Download or buy a disc?

[photorebel]

I've read several articles that suggest the format war is all for nought, that people will start downloading movies to watch, instead of buying them on disc.
Assuming you can record the downloads, does anyone think it will hurt Blu-Ray in the future?
I would have to think the studios would not like this...download..and record, for $3.99 (approximate price)
From my understanding, studios make a good bit of money from DVD sales, after the theater run. In fact, I've read as much as 40% of overall revenue (at least in the USA) comes from DVD sales.
I can't believe download and record is the way of the future.
Possibly, this could put pressure on pricing, so Blu-Rays could be even cheaper. There is trememdous profit potential in selling DVDs, and soon to be in Blu-Ray, once there is a larger established base of Blu-Ray owners.

[krispyjala]

If I can finish a movie download in 5 minutes, watch it and have the ability to burn it on a blu ray disc, then perhaps this will entice me. But don't hold your breath before this becomes a reality.

[photorebel]

I apologize, I didn't see the other thread before I posted this.
(Microsoft downloads)

[Pictor]

I think many in the news business have their head up their... well you know. Ask yourself this question, would you rather buy a movie or pay $4 to view it once? The answer is more likely that it depends. Do Blockbuster or Netflix impact the sales or DVDs or Blu-Ray in a negative way? Probably not. But movie downloads may very well change the way Blockbuster and Netflix do business and it seems that Netflix realizes this. If I like a movie enough to buy it I will. However, if it's a movie that looks like it won't be worth my $20-$30 then I'll rent it. If that rental is as easy as a download then I'll be more likely to rent it rather than watch something on the DVR or drive down the street to the nearest B&M store.

[CptGreedle]

First, a downloaded movie is about 1-2 GB. These are highly compressed, stereo (not surround sound), usually 1080i at best files that take up room on your hard drive and need to be backed up to disc anyways!
Since BDs are bigger than HD DVD in capacity and thereby have more room for higher quality films, and are selling better than HD DVD, I do not see downloads, the lowest quality HD format, making much headway.
In fact, most ppl do not have their computer hooked up to their TV. It would be a pain for most ppl to try to get that to work.
I spent a lot of money on my TV, and I am going to use it. Blu-ray looks better, sounds better, has extra content, is tougher and more durable than DVDs, wont crash like hard drives, and don't need to be backed up. Sure ppl might rent some movies with downloads (although i don't), but most ppl do not. That format is not ready yet, the internet is not ready yet.
ISPs can not handle huge volumes of HD media streamed or downloaded over the internet. It has already bogged their systems down a lot which is one reason there are so few HD channels on cable right now. They would raise prices of internet and the like if they were forced to support every movie purchase and rental.

[w_tanoto]

buy a disc. hate download. screw download.

[Slec]

I don't claim to be the most educated on this, but my $.02 anyway:

SD downloadable content may have a place in the current/short term market place. The majority of people buying these are using laptops and ipods to watch their movies. I'm sure I'll get trashed for this, but I don't see why that would be translate to Blu-Ray.

Blu-Ray is going after an entirely different media segment that has more disposable income and wants top of the line quality. I think downloadable content will end up being your cable companies "On demand High Def" feature. In the end, consumers will buy the movies they love, and watch the rest "On demand".

I'll even try movies out this way to decide if I'm going to buy them. I ended up buying Blood Diamond after watching it in HD. Cox Communications charges $4 for 24 hours. I can buy the movie and watch in perpetuity for $20.. It's a no brainer. Don't think for a second that there won't be all kinds of things tied to downloads (the player, an account). Look at TiVo's lifetime subscription plan to see what I mean. Owning your own copy is still the best way to go. Blockbuster and Hollywood video have more to fear than BDA about this.

Just my thoughts

[Bolaar]

BUY BUY BUY...Why?
When my hard disk die.
It will make me cry,
as I will have to re-buy.


Sorry for the poem but...I HATE DOWNLOADS. I don't want to have to back up this, back up that...why buy and burn? Just buy. Same difference except you pay for the download, the burner and the disk to burn on. Could probably buy 2 copies for those costs.

What happens if I forget to back up something? Lost?

Until a company will track everything you bought and give it back to you if you crash your system, which they won't because you could just use a new PC and get all the movies again, I MIGHT...might be interested.

But I won't rely on my remembering to back up the movie here and there and where I put it, and what not...

Give me the media then it is mine. I can sell it when I am done...can I sell the movie download? If so...what is to stop me from copying it and doing so.


Just don't like it...to many unanswered questions.

[andyparhelia]

I like packaged media, having a collection, etc etc so for me that will never change.

Also, a lot of countries out there, like Ireland where I live, have terrible broadband infrastructures. Not everyone has access to broadband in the first place, and the average person that does is stuck on a poor quality 2 - 3mb connection with a high contention ratio.

So I can't see movie downloads taking off here any time soon.

[cawgijoe]

I like packaged media also.

The problem with anything involving a PC is complication and reliability.

Also, as others have stated, pay per view has been around for a long time now and I rarely use it myself.

[greekjgg]

You guys who are against downloads crack me up!!

With the success of itunes, why would you think that this wouldn't be the next step for movies?

Yes, it's a better quality if you own the cd, but $.99 for one song versus $12.99 for a CD that has 2 songs that are listenable at best?

I buy CD's when its an artist that I'm interested in, otherwise I just dl the song from itunes.

The MAJORITY of people will NOT care that the quality isn't the same as blu!! Heck, MOST WON"T EVEN NOTICE.

Both will be an option just as CD's are still an option in retailers today.

[camper]

I will only buy downloaded movies when the technology is such that at 12:01 am (when the movie is released) my player will download it, burn it, color-scribe the disc (or whatever media), print a high-resolution cover, and insert it in its protective case and be ready for me when I'm ready for it.

~Camper

[Slec]

Itunes is popular for songs but this is a different animal. The bandwidth necessary for movies is 1000x larger than that of a single song, even with only basic sound applied (and that's STANDARD definition). There are larger infrastructure issues that would need to be addressed. Sometimes its logic, not hatred of a format type that drives reason....

[krispyjala]

Originally Posted by greekjgg

You guys who are against downloads crack me up!!

With the success of itunes, why would you think that this wouldn't be the next step for movies?

Yes, it's a better quality if you own the cd, but $.99 for one song versus $12.99 for a CD that has 2 songs that are listenable at best?

I buy CD's when its an artist that I'm interested in, otherwise I just dl the song from itunes.

The MAJORITY of people will NOT care that the quality isn't the same as blu!! Heck, MOST WON"T EVEN NOTICE.

Both will be an option just as CD's are still an option in retailers today.

I don't think any of us is saying it's not the next step in movies. But until internet bandwidth allows you to download a movie as fast as you download an iTunes song, and you have mass storage or affordable burners and discs, then I do not see this being a popular choice among consumers in the foreseeable future.

[Frumious Boojum]

I'm not completely against downloads. I do prefer tangible product no matter what.

Would I rather rent a Blu-Ray or get the HD on-demand version of it from my cable company? Well, Blu-Ray of course. But if I just want to watch it now and don't care that much about extras and just want to check out the movie for consideration on purchase later, I'll get the rare HD On Demand version.

There's plenty of advantages to the download, though. Mostly in catalog titles. There's thousands of films out there that would make no business sense to make a wide release in any home video format, so the download is a cheap alternative -- pay for the digital version (which may be done, anyway, for preservation purposes), upload to a server, sit on it and make more money off of even just a couple sales than it ever did just sitting in a vault.

I'd rather the downloads to mostly be for this specific purpose. Downloads are great for indie and catalog releases of any medium. It's just simply the best way to get your non-major media out to a wider audience.

[navychop]

And we're forgetting- it will become more common for these movies to have so much DRM. There will be time limits on how long you have to watch it before it self destructs. And they'll make it hard or impossible to copy it to any kind of disc. And most won't be available for only $3.99. AND we're talking about overnight downloads to watch a movie.

[camper]

Originally Posted by greekjgg

With the success of itunes, why would you think that this wouldn't be the next step for movies? Yes, it's a better quality if you own the cd, but $.99 for one song versus $12.99 for a CD that has 2 songs that are listenable at best?

I buy CD's when its an artist that I'm interested in, otherwise I just dl the song from itunes.

So for movies, if you're only interested in a specific chapter (say...the fight scene from Matrix), do you only purchase that one particular chapter?

The MAJORITY of people will NOT care that the quality isn't the same as blu!! Heck, MOST WON"T EVEN NOTICE.

Both will be an option just as CD's are still an option in retailers today.

People generally notice picture quality long before they'll notice audio quality. (Deaf & Blind being exceptions, of course). Watch a TV show on an HD network that was filmed in HD, and another TV show on that same HD network that was *not* filmed in HD and then tell me there is no visible difference.

While it's tempting to compare the DVD/Movie industry to the CD/Music industry, they are both two totally separate things. A person might buy a song for a buck from an artist they don't like, thereby making iTunes a success, but a person buys a movie because they either like the movie as a whole, or they want to watch it at their convenience. You cannot exclude the time investment that a movie requires, as compared to a song.

And that doesn't even factor in the file size required to even be Standard DVD quality that will look as good as cable TV on a 36"+ television. Not everyone is willing to huddle around a computer.

Downloadable movies will succeed for people with portable video devices (PSP, Zune, iPod, etc) or even laptop viewers. For the home theater, forget about it. And, that's assuming that the infrastructure will be beefed up enough to support it in the first place. People are already hitting download limits from their ISP's with iTunes, and those are 1-2 meg files...megs, not gigs that a movie will require.

~Camper

[Titan]

Originally Posted by greekjgg

You guys who are against downloads crack me up!!

With the success of itunes, why would you think that this wouldn't be the next step for movies?

Yes, it's a better quality if you own the cd, but $.99 for one song versus $12.99 for a CD that has 2 songs that are listenable at best?

I buy CD's when its an artist that I'm interested in, otherwise I just dl the song from itunes.

That's one of the biggest draws to buying online, being able to buy just one song from a CD. That's also why video downloads cannot be directly compared to music downloads, it's ONE movie on a disc. Even you buy the CD when you like every song on it.

[RWebb74]

No downloads for me. I like collecting movies. I cannot imagine getting all the features and uncompressed audio and what not from a download without it being huge. Plus, I want something tangible for my money, and I don't have time to burn blu-rays to make that a reality. I still buy CD's and then rip them for MP3 players and such. It's just not the same having an audio file on the computer without the actual disc and the same goes for movies. Call me old school. In ten or fifteen years, who knows.

[ground chuck]

can you back up the download, what if your HD gets wiped? i want the physical product in my hands.