. It was a labor of love market for the few people who could afford it, whereas blu has become mainstream and affordable to the point where a new release is often within a ballpark of only about $5 more than the dvd and often includes incentives such as dvd and digital copy inclusion. LD also was a niche medium in only roughly 1-2% of households even at its peak. Let's not forget that LD really had no competition from videophiles during its duration and pretty much surrendered the moment dvd debuted. Many of the final LD releases only had 400-500 copies printed and some were cancelled last second when pre-orders didn't hit a minimum expected quota. 500 copies of a new blu ray release would be considered a complete failure.

Digital technology is certainly growing pretty exponentially and we're still somewhat in the infancy stages as broadband internet has only been mainstream for about 8-10 years now for most people in the US. Even less so for speeds high enough to comfortably stream and download hi-def video content. We're already seeing the effects of less and less movies on store shelves and the closing of the media shops and megastores, which would presumably lead one to believe that physical media is gradually transitioning to online shops to supplement digital sales until the demand for physical media isn't enough to continue with the endeavor at all.

It'd be nice to think blu ray could last 20 years in the marketplace but I just don't see it happening with the rapid progession of broadband technology and the expansion of the online market. Just the way things are moving, though I love physical product and blu ray. Blu's still doing well and more and more people have HDTVs now, so I'd love to see the medium stick around for another few years.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by meremortal

Two completely different eras. Laserdisc collectors were a very small minority of the home market pool in their day. By today's inflation, an average movie on that format ran roughly $45-50 for a non-special edition release. It was a labor of love market for the few people who could afford it, whereas blu has become mainstream and affordable to the point where a new release is often within a ballpark of only about $5 more than the dvd and often includes incentives such as dvd and digital copy inclusion. LD also was a niche medium in only roughly 1-2% of households even at its peak. Let's not forget that LD really had no competition from videophiles during its duration and pretty much surrendered the moment dvd debuted. Many of the final LD releases only had 400-500 copies printed and some were cancelled last second when pre-orders didn't hit a minimum expected quota. 500 copies of a new blu ray release would be considered a complete failure.

Digital technology is certainly growing pretty exponentially and we're still somewhat in the infancy stages as broadband internet has only been mainstream for about 8-10 years now for most people in the US. Even less so for speeds high enough to comfortably stream and download hi-def video content. We're already seeing the effects of less and less movies on store shelves and the closing of the media shops and megastores, which would presumably lead one to believe that physical media is gradually transitioning to online shops to supplement digital sales until the demand for physical media isn't enough to continue with the endeavor at all.

It'd be nice to think blu ray could last 20 years in the marketplace but I just don't see it happening with the rapid progession of broadband technology and the expansion of the online market. Just the way things are moving, though I love physical product and blu ray. Blu's still doing well and more and more people have HDTVs now, so I'd love to see the medium stick around for another few years.

Supplement digital sales? What digital sales?
EST is dead in the water.