Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Which brings up a related question:
In 2020, will they be doing away with 1080p TVs and only selling 4K TV's? Will consumers have a choice between buying a cheaper 1080p HDTV and a 4K TV for years and years?

No, it will be a choice of 2 dollars for a smartphone movie and 4 dollars for a movie on a tv. Guess what wins? If the industry want to kill off tv viewers the proposed idea will do that.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

Hey guys, even more reason to stick with physical media. Comcast is officially putting data caps on unlimited plans in the southeast U.S.

Wednesday, Oct 7

Comcast, the largest cable company in America, is not at all happy about people that are throwing out the pay TV and just streaming content from others, according to Channel 2 Consumer Advisor Clark Howard.
He says that’s why Comcast is experimenting with data caps, meaning your unlimited internet is no longer unlimited under this experiment.
What happens is you will get a notice from Comcast saying you're using too much Internet. The notice will tell you that if you keep doing it they’re going to bill you for overages.
Comcast has created a data calculator that you can use to calculate the estimated amount you use each month.
The experiment is happening in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina.

What's hilarious is they claim there has always been a cap, but they just didn't enforce it. Don't worry all providers have been talking about caps for ages. So Netflix 4k streaming $8 a month, Internet $45.00, data overage charges $599.34 a month!. LOL

[octagon]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Jeez. "Using too much internet".
Screw them.
Just like limiting large, sugary, soft drinks.
"We know what's best for you!!!"

It would be more like a restaurant putting a limit on 'All You Can Eat' shrimp not out of concern for your health but out of concern for their bottom line.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by octagon

It would be more like a restaurant putting a limit on 'All You Can Eat' shrimp not out of concern for your health but out of concern for their bottom line.

Yeah, that's a better analogy

[Clark Kent]

Data caps are coming to America. The cable monopoly is getting threatened by younger consumers streaming all their media consumption and bypassing expensive cable packages. Since most cable companies have government-enforced monopolies in most markets, good luck going around them since they are ISPs as well.

The streaming revolution will end up being almost as expensive as the cable bills people have been paying the past three decades. Reality is going to hit very hard by 2020.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Data caps are coming to America. The cable monopoly is getting threatened by younger consumers streaming all their media consumption and bypassing expensive cable packages. Since most cable companies have government-enforced monopolies in most markets, good luck going around them since they are ISPs as well.

The streaming revolution will end up being almost as expensive as the cable bills people have been paying the past three decades. Reality is going to hit very hard by 2020.

But will the cable prices come down in price in order to incentivize people to keep their cable TV subscription?
With the younger generation streaming all their content and not needing a cable subscription, won't prices for old school broadcasting go down?

[GasmaskAvenger]

And that's why I don't stream. Too many variables.

I'm just sticking with buying physical copies unless its something long out of print and overpriced by malevolent scalpers.

[stargazeruk]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Data caps are coming to America. The cable monopoly is getting threatened by younger consumers streaming all their media consumption and bypassing expensive cable packages. Since most cable companies have government-enforced monopolies in most markets, good luck going around them since they are ISPs as well.

The streaming revolution will end up being almost as expensive as the cable bills people have been paying the past three decades. Reality is going to hit very hard by 2020.

I'll be interested to see how it plays out and then compare to the US/UK market. I don't know how true it is (not seen it my self) but I heard there is not a lot of competition between the cable companies. I know people in the US who are patient to wait for the shows and ditched the expensive cable TV bills for a more cheaper alternate (fast broadband, amazon prime, Hulu, Netflix and I believe HBO as well). But you got to have the speed and stable line to do it.

Going to the standoff for physical and streaming Its got pros and cons.
Streaming is decent and Netflix/amazon prime 4k PQ is very close but not better then blu-ray quality and lacks lossless sound. amazon 1080p streaming in the UK is decent at least pushing above 10Mbps.

4K re masters we see the results on blu-ray, streaming we keep the same old crap and never see it.

Streaming ATM has ease of use, does not have adds and straight to the movie and a low cost and requires no storage space to be used and if you got decent data allowance with 4G / good free Wi-Fi signal you got your media with you all the time.

Physical media has higher cost, waiting around for trailers and copyright notices to get past first and not really portable like streaming media.

It all has its pros and conns. blu-ray for me has the best quality and the studios at least have a reason to do 4k re masters and we get to see them the way we meant. Streaming people are stuck with the same shitty quality and why put a 4k remaster up when the streams don't get the bandwidth it requires when most people are happy with its just a film.

[Big-D]

Engadget has an interesting article published earlier today :

http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/20/4...-already-dead/

(Full article)

It may seem a tad hyperbolic to say this, but 4K Blu-ray could very well be the holy grail of home theater technology. Finally, a disc that makes movies look almost as good as they do in theaters, where many films are projected digitally in 4K. It crams in four times the resolution of existing Blu-rays — over 8 million pixels, versus 2 million — and it brings along some new technologies like high-dynamic range (HDR), which dramatically increases color range, brightness and overall picture depth. When 4K Blu-ray discs start shipping in a few months, they'll be everything we've ever wanted in a home video format. And yet, it'll likely be ignored by most consumers.
In the end, who besides hard-core cinephiles will pay $400 or more for a new player and discs when you can already stream movies in 4K? Instead of being a wildly successful mainstream format like DVD, 4K Blu-ray will likely go the way of LaserDisc: incredible for its time but too much trouble for most.

But it's not as if we didn't see this coming. In 2015, Blu-ray and DVD sales fell 12 percent while digital media sales jumped 16 percent, following years of similar trajectories for both categories, according to figures from the Digital Media Group. In fact, digital sales also surpassed physical media purchases last year, clocking in at $8.9 billion compared to $8 billion. And let's not forget about streaming subscriptions, which jumped 20 percent to reach $5.7 billion. In other words, 4K Blu-ray is launching at the worst time for disc-based media since the advent of DVDs.

Meanwhile streaming movies and TV shows has practically become second nature for most of us. Netflix's mountains of content and ease of use have made "binge-watching" a household term, and renting a movie on iTunes and Vudu couldn't be much easier. Streaming media caters to our increasing desire for on-demand content. It doesn't matter so much that the quality of a 1080p stream doesn't look as good as a 1080p Blu-ray, which offers higher bitrates and less compression. If anything, the big problem with streaming now is that we have too much content. We need better search and recommendation tools to make sense of all of our options.

It says a lot that 4K streaming appeared years before 4K Blu-ray (starting with Netflix in April 2014). It's far easier to prepare 4K video files for streaming and to coordinate with companies for new hardware than it is to come up with an entirely new Blu-ray specification, get all of the format's partners and studios on board, and convince people to buy new (and potentially more expensive) discs. At this point, we've only heard from a handful of studios about their 4K Blu-ray plans.
Sure, Netflix started out by offering 4K on a handful of TV sets, but now there are inexpensive, 4K-ready set-top boxes like the Roku 4 ($130) and new Fire TV ($100). Also important: You don't need to do much to actually see 4K content if you already have a 4K TV with apps (or a new set-top box). If you're subscribing to Netflix and Amazon Prime, you already have a wealth of high-resolution content ahead of you. If you're looking for more recent films, Vudu has you covered. And while the revamped Apple TV doesn't support 4K yet, you can bet that Apple will include it in this year's model, along with an elaborate 4K strategy for iTunes.

The big problem with 4K streaming? You'll need a solid internet connection (between 11Mbps and 15Mbps) to enjoy it today. If you're already having issues loading HD streams, you're definitely not prepared for significantly more massive files coming down your pipes. And of course, no matter how good a 4K stream looks, it'll never hold up to the massively high bitrates of a 4K Blu-ray. But, just like with today's HD streams, that's something most people won't even notice.

Despite the need for fast internet (something that will also improve over time), dealing with 4K streaming is still cheaper and more convenient than dealing with 4K Blu-ray. For the latter, you'll need to plunk down $400 for Samsung's new 4K Blu-ray player and acquire new 4K Blu-ray discs. At this point, only a few 4K Blu-rays are up for preorder -- including The Martian, X-Men: Days of Future Past and Kingsman -- listed between $30 and $38 on Amazon.

"I agree that more people are looking at streaming services for 4K UHD video viewing, but UHD [4K] Blu-ray will have a solid niche in providing owners with the absolute best picture and sound quality," said home theater expert Robert Heron of Heron Fidelity. He points out that it'll remain a good option for homes without decent internet connections, and it's still your best choice if you want to enjoy fully uncompressed audio.

As an unabashed cinephile and home theater geek, I'm fully prepared to jump aboard the 4K Blu-ray bandwagon. But it's easy to see that it doesn't hold much mainstream appeal. For the most part, convenience always wins over quality when it comes to media formats. VHS beat out both Betamax and LaserDisc, and compressed audio files ended up killing the CD. The unfortunate thing about 4K Blu-ray is that it lost the fight to streaming before it even arrived.

[Steedeel]

'Killed the CD' what a slow death! 20 odd years and still counting. They are bloody everywhere.

It's a modern requirement for all (in my opinion) click bait to include the word kill.

Move on, nothing to see here.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

'Killed the CD' what a slow death! 20 odd years and still counting. They are bloody everywhere.

It's a modern requirement for all (in my opinion) click bait to include the word kill.

Move on, nothing to see here.

Exactly, CD and MP3 have co-existed for decades and will continue to do so for many more decades. The same thing will likely happen with 4K streaming and UHD Blu-ray. There isn't one winner and one loser both formats can be successful.

[Hedji]

Originally Posted by Big-D

The big problem with 4K streaming? You'll need a solid internet connection (between 11Mbps and 15Mbps) to enjoy it today. If you're already having issues loading HD streams, you're definitely not prepared for significantly more massive files coming down your pipes. And of course, no matter how good a 4K stream looks, it'll never hold up to the massively high bitrates of a 4K Blu-ray. But, just like with today's HD streams, that's something most people won't even notice.

This is the clincher for me. I live in an area with fairly robust internet, and I can't get my hi def Amazon purchases to stream without downgrading half the time. I just don't think the infrastructure is ready for this yet. I could be wrong, but it's a feeling I have based on my own experiences with streaming.

[Selaboc]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

'Killed the CD' what a slow death! 20 odd years and still counting. They are bloody everywhere.

It's a modern requirement for all (in my opinion) click bait to include the word kill.

Move on, nothing to see here.

Heh, yeah. I also had to chuckle at that line. certainly not a quick death by any stretch of the imagination.

[skiizim]

I wouldn't go as far as saying as digital services killed cds either. It wasn't until the release of the iPod that it started to hamper cd sales. I've had a 4k tv and I have yet to rent or buy one digitally, I'm patiently waiting for the physical format.

[RedSabbath]

Hell, I just bought 4 CD's yesterday!

Seriously, when the MP3 revolution began in the early 2000's, many people switched because it was easy and free. Then, when the "music police" busted that up (somewhat), some were willing to pay for the download. Then those same people realized that the cost of the download was almost the same as actually owning the CD itself. And once their Ipod/computer crashed, they had nothing else to turn to like a master CD.

I feel that CD's will always be in existence. And the disc format for movies will as well, be it DVD falling to Blu Ray, which might fall eventually to 4K and so forth. Bottom line, most people want a tangible object to have their entertainment on, rather than it existing "in a cloud". Sure, there will be people who just wants it now, but the "hoarders of entertainment" will always outnumber them.

[Midnight Rambler]

Data caps and charges for "excess" usage will kill streaming.

It's only a matter of time, and that time may come sooner rather than later.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...n-bill-passes/

[erixon20]

Originally Posted by skiizim

I wouldn't go as far as saying as digital services killed cds either. It wasn't until the release of the iPod that it started to hamper cd sales. I've had a 4k tv and I have yet to rent or buy one digitally, I'm patiently waiting for the physical format.

I have never downloaded a song and have over 7,000 songs on my ipod. No streaming movies for me either.

[in2video2]

Originally Posted by RedSabbath

Hell, I just bought 4 CD's yesterday!

I feel that CD's will always be in existence. And the disc format for movies will as well, be it DVD falling to Blu Ray, which might fall eventually to 4K and so forth. Bottom line, most people want a tangible object to have their entertainment on, rather than it existing "in a cloud". Sure, there will be people who just wants it now, but the "hoarders of entertainment" will always outnumber them.

I've always liked the idea of being able to display my collection of Blu-rays, and soon in addition will be my 4K UHD Blu-rays come March 1st. Last century and earlier, the well-off had their private libraries in their den or home office. Now we have home theater and dedicated media rooms. I want the very best quality visually and sound wise. I like the idea of having my friends over and having a film night. I detest the idea of streaming. It's not a permanent arrangement for "collecting". Clicking on "Delete" by accident means it's all gone. Can't fall foul of that nightmare with physical media.

I, too, believe streaming and physical media will co-exist. There is a need for both and both needs can be met simultaneously satisfying each market.

[bruceames]

according to figures from the Digital Media Group. In fact, digital sales also surpassed physical media purchases last year, clocking in at $8.9 billion compared to $8 billion.

This statement is so false that it basically amounts to an outright lie.

First of all, "sales" and "purchases" are terms which corresponds to "sell-through" (buying media to own). Physical media outsold digital $6.1 billion to $1.9 billion. Not even close.

Secondly, even if you include streaming and all rentals, physical spending was still higher than digital: $9.2 billion to $8.9 billion.

What the fabricator above did was neglect to include some physical categories in the comparison, namely all physical rental revenue. Did people actually spend money on those rentals? Yep. It boggles the mind what people will do to cherry pick data and pass it off as "fact". It obviously destroys all credibility in the article.

Here are the actual figures below.

[DavePS3]

Streaming is fine for simple stuff I don't really care about like a documentary but on a movie I want... I'll take the physical disc anytime. Waddia do when your internet is down??? Nah, I prefer to have something to shoe for my money that I can pull out and watch anytime I want. No compression, better sound. Screw streaming... too costly in the end for something you can't keep - you're renting basically.