BBC News: "How the PS3 led Blu-ray's triumph" - Blu-ray Forum

donaldheil · 02-20-2008, 02:07 AM

There's a good article published by the BBC, entitled "How the PS3 led Blu-ray's triumph", which is an undeniable truth.

Something that called my attention is what is mentioned in the end:

"Yet while...sales of Blu-ray players and discs will now take off, other analysts say the format battle is meaningless.

They say this is because a growing number of consumers are already turning their backs on DVD players to download their movies via the internet instead, or from their satellite or cable television provider.

Adding that electronics companies are wrong to assume that viewers want ever better picture quality, they point to the failure of high fidelity music formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio in the face of the explosion in the popularity of music downloads.

While typical digital music formats such as MP3 have reduced sound quality compared with even standard CDs, their convenience has more than won over consumers.

The future of high definition DVD players may very well be Blu-ray, but whether they can make a dent in the face of the growing march of computer downloads is quite another story".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7252506.stm

I'm afraid this is somehow right. I'm a fan of SACD and DVD-Audio, and for me is frustrating to see how people rather have their music diminished in size and quality, than support the new technologies, which have caused them to virtually stop.

Will this happen to blu-ray? Do we fans think that it's the next big thing, but in reality it won't be embraced sufficiently??

Blu-Generation · 02-20-2008, 02:12 AM

Don't worry, Blu ain't going anywhere any time soon.

The Don · 02-20-2008, 02:14 AM

Bobby Henderson · 02-20-2008, 02:23 AM

The comparisons with Super Audio CD and DVD Audio are 100% irrelevant. Critics who float that argument show they are unfamiliar with the product history of SACD and DVD-A.

Both SACD and DVD-A would have had a much better chance at success if either format had been given a steady supply of music titles that were both new and popular.

Those next-gen music formats have largely gone nowhere because the music titles themselves appealed to a very limited few people. You would get some Jazz or Classical albums. If you wanted some rock music or pop, you had to settle for re-masters of 30 year old recordings.

The typical music acts who are popular in rock, pop, r&b, hip-hop and rap genres have largely not bothered with recording their new studio albums in 5.1 surround and high resolution. Instead, most master their stuff down to 2-channel and do a terrible job at that (the waveforms are over-driven and clipped to hell). Recording quality is so over-modulated there's little wonder why people can't tell the difference between a horribly compressed MP3 or AAC file versus a LPCM 2 channel track off a CD. It all sounds harsh.

Blu-ray Disc and 1080p HD is an entirely different animal. Movie studios are starting to release their best product in that format.

JasonR · 02-20-2008, 02:24 AM

How long does it take to download 50GB over a 3mps connection?

Alan Gordon · 02-20-2008, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonR

How long does it take to download 50GB over a 3mps connection?

Start now, have your children let us know when you are done...

~Alan

Slapper · 02-20-2008, 03:01 AM

Hi-def downloads and MP3s cannot be compared head to head. They are completely different animals.

Not even taking into account the required hardware infrastructure, Joe Six Pack just isn't "there" yet regarding hi-def downloads. Not even close. Hell, most J6Ps are just getting comfortable with their DVD players, now companies like Microsoft think they can shift them to something completely new? Blu-ray will succeed because it's not a huge leap to transition from DVD to Blu-ray. It's a familiar technology. The average Joe is comfortable with the shiny round discs and that's why Blu-ray will thrive.

It's taken many years for MP3s to catch on, but for some reason CDs are still here. Why is that? If MP3 downloads have supposedly destroyed the CD format then why are music labels still making them? Because people still buy them.

IMO, Hi-def dowloads will become a "rental"-sized market, which is significant because there is money to be made there, but it's not going to squash Blu-ray. Not by a long shot.

Blu-Beard · 02-20-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonR

How long does it take to download 50GB over a 3mps connection?

Three and a half months.

lch · 02-21-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonR

How long does it take to download 50GB over a 3mps connection?

it took me more than 24 hrs on consistent 3 mbps (no drop, no fairuse) to download transformer 23gb.
so theoretically, BD 50gb will take about 50 hrs.

and now my hdd is 23gb less space.

waiting for transformer bd to release, then i can free up the space.

Alan Gordon · 02-20-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donaldheil

They say this is because a growing number of consumers are already turning their backs on DVD players to download their movies via the internet instead, or from their satellite or cable television provider.

Adding that electronics companies are wrong to assume that viewers want ever better picture quality, they point to the failure of high fidelity music formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio in the face of the explosion in the popularity of music downloads.

Portable music is very handy... Blu-ray, not so much!

With an MP3, I can burn a mix. With an MP3, I can carry hundreds, thousands of songs. With an MP3, I can pick and choose only the songs I want from an album.

With downloaded movies, I'd have to put in on hard drive which takes up space... space that could be used for Blu-ray movies. With downloaded movies, I can carry quite a few (depending on what I'm carrying them with), but on something that will take up a lot more space than what you can carry the same amount of songs on. With downloaded movies, I can't pick what scenes of the movie I'm interested in (though I can with TV episodes).

Picking and choosing only what you want and portability are the main reason why downloaded music is so popular. Other than TV sets (which I prefer in sets), you can't pick and choose parts of a movie, and portability isn't as much of an issue as you're probably not going to be watching a movie while you exercise, drive a car, or etc...

I don't really see downloading taking off for quite some time, and I'm not sure it will replace physical media completely in my lifetime.

~Alan

radagast · 02-20-2008, 02:39 AM

How many more threads are we going to have about downloads? Go to this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...light=download

Are we being overrun by trolls who are bitter about their format losing? How many times does it have to be said here?

1) If downloads are using a codec that compresses a movie to 4-5 gb, then do you honestly think it's going to be good quality? If it could be done, then HD could be put on a conventional DVD

2) If downloads are still about 30 to 50 gb, then where are you going to store them? THINK, PEOPLE, THINK. USE YOUR BRAINS. Are you going to buy more and more hard drives to store them? What sense does that make? Are you going to burn a 50 gb download onto a disc to free up hard drive space? What are you going to use? THINK.

3) Do you want to have a download that is only good for 24 hours? THINK PEOPLE THINK!!!

4) If you want to share a movie with a friend, are you going to drag your HD download box with you when a BD disc would be so much easier?

NockNock · 02-20-2008, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radagast

How many more threads are we going to have about downloads? Go to this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...light=download

Are we being overrun by trolls who are bitter about their format losing? How many times does it have to be said here?

1) If downloads are using a codec that compresses a movie to 4-5 gb, then do you honestly think it's going to be good quality? If it could be done, then HD could be put on a conventional DVD

2) If downloads are still about 30 to 50 gb, then where are you going to store them? THINK, PEOPLE, THINK. USE YOUR BRAINS. Are you going to buy more and more hard drives to store them? What sense does that make? Are you going to burn a 50 gb download onto a disc to free up hard drive space? What are you going to use? THINK.

3) Do you want to have a download that is only good for 24 hours? THINK PEOPLE THINK!!!

4) If you want to share a movie with a friend, are you going to drag your HD download box with you when a BD disc would be so much easier?

amen brother

Fozziwig · 02-21-2008, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radagast

How many more threads are we going to have about downloads? Go to this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...light=download

Are we being overrun by trolls who are bitter about their format losing? How many times does it have to be said here?

1) If downloads are using a codec that compresses a movie to 4-5 gb, then do you honestly think it's going to be good quality? If it could be done, then HD could be put on a conventional DVD

2) If downloads are still about 30 to 50 gb, then where are you going to store them? THINK, PEOPLE, THINK. USE YOUR BRAINS. Are you going to buy more and more hard drives to store them? What sense does that make? Are you going to burn a 50 gb download onto a disc to free up hard drive space? What are you going to use? THINK.

3) Do you want to have a download that is only good for 24 hours? THINK PEOPLE THINK!!!

4) If you want to share a movie with a friend, are you going to drag your HD download box with you when a BD disc would be so much easier?

Well said.

And then there's the strain it will put on the Net causing ISP's to place draconian caps on downloads.

I don't think people have thought this through atall, let alone properly.

welwynnick · 02-21-2008, 02:29 PM

I have problems downloading files of a few MB, let alone a few GB.

Furthermore, I don't want to depend on a PC (or something that works like a PC) for storing or playing programmes. Set-top boxes are more efficient and more reliable for that. I want to use my PCs for computing, because thats what they're best at. I'm speaking for myself of course, but I bet a lot of folks think the same.

nick

donaldheil · 02-20-2008, 02:57 AM

Ok, this post is not only about "downloads", but also about people's preferences.

Alan Gordon and Bobby Henderson have good points, and show the big difference why comparisons between how audio and movie technologies are doing are out of place.

Even so, my point is: a DVD audio is downloadable. It's not that big. But even if some people have the chance to get it, they wouldn't, cause they just don't care. They settle for the "diminished music", mp3, portables and so.

I just hope this won't be the case with BD. It's obvious that we all, members and visitors of this domain, have something in common: we love movies, concerts, documentaries, etc, in the best possible quality. We don't settle for "diminished" PQ. I hope that there's is more and more people out there, willing to watch their movies in a better way, and to give enough boost to the new technology.

mightypen · 02-20-2008, 03:02 AM

Quote:

They say this is because a growing number of consumers are already turning their backs on DVD players to download their movies via the internet instead, or from their satellite or cable television provider.

Where is the data that supports this claim? I don't believe it, unless they only surveyed college students (read: dorm networks). Oh, I see growing. well obviously its growing year on year. to significantly impact dvd or blu? i think not.

Quote:

Adding that electronics companies are wrong to assume that viewers want ever better picture quality, they point to the failure of high fidelity music formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio in the face of the explosion in the popularity of music downloads.

Unless you're blind, your vision is going to be more discerning than your ears. what a terrible comparison. Plus, most portable audio is listened to over crappy earbuds, since they're good enough. a 10inch tv is never good enough.

larryj763 · 02-20-2008, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightypen

Unless you're blind, your vision is going to be more discerning than your ears. what a terrible comparison. Plus, most portable audio is listened to over crappy earbuds, since they're good enough. a 10inch tv is never good enough.

I wish I could lay my hands on it now, but I just a few days ago read something that people were more inclined to watch a crappy picture with great sound than the other way around. While Blu provides both, it makes me wonder, if other than for convenince, why people DO settle for poor sound, unless because it is only when combined with the picture that the quality becomes relevant?

dgator783 · 02-20-2008, 04:03 AM

try downloading a 1080p 2 hr movie and see how long it takes...and now try storing about 50 of those on a harddrive....thats about 50movies X 35gig avg. = 1750 gb or 17.5 TB....now show me a hard drive cheap enough ready for the mass public that is large enough to download high def. movies....and store them...I personally like to keep the movies I pay for and not erase them...thats why I buy discs.....not everyone in this country uses a cable modem, DSL......and DSL will take even longer...I dont want to decide my movie I want and wait forever for it to download.....and Im not goiing to download standard def. movies for my HDTV.....sure watch it in 720p but that sucks....compared to 1080.....plus PCM 5.1 or 7.1...downloads might replace the standard DVD if at all but will not replace Blu Ray....people need pysical media.....not everyone is computer savey enough to download movies....but they can easy plus in two wires and buy a movie from the store and put it right in the player....hopefully with 2.0 coming on, firmware updates will come down to a minimum and wont scare away the simpleton....

Drew664 · 02-20-2008, 04:03 AM

Also just if you're wondering, this is how they projected DVD sales

And that is not counting brick and mortor stores. Downloaded content will be the NEXT format and possibly a contender when Blu Ray is in its growth or early maturity stage. A projected 90 million households will have high speed internet access by 2011, but how many homes will have some sort of hard format player?

Follow the $$$$$!!!

Barry18025 · 02-20-2008, 04:19 AM

You're talking about bandwidth. As stated, follow the $$$$$, the internet providers aren't going to let people download movies unless they get a cut too. Think......I have comcast supplying me with broadband and cable, where they sell on-demand movies. They're not going to let competitors sell movies using Comcast Bandwidth.

And, the only advantage to downloading a movie is the "right now" advantange, if that's really an advantage. The three day turn around I have with Netflix works for me, and all I have to do is open an envelope.

02-20-2008, 02:07 AM	#1
donaldheil Active Member Top contributor Member since:Nov 2007 Blu-ray collection:539 Blu-ray reviews: 58	BBC News: "How the PS3 led Blu-ray's triumph" There's a good article published by the BBC, entitled "How the PS3 led Blu-ray's triumph", which is an undeniable truth. Something that called my attention is what is mentioned in the end: "Yet while...sales of Blu-ray players and discs will now take off, other analysts say the format battle is meaningless. They say this is because a growing number of consumers are already turning their backs on DVD players to download their movies via the internet instead, or from their satellite or cable television provider. Adding that electronics companies are wrong to assume that viewers want ever better picture quality, they point to the failure of high fidelity music formats Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio in the face of the explosion in the popularity of music downloads. While typical digital music formats such as MP3 have reduced sound quality compared with even standard CDs, their convenience has more than won over consumers. The future of high definition DVD players may very well be Blu-ray, but whether they can make a dent in the face of the growing march of computer downloads is quite another story". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7252506.stm I'm afraid this is somehow right. I'm a fan of SACD and DVD-Audio, and for me is frustrating to see how people rather have their music diminished in size and quality, than support the new technologies, which have caused them to virtually stop. Will this happen to blu-ray? Do we fans think that it's the next big thing, but in reality it won't be embraced sufficiently??

02-20-2008, 03:01 AM	#7
Slapper Special Member Member since:Aug 2007 Location:I live in a pineapple under the sea... Blu-ray collection:277	Hi-def downloads and MP3s cannot be compared head to head. They are completely different animals. Not even taking into account the required hardware infrastructure, Joe Six Pack just isn't "there" yet regarding hi-def downloads. Not even close. Hell, most J6Ps are just getting comfortable with their DVD players, now companies like Microsoft think they can shift them to something completely new? Blu-ray will succeed because it's not a huge leap to transition from DVD to Blu-ray. It's a familiar technology. The average Joe is comfortable with the shiny round discs and that's why Blu-ray will thrive. It's taken many years for MP3s to catch on, but for some reason CDs are still here. Why is that? If MP3 downloads have supposedly destroyed the CD format then why are music labels still making them? Because people still buy them. IMO, Hi-def dowloads will become a "rental"-sized market, which is significant because there is money to be made there, but it's not going to squash Blu-ray. Not by a long shot. Last edited by Slapper; 02-20-2008 at 05:12 AM.

02-20-2008, 02:57 AM	#15
donaldheil Active Member Top contributor Member since:Nov 2007 Blu-ray collection:539 Blu-ray reviews: 58	Ok, this post is not only about "downloads", but also about people's preferences. Alan Gordon and Bobby Henderson have good points, and show the big difference why comparisons between how audio and movie technologies are doing are out of place. Even so, my point is: a DVD audio is downloadable. It's not that big. But even if some people have the chance to get it, they wouldn't, cause they just don't care. They settle for the "diminished music", mp3, portables and so. I just hope this won't be the case with BD. It's obvious that we all, members and visitors of this domain, have something in common: we love movies, concerts, documentaries, etc, in the best possible quality. We don't settle for "diminished" PQ. I hope that there's is more and more people out there, willing to watch their movies in a better way, and to give enough boost to the new technology. Last edited by donaldheil; 02-20-2008 at 03:01 AM.

02-20-2008, 04:03 AM	#19
Drew664 Blu-ray Guru Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:South Dakota Home Theater Gallery:28 Blu-ray collection:68	Everyone likes pictures!! Also just if you're wondering, this is how they projected DVD sales And that is not counting brick and mortor stores. Downloaded content will be the NEXT format and possibly a contender when Blu Ray is in its growth or early maturity stage. A projected 90 million households will have high speed internet access by 2011, but how many homes will have some sort of hard format player? Follow the $$$$$!!!

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Remake News, Galore: "Romancing the Stone," "Arthur" and "They Live"	Movies	J_UNTITLED	9	12-06-2008 04:27 PM
News: CryENGINE 2 port "challenging" on PS3 but will look like high-end PC.	PS3	Nerdkiller likes BD	10	04-09-2008 04:26 PM
"How the PS3 led Blu-ray's triumph"	PS3	Quad	22	02-20-2008 01:38 AM
"Blu-ray's Dirty Little Secret" (International distribution rights)	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	bootman	17	09-05-2007 05:43 AM

02-20-2008, 02:12 AM	#2
Blu-Generation Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Nov 2007 Trading Score:1	Don't worry, Blu ain't going anywhere any time soon.

02-20-2008, 02:14 AM	#3
The Don Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Apr 2006 Blu-ray reviews:12 Trading Score:2

02-20-2008, 02:23 AM	#4
Bobby Henderson Power Member Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Oklahoma Blu-ray collection:96 Blu-ray reviews: 12	The comparisons with Super Audio CD and DVD Audio are 100% irrelevant. Critics who float that argument show they are unfamiliar with the product history of SACD and DVD-A. Both SACD and DVD-A would have had a much better chance at success if either format had been given a steady supply of music titles that were both new and popular. Those next-gen music formats have largely gone nowhere because the music titles themselves appealed to a very limited few people. You would get some Jazz or Classical albums. If you wanted some rock music or pop, you had to settle for re-masters of 30 year old recordings. The typical music acts who are popular in rock, pop, r&b, hip-hop and rap genres have largely not bothered with recording their new studio albums in 5.1 surround and high resolution. Instead, most master their stuff down to 2-channel and do a terrible job at that (the waveforms are over-driven and clipped to hell). Recording quality is so over-modulated there's little wonder why people can't tell the difference between a horribly compressed MP3 or AAC file versus a LPCM 2 channel track off a CD. It all sounds harsh. Blu-ray Disc and 1080p HD is an entirely different animal. Movie studios are starting to release their best product in that format.

02-20-2008, 02:24 AM	#5
JasonR Super Moderator Top contributor Member since:Nov 2007 Trading Score:12	How long does it take to download 50GB over a 3mps connection?

02-20-2008, 02:39 AM	#11
radagast Blu-ray Samurai Member since:May 2007 Location:Indianapolis	How many more threads are we going to have about downloads? Go to this thread: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...light=download Are we being overrun by trolls who are bitter about their format losing? How many times does it have to be said here? 1) If downloads are using a codec that compresses a movie to 4-5 gb, then do you honestly think it's going to be good quality? If it could be done, then HD could be put on a conventional DVD 2) If downloads are still about 30 to 50 gb, then where are you going to store them? THINK, PEOPLE, THINK. USE YOUR BRAINS. Are you going to buy more and more hard drives to store them? What sense does that make? Are you going to burn a 50 gb download onto a disc to free up hard drive space? What are you going to use? THINK. 3) Do you want to have a download that is only good for 24 hours? THINK PEOPLE THINK!!! 4) If you want to share a movie with a friend, are you going to drag your HD download box with you when a BD disc would be so much easier?

02-21-2008, 02:29 PM	#14
welwynnick Senior Member Member since:Sep 2007	I have problems downloading files of a few MB, let alone a few GB. Furthermore, I don't want to depend on a PC (or something that works like a PC) for storing or playing programmes. Set-top boxes are more efficient and more reliable for that. I want to use my PCs for computing, because thats what they're best at. I'm speaking for myself of course, but I bet a lot of folks think the same. nick

02-20-2008, 04:03 AM	#18
dgator783 Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Lakeland,FL 4K collection:377 Blu-ray collection:1521 Blu-ray reviews:11 Trading Score:14	try downloading a 1080p 2 hr movie and see how long it takes...and now try storing about 50 of those on a harddrive....thats about 50movies X 35gig avg. = 1750 gb or 17.5 TB....now show me a hard drive cheap enough ready for the mass public that is large enough to download high def. movies....and store them...I personally like to keep the movies I pay for and not erase them...thats why I buy discs.....not everyone in this country uses a cable modem, DSL......and DSL will take even longer...I dont want to decide my movie I want and wait forever for it to download.....and Im not goiing to download standard def. movies for my HDTV.....sure watch it in 720p but that sucks....compared to 1080.....plus PCM 5.1 or 7.1...downloads might replace the standard DVD if at all but will not replace Blu Ray....people need pysical media.....not everyone is computer savey enough to download movies....but they can easy plus in two wires and buy a movie from the store and put it right in the player....hopefully with 2.0 coming on, firmware updates will come down to a minimum and wont scare away the simpleton....

02-20-2008, 04:19 AM	#20
Barry18025 Member Member since:Feb 2008 Blu-ray collection:9	You're talking about bandwidth. As stated, follow the $$$$$, the internet providers aren't going to let people download movies unless they get a cut too. Think......I have comcast supplying me with broadband and cable, where they sell on-demand movies. They're not going to let competitors sell movies using Comcast Bandwidth. And, the only advantage to downloading a movie is the "right now" advantange, if that's really an advantage. The three day turn around I have with Netflix works for me, and all I have to do is open an envelope.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals