How long do you think Blu-ray will last?

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

The average person doesn't have enough movies to worry about storage space being an issue. I'm pushing 300 and I'm certainly not stressed about space. We've got a room basically dedicated to housing our 2k+ DVDs, so I know how it can be to worry for space, but the average person won't ever really hit that point. They still make books, they still make CDs. People don't download all of their music and books, why would you think people would want to have only own digital copies of movies?

That's what I said. Some don't like the space that they take up. Others like to look at their collection. Why do I think they want to have digital copies? Because our world is going digital. Everywhere you look, digital is taking over. There will always be a market for hard copy books, but look at the new technology of an electronic book reader where you can download audio books to it. There's a market for both. People like new technology and digital.

The people who are currently being attracted are the ones doing it ILLEGALLY. I don't care what they do, just like I don't care about the people who download all of their MP3s illegally.

That's a very ignorant statement. There are plenty of ways that you can but obviously don't have to get downloads besides doing it illegally. iTunes, Netflix, etc. come to mind who has other competitors, Blockbuster has online downloads. All sorts of boxes/hard drives are offering downloading services. PS3 is even has a store for downloads online.

It'll be a very long time before infrastructure can even be in place to purchase high quality digital copies to own. For digital distribution, the best way to appeal is to hit the folks who would normally rent. The average person will be a lot more willing to pay-per-view over the internet than to buy a movie that they'd never "own" for "real".

I agree with some of this. But, when it comes to digital downloads depending on the studio it can cut out the third party seller like Best Buy. But, at the same time you could still have Netflix or Blockbuster that you still have to pay too. I don't agree with you that people would rather use pay per view. Downloads from the ones I've seen are already cheaper than disc based media, so it makes sense for a lot of people who don't want to spend 30 dollars on a movie to buy the cheaper downloads.

This point can best be summed up as "people are stupid". I think it was this thread I talked about it, but basically people are stupid and they need to be educated. This much is obvioius.

A lot of consumers are ignorant. Some people are stupid, and some aren't.

Just because something is technologically obsolete doesn't mean its not still marketable for economic reasons. People don't buy CRT TVs because they want to, they buy them because they're really cheap. And they're really cheap because they're technologically obsolete. But because people keep buying them, companies keep making them.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what your point here is. It's why DVD is still on the shelves.

Also: I still stand that niche isn't the right word. It implies that it's a small group and that's all there is to it, such as laserdisc's users or perhaps DVD-A and SACD. There have been plenty of niche formats through the ages, and Blu-ray has higher market penetration than all of them, even at their peak. Would you have called DVD niche back in 2000? If so, where is the point where you'd decide that the "next big thing" is no longer niche?

I'm not sure you understand what niche means. Niche means it applies to a focus, targetable market. You've somehow managed to connect the word niche to laserdisc, DVD-A, and SACD. But, you fail to realize that with only 1 in 3 houses having some sort of HD technology and that doesn't mean that they have Blu-ray, then MOST households don't have Blu-ray or HD technology. Blu-ray, although successful, is still not a mass technology. It's a niche format. Just because it has high market pentration doesn't mean it's not niche. And also, what you fail to take into account, is that many people who don't have a Blu-ray player buy Blu-ray, but only because at some point in the future they know they will get a Blu-ray player and go Hi-Def.

At this point, Blu-ray is applied to a focused, targetable market - - the Hi-Def market. Once again, there would be no DVDs or HD converter boxes on store shelves if it wasn't niche.

You'll be waiting a very long time then. I don't think there is even anyone that would consider VHS to be "antique",and yet we can all agree that DVD has thoroughly replaced it.

VHS is technically an antique. I don't think we'll be waiting a long time at all.

A History of Violence was released on video in 2006 (guess what else was released in 2006...). It was the last movie released on VHS. This is nearly 10 years after DVD debuted. If Blu-ray plays out exactly like DVD did (which it almost certainly will not), the last movie to be released on DVD would be released in 2015. Is that the point in time you're looking for?

You're proving my point which is that people will always go for the cheaper product until convinced otherwise. The major mass market is not sold on Blu-ray and if not properly sold, Blu-ray won't take off the way DVD did. Downloads and Piracy are going to affect Blu-ray, and will keep it from sharing the same lifespan as DVD. That's my opinion - - I'm sorry you don't like it. But, to say that downloads won't be a major player is ridiculous.

If the players can get prices down low enough and support increases enough, the studios can push BD on those reluctant to shift whether they have HDTVs or not. The same thing happened with DVD replacing VHS. There were plenty of people who didn't want to switch, but in time, studios just stopped doing new releases on VHS and people who wanted to keep checking out new movies were forced to take the dive.

You've got a point here, but at the same time, it's still very difficult to convince the average consumer who can buy new releases for about 15 dollars on DVD and catalogue releases for less than 5 dollars in most stores. Until Blu-ray comes down in price, which we agree will help it, then it's not gonna be mainstream and only focused on a particular niche market.

And it's clear that the studios want it. Or, at least, folks like Disney and Fox and Sony seem to be readily on board for takeover.

They don't necessarily care about the product they are selling. They just care about the money they get from mine and yours pocket.

I just look at all other forms of media and see that the only one where digital has truly thrived is in music, and I justify that by its ease of illegal download and the portability people require of their music.

Well, you seem to be talking about illegal downloading a lot, but you are very ignorant or choose to ignore the legal aspects of downloading. Whichever one it is, I'm not sure, but iTunes makes a killing on downloads of movies and music. It's not just music. It's movies too.

That, and I hate people arguing in favor of downloads when the potential advantage of not requiring physical storage can be easily shortchanged by the DRM issues and the idea of what would happen in the case of catastrophic harddrive failure.

Easy there. No need to hate people who disagree with you. Have you seen the Digital Copies that come with Blu-ray? They handle that very well, and the DRM is intact. Also, I do believe that several measures will be put into place to keep downloads intact regardless of hard drive failure.

The only way an optical disc fails is by misuse. Scratches and things of that nature. Data on other formats such as harddrives and flash drives are more volatile, flash drives especially.

That's incorrect. As I've said, anything technologically related can fail whether it's a disc or a hard drive. It's not just by misuse. Some discs only have lifespans of two years or are guaranteed two years by their manufacturers. They don't last forever.

The type of person you're referring to,would they stress about having a single shelf with a couple dozen movies on them? I don't think so. They'd probably be more stressed about their harddrive failing for no good reason and them losing the 12 movies they already paid for.

Again, I believe measures will be put into place where if hard drive failure occurs, then you'll be able to download again without paying for it twice.

They already have servers for that. People rip DVDs and fill servers with them.

I'm talking about legally.

Cost per GB on a harddrive isn't the problem here. It's the fact that flash drives are too small to provide a step above what Blu-ray can, and the much higher volatility of the format can very easily make any potential advancement in specs worthless.

Do you honestly think that more memory is not going to be placed on HDs in the futures whether it is flash or portable HDs?

I enjoy streaming things on my TV as well, but I'd never consider that form of delivery for ownership. I watch basically all the TV I watch streamed online, and I watch movies from time to time on Hulu. But if I were to OWN the TV shows or movies, I'd want to physically have them. I might be projecting my thoughts and desires onto all of humanity, but I'd like to think most other people would agree that single-instance watching works by digital delivery just fine, while purchased ownership does not.

You should probably realize that there are several people who buy movies off iTunes, use Netlfix, Blockbuster, etc. for downloads. Does that make them wrong because they don't buy Blu-ray? Not necessarily. Just as with anything else, there will always be a market for different types of the same product. That's what I've been saying. There will be people who prefer disc based media, but at the same time, there will be people who prefer downloads. I feel as technology becomes better and as time goes by, then it's only a matter of time, before downloading affects Blu-rays sales substantially. You say it's a long time away. It might be, but it very well is more than likely going to happen. Downloading to this extent never was around during DVDs rise, so it's hard to say that Blu-ray will be as successful considering how it is a different time.

[Anthony P]

Well I did not BD was first introduce in the 5-6 years of DVD?

DVD came out in 1997 in US and 1996 in Japan, BD came out in 2006, a bit more then 5-6 years

It took BD another 3-4 to win a format war?

BD came out in mid 2006, the format war ended in early 2008, that makes it 1.5-2 years, BD is not yet 3 years old

[Anthony P]

I think the issue is that everything that comes next must have a definite advantage in something important or else they don't take over.
- Tapes had recordability but lower quality, so they did not replace records
- CDs had better quality , less problems and no deterioration, so replaced records/tapes
- DVD, had more convenience, widescreen, 5.1 so replaced VHS
- BD, better video, better audio, 7.1, better features so most likely to replace DVD

what will be next and when? hard to say. The only thing for certain, it needs to offer a big advantage over the tech when it comes out. And I think better audio is not likely (we have lossless, BD can go to a large sampling rate and hard to go beyond 7.1), resolution even though I am sure many would like 4k+, look how long it took to get so few people with HD/1080P, I doubt 4K+ will be common enough any time soon. Other features, BD should be able to handle real 3D, what else is there coming down the pipe that might be here soon enough?

Be it DL or optical disk or something else, I don't see any benefits that would be important enough to get people to upgrade from BD happening any time soon.

PS I know someone will say convenience for DL, but until there is over 100mbps commonplace for cheap in most homes it is not more convenient. If you can wait a few hours for a high quality DL , a few minutes to rent is most likely not an issue, and if you buy then even if you have over 100 mbps it is not an issue.

[Grumpz]

Do people actually believe that the disk forms of media are indestructable unless scratched or melted?

Maybe it's only happened once, but my first copy of Xmas Vacation, which gets watched once a yr, only lasted 3 yrs. Completely flawless, no scratches, and no, I don't store it 1 foot from my furnace or in a microwace.

Cassette, VHS, Laserdisk all degrade with time. DVD's do as well. And for peronsal archiving purposes, I use TY media. Supposed to be some of the best media out there. I've made DVD's of my kids first 4 and 7 yrs, and had the disks suddenly stop working.

So to claim that BD won't have any type of rot issues at this point doesn't make sense. The technology is in it's infancy.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by ckent22

That's what I said. Some don't like the space that they take up. Others like to look at their collection. Why do I think they want to have digital copies? Because our world is going digital. Everywhere you look, digital is taking over. There will always be a market for hard copy books, but look at the new technology of an electronic book reader where you can download audio books to it. There's a market for both. People like new technology and digital.

ebooks have been around for ages and people still prefer the physical form. Just because one kind of media has found success in pure digital doesn't mean they all will or necessarily should.

That's a very ignorant statement. There are plenty of ways that you can but obviously don't have to get downloads besides doing it illegally. iTunes, Netflix, etc. come to mind who has other competitors, Blockbuster has online downloads. All sorts of boxes/hard drives are offering downloading services. PS3 is even has a store for downloads online.

Not a one of those services provide decent quality HD media digitally. Torrents however do provide decent quality HD media, often times being really good Blu-ray rips. People downloading stuff in HD are downloading it illegally or getting ripped off for subpar quality.

I agree with some of this. But, when it comes to digital downloads depending on the studio it can cut out the third party seller like Best Buy. But, at the same time you could still have Netflix or Blockbuster that you still have to pay too. I don't agree with you that people would rather use pay per view. Downloads from the ones I've seen are already cheaper than disc based media, so it makes sense for a lot of people who don't want to spend 30 dollars on a movie to buy the cheaper downloads.

Wait. What? Who spends 30 dollars on a single movie?

A lot of consumers are ignorant. Some people are stupid, and some aren't.

As a general rule, people are stupid and ignorant. Just think: average IQ is 100, so that means 50% of the population has an IQ under 100.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what your point here is. It's why DVD is still on the shelves.

The point was that technically obsoleted technology can still be marketable for economic reasons. I'm not sure how that relates to this topic and frankly, I don't feel like going back and looking at the context in which I made that statement. Either way, it doesn't really matter.

I'm not sure you understand what niche means. Niche means it applies to a focus, targetable market.

I know what it means, but it's the implication that I'm against. To say "Blu-ray is niche" implies that Blu-ray won't get any better and it's stuck at its current market penetration, doomed to never become the main choice of the masses.

And don't tell me that implication is not seen. I'm sure you read the post earlier where the person compared Blu-ray to DVHS and said that Blu-ray could silently fizzle out in a few years.

VHS is technically an antique. I don't think we'll be waiting a long time at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique

"An antique (Latin: antiquus; old) is an old collectible item. It is collected or desirable because of its age, rarity, condition, utility, or other unique features. It is an object that represents a previous era in human society."

Is VHS desirable because of its age, rarity, condition, utility or other unique features? Seriously, the last movie on VHS was made in '06 and you really think the format is that old? Black tapes were still being up until '08 I think!

And before you say anything, stupid-ass collector's edition tapes from Disney and stuff don't count. They're collectible because they're Disney and rare, not because they're "antiques".

You're proving my point which is that people will always go for the cheaper product until convinced otherwise. The major mass market is not sold on Blu-ray and if not properly sold, Blu-ray won't take off the way DVD did.

Are we arguing that Blu-ray won't take off or that downloads won't overtake Blu-ray?

I'm aware of Blu-ray's potential pitfalls, but that doesn't mean that downloads are any more poised to be taken seriously by the masses either.

Downloads and Piracy are going to affect Blu-ray, and will keep it from sharing the same lifespan as DVD.

But conveniently a pure digital format WON'T also suffer from pirating?

That's my opinion - - I'm sorry you don't like it. But, to say that downloads won't be a major player is ridiculous.

Show me some evidence to suggest that downloads have any chance of getting their act together and being taken seriously. Cite information about PURCHASED downloaded MOVIES, not streamed movies, not downloaded music.

The burden of proof is on you. You're suggesting that the status quo is going to be turned on its head. Prove it.

You've got a point here, but at the same time, it's still very difficult to convince the average consumer who can buy new releases for about 15 dollars on DVD and catalogue releases for less than 5 dollars in most stores.

New release catalog titles don't hit 5 dollars until they've been out for a long time. For example, Howard the Duck just hit DVD for the first time a while long ago. Amazon still has it at 8 dollars.

Until Blu-ray comes down in price, which we agree will help it, then it's not gonna be mainstream and only focused on a particular niche market.

By the same logic, DVD would've never been able to win over VHS, because DVD had a similar period in its own history when DVD was much more expensive and VHS was super cheap and people were eating up the super cheap VHS.

They don't necessarily care about the product they are selling. They just care about the money they get from mine and yours pocket.

Right, and Blu-ray has higher profit margins and better securities in place against piracy.

Well, you seem to be talking about illegal downloading a lot, but you are very ignorant or choose to ignore the legal aspects of downloading. Whichever one it is, I'm not sure, but iTunes makes a killing on downloads of movies and music. It's not just music. It's movies too.

Throw me some numbers which are comparable to Blu-ray's market penetration then.

Easy there. No need to hate people who disagree with you. Have you seen the Digital Copies that come with Blu-ray?

You think those low resolution copies mean ANYTHING when considering the question of how will people enjoy HD media in the coming years?

And I guess my wording was sloppy, but I didn't mean to say that I hate people that argue that, but rather that I hate when people argue that.

They handle that very well, and the DRM is intact.

Good ol' DRM. Not allowing me to replace my copy if I need to. Not allowing me to let a friend borrow the movie. Not allowing me to pass ownership to someone else.

Also, I do believe that several measures will be put into place to keep downloads intact regardless of hard drive failure.

Well, they'd better get their asses on it then, because if they're going to knock Blu-ray out as provider of HD media, they better get a move on before Blu-ray has a chance to knock DVD out as overall video media.

That's incorrect. As I've said, anything technologically related can fail whether it's a disc or a hard drive. It's not just by misuse. Some discs only have lifespans of two years or are guaranteed two years by their manufacturers. They don't last forever.

lol

A CD is not going to fail if you take good care of it. Handle it properly, use it only as directed, don't microwave it, etc.

Again, I believe measures will be put into place where if hard drive failure occurs, then you'll be able to download again without paying for it twice.

Great, so when your harddrive fails you can have to deal with the annoyance of coming up with a list and proving that you've paid for them, pay a couple bucks per movie to the studio to cover the surcharges they'll hit you with, then pay even more to your ISP to cover the bandwidth overages you'll get from downloading a full collection of movies in full HD with uncompressed sound.

I'm talking about legally.

There is no such thing as a legal digital copy which compares to Blu-ray. Apple's "HD" movies are freaking garbage.

Do you honestly think that more memory is not going to be placed on HDs in the futures whether it is flash or portable HDs?

No, I admitted that I wouldn't be surprised to see a USB stick-style form of delivery in the future. If they gave ample reason for a new format like excellent 3D support, I could definitely see that happening. But USB stick movies is not the same as downloaded movies.

You should probably realize that there are several people who buy movies off iTunes, use Netlfix, Blockbuster, etc. for downloads.

Oh? Several? Well, there are millions currently enjoying Blu-ray. Last I checked, millions are more than "several".

Does that make them wrong because they don't buy Blu-ray? Not necessarily.

You're right. It just means that they're not getting quality HD media. Worse than buying DVD as far as I'm concerned; at least a person buying DVD is buying DVD because that's what their hardware supports. A computer can support full 1080p picture and uncompressed audio, and yet, there is no legitimate way to purchase digital copies of movies with that level of quality.

Just as with anything else, there will always be a market for different types of the same product. That's what I've been saying. There will be people who prefer disc based media, but at the same time, there will be people who prefer downloads.

I've never met anyone who would ACTIVELY prefer downloading enormous files than owning a Blu-ray, except those who download the stuff for free illegally. Perhaps they exist somewhere, but as with music, so long as the copy is quality downloaded movies tend to be illegal.

I feel as technology becomes better and as time goes by, then it's only a matter of time, before downloading affects Blu-rays sales substantially.

Why would you say this? Gut feeling with 0 evidence to support it? Because looking at numbers logically, Blu-ray is set to fall into DVD's place and digital downloads will fall into a niche (lol) of people who are tech savvy, but refuse to enjoy true quality HD material.

You say it's a long time away. It might be, but it very well is more than likely going to happen.

I'll concede this, but I can't see this happening any time in the next couple of decades at the very least.

Downloading to this extent never was around during DVDs rise, so it's hard to say that Blu-ray will be as successful considering how it is a different time.

Downloading has always been around, it's just been illegal.

And the difference of Blu-ray's success will be more due to the fact that plenty of people still don't have HD sets yet and won't want to upgrade to BD without a HD TV.

ps i apologize if there are any typos or anything not making sense. I don't feel like going back over this crap and checking for mistakes.

[Grumpz]

The thread was started to see how many open minds visited this forum. People have opinions, and for must, they are very hard to sway.

To be open minded on a topic like this, you've got to understand. My belief isn't that the technology that exists exactly as it does today will replace blu-ray.

But there's no reason to believe that existing technology won't be modified/improved to handle such things.

Be honest people, how many hard drives have you purchased that have failed? I've been buying computers for 12 yrs, building them for 11. I've had 3 hd crashes. All were over 10 yrs ago. Manfuctures used to offer 1 yr warranties, now you get 5 or more...out of the box. The longjevity of HD has vastly improved. For me, I now outgrow hard drives. I don't even think HD's as they exist now are going to be around much longer. More moving parts for no reason.

As someone else posted, solid State memory is the storage of the future and isn't volatile at all. Nothing like Flash media. Very pricey but on the horzion.

These are the advances that I'm looking at to replace the way all types of media is purchased and stored. So I guess, my mindset is more than just replacing blu-ray. But rather will cause the end of blu-ray media.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

As someone else posted, solid State memory is the storage of the future and isn't volatile at all. Nothing like Flash media. Very pricey but on the horzion.

haha

Flash is a kind of solid-state. Solid-state is anything that stores and retrieves data without mechnical, moving parts.

But rather will cause the end of blu-ray media.

What will cause the end? I'm putting my money on 3DTV. In the same way that HDTV has obsoleted DVD, so too do I believe 3DTV will be able to obsolete Blu-ray. 3D is the only thing I can think of where another new format is warranted. Any other new format that comes along but doesn't add anything to the table would be unable to catch on. Even simply higher resolution would probably be unable to catch on.

[Anthony P]

The thread was started to see how many open minds visited this forum. People have opinions, and for must, they are very hard to sway.

the issue is not open-mindedness but being a realist. If something is realistic but you don't think it can happen then the issue is one of "open mind" but if something is unrealistic, then it is not. No matter how open my mind is flapping my arms while sitting on this chair, I will not take off off from it and fly around the room.

But there's no reason to believe that existing technology won't be modified/improved to handle such things.

agree, but tech does not exist/improve in a void. In 2002 the BFG got formed to look at a new format based on blue lasers at .1mm (and a lot of research was done before that and available for people to knw it was worked on). In 2006 BD launched many years after even the BDF was formed. Tech takes research and time. And it is as much political as technological, Fox did not like HD DVD because they deemed it too easy to crack, there are many decisions apart from tech, it takes a long time from playing with something that might be interesting in a lab (when we first hear about it) and bringing it out as something can be manufactured and that the infrastructure is there. That is why most are guessing a long time. If there was something interesting on the horizon (i.e. under 5 years) then we would have heard something about it, at least as being in the pipeline.

Be honest people, how many hard drives have you purchased that have failed? I've been buying computers for 12 yrs, building them for 11. I've had 3 hd crashes.

2 that I know of, but then again I have DVDs that are more then 10 years old and VHS tapes that are even older then that. Most people have a PC for 3-5 years, hopefully a drive with movies will last a lot longer then the common PC. The other issue is that a bad disk =1 dead movie, a bad HDD, means a lot of dead movies, the risk is no where near the same.

[Anthony P]

What will cause the end? I'm putting my money on 3DTV. In the same way that HDTV has obsoleted DVD, so too do I believe 3DTV will be able to obsolete Blu-ray. 3D is the only thing I can think of where another new format is warranted. Any other new format that comes along but doesn't add anything to the table would be unable to catch on. Even simply higher resolution would probably be unable to catch on.

true, but BD should be able to handle real 3D, that is why there are the BD 3D threads, so I don't think a new format would be needed (but a new profile for sure)

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

true, but BD should be able to handle real 3D, that is why there are the BD 3D threads, so I don't think a new format would be needed (but a new profile for sure)

It can handle it, but there's no way the bitrates would be able to be as high if they need to fit two full video tracks on the disc. I mean, imagine if they put two full copies of the movie on each 50 GB disc, each individual copy would have bitrates similar to a movie on a single layer disc, and the bitrate fanboys would get their panties in a bunch.

Originally Posted by ckent22

Actually, they do. The only thing Blu-ray offers compared to those is higher bit rates with better audio.

You forgot:

#1: special features
#2: physical ownership of the disc and accompanying material such as artwork and case

I'd wish you get off illegal downloading, because I'm not talking about that. I'm talking the LEGAL downloading services.

I talk about illegal downloading because illegally is the only way to get quality HD video.

And over time, higher bit rates PROBABLY will catch up in LEGAL downloading to Blu-ray.

Looking at what is available in digital music, I'd think not. If high bitrate downloads are rare for music, why would you think movies would be all that different? That "too cool for school" crowd that gets all their crap at the iTunes store, they also tend to be of the "its good enough" group. This is why Apple can get away with selling crappy low bitrate macroblocked garbage and calling it "HD" just because the picture has a high resolution.

You can still download HD video from these services and others that I haven't mentioned.

And it looks like garbage. And lacks special features.

Sorry, but if I'm gonna look at a picture that looks like garbage and doesn't even have the extra features, I think I could probably save a little more money by aiming for a barebones DVD release.

You're joking right? At least I hope you are. 30 dollars is about MSRP for a single Blu-ray and it's basically what you find on most store shelves for new releases unless you're an educated consumer.

I buy from Best Buy all the time and 30 dollars is the upper end for most things. Average for new release is more like 25, and ones that have been out for a while are ~20 or less.

MSRP means nothing.

I'll replace stupid with ignorant. There's a whole plethora of knowledge whether related to technology or in general that if people took the time to understand, then it would benefit them very well, and they wouldn't be ignorant.

I don't care what you say. People are stupid. I know this. I repeat, half of the population has an IQ below 100. Stop and let that sink in for a moment. Almost a majority of people in this world have a IQ that's not even in triple digits.

There's really not a time limit to say for something that is a niche. Using the definition I gave you and your knowledge of the word that you claim you have and using the knowledge of the marketplace, then it's understood that the marketplace changes. Things can have value one day, and the next day not.

As someone else said, using a strict definition, DVD can be called niche. Is that right?

Simply stating that Blu-ray for the time being is niche doesn't mean that it won't appeal to the masses one day.

I'm glad that you don't think so, but that's definitely the implication. You might not mean for it to be interpreted that way, but people will read those words into your statement, sometimes without even consciously realizing it.

At this particular point nobody knows whether it will share the success of DVD or turn into another laser disc type media.

BD is far enough along that it could never drop down to laserdisc-like levels. Even if it fails to overcome DVD, it'll still peak at a software market penetration higher than HDTV's hardware penetration, I'd say. Reason: people who buy a lot of movies are the ones who are going to be more interested in watching the movies in higher quality.

I know what an antique is, and yes, VHS is an antique now. I have several VHS tapes that I will hang onto. Not to watch them again, but because they are rare and autographed, etc. Age is but a small factor. It's not a determining factor. But, just because, the last VHS tape rolled out in 06' does that change the fact that there were other made 15 years ago? Heck no.

VHSs that you hang on to are for arbitrary collectible value or sentimental reasons, not for legitimate antique reasons. Go to an antique dealer and try to tell him your VHS collection is antique and he will laugh at you. You're trying to use colorful language to describe the situation when in fact the word you're really looking for is "technologically obsolete".

The only way I forsee that happening is if it breaks its niche market and appeals to the masses by lowering prices and educating consumers.

Now, when you say "niche" market, who do you mean exactly? Home theatre enthusiasts? Blu-ray fanboys? Movie collectors? HDTV owners?

Because DVD itself is even a niche market. TV owners is a niche market. Downloads is a niche market. It's all niche, really. In fact, every market is niche in one way or another-- there is no one product that all persons are interested in buying.

I didn't say that. I said that for the average consumer, a cheaper download makes sense. I mean, let's face it. Blu-ray has advantages in higher bit rates and HD audio, but if a consumer doesn't own a 5.1 or 7.1 surround system with HD-Codecs and doesn't have a HDTV or a cpu capable of playing the HD Video at high bit rates, then doesn't it make sense for them to invest in Blu-ray when there are cheaper alternatives?

The sense in it comes from them recognizing that BD is on track to be what DVD is now. Ask the average person what they expect to be watching a movie on in 10 years and they'll either say "DVD" or "Blu-ray"; they'd have to be a damned fool to actually expect downloads to get off the ground so soon and more than that, expect them to catch on in the tech-retarded mainstream society.

These are the things that need to be addressed if Blu-ray is going to achieve the success DVD has in that it becomes a household format and the standard.

Blu-ray is already almost a household name thanks to the advertisements. Try asking around your friends or coworkers or anyone and count how many people you can find who have no idea what blu-ray is. Then ask those same people if they had ever heard of purchasing a movie over the internet by downloading it. Which do you expect will have better brand awareness?

Let me ask you a question. Have digital copies been pirated? I realize they have been given to friends, etc. for people who didn't want them, but has anyone been able to remove the DRM off of a digital copy?

It's not worth it right now because it's easier to just rip the DVD lmao

and even if DVDs no longer existed, it's not that much harder to rip a BD either

But just because a movie exists as a digital copy with DRM on it doesn't mean that movie won't be pirated just the same. Even if it is pirated from other formats, it's pirated just the same.

You can't stop people from giving movies away to their friends regardless of if its a download or a disc based media. People, by nature are greedy and ruthless and want everything for themselves with as little cost to them as possible.

wut

DRM does stop people from giving away movies to friends. They lock it in to the machine and you can't just physically hand the movie over to your friend and let them watch it. In fact, the most effective way to get it to your friend would probably be to hop on a torrent site and download a technically illegal copy of it to share.

You want to me to show proof that downloads will take over or is it more that Blu-ray will fail? I have bought 260 Blu-ray movies. I don't want Blu-ray to fail, but I'm also a realist.

Technology is replaced in time, but you're not just arguing that Blu-ray will be replaced. You're arguing that it will be relatively soon and that it'll be downloads that will do it, POSSIBLY even as soon as before Blu-ray is able to overcome DVD.

That's based off of several things. You want proof. Well, I'm using countless articles I've read

Articles are hearsay and bullshit. I can't tell you how many articles I've read saying things like "Blu-ray is struggling and cannot take off" or "Why Blu-ray cannot make it" or "Why DVD is better than Blu-ray".

common sense

This is not an admissible source when attempting to prove something. If a statement is not evident in-and-of itself, it is not "common sense". For example, "2+2=4" is common sense. "I can predict the future and know that this is going to happen despite evidence to the contrary" is not common sense.

technological advancements

Technological advancements only support the fact that Blu-ray will be replaced, not HOW SOON it will be, nor by WHAT. In fact, looking back at the past, evidence would suggest a new physical medium, because that's how its always been. Technology advancing needn't be purely digital and over the Internet; new mediums for hardware and software are being worked on constantly as well.

but mostly ease of access

Yes, it's a lot easier for a tech-retard to know how to use their brandnew settop box to hop on the internet, find the movie they want, pay for it over the internet, then download it and navigate a graphical user interface to find the movie they'd like to watch.

Compared to "insert disc, press play button".

portability

Portability is important for movies? Some wackjobs might like to go for a jog with a movie or watch a movie in the car, but portability is required of music, generally not of movies. Either way, DVDs are portable enough for the places where portability is required, and oh, hey, what do you know, PORTABILITY IS ****ING COMPLETELY CRIPPLED BY MASSIVE DRM. I honestly can't believe you try to cite "portability" as a strong suit of digital downloads, because the only ones that are portable are the illegal ones.

and people's preferences.

There is no evidence to suggest that people would prefer to own movies in a purely digital form, and plenty of statistics indicating they enjoy owning movies in a physical form. Compare Blu-ray+DVD sales numbers to download numbers if you don't believe me.

Just google and you'll see that there are countless downloading sites besides iTunes out there and that they offer HD videos legally. The Bandwith is less than Blu-ray, but I've addressed that above.

Yeah, I hear Amazon is either doing it too or about to start. But who cares? It's GARBAGE. Furthermore, does it matter WHAT they're doing when their numbers cannot even come CLOSE to touching the sort of sales that physical media is hitting?

It's just reasonable to realize that with this growing trend of downloading

Growing trend? What?

You do realize that downloads have increased by a DRASTICALLY lower amount than would be necessary to indicate that it will be taking over, right? In a few years time Blu-ray has jumped up to above 10% of the physical market. What percent of the total market does downloads make up?

home video sales will reach a major plateau, and eventually cut off.

What you're seeing now in DVD sales is the sales cutting off. Blu-ray has a long way to go before the market is saturated.

There will always be disc based media buyers as well. Which is why I'm saying that disc based media will continue to have a decent life span, but it's days are more than likely numbered.

Just how soon do you think downloads are going to magically pop up and cut off disc sales? My mom refuses to change even to Blu-ray, why do you think her type of person would be willing to hop on board something COMPLETELY different?

"oh, it's cheaper!" Is it? She pays less than 5 dollars per title, and these are things which are nowhere near download release. Or does the iTunes store have Leprechaun 2 and Repossessed and Leprechaun in the Hood. Yes, Leprechaun in the Hood.

What's a new release DVD catalog title?

A movie which is a catalog title but which is new to DVD. Like Howard the Duck. Like I said.

Are you talking about re-released DVD catalog title?

No, but those too also start out at prices closer to new release titles before dropping down to sub 10 dollar prices.

Because, I can walk into to a lot of stores and sees catalog DVDs for 5 dollars or less.

And I can see them for 15~20 bucks. It depends on the specific movie, you dunderhead.

Will the average consumer necessarily buy a re-released Catalog title with increased special features on a DVD or Blu-ray for that matter? Well, maybe, but maybe not.

What? OF COURSE THEY WILL. That's why they double dip movies. Because they make the studio money.

What we can assume is that the cheaper product can be more appealing for it's cost to the masses who are necessarily as rich as the elite and technologically savvy group who buys Blu-rays and re-released films on DVDs.

It doesn't take being "elite" or "technologically savvy" to enjoy Blu-ray. BDs play just the same as DVDs, they require no technical knowledge (unlike downloads wherein you'd need to establish the network connection with a settop box). And "elite"? Really? 200 bucks can get you a GREAT Blu-ray player, and plenty of movies can be bought for under 20 bucks. It's not that everyone only buys 5 dollar bargain bin shit DVDs, people are still paying 15~20 bucks for DVDs. It happens. And what about PS3 owners? Are they "elite" because they spent 400 dollars on their gaming platform of choice?

Not the same logic at all. You're conveniently forgetting or leaving out, I'm not sure which one that CDs were also emerging and replacing a-track tapes.

LOL

Dude, seriously? Really? Standard cassettes had already trounced 8-tracks by the time CDs had a shot at reaching mainstream success. Read this, directly from the Wikipedia article about 8-track:

"Eight-track players became less common in homes and automobiles in the late 1970s. By the time the Compact Disc arrived in 1982–83, the eight-track had greatly diminished in popularity."

Also: it's 8-track, bro, not a-track.

People liked the idea that CDs and DVDs were identical in the way they looked, so they no longer wanted something that resembled a cassette tape. They wanted the new technology that looked like a CD. The CD player was hip just like the DVD was hip too, because it was no longer a tape.

Actually, the reason for the similar size would be backwards compatibility, not to make them "hip" like the 15 year old tech people were using for music. In reality, the similarity in disc appearance seemed to be an area for confusion as far as I could tell, people thought they were the same thing.

On the other hand, now you have Blu-ray which resembles still a DVD and a CD, but now people prefer to buy their music through downloads and play them on their iPOD. iPOD revolutionized music and listening to muisc, and it's slowly influencing people to rethink their movie purchases as well.

Dude, I'm not stupid. You're making one statement, then attempting to connect it to another without providing evidence or anything to even support it. Basically you said "music is this, so movies is this too". No. Show me NUMBERS that say people want to download movies, and these NUMBERS should indicate that they wish to PURCHASE and OWN movies in the same way they might PURCHASE and OWN music from the Internet.

It simply doesn't exist, and you know why? All numbers indicate people are still interested in physically owning movies.

Not sure what you're getting at here other than there are plenty of Blu-ray rips floating on torrent sites. But at the same time, Blu-ray has taken better precautions to combat piracy by the codes placed on the disc. That hurt DVD, because it was fairly easy for anyone to crack these codes and remove the DRM.

Uh, there is no "remove the DRM". I get the feeling that you don't understand how this stuff works at all.

Once again, piracy will be there whether it's disc or downloads.

Uh... what? You're the one that suggested downloads were somehow impervious. That if a movie was provided as a digital download that it would not be pirated.

Well, DRM is a tricky thing/issue. It's the same thing with ripping a CD to your iTunes library on your cpu. Is it technically removing the DRM and making copies of those songs? Yes. So, is it illegal? Probably, depends on what country you live in. But, more than likely it is depending on which law expert you talk to. For my knowledge, no one has been sued for ripping a CD to put onto their iTunes library and probably won't be.

But that's the RIAA. Who is to say that the MPAA and the FBI wouldn't crack down on someone illegally copying a movie they own in one form to loan to a friend because the DRM in their digital copy doesn't allow them to share?

Now, before you jump all over me, yes common sense comes into play, but common sense is a luxury that you're not born with, and don't make the incorrect assumption that all people have that.

What you're calling common sense is actually baseless intuition. COMMON SENSE is called that for a reason, BECAUSE IT IS COMMON, i.e., plain to see for every person. For example, it is common sense that DVD is the dominant force right now.

IT IS NOT COMMON SENSE TO MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE THAT CONTRADICT STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.

Seriously, I disagree that downloads will be around any time soon, but I wouldn't even say "it is common sense that downloads won't make serious headway in the home theatre market in the near future". Because it's not COMMON SENSE. Common sense means that it's EASILY understood and READILY AGREED UPON.

You are just trying to belittle my argument by making it seem that yours is so simple and completely agreed upon when in fact it is not. I'd even so far as to say that among folks on this forum, the statement "Downloads will beat Blu-ray relatively soon" is as far from COMMON SENSE as it can go.

You are probably looking at the next five years. Am I correct? I am looking at the bigger picture here whether Blu-ray is around for 5, 10, or 20 years and even the next disc based media after it. This is my point - - downloading is only gonna expand based on new technology in cpus, hard drives, etc. going back to my original point in that disc based media's days are numbered.

Dude, are you just skimming my posts? I mean, I could understand if you are, due to how long they are, but if you are, just say so. You're clearly missing VERY key points.

I'm not saying Blu-ray won't be replaced. I'm not saying optical discs will always be used. All I am saying is that Blu-ray will not be replaced any time soon, and most certainly not by downloads.

What's funny?

The fact that you think optical discs are as volatile as magnetic discs or RAM-based memory storage devices.

Do yourself a favor and go pick up a stack of DVD-R's and tell me if there in small print is written manufacturer guarantees this product for 2 years or something to that extent. CD, DVDs, or Blu-rays don't last forever regardless of whether or not you misuse them.

Warranties and things of that nature mean NOTHING in terms of the product's actual life. In fact, such a warranty is only good IF THE PRODUCT IS UNUSED OR FAILS DUE TO MANUFACTURER FAULT. If the disc is scratched because you're careless, that's your fault. If the disc stops working because you microwaved it, your fault. Just because a warranty has a finite limit to it does not mean that the product is only expected to last that long, in fact, quite the opposite. Look at automobiles. How long do the warranties last there? Would you really expect an automobile to die after a couple of years because that's when the warranty runs out?

Kind of like the annoyance you get when you have to buy a new film on disc based media when the next big thing pops up? Just for the record, those situations won't necessarily happen. You talk about hard drives failing. Well, I got news for you. They do, but just like you like to talk about handling CDs properly, if you handle Hard Drives properly, they can have a long life span. Nothing is guaranteed, but Hard Drives can last a while. If you read what I said, there will probably be measures put into place like you can download a couple of times, etc.

I think you missed what iI said, because I conjectured about surcharges for replace downloads, then commented about how you'd likely get hit for bandwidth overages for downloading multiple 20+ GB files.

Once again, if the average consumer doesn't have the capability to play HD audio, then it won't help them anyway. You can offer HD Audio film downloads or regular DD 1080i/1080p downloads. That way you cater both markets.

They'd never go to the trouble of hosting two identical copies of the same movie that only differ in the audio. What they should do is develop a container like .mkv and that'd allow all they need packaged together, and people who can't even enjoy HD audio would just have to deal with the additional data that is useless to them, exactly the same way a person with a 720p screen would have to deal with just playing a 1080p copy.

I'm not sure what you're getting out here. I assume you're referring to the downloads not being as good as Blu-ray. If that's the case, I've covered numerous times above, so, I'm not gonna waste my time writing it again.

Well then, what say you of the fact that MP3s and things of that nature purchased digitally from online stores have terrible quality compared to even CD releases of the same songs? Do you honestly expect them to work the movie industry differently? They minimize bitrates to maximize profit.

Who is to say that we won't see a 10 TB USB stick in the future? You? There's no guarantee that we won't.

Again, I feel I must point out that you're clearly not reading everything I have to say. Or maybe you just don't understand? Here, let me repeat it:

I admitted that I wouldn't be surprised to see a USB stick-style form of delivery in the future. If they gave ample reason for a new format like excellent 3D support, I could definitely see that happening. But USB stick movies is not the same as downloaded movies.

I believe it is possible for a solid-state media to replace Blu-ray, but I do not believe it is possible for downloads to replace anything (except the rental market).

Are you talking about pre-loaded USB movies that come directly from the studio?

Yes... duh. Using a small, high capacity solid-state drive to deliver a high quality movie and extras to the enduser in the same way that DVDs and BDs do now.

Another ignorant statement. Several may have been the wrong word. But, just to give you a lesson in demographics there are 6 billion plus people on the planet, and taking into account those that don't have a tv cuts that number dramatically. Cutting it even more are the people who don't have HD technology cuts it even more.

Congratulations. You just proved the point I was trying to make earlier that it's absurd to consider things niche just because they're made up of a subset of a larger population!

Computers are just as prevalent in homes and for those on a budget (the average consumer) you can cut your cable bill and your movie bills out completely by watching HD content on your cpu and downloading HD movies which are what I'd say is more than Blu-ray niche buyers.

wait

Did you SERIOUSLY just say "more people download HD movies than buy Blu-ray discs"? I don't know if I'd even say "more people ILLEGALLY download HD movies than buy Blu-ray discs."

Or are you just saying "it would be cheaper to do that"? I don't think it would be... not for a typical person. For someone who buys a lot of BDs, yeah, it would be cheaper, but that's only because there are a LOT less movies to pick from to download in HD, and even then, they're still sacrificing quality, which is perhaps the worst sin a fan of Blu-ray can commit.

Again, if you think that downloads won't catch Blu-ray, then you're very ignorant and choose to ignore the technological advancements in cpus and hard drives. This is more about services, and companies will start offering these. It's only a matter of time.

By the time the world is ready to accept downloading as mainstream as that, I doubt if Blu-ray would even be around any longer. Probably would've been replaced by HVD or some kind of solid-state drive.

Why are you so focused on illegally downloaded movies? You're so hung up on it. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like everything you argue keeps coming back to illegal downloads.

Uh, yeah, because they're the only ones with reasonable quality and the people who I've seen argue fervently in favor of downloads being "OMG THE FUTURE" and how "DUDE DOWNLOADS ARE ABOUT TO TAKE OVER" are the same sort of folks who torrent movies instead of buying them anyway.

You really need to get out more. For your information, illegally downloaded movies are not quality. They aren't the original product. They're a cheap imitation of the original that is not true to the source.

Haha. That's funny dude. Blu-ray rips look great, and DVD rips look just like the source too. It's only camera recordings of theatrical displays that are garbage.

I told you why I said this, but you choose to ignore it. It's more than a gut feeling. You also choose to ignore that the same factors that caused DVD to succeed aren't there. I've spelled those out to you over and over again in this post and others, but you don't want to hear it.

I don't want to hear it because what you've failed to provide is actual evidence to support your claim. You've guessed at why DVD succeeded, and blanket stated that whatever made DVD succeed lacking from Blu-ray will cause Blu-ray to be unable to succeed. You haven't even truly stated why you think people will be willing to change gears completely and switch to owning movies in a purely intangible form. So, statistics indicate people like and will continue to like physically owning movies, and you've failed to provide evidence or statistics indicating otherwise. You are not debating logically, you are telling me feelings and not even coming close to backing those feelings up with anything reasonable.

When, you take your blinders off and realize that Blu-ray can and probably will take a serious plunge to downloads whether illegal or legal, then you'll realize that it can succeed, but it's days are numbered.

"it's days are numbered"... is that intentionally ambiguous or not? Of course it won't last forever. But to say it that way implies that it's on its way out. That its end of days is coming soon.

It's days are numbered you say? What number is that? 5 years? 10 years?

Downloading is very modern technology, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Again, you come to the illegal stuff, can we get off illegal downloads. I'd prefer if the mods didn't close this thread because of that.

I'd actually prefer if they did. This thread is going nowhere fast, and I'm honestly a little bored of this back-and-forth filibuster attempting here.

???? Yeah, that's a big problem. But, I don't know how that's gonna make it succeed.

I think you need to practice reading comprehension a little more, bro. No offense, seriously, but I never even came close to implying that lack of HDTV penetration would be something in favor of anything succeeding.

ps sorry for the length folks, but so long as I got time to kill, I won't let this guy win the filibuster, not as long as this thread remains open >

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

It can handle it, but there's no way the bitrates would be able to be as high if they need to fit two full video tracks on the disc. I mean, imagine if they put two full copies of the movie on each 50 GB disc, each individual copy would have bitrates similar to a movie on a single layer disc, and the bitrate fanboys would get their panties in a bunch.


You forgot:

#1: special features
#2: physical ownership of the disc and accompanying material such as artwork and case



I talk about illegal downloading because illegally is the only way to get quality HD video.


Looking at what is available in digital music, I'd think not. If high bitrate downloads are rare for music, why would you think movies would be all that different? That "too cool for school" crowd that gets all their crap at the iTunes store, they also tend to be of the "its good enough" group. This is why Apple can get away with selling crappy low bitrate macroblocked garbage and calling it "HD" just because the picture has a high resolution.


And it looks like garbage. And lacks special features.

Sorry, but if I'm gonna look at a picture that looks like garbage and doesn't even have the extra features, I think I could probably save a little more money by aiming for a barebones DVD release.




I buy from Best Buy all the time and 30 dollars is the upper end for most things. Average for new release is more like 25, and ones that have been out for a while are ~20 or less.

MSRP means nothing.


I don't care what you say. People are stupid. I know this. I repeat, half of the population has an IQ below 100. Stop and let that sink in for a moment. Almost a majority of people in this world have a IQ that's not even in triple digits.


As someone else said, using a strict definition, DVD can be called niche. Is that right?


I'm glad that you don't think so, but that's definitely the implication. You might not mean for it to be interpreted that way, but people will read those words into your statement, sometimes without even consciously realizing it.


BD is far enough along that it could never drop down to laserdisc-like levels. Even if it fails to overcome DVD, it'll still peak at a software market penetration higher than HDTV's hardware penetration, I'd say. Reason: people who buy a lot of movies are the ones who are going to be more interested in watching the movies in higher quality.


VHSs that you hang on to are for arbitrary collectible value or sentimental reasons, not for legitimate antique reasons. Go to an antique dealer and try to tell him your VHS collection is antique and he will laugh at you. You're trying to use colorful language to describe the situation when in fact the word you're really looking for is "technologically obsolete".


Now, when you say "niche" market, who do you mean exactly? Home theatre enthusiasts? Blu-ray fanboys? Movie collectors? HDTV owners?

Because DVD itself is even a niche market. TV owners is a niche market. Downloads is a niche market. It's all niche, really. In fact, every market is niche in one way or another-- there is no one product that all persons are interested in buying.



The sense in it comes from them recognizing that BD is on track to be what DVD is now. Ask the average person what they expect to be watching a movie on in 10 years and they'll either say "DVD" or "Blu-ray"; they'd have to be a damned fool to actually expect downloads to get off the ground so soon and more than that, expect them to catch on in the tech-retarded mainstream society.


Blu-ray is already almost a household name thanks to the advertisements. Try asking around your friends or coworkers or anyone and count how many people you can find who have no idea what blu-ray is. Then ask those same people if they had ever heard of purchasing a movie over the internet by downloading it. Which do you expect will have better brand awareness?


It's not worth it right now because it's easier to just rip the DVD lmao

and even if DVDs no longer existed, it's not that much harder to rip a BD either

But just because a movie exists as a digital copy with DRM on it doesn't mean that movie won't be pirated just the same. Even if it is pirated from other formats, it's pirated just the same.


wut

DRM does stop people from giving away movies to friends. They lock it in to the machine and you can't just physically hand the movie over to your friend and let them watch it. In fact, the most effective way to get it to your friend would probably be to hop on a torrent site and download a technically illegal copy of it to share.


Technology is replaced in time, but you're not just arguing that Blu-ray will be replaced. You're arguing that it will be relatively soon and that it'll be downloads that will do it, POSSIBLY even as soon as before Blu-ray is able to overcome DVD.


Articles are hearsay and bullshit. I can't tell you how many articles I've read saying things like "Blu-ray is struggling and cannot take off" or "Why Blu-ray cannot make it" or "Why DVD is better than Blu-ray".


This is not an admissible source when attempting to prove something. If a statement is not evident in-and-of itself, it is not "common sense". For example, "2+2=4" is common sense. "I can predict the future and know that this is going to happen despite evidence to the contrary" is not common sense.


Technological advancements only support the fact that Blu-ray will be replaced, not HOW SOON it will be, nor by WHAT. In fact, looking back at the past, evidence would suggest a new physical medium, because that's how its always been. Technology advancing needn't be purely digital and over the Internet; new mediums for hardware and software are being worked on constantly as well.


Yes, it's a lot easier for a tech-retard to know how to use their brandnew settop box to hop on the internet, find the movie they want, pay for it over the internet, then download it and navigate a graphical user interface to find the movie they'd like to watch.

Compared to "insert disc, press play button".


Portability is important for movies? Some wackjobs might like to go for a jog with a movie or watch a movie in the car, but portability is required of music, generally not of movies. Either way, DVDs are portable enough for the places where portability is required, and oh, hey, what do you know, PORTABILITY IS ****ING COMPLETELY CRIPPLED BY MASSIVE DRM. I honestly can't believe you try to cite "portability" as a strong suit of digital downloads, because the only ones that are portable are the illegal ones.


There is no evidence to suggest that people would prefer to own movies in a purely digital form, and plenty of statistics indicating they enjoy owning movies in a physical form. Compare Blu-ray+DVD sales numbers to download numbers if you don't believe me.

Yeah, I hear Amazon is either doing it too or about to start. But who cares? It's GARBAGE. Furthermore, does it matter WHAT they're doing when their numbers cannot even come CLOSE to touching the sort of sales that physical media is hitting?


Growing trend? What?

You do realize that downloads have increased by a DRASTICALLY lower amount than would be necessary to indicate that it will be taking over, right? In a few years time Blu-ray has jumped up to above 10% of the physical market. What percent of the total market does downloads make up?


What you're seeing now in DVD sales is the sales cutting off. Blu-ray has a long way to go before the market is saturated.


Just how soon do you think downloads are going to magically pop up and cut off disc sales? My mom refuses to change even to Blu-ray, why do you think her type of person would be willing to hop on board something COMPLETELY different?

"oh, it's cheaper!" Is it? She pays less than 5 dollars per title, and these are things which are nowhere near download release. Or does the iTunes store have Leprechaun 2 and Repossessed and Leprechaun in the Hood. Yes, Leprechaun in the Hood.


A movie which is a catalog title but which is new to DVD. Like Howard the Duck. Like I said.


No, but those too also start out at prices closer to new release titles before dropping down to sub 10 dollar prices.


And I can see them for 15~20 bucks. It depends on the specific movie, you dunderhead.


What? OF COURSE THEY WILL. That's why they double dip movies. Because they make the studio money.


It doesn't take being "elite" or "technologically savvy" to enjoy Blu-ray. BDs play just the same as DVDs, they require no technical knowledge (unlike downloads wherein you'd need to establish the network connection with a settop box). And "elite"? Really? 200 bucks can get you a GREAT Blu-ray player, and plenty of movies can be bought for under 20 bucks. It's not that everyone only buys 5 dollar bargain bin shit DVDs, people are still paying 15~20 bucks for DVDs. It happens. And what about PS3 owners? Are they "elite" because they spent 400 dollars on their gaming platform of choice?


LOL

Dude, seriously? Really? Standard cassettes had already trounced 8-tracks by the time CDs had a shot at reaching mainstream success. Read this, directly from the Wikipedia article about 8-track:

"Eight-track players became less common in homes and automobiles in the late 1970s. By the time the Compact Disc arrived in 1982–83, the eight-track had greatly diminished in popularity."

Also: it's 8-track, bro, not a-track.


Actually, the reason for the similar size would be backwards compatibility, not to make them "hip" like the 15 year old tech people were using for music. In reality, the similarity in disc appearance seemed to be an area for confusion as far as I could tell, people thought they were the same thing.


Dude, I'm not stupid. You're making one statement, then attempting to connect it to another without providing evidence or anything to even support it. Basically you said "music is this, so movies is this too". No. Show me NUMBERS that say people want to download movies, and these NUMBERS should indicate that they wish to PURCHASE and OWN movies in the same way they might PURCHASE and OWN music from the Internet.

It simply doesn't exist, and you know why? All numbers indicate people are still interested in physically owning movies.


Uh, there is no "remove the DRM". I get the feeling that you don't understand how this stuff works at all.


Uh... what? You're the one that suggested downloads were somehow impervious. That if a movie was provided as a digital download that it would not be pirated.


But that's the RIAA. Who is to say that the MPAA and the FBI wouldn't crack down on someone illegally copying a movie they own in one form to loan to a friend because the DRM in their digital copy doesn't allow them to share?


What you're calling common sense is actually baseless intuition. COMMON SENSE is called that for a reason, BECAUSE IT IS COMMON, i.e., plain to see for every person. For example, it is common sense that DVD is the dominant force right now.

IT IS NOT COMMON SENSE TO MAKE PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE THAT CONTRADICT STATISTICAL EVIDENCE.

Seriously, I disagree that downloads will be around any time soon, but I wouldn't even say "it is common sense that downloads won't make serious headway in the home theatre market in the near future". Because it's not COMMON SENSE. Common sense means that it's EASILY understood and READILY AGREED UPON.

You are just trying to belittle my argument by making it seem that yours is so simple and completely agreed upon when in fact it is not. I'd even so far as to say that among folks on this forum, the statement "Downloads will beat Blu-ray relatively soon" is as far from COMMON SENSE as it can go.


Dude, are you just skimming my posts? I mean, I could understand if you are, due to how long they are, but if you are, just say so. You're clearly missing VERY key points.

I'm not saying Blu-ray won't be replaced. I'm not saying optical discs will always be used. All I am saying is that Blu-ray will not be replaced any time soon, and most certainly not by downloads.


The fact that you think optical discs are as volatile as magnetic discs or RAM-based memory storage devices.


Warranties and things of that nature mean NOTHING in terms of the product's actual life. In fact, such a warranty is only good IF THE PRODUCT IS UNUSED OR FAILS DUE TO MANUFACTURER FAULT. If the disc is scratched because you're careless, that's your fault. If the disc stops working because you microwaved it, your fault. Just because a warranty has a finite limit to it does not mean that the product is only expected to last that long, in fact, quite the opposite. Look at automobiles. How long do the warranties last there? Would you really expect an automobile to die after a couple of years because that's when the warranty runs out?


I think you missed what iI said, because I conjectured about surcharges for replace downloads, then commented about how you'd likely get hit for bandwidth overages for downloading multiple 20+ GB files.


They'd never go to the trouble of hosting two identical copies of the same movie that only differ in the audio. What they should do is develop a container like .mkv and that'd allow all they need packaged together, and people who can't even enjoy HD audio would just have to deal with the additional data that is useless to them, exactly the same way a person with a 720p screen would have to deal with just playing a 1080p copy.


Well then, what say you of the fact that MP3s and things of that nature purchased digitally from online stores have terrible quality compared to even CD releases of the same songs? Do you honestly expect them to work the movie industry differently? They minimize bitrates to maximize profit.





Again, I feel I must point out that you're clearly not reading everything I have to say. Or maybe you just don't understand? Here, let me repeat it:

I admitted that I wouldn't be surprised to see a USB stick-style form of delivery in the future. If they gave ample reason for a new format like excellent 3D support, I could definitely see that happening. But USB stick movies is not the same as downloaded movies.

I believe it is possible for a solid-state media to replace Blu-ray, but I do not believe it is possible for downloads to replace anything (except the rental market).


Yes... duh. Using a small, high capacity solid-state drive to deliver a high quality movie and extras to the enduser in the same way that DVDs and BDs do now.


Congratulations. You just proved the point I was trying to make earlier that it's absurd to consider things niche just because they're made up of a subset of a larger population!


wait

Did you SERIOUSLY just say "more people download HD movies than buy Blu-ray discs"? I don't know if I'd even say "more people ILLEGALLY download HD movies than buy Blu-ray discs."

Or are you just saying "it would be cheaper to do that"? I don't think it would be... not for a typical person. For someone who buys a lot of BDs, yeah, it would be cheaper, but that's only because there are a LOT less movies to pick from to download in HD, and even then, they're still sacrificing quality, which is perhaps the worst sin a fan of Blu-ray can commit.


By the time the world is ready to accept downloading as mainstream as that, I doubt if Blu-ray would even be around any longer. Probably would've been replaced by HVD or some kind of solid-state drive.


Uh, yeah, because they're the only ones with reasonable quality and the people who I've seen argue fervently in favor of downloads being "OMG THE FUTURE" and how "DUDE DOWNLOADS ARE ABOUT TO TAKE OVER" are the same sort of folks who torrent movies instead of buying them anyway.


Haha. That's funny dude. Blu-ray rips look great, and DVD rips look just like the source too. It's only camera recordings of theatrical displays that are garbage.


I don't want to hear it because what you've failed to provide is actual evidence to support your claim. You've guessed at why DVD succeeded, and blanket stated that whatever made DVD succeed lacking from Blu-ray will cause Blu-ray to be unable to succeed. You haven't even truly stated why you think people will be willing to change gears completely and switch to owning movies in a purely intangible form. So, statistics indicate people like and will continue to like physically owning movies, and you've failed to provide evidence or statistics indicating otherwise. You are not debating logically, you are telling me feelings and not even coming close to backing those feelings up with anything reasonable.


"it's days are numbered"... is that intentionally ambiguous or not? Of course it won't last forever. But to say it that way implies that it's on its way out. That its end of days is coming soon.

It's days are numbered you say? What number is that? 5 years? 10 years?


I'd actually prefer if they did. This thread is going nowhere fast, and I'm honestly a little bored of this back-and-forth filibuster attempting here.


I think you need to practice reading comprehension a little more, bro. No offense, seriously, but I never even came close to implying that lack of HDTV penetration would be something in favor of anything succeeding.

ps sorry for the length folks, but so long as I got time to kill, I won't let this guy win the filibuster, not as long as this thread remains open >

Even though I didn't read most of it, and probably disagree with the majority of , THUMBS UP FOR THE EFFORT!

[ckent22]

The average consumer doesn't really care about special features. We're talking about the average consumer, and that's a generalization, but it's true.

I talk about illegal downloading because illegally is the only way to get quality HD video.

I don't have a clue where you come up with that or how you know that. Is 1080i not quality HD video? Hmmm. I must've have missed that part.



Since when is high bitrate rare for music? It's not at all. Apple doesn't sell pure crap. I'm sorry if you think they do, but you're also of the mind that illegal downloads are quality HD. So, I'm holding everything you say with a grain of salt now.

And it looks like garbage. And lacks special features.

Disagree. Maybe, it's your display.

Sorry, but if I'm gonna look at a picture that looks like garbage and doesn't even have the extra features, I think I could probably save a little more money by aiming for a barebones DVD release.

I thought you were trying to justify spending more for Blu-ray, but now you're gonna back to DVD. Are you confused in the head or something?

I buy from Best Buy all the time and 30 dollars is the upper end for most things. Average for new release is more like 25, and ones that have been out for a while are ~20 or less.

MSRP means nothing.

I was just at Best Buy and almost all of their Blu-rays are 29.99 or more except for weekly sells or ones that nobody buys, so yeah MSRP means something.

I don't care what you say. People are stupid. I know this. I repeat, half of the population has an IQ below 100. Stop and let that sink in for a moment. Almost a majority of people in this world have a IQ that's not even in triple digits.

Stop and think this to yourself, is IQ everything? No. Can you measure creativity through an IQ test? No, you can't. People are ignorant by choice.

As someone else said, using a strict definition, DVD can be called niche. Is that right?

No, because its the standard for home video sales. As long as you can afford 4.99, then you can afford a DVD. For most of the masses 4.99 is not an expesnive price.

I'm glad that you don't think so, but that's definitely the implication. You might not mean for it to be interpreted that way, but people will read those words into your statement, sometimes without even consciously realizing it.

Well, like you're they're very ignorant then and don't understand what the word niche means. You still don't understand what that word means.


Incorrect. If the masses don't catch on, then Blu-ray will never survive with only the elite population buying it.

VHSs that you hang on to are for arbitrary collectible value or sentimental reasons, not for legitimate antique reasons. Go to an antique dealer and try to tell him your VHS collection is antique and he will laugh at you. You're trying to use colorful language to describe the situation when in fact the word you're really looking for is "technologically obsolete".

Really, I'm sure he'll laugh at me. When he sees whose autograph it is and that he can't find it any store, I'm sure he'll laugh at me. Right dude. Most are antiques whether you in your stubborn head want to admit it.

Now, when you say "niche" market, who do you mean exactly? Home theatre enthusiasts? Blu-ray fanboys? Movie collectors? HDTV owners?

Sounds like you finally are admitting that you don't understand niche. For the millionth time, I've explained to you the niche market and if anyone needs to check their reading comprehension it's you. The niche market for Blu-ray are those that can: a.) afford it b.) understand and appreciate it c.) will continue to buy due to their desires/needs for Hi-Def. The masses don't share all of those.

Because DVD itself is even a niche market. TV owners is a niche market. Downloads is a niche market. It's all niche, really. In fact, every market is niche in one way or another-- there is no one product that all persons are interested in buying.

Incorrect as usual. You're confusing the term niche with segmentation. Don't confuse the terms, because they are not the same thing. Think in terms of broader categories. You're right that everything segmented, but everything is not niche. Niche is a small section/target consumer/audience. Going by niche, then you take what is segmented to the elite group not the standard. The standard is what is meant for everyone.

The sense in it comes from them recognizing that BD is on track to be what DVD is now. Ask the average person what they expect to be watching a movie on in 10 years and they'll either say "DVD" or "Blu-ray"; they'd have to be a damned fool to actually expect downloads to get off the ground so soon and more than that, expect them to catch on in the tech-retarded mainstream society.

Easy dude, again. Not only are you calling me a damn fool, but you're calling economic and technology analysts damned fools as well. Your mistake is right there. "Average people" don't understand the market and probably never will, so why would I waste time asking people that?



Ask people what a ferrari is? Does that mean that they own one? Just because you know what something is doesn't mean you'll ever own it. Yeah, the people I know are well aware of downloads and prefer them.

It's not worth it right now because it's easier to just rip the DVD lmao

and even if DVDs no longer existed, it's not that much harder to rip a BD either

But just because a movie exists as a digital copy with DRM on it doesn't mean that movie won't be pirated just the same. Even if it is pirated from other formats, it's pirated just the same.

You know an awful lot about pirating. I'm starting to think you do it. Tell me of a pirated digital copy that you know of. Give me proof please. Have fun trying to do that.

wut

What part doesn't your ignorant head understand?

DRM does stop people from giving away movies to friends. They lock it in to the machine and you can't just physically hand the movie over to your friend and let them watch it. In fact, the most effective way to get it to your friend would probably be to hop on a torrent site and download a technically illegal copy of it to share.

Again, you sound suspiciously like a member of a torrent site.

Technology is replaced in time, but you're not just arguing that Blu-ray will be replaced. You're arguing that it will be relatively soon and that it'll be downloads that will do it, POSSIBLY even as soon as before Blu-ray is able to overcome DVD.

You don't read one bit, and I'm not surprised, because:

a.) you like to hear yourself talk
b.) you're too stubborn to even read or listen to logic and reason
c.) you think that you're right about everything and you're not

For the fourth time, I said disc based media will enjoy a decent life span. What I did say and that you can't seem to comprehend and refute is that downloads will apply to a different part of the consumers, and thus, there will be a market for them as well. I NEVER once said it will be soon. I said that downloads will become a major player.

READ DUDE, READ!

Articles are hearsay and bullshit. I can't tell you how many articles I've read saying things like "Blu-ray is struggling and cannot take off" or "Why Blu-ray cannot make it" or "Why DVD is better than Blu-ray".

Then, by your def. anyone should be able to write an article, so show me your article? I'm not going by run of the mill articles. I'm going by consumer reports, etc. and well known analysts who have been around for a while and have been correct before.

This is not an admissible source when attempting to prove something. If a statement is not evident in-and-of itself, it is not "common sense". For example, "2+2=4" is common sense. "I can predict the future and know that this is going to happen despite evidence to the contrary" is not common sense.

You don't read. You don't listen. I'd rather talk to a brick wall than you. You seem to understand market shares somewhat and looking at past trends, but you fail to realize that DVD soared in a different time with different trends and different everything.

Technological advancements only support the fact that Blu-ray will be replaced, not HOW SOON it will be, nor by WHAT. In fact, looking back at the past, evidence would suggest a new physical medium, because that's how its always been. Technology advancing needn't be purely digital and over the Internet; new mediums for hardware and software are being worked on constantly as well.

HAHA. I bet you were one of these people who thought we'd have little itty bitty cds because and I quote "evidence would suggest a new physical medium, because that's how its always been". LOL, now that single handedly destroys your credibility.

Yes, it's a lot easier for a tech-retard to know how to use their brandnew settop box to hop on the internet, find the movie they want, pay for it over the internet, then download it and navigate a graphical user interface to find the movie they'd like to watch.

Compared to "insert disc, press play button".[/QUOTE]



Snooze. Snooze. Waste of space. You like to hear yourself talk.

Portability is important for movies? Some wackjobs might like to go for a jog with a movie or watch a movie in the car, but portability is required of music, generally not of movies. Either way, DVDs are portable enough for the places where portability is required, and oh, hey, what do you know, PORTABILITY IS ****ING COMPLETELY CRIPPLED BY MASSIVE DRM. I honestly can't believe you try to cite "portability" as a strong suit of digital downloads, because the only ones that are portable are the illegal ones.

LOL, back to illegal downloads again - - you're favorite topic. You leave out movies on iPods, psps, zunes, etc. which is a large market. That's hilarious. Again, you lose all credibility.

There is no evidence to suggest that people would prefer to own movies in a purely digital form, and plenty of statistics indicating they enjoy owning movies in a physical form. Compare Blu-ray+DVD sales numbers to download numbers if you don't believe me.

Show me proof besides the niche market for the average consumer that they want disc based 29.99 expensive media. Then, I'll take your word for it. Good luck finding that.

Yeah, I hear Amazon is either doing it too or about to start. But who cares? It's GARBAGE. Furthermore, does it matter WHAT they're doing when their numbers cannot even come CLOSE to touching the sort of sales that physical media is hitting?

Show me proof that it's not. You're the one that obsessed with proofing me wrong, so proof me wrong then. Give me some proof besides this bull of statistics, and crap that you say, but you can't give proof.

Growing trend? What?

Need a dictionary?

You do realize that downloads have increased by a DRASTICALLY lower amount than would be necessary to indicate that it will be taking over, right? In a few years time Blu-ray has jumped up to above 10% of the physical market. What percent of the total market does downloads make up?

Read, this article and learn something actually learn a lot:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9877031-7.html

"We can use HD discs to train consumers to move into digital, but it's a transition," said Warner Bros.' Dan Silverberg. "Downloaded content will come, but the consumer will get quicker tutorial into video-on-demand, etc., by owning a Blu-ray player or HD DVD."

Hollywood studios know this and by their own def. they realize that Blu-ray is strictly a transitioning piece.

Now, notice I've given you proof now. You have yet to do that. So, come on dude and spit back a laughable refute to me with no proof.

I've done my homework and have researched this. You haven't. You think that you are convictions and biases enough, but there not. Everything written in there is what I've told you, but you don't want to read it or listen to it cause your stubborn.

What you're seeing now in DVD sales is the sales cutting off. Blu-ray has a long way to go before the market is saturated.

What I'm seeing now is Home video sales declining since 2004. Regardless of whether its DVD or Blu-ray. Blu-ray sales are increasing yes, but just because the sales are increasing doesn't mean the overall market for home video sales are. You seem to not understand that.

Just how soon do you think downloads are going to magically pop up and cut off disc sales? My mom refuses to change even to Blu-ray, why do you think her type of person would be willing to hop on board something COMPLETELY different?

You say it right there and proof yourself wrong. Why would your mom change to Blu-ray? EXACTLY. She doesn't want to. Because she probably doesn't want to spend 29.99 on another disc. Going to something cheaper in downloads will be more appealing.

"oh, it's cheaper!" Is it? She pays less than 5 dollars per title, and these are things which are nowhere near download release. Or does the iTunes store have Leprechaun 2 and Repossessed and Leprechaun in the Hood. Yes, Leprechaun in the Hood.

5 dollars for DVD? Exactly, because disc based media is going away. Can't help you with those titles, because I watch good movies, and those aren't.

A movie which is a catalog title but which is new to DVD. Like Howard the Duck. Like I said.

Never heard of Howard the Duck, so I didn't know.

No, but those too also start out at prices closer to new release titles before dropping down to sub 10 dollar prices.


And I can see them for 15~20 bucks. It depends on the specific movie, you dunderhead.

No dugh, you ignoramus. It depends on the store more than the actual movie.

What? OF COURSE THEY WILL. That's why they double dip movies. Because they make the studio money.

The elite film buff will, but not the average consumer. The average consumer wants the film by itself and won't double dip.

It doesn't take being "elite" or "technologically savvy" to enjoy Blu-ray. BDs play just the same as DVDs, they require no technical knowledge (unlike downloads wherein you'd need to establish the network connection with a settop box). And "elite"? Really? 200 bucks can get you a GREAT Blu-ray player, and plenty of movies can be bought for under 20 bucks. It's not that everyone only buys 5 dollar bargain bin shit DVDs, people are still paying 15~20 bucks for DVDs. It happens. And what about PS3 owners? Are they "elite" because they spent 400 dollars on their gaming platform of choice?

More of your stubbornness. Actually there are people on this very board who don't understand HD video and audio, but watch and buy it because it's the in thing to do.

LOL

Dude, seriously? Really? Standard cassettes had already trounced 8-tracks by the time CDs had a shot at reaching mainstream success. Read this, directly from the Wikipedia article about 8-track:

"Eight-track players became less common in homes and automobiles in the late 1970s. By the time the Compact Disc arrived in 1982–83, the eight-track had greatly diminished in popularity."

Also: it's 8-track, bro, not a-track.

Yeah, my bad, that was before my time. You got me on one thing. Good for you. Now, go sing your praises.

Actually, the reason for the similar size would be backwards compatibility, not to make them "hip" like the 15 year old tech people were using for music. In reality, the similarity in disc appearance seemed to be an area for confusion as far as I could tell, people thought they were the same thing.

No, actually cd players and portable DVD players for that matter were hip and were backwards compatible as well same thing like the iPod for digital downloads and movie.

Dude, I'm not stupid. You're making one statement, then attempting to connect it to another without providing evidence or anything to even support it. Basically you said "music is this, so movies is this too". No. Show me NUMBERS that say people want to download movies, and these NUMBERS should indicate that they wish to PURCHASE and OWN movies in the same way they might PURCHASE and OWN music from the Internet.

It simply doesn't exist, and you know why? All numbers indicate people are still interested in physically owning movies.

You're making huge generalizations that are ENTIRELY incorrect. Most consumers only watch a film once or twice. They don't watch it over and over again. So, since you claim to make all the generalizations, you show me the proof that says that the average consumer would rather have disc based media that they will watch over and over again. You'll have a hard time finding that too. You'll probably find numbers on the elite niche crowd, but not the average consumer.

Uh, there is no "remove the DRM". I get the feeling that you don't understand how this stuff works at all.

LOL...there's plenty of ways to remove the DRM. You speak of illegal downloading so much.

Just type this in on google. "removing the drm on a dvd"

You should be a comedian, because you're the funniest guy on here.

Uh... what? You're the one that suggested downloads were somehow impervious. That if a movie was provided as a digital download that it would not be pirated.

Again, show me a digital copy that has been pirated from a Blu-ray. You haven't done that.

But that's the RIAA. Who is to say that the MPAA and the FBI wouldn't crack down on someone illegally copying a movie they own in one form to loan to a friend because the DRM in their digital copy doesn't allow them to share?

I wish them luck, because as good as they do cracking down on drug deals and things of that nature, there are plenty that go on every day under the table that unfortunately they don't catch.



Show me the evidence that suggest otherwise. Cause I just gave the words SPITTED right out of WB who understands the world is going digital. You can't show me statistical evidence. You're making biased predictions with no evidence at all.


So, let me ask you a serious question. Do you think everybody should be given a driver's license? There are so many people who shouldn't be driving, but is staying in your lane, not speeding, and not drinking and driving common sense? Well, you might say it is. You like statistics, so I'll give you some. THERE WOULDN'T BE SO MANY DEATHS FROM CRASHES, ALCOHOL RELATED DEATHS AND EVEN SPEEDING TICKETS if every one had common sense.

Learn that. Please. Your life could depend on it if you catch a person without it driving the rude doing something stupid.

You are just trying to belittle my argument by making it seem that yours is so simple and completely agreed upon when in fact it is not. I'd even so far as to say that among folks on this forum, the statement "Downloads will beat Blu-ray relatively soon" is as far from COMMON SENSE as it can go.

They like you don't are angry and biased and don't want to face the inevitable after all the money you've spent, and you would rather believe in disc based media which reached its peak in 2004 and has gone downhill since, then to agree that downloads will be a major player and battle head to head with Blu-ray and eventually overtake it. Good for you, dude.

Dude, are you just skimming my posts? I mean, I could understand if you are, due to how long they are, but if you are, just say so. You're clearly missing VERY key points.

I'm not saying Blu-ray won't be replaced. I'm not saying optical discs will always be used. All I am saying is that Blu-ray will not be replaced any time soon, and most certainly not by downloads.

I know what you're saying. You believe digital downloads won't overcome disc based media. You refuse to listen to logic and reason. But, well see if you'll listen to Dan Silverburg and the article I just showed you.

And, I read what you say. It's hard sometimes, because you like to hear yourself talk, and you refuse to listen to reason.

The fact that you think optical discs are as volatile as magnetic discs or RAM-based memory storage devices.

Is this a completed thought? In any event, I didn't say that. What I did say was that technology doesn't last forever whether its hard drives or discs.

Warranties and things of that nature mean NOTHING in terms of the product's actual life. In fact, such a warranty is only good IF THE PRODUCT IS UNUSED OR FAILS DUE TO MANUFACTURER FAULT. If the disc is scratched because you're careless, that's your fault. If the disc stops working because you microwaved it, your fault. Just because a warranty has a finite limit to it does not mean that the product is only expected to last that long, in fact, quite the opposite. Look at automobiles. How long do the warranties last there? Would you really expect an automobile to die after a couple of years because that's when the warranty runs out?

Actually, they mean a lot. If they don't put that on their packaging, and the disc did in fact not function properly, then the consumer is out of luck. It's happened a lot with Verbatim media for me. I did take care of them. But, they failed regardless.

I think you missed what iI said, because I conjectured about surcharges for replace downloads, then commented about how you'd likely get hit for bandwidth overages for downloading multiple 20+ GB files.

I didn't miss what you said. I don't agree with what you say. Not, if you're given an appropriate amount of space on their server. If you download something on a server for a downloading site, and then you move it to your hard drive or don't, then they are there at the site's server. It's not unrealistic to assume that each customer of a downloading site can have a significant amount of space on their server to combat the issue of a broken hard drive.

They'd never go to the trouble of hosting two identical copies of the same movie that only differ in the audio. What they should do is develop a container like .mkv and that'd allow all they need packaged together, and people who can't even enjoy HD audio would just have to deal with the additional data that is useless to them, exactly the same way a person with a 720p screen would have to deal with just playing a 1080p copy.

Reasonable enough.

Well then, what say you of the fact that MP3s and things of that nature purchased digitally from online stores have terrible quality compared to even CD releases of the same songs? Do you honestly expect them to work the movie industry differently? They minimize bitrates to maximize profit.

I don't think they do. You're the one that thinks that. Do you honestly think whether its a blu-ray or a download that movie studios care whether you like their product? If you do, I'm sorry you are that ignorant, but they don't. They just want your money.

Again, I feel I must point out that you're clearly not reading everything I have to say. Or maybe you just don't understand? Here, let me repeat it:

I admitted that I wouldn't be surprised to see a USB stick-style form of delivery in the future. If they gave ample reason for a new format like excellent 3D support, I could definitely see that happening. But USB stick movies is not the same as downloaded movies.

I believe it is possible for a solid-state media to replace Blu-ray, but I do not believe it is possible for downloads to replace anything (except the rental market).

Considering how half of what you say is either incorrect or not a completed thought, sometimes I do my best to fill in the gaps, but I'm only human. I can't read your mind. I fall asleep trying to read your incoherent nonsense half the time.

You say, "But USB stick movies is not the same as downloaded movies." I don't know what you mean by this. Are you saying movies on a usb stick that are preloaded or are stored on there? I asked you that, but you didn't respond. So, I still don't understand what you mean by that.

I believe it is possible for a solid-state media to replace Blu-ray, but I do not believe it is possible for downloads to replace anything (except the rental market

You ignore everything I've told you and now you'll ignore the article, and you'll ignore WB, because you're bias. But, good for you. Universal was the same way -- they didn't want to abandon HD-DVD, but they did. Same thing will more than likely happen to disc based media, and studios know this.

Yes... duh. Using a small, high capacity solid-state drive to deliver a high quality movie and extras to the enduser in the same way that DVDs and BDs do now.

Well, you need to clarify, because I can't read your mind.

Congratulations. You just proved the point I was trying to make earlier that it's absurd to consider things niche just because they're made up of a subset of a larger population!

Again, don't confuse niche with segmentation.

wait

Did you SERIOUSLY just say "more people download HD movies than buy Blu-ray discs"? I don't know if I'd even say "more people ILLEGALLY download HD movies than buy Blu-ray discs."

Yeah I did. It's true. It's why the Pirate Bay was just put on trial, because the movie industry is crumbling due to illegal downloads. They are fighting everywhere they can to combat it, so now, they understand if you can't beat em' then join em, and put up legal downloads for sale.

Or are you just saying "it would be cheaper to do that"? I don't think it would be... not for a typical person. For someone who buys a lot of BDs, yeah, it would be cheaper, but that's only because there are a LOT less movies to pick from to download in HD, and even then, they're still sacrificing quality, which is perhaps the worst sin a fan of Blu-ray can commit.

The average consumer is not a Blu-ray fan, and you continue to make that mistake.

By the time the world is ready to accept downloading as mainstream as that, I doubt if Blu-ray would even be around any longer. Probably would've been replaced by HVD or some kind of solid-state drive.

LOL, downloading already is mainstream.

Uh, yeah, because they're the only ones with reasonable quality and the people who I've sehttps://forum.blu-ray.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1849044en argue fervently in favor of downloads being "OMG THE FUTURE" and how "DUDE DOWNLOADS ARE ABOUT TO TAKE OVER" are the same sort of folks who torrent movies instead of buying them anyway.

Hollywood studios realize this and they don't download pirated films.

Haha. That's funny dude. Blu-ray rips look great, and DVD rips look just like the source too. It's only camera recordings of theatrical displays that are garbage.

Funny, you know that, because I thought downloading of any kind had to reduce the bit rate and change the audio to make the file size smaller and thus sacrifice quality. I mean those were your words, right?

I don't want to hear it because what you've failed to provide is actual evidence to support your claim. You've guessed at why DVD succeeded, and blanket stated that whatever made DVD succeed lacking from Blu-ray will cause Blu-ray to be unable to succeed. You haven't even truly stated why you think people will be willing to change gears completely and switch to owning movies in a purely intangible form. So, statistics indicate people like and will continue to like physically owning movies, and you've failed to provide evidence or statistics indicating otherwise. You are not debating logically, you are telling me feelings and not even coming close to backing those feelings up with anything reasonable.

You are the most stubborn individuals and you hide behind these vague statistics that you don't provide. How can anyone take you seriously? I given you proof, but you don't like and you choose to ignore it.

"it's days are numbered"... is that intentionally ambiguous or not? Of course it won't last forever. But to say it that way implies that it's on its way out. That its end of days is coming soon.

It's days are numbered you say? What number is that? 5 years? 10 years?

Now, you're just being a jackass. I've said over and over again, disc based media will more than likely enjoy a decent life span, but it's days are numbered.

The world has and will continue to move into the digital age. We are constantly technology by the day. It's not unreasonable in spite of your bias and your stubbornness that downloads will take over. Talk to Dan Silverburg if you don't believe me.

You said this: "And the difference of Blu-ray's success will be more due to the fact that plenty of people still don't have HD sets yet and won't want to upgrade to BD without a HD TV." So, you did say that LOL.

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the issue is not open-mindedness but being a realist. If something is realistic but you don't think it can happen then the issue is one of "open mind" but if something is unrealistic, then it is not. No matter how open my mind is flapping my arms while sitting on this chair, I will not take off off from it and fly around the room.





agree, but tech does not exist/improve in a void. In 2002 the BFG got formed to look at a new format based on blue lasers at .1mm (and a lot of research was done before that and available for people to knw it was worked on). In 2006 BD launched many years after even the BDF was formed. Tech takes research and time. And it is as much political as technological, Fox did not like HD DVD because they deemed it too easy to crack, there are many decisions apart from tech, it takes a long time from playing with something that might be interesting in a lab (when we first hear about it) and bringing it out as something can be manufactured and that the infrastructure is there. That is why most are guessing a long time. If there was something interesting on the horizon (i.e. under 5 years) then we would have heard something about it, at least as being in the pipeline.



2 that I know of, but then again I have DVDs that are more then 10 years old and VHS tapes that are even older then that. Most people have a PC for 3-5 years, hopefully a drive with movies will last a lot longer then the common PC. The other issue is that a bad disk =1 dead movie, a bad HDD, means a lot of dead movies, the risk is no where near the same.

The technology already exists, but stability needs improving for flash memory, and as I said, today's TV's already support usb drives. With firmware updates, my Sony could play HD content off the drive.

HD sets are mainstream, and with native usb support. Maybe you can, but I'm not sure, does anyone out there produce non-hd sets anymore?

Do you think people who know nothing about this side of things are more likely to embrace plugging in a usb stick to watch a movie, or buying anther piece of equipment to play movies as well as buying the movie itself? It's simpler, and lets face it, society is getting lazy.

[Sonny]

I think BD will be around 10+ years from now & then some really. Their might be 4K displays , but it will mean nothing to 99% of folks. 1080p will hopefully become the TV standard & last for decades like 480i did. We're lucky to have 720p/1080i HDTV right now! I think 1080p24Hz Blu-ray can co-exist with thumb-drive HD movies & Digital Downloads. I will never be a fan of anything but physical media my self. 4K will be great for people running 120"+ screened projectors, but us 60" and under HDTV's will have nothing but bragging rights. But what do I know.... I'm just enjoying what I have & am VERY happy.

[Anthony P]

The technology already exists, but stability needs improving for flash memory, and as I said, today's TV's already support usb drives. With firmware updates, my Sony could play HD content off the drive.

HD sets are mainstream, and with native usb support. Maybe you can, but I'm not sure, does anyone out there produce non-hd sets anymore?

Do you think people who know nothing about this side of things are more likely to embrace plugging in a usb stick to watch a movie, or buying anther piece of equipment to play movies as well as buying the movie itself? It's simpler, and lets face it, society is getting lazy.

1) tech is tech, if it is different or smaller, it is not the same thing. Are records BD since they are both disk shaped? Are LDs BDs since they are both optical, are CDs BDs since they are both digital optical disks, are BDs DVDs since they are both disks with movies. The format is the whole package as is, a buch of techs all put together in a specific way. Anything that changes from one to the other is not the same thing. And long before a new forma comes out you hear tons about it because you need the techs and the agreements.


2) Most TVs (even HDTVs) don't have USB/memory cards and the few that do are recent so for probably 90%+ it would be buy a new TV or a cheap player, I don't think people will go to the store and say, hmmm 2k+ for a new TV or <200$ for a player

3) Studios don't want today’s USB or memory cards (too easy to pirate) there absolutely nothing secure about them, so even if DL or some kind of card/USB is eventually used, it won't be anything available today

4) even if we assume your delusion is right to the point of it will be USB/SD/MMS... and can be plugged into the TV, assuming that it would be a simple FW upgrade to the TV you have now (assuming it has the right slot) is just nuts. Even if it is SD or USB the mem size might not be right (i.e. only reads 16GB Sd and not the new 50GB coming out later to handle the same as BD), it might not have the processing power (takes a lot more for AVC 1080p then a jpeg image) , it might not have the necessary bus/memory inside. Not to mention that even if you are optimistic about this crap and the TV can handle it, it will be at least 2-3 years down the road and that mans that the manufacturer of the TV you have now will never take the time to create a new FW for it.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

ebooks have been around for ages and people still prefer the physical form. Just because one kind of media has found success in pure digital doesn't mean they all will or necessarily should.

Ebooks may have been around for ages, but the readers and the hard drives per say that we are beginning to emerge have not. Those are new and are appealing. "Necessarily should" is an irrelevant term, because what necessarily should happen often doesn't regardless of technology or any other aspect in life.

Not a one of those services provide decent quality HD media digitally. Torrents however do provide decent quality HD media, often times being really good Blu-ray rips. People downloading stuff in HD are downloading it illegally or getting ripped off for subpar quality.

Actually, they do. The only thing Blu-ray offers compared to those is higher bit rates with better audio. I'd wish you get off illegal downloading, because I'm not talking about that. I'm talking the LEGAL downloading services. And over time, higher bit rates PROBABLY will catch up in LEGAL downloading to Blu-ray. HD audio probably will too. But, that remains to be seen. That's the only advantage that I've seen. You can still download HD video from these services and others that I haven't mentioned.

Wait. What? Who spends 30 dollars on a single movie?

You're joking right? At least I hope you are. 30 dollars is about MSRP for a single Blu-ray and it's basically what you find on most store shelves for new releases unless you're an educated consumer. I buy my Blu-rays at CD Warehouse brand new for 15.99. But, not every consumer knows that. They see a 29.99 Blu-ray and Best Buy or Target and see the DVD release or a HD download for half that in some cases and think to themselves, why in the world would I spend 30 dollars on a new release when I can get it much cheaper other ways.

As a general rule, people are stupid and ignorant. Just think: average IQ is 100, so that means 50% of the population has an IQ under 100.

I'll replace stupid with ignorant. There's a whole plethora of knowledge whether related to technology or in general that if people took the time to understand, then it would benefit them very well, and they wouldn't be ignorant.

The point was that technically obsoleted technology can still be marketable for economic reasons. I'm not sure how that relates to this topic and frankly, I don't feel like going back and looking at the context in which I made that statement. Either way, it doesn't really matter.

I agree. Hence DVDs are store shelves. I was at a Fry's the other day and they were selling a 10 pack of DVD-R's with jewel cases for 2 dollars and change. Obsolete media now for the HD niche market but still a decent deal.

I know what it means, but it's the implication that I'm against. To say "Blu-ray is niche" implies that Blu-ray won't get any better and it's stuck at its current market penetration, doomed to never become the main choice of the masses.

And don't tell me that implication is not seen. I'm sure you read the post earlier where the person compared Blu-ray to DVHS and said that Blu-ray could silently fizzle out in a few years.

There's really not a time limit to say for something that is a niche. Using the definition I gave you and your knowledge of the word that you claim you have and using the knowledge of the marketplace, then it's understood that the marketplace changes. Things can have value one day, and the next day not.

Just like Blu-ray can have value to the technologically savvy crowd, but at the time being for the masses it doesn't really.

Simply stating that Blu-ray for the time being is niche doesn't mean that it won't appeal to the masses one day. But, for now it is particularly focused to a segmented population - - one who understand technology and one who can afford the prices for Blu-ray technology and media.

All I'm saying is at present it's niche, but it's incorrect to say it won't appeal to the masses one day. It has the potential, but you can't for sure say right now that it will or won't, because at this particular point nobody knows whether it will share the success of DVD or turn into another laser disc type media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique


"An antique (Latin: antiquus; old) is an old collectible item. It is collected or desirable because of its age, rarity, condition, utility, or other unique features. It is an object that represents a previous era in human society."



Is VHS desirable because of its age, rarity, condition, utility or other unique features? Seriously, the last movie on VHS was made in '06 and you really think the format is that old? Black tapes were still being up until '08 I think!

I know what an antique is, and yes, VHS is an antique now. I have several VHS tapes that I will hang onto. Not to watch them again, but because they are rare and autographed, etc. Age is but a small factor. It's not a determining factor. But, just because, the last VHS tape rolled out in 06' does that change the fact that there were other made 15 years ago? Heck no.

And before you say anything, stupid-ass collector's edition tapes from Disney and stuff don't count. They're collectible because they're Disney and rare, not because they're "antiques".

I don't own any Disney VHS tapes. Sorry, but the ones I do own do have sentimental value, and monetary value at least I think due to the autographs, etc. I haven't checked the price tag for them, but it'd be interesting to see how much.

Are we arguing that Blu-ray won't take off or that downloads won't overtake Blu-ray?

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. The success of Blu-ray will be heavily determined by the extent of the technology of cpus and hard drives in the coming years. The success of downloads will depend on the sales of Blu-ray and if Blu-ray's market shares can continue. The only way I forsee that happening is if it breaks its niche market and appeals to the masses by lowering prices and educating consumers. It's gonna be a tough battle to COMPLETELY overtake all other forms whether it's downloading, DVD, etc. I know its doing well right now. That's not the issue. It's whether it can continue this patter in a market place that sees different factors and conditions that when DVD overtook VHS and became the standard.

I'm aware of Blu-ray's potential pitfalls, but that doesn't mean that downloads are any more poised to be taken seriously by the masses either.

I didn't say that. I said that for the average consumer, a cheaper download makes sense. I mean, let's face it. Blu-ray has advantages in higher bit rates and HD audio, but if a consumer doesn't own a 5.1 or 7.1 surround system with HD-Codecs and doesn't have a HDTV or a cpu capable of playing the HD Video at high bit rates, then doesn't it make sense for them to invest in Blu-ray when there are cheaper alternatives? These are the things that need to be addressed if Blu-ray is going to achieve the success DVD has in that it becomes a household format and the standard.

But conveniently a pure digital format WON'T also suffer from pirating?

Let me ask you a question. Have digital copies been pirated? I realize they have been given to friends, etc. for people who didn't want them, but has anyone been able to remove the DRM off of a digital copy? I've tried to put some on my PSP and convert them to a format the PSP would recognize, but I couldn't. The DRM has held up well on the digital copies unless you can correct me on that and show proof that someone has removed the DRM.

You can't stop people from giving movies away to their friends regardless of if its a download or a disc based media. People, by nature are greedy and ruthless and want everything for themselves with as little cost to them as possible.

Show me some evidence to suggest that downloads have any chance of getting their act together and being taken seriously. Cite information about PURCHASED downloaded MOVIES, not streamed movies, not downloaded music.

The burden of proof is on you. You're suggesting that the status quo is going to be turned on its head. Prove it.

You want to me to show proof that downloads will take over or is it more that Blu-ray will fail? I have bought 260 Blu-ray movies. I don't want Blu-ray to fail, but I'm also a realist.

I see that downloads are inevitable. To sell a disc based media when a large and growing number of people are downloading whether legally or legally and expect to continue this trend of substantial growth like DVD gave the movie studios is unrealistic. It's just not logical.

That's based off of several things. You want proof. Well, I'm using countless articles I've read, common sense, technological advancements, but mostly ease of access, portability, and people's preferences.

Just google and you'll see that there are countless downloading sites besides iTunes out there and that they offer HD videos legally. The Bandwith is less than Blu-ray, but I've addressed that above.

It's just reasonable to realize that with this growing trend of downloading, home video sales will reach a major plateau, and eventually cut off. Maybe completely or maybe not.

There will always be disc based media buyers as well. Which is why I'm saying that disc based media will continue to have a decent life span, but it's days are more than likely numbered.

New release catalog titles don't hit 5 dollars until they've been out for a long time. For example, Howard the Duck just hit DVD for the first time a while long ago. Amazon still has it at 8 dollars.

What's a new release DVD catalog title? Are you talking about re-released DVD catalog title? Because, I can walk into to a lot of stores and sees catalog DVDs for 5 dollars or less. Re-released DVD catalog titles may be a little more, but again, we go back to the average consumer.

Will the average consumer necessarily buy a re-released Catalog title with increased special features on a DVD or Blu-ray for that matter? Well, maybe, but maybe not. What we can assume is that the cheaper product can be more appealing for it's cost to the masses who are necessarily as rich as the elite and technologically savvy group who buys Blu-rays and re-released films on DVDs.

By the same logic, DVD would've never been able to win over VHS, because DVD had a similar period in its own history when DVD was much more expensive and VHS was super cheap and people were eating up the super cheap VHS.

Not the same logic at all. You're conveniently forgetting or leaving out, I'm not sure which one that CDs were also emerging and replacing a-track tapes. People liked the idea that CDs and DVDs were identical in the way they looked, so they no longer wanted something that resembled a cassette tape. They wanted the new technology that looked like a CD. The CD player was hip just like the DVD was hip too, because it was no longer a tape.

On the other hand, now you have Blu-ray which resembles still a DVD and a CD, but now people prefer to buy their music through downloads and play them on their iPOD. iPOD revolutionized music and listening to muisc, and it's slowly influencing people to rethink their movie purchases as well.

Right, and Blu-ray has higher profit margins and better securities in place against piracy.


Throw me some numbers which are comparable to Blu-ray's market penetration then.

Not sure what you're getting at here other than there are plenty of Blu-ray rips floating on torrent sites. But at the same time, Blu-ray has taken better precautions to combat piracy by the codes placed on the disc. That hurt DVD, because it was fairly easy for anyone to crack these codes and remove the DRM.

Once again, piracy will be there whether it's disc or downloads.

You think those low resolution copies mean ANYTHING when considering the question of how will people enjoy HD media in the coming years?

You may want to ask Toshiba and a lot of other companies who are spitting out upconverting DVD players to play in "near HD". They would seem to argue yes.

And I guess my wording was sloppy, but I didn't mean to say that I hate people that argue that, but rather that I hate when people argue that.

Two very different meanings. Glad to see you changed that.

Good ol' DRM. Not allowing me to replace my copy if I need to. Not allowing me to let a friend borrow the movie. Not allowing me to pass ownership to someone else.

Well, DRM is a tricky thing/issue. It's the same thing with ripping a CD to your iTunes library on your cpu. Is it technically removing the DRM and making copies of those songs? Yes. So, is it illegal? Probably, depends on what country you live in. But, more than likely it is depending on which law expert you talk to. For my knowledge, no one has been sued for ripping a CD to put onto their iTunes library and probably won't be.

In today's society, unfortunately this is an example of a gray area. Because, people don't really know how far they've gone until they're in over their heads. The only real warnings people get is not to make copies, but society essentially gives us a cigarette and a match and tells us not to smoke with all the products they give like DVD burners, software, etc.

Now, before you jump all over me, yes common sense comes into play, but common sense is a luxury that you're not born with, and don't make the incorrect assumption that all people have that.

Well, they'd better get their asses on it then, because if they're going to knock Blu-ray out as provider of HD media, they better get a move on before Blu-ray has a chance to knock DVD out as overall video media.

You are probably looking at the next five years. Am I correct? I am looking at the bigger picture here whether Blu-ray is around for 5, 10, or 20 years and even the next disc based media after it. This is my point - - downloading is only gonna expand based on new technology in cpus, hard drives, etc. going back to my original point in that disc based media's days are numbered.

lol

What's funny?

A CD is not going to fail if you take good care of it. Handle it properly, use it only as directed, don't microwave it, etc.

Do yourself a favor and go pick up a stack of DVD-R's and tell me if there in small print is written manufacturer guarantees this product for 2 years or something to that extent. CD, DVDs, or Blu-rays don't last forever regardless of whether or not you misuse them.

Great, so when your harddrive fails you can have to deal with the annoyance of coming up with a list and proving that you've paid for them, pay a couple bucks per movie to the studio to cover the surcharges they'll hit you with, then pay even more to your ISP to cover the bandwidth overages you'll get from downloading a full collection of movies in full HD with uncompressed sound

.

Kind of like the annoyance you get when you have to buy a new film on disc based media when the next big thing pops up? Just for the record, those situations won't necessarily happen. You talk about hard drives failing. Well, I got news for you. They do, but just like you like to talk about handling CDs properly, if you handle Hard Drives properly, they can have a long life span. Nothing is guaranteed, but Hard Drives can last a while. If you read what I said, there will probably be measures put into place like you can download a couple of times, etc.

Once again, if the average consumer doesn't have the capability to play HD audio, then it won't help them anyway. You can offer HD Audio film downloads or regular DD 1080i/1080p downloads. That way you cater both markets.

There is no such thing as a legal digital copy which compares to Blu-ray. Apple's "HD" movies are freaking garbage.

I'm not sure what you're getting out here. I assume you're referring to the downloads not being as good as Blu-ray. If that's the case, I've covered numerous times above, so, I'm not gonna waste my time writing it again.

No, I admitted that I wouldn't be surprised to see a USB stick-style form of delivery in the future. If they gave ample reason for a new format like excellent 3D support, I could definitely see that happening. But USB stick movies is not the same as downloaded movies.

Who is to say that we won't see a 10 TB USB stick in the future? You? There's no guarantee that we won't.

Are you talking about pre-loaded USB movies that come directly from the studio?

Oh? Several? Well, there are millions currently enjoying Blu-ray. Last I checked, millions are more than "several".

Another ignorant statement. Several may have been the wrong word. But, just to give you a lesson in demographics there are 6 billion plus people on the planet, and taking into account those that don't have a tv cuts that number dramatically. Cutting it even more are the people who don't have HD technology cuts it even more.

Computers are just as prevalent in homes and for those on a budget (the average consumer) you can cut your cable bill and your movie bills out completely by watching HD content on your cpu and downloading HD movies which are what I'd say is more than Blu-ray niche buyers.

You're right. It just means that they're not getting quality HD media. Worse than buying DVD as far as I'm concerned; at least a person buying DVD is buying DVD because that's what their hardware supports. A computer can support full 1080p picture and uncompressed audio, and yet, there is no legitimate way to purchase digital copies of movies with that level of quality.

Again, if you think that downloads won't catch Blu-ray, then you're very ignorant and choose to ignore the technological advancements in cpus and hard drives. This is more about services, and companies will start offering these. It's only a matter of time.

I've never met anyone who would ACTIVELY prefer downloading enormous files than owning a Blu-ray, except those who download the stuff for free illegally. Perhaps they exist somewhere, but as with music, so long as the copy is quality downloaded movies tend to be illegal.

Why are you so focused on illegally downloaded movies? You're so hung up on it. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems like everything you argue keeps coming back to illegal downloads.

You really need to get out more. For your information, illegally downloaded movies are not quality. They aren't the original product. They're a cheap imitation of the original that is not true to the source.

Why would you say this? Gut feeling with 0 evidence to support it? Because looking at numbers logically, Blu-ray is set to fall into DVD's place and digital downloads will fall into a niche (lol) of people who are tech savvy, but refuse to enjoy true quality HD material.

I told you why I said this, but you choose to ignore it. It's more than a gut feeling. You also choose to ignore that the same factors that caused DVD to succeed aren't there. I've spelled those out to you over and over again in this post and others, but you don't want to hear it.

When, you take your blinders off and realize that Blu-ray can and probably will take a serious plunge to downloads whether illegal or legal, then you'll realize that it can succeed, but it's days are numbered.

I'll concede this, but I can't see this happening any time in the next couple of decades at the very least.


Downloading has always been around, it's just been illegal.

Downloading is very modern technology, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Again, you come to the illegal stuff, can we get off illegal downloads. I'd prefer if the mods didn't close this thread because of that.

And the difference of Blu-ray's success will be more due to the fact that plenty of people still don't have HD sets yet and won't want to upgrade to BD without a HD TV.

???? Yeah, that's a big problem. But, I don't know how that's gonna make it succeed.

ps i apologize if there are any typos or anything not making sense. I don't feel like going back over this crap and checking for mistakes.

No worries.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by ckent

I'm not sure you understand what niche means. Niche means it applies to a focus, targetable market. You've somehow managed to connect the word niche to laserdisc, DVD-A, and SACD. But, you fail to realize that with only 1 in 3 houses having some sort of HD technology and that doesn't mean that they have Blu-ray, then MOST households don't have Blu-ray or HD technology. Blu-ray, although successful, is still not a mass technology. It's a niche format. Just because it has high market pentration doesn't mean it's not niche. And also, what you fail to take into account, is that many people who don't have a Blu-ray player buy Blu-ray, but only because at some point in the future they know they will get a Blu-ray player and go Hi-Def.

At this point, Blu-ray is applied to a focused, targetable market - - the Hi-Def market. Once again, there would be no DVDs or HD converter boxes on store shelves if it wasn't niche.

By the strict definition of niche you are correct, however it's hard to find a product that is NOT a niche using the strict definition. DVD is also a niche.

Niche has subtleties that go beyond the strict definition.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Terjyn

By the strict definition of niche you are correct, however it's hard to find a product that is NOT a niche using the strict definition. DVD is also a niche.

Niche has subtleties that go beyond the strict definition.

Not necessarily -- DVD is marketed to the entire home video market. Blu-ray is for the elite group that can afford it. 4.99 is not an elite price

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by ckent22

Not necessarily -- DVD is marketed to the entire home video market. Blu-ray is for the elite group that can afford it. 4.99 is not an elite price

"home video" itself is techincally niche because only a subset of the population is interested in buying them and this selected subset can be selective targeted. And DVD actually ISN'T marketed to all home video; I assure you there are more than a few people around this forum who don't do DVD anymore.

15~20 bucks per Blu-ray is also not an elite price in my opinion. These are not 100 dollar laserdiscs we're talking about here.

ckent, I'm at work, so I'll break it down with you later. Sometime this morning. See you then.

edit: Actually, on second thought, the rude ad hominem attacks have caused me to lose the last shreds of respect I had for your argument. I'm not even going to bother reading your post in full.

[ckent22]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

"home video" itself is techincally niche because only a subset of the population is interested in buying them and this selected subset can be selective targeted. And DVD actually ISN'T marketed to all home video; I assure you there are more than a few people around this forum who don't do DVD anymore.

15~20 bucks per Blu-ray is also not an elite price in my opinion. These are not 100 dollar laserdiscs we're talking about here.

ckent, I'm at work, so I'll break it down with you later. Sometime this morning. See you then.

edit: Actually, on second thought, the rude ad hominem attacks have caused me to lose the last shreds of respect I had for your argument. I'm not even going to bother reading your post in full.

DVD is the standard, so it's not niche. Blu-ray is. Again, don't confuse niche with segmentation.

Until 15-20 dollars for a Blu-ray becomes the norm, then you can't call that standard. It's still a segmented product depending on where you are.

I lost the respect for you a long time ago. Because you failed to provide proof. And I gave you some. WB acknowledges that the world is moving to the digital format in downloads as do other studios, but you don't want to hear that.

You should read my argument. You might learn something.

Edit: Going back to your posts, you called people who believe that digital downloads are the future "Damn Fools", so if anyone is making personal, hateful attacks, it's you.