Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Mr.Poindexter]

It wouldn't be a catastrophic loss of jobs. Even still, look at other industries that disappeared only to be replaced by a future industry or moved to another sector. No major equine transportation industry. Buggy whip makers are gone. The world moves on...

[pro-bassoonist]

Anyone expecting physcial media to disappear in the near future simply has unrealistic expectations as to where the market is going to move and how.

Pro-B

[Trogdor2010]

While they are capable of making a new and better physical format, I think they may create more focus on DD, even if they want to kill off physical media altogether and save on production cost of the physical media formats. Take a look at physical media and many owners of VHS didn't take the passage toward DVD very well (even if it is a better format; laserdisc notwithstanding). VHS was ultimately eliminated because of this (production costs don't profit as much as DVD), and that people began to embrace DVD. Now with Blu ray (While very popular; I'll admit is culturally a niche format) and DD, people are currently adopting these new formats. I know a way, way more people that embraced instant streaming formats like Netflix and Hulu, hell even way more pirates than adoptors of blu ray. The closest person that truly appreciates blu ray is my Dad (which he is). My point being major content providers CAN kill off physical media by not supporting it at all, and most of the money is going towards them. They'll still fight off piracy, but removing physical media will not combat pirating techniques either way.

The difference between modern digital distribution and physical media is that the content is (theorhetically) free to the consumer (or subscriber) and rental by payment is optional, when you NEED to pay the whole fee or a rental price, that is why DD (By streaming) skyrocketed for support, it gain cultural significance. When viewed this way, it is extremely insulting to even pay for physical media content. Even if physical media is getting more money than DD, doesn't mean alot people want to be paying for it.

Once new releases come to instant streming free for the consumer, and way more people gain an internet connection, DVD sales will only be kept in support by people without an internet connection (Most people still don't have an internet connection however), and even then, they may "car pool" with people with an internet connection. If people can get something for free instead of paying for it, they'll do it.

As a videophile and film buff, I do not like the instant streaming service at all. It is not only unsatisfying video quality, it is impersonal and unrewarding, as if you are not watching a nice clean 16mm equivalent print that blu ray provides. Watching the 400 Blows instant is no where as impressive as the blu ray copy. I even wait for a DVD copy than the streaming content (way less macroblocking too). If the digital format gives the video quality and personal feel of physical copies (I know I sound like an idiot) I'll look into it, but now doesn't seem likely.

[P@t_Mtl]

Unless they start looking at dropping the surcharge for going over one's limit on Internet for a month I don't see how they can expect to have digital download becoming something worth while for the costumer. For them it's a great thing but not for us.

The day it's only digital download and nothing else is the day I am out of the hobby. I will just watch movies on TV.

[iam1bearcat]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

The day it's only digital download and nothing else is the day I am out of the hobby.

+1

same for me. blus will more than likely be the last format i own films on, and if they try and stop having actual discs and just go the digital route they will lose a lot of people and money in the process. i for one, want actual discs and an actual item to own, no substitutes.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Once new releases come to instant streming free for the consumer, and way more people gain an internet connection, DVD sales will only be kept in support by people without an internet connection (Most people still don't have an internet connection however), and even then, they may "car pool" with people with an internet connection. If people can get something for free instead of paying for it, they'll do it.

For some people yes, but not all. If you could get anything you wanted for free then those items start to lose their perceived value and thus meaning. I know I appreciate what I have much more because I've worked hard to have what I can afford. Sure, there are a lot of things I don't or never will have but that's not what's important. If I and everyone else could get everything we wanted for free then what would motivate any of us to be creative, productive, or even work for that matter?

The studios are in business to make a profit ... if it ever reached a point where they could no longer do that then that capability (e.g. movies) would disappear. Corporations aren't in the business of give awaying their hard work for free. In today's climate there is an appearance that more people want these type of things for free nor do they see it as unethical. However, this isn't a long-term sustainable view.

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

As a videophile and film buff, I do not like the instant streaming service at all. It is not only unsatisfying video quality, it is impersonal and unrewarding, as if you are not watching a nice clean 16mm equivalent print that blu ray provides. Watching the 400 Blows instant is no where as impressive as the blu ray copy. I even wait for a DVD copy than the streaming content (way less macroblocking too). If the digital format gives the video quality and personal feel of physical copies (I know I sound like an idiot) I'll look into it, but now doesn't seem likely.

No, you don't sound like an idiot at all.

[Jacob6875]

I just want to point out some of the issues with why we wont be switching to all digital media anytime soon.

The best internet I can get where I live is AT@T DSL which has a 150gb a month limit and I can only download about 600mb an hour on it. This means that if we switched to all digital tomorrow it would take me days to download a single 50gb blue ray disk and I could only download 3 a month.

Even if I could get comcast cable where I live it has a 250gig cap..... so only 5 discs a month?

This assumes that in 10 years we are still using the same format. I mean in the last 10 years we went from a 4.7g dvd to a 50g blu ray. That is over a 10x increase in size.

If in 10 years movies are 500gigs how are we supposed to download that much? We would need to spend billions upgrading our internet EVERYWHERE in the entire US to make it possible.

I just don't see that happening anytime soon.


Also there are many convience issues.

1. Not being able to lend a move to a friend or family member........ or being able to borrow one myself.

2. Not being able to stop at a store on the way home to buy a disc then instantly watching it when I get home........... I would have to wait however long it takes to download.

3. The used market would disappear. Companies could just charge $30 for every movie in the market place. Since there is no used market and the only place you can buy it from is them your choices are to either pirate it or spend what they ask.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Jacob6875

I just want to point out some of the issues with why we wont be switching to all digital media anytime soon.

The best internet I can get where I live is AT@T DSL which has a 150gb a month limit and I can only download about 600mb an hour on it. This means that if we switched to all digital tomorrow it would take me days to download a single 50gb blue ray disk and I could only download 3 a month.

Even if I could get comcast cable where I live it has a 250gig cap..... so only 5 discs a month?

That assumes you are downloading a 50GB Blu-ray, which isn't what would happen. You would only download the film and the extras only if you wanted to watch them. The average Blu-ray is 40GB with extras.

Also, they would compress the film more. Don't worry, you will "hardly" notice.

Originally Posted by Jacob6875

This assumes that in 10 years we are still using the same format. I mean in the last 10 years we went from a 4.7g dvd to a 50g blu ray. That is over a 10x increase in size.

If in 10 years movies are 500gigs how are we supposed to download that much? We would need to spend billions upgrading our internet EVERYWHERE in the entire US to make it possible.

I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

In the future, we will have fatter pipes, bigger movie files and compression will still be with us.

Originally Posted by Jacob6875

Also there are many convience issues.

1. Not being able to lend a move to a friend or family member........ or being able to borrow one myself.

2. Not being able to stop at a store on the way home to buy a disc then instantly watching it when I get home........... I would have to wait however long it takes to download.

3. The used market would disappear. Companies could just charge $30 for every movie in the market place. Since there is no used market and the only place you can buy it from is them your choices are to either pirate it or spend what they ask.

Hollywood doesn't care about your convenience. They don't want you to lend. They want to make money off of every single rental. If they had it their way, they would charge you for every viewing and probably even charge you a higher rate on a Friday night than a Wednesday afternoon.

Remember, we are talking about the exact same industry that opposed the VCR and didn't stop until the case reached the Supreme Court and they lost. This same industry sued Kaleidescape, lost, appealed and is still fighting. That case has gone on for 7, yes SEVEN years and they are to this day asking for the case to be pushed back to drag it on for as long as they can but refuse to concede.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

Remember, we are talking about the exact same industry that opposed the VCR and didn't stop until the case reached the Supreme Court and they lost. This same industry sued Kaleidescape, lost, appealed and is still fighting. That case has gone on for 7, yes SEVEN years and they are to this day asking for the case to be pushed back to drag it on for as long as they can but refuse to concede.

Yep, the industry has sued many entities including RealNetworks for their RealDVD product several years back. Their product was barely on the market when they got pounced on by the industry. The studios were successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction in California. Eventually, RealNetworks threw in the towel which isn't surprsing since the studios have a lot more money to spend. It's interesting to see the industry sue only those companies that release products which also actively take steps to prevent illegal sharing and distribution to other individuals. However, I don't recall them ever going after all of the entities on the internet which take absolutely no steps to prevent such distribution.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

A single HDD can stream about 22 DVDs or 5 individual BD films. That would be rips that were not recompressed to make the files smaller. I have run multiple streams through my house off my Kaleidescape for many years and have run 3 simultaneous BD streams without any issues. (I only have 3 BD playback devices connected in my house, but the system will stream 5 without any issues).

like I said to MrFattBill when he brought it up, I agree. It was an oversite on my side, assuming it is allowed and one hooks up the home for it, then there could be a distribution system from a central location. So my example does fall a bit flat in that respect. But like I pointed out the original issue (can't be in two places at the same time) does not. For example, yesterday I got a call from my sister that she was running late at the doctors and if I can go to her place to pick up my niece when she gets off the bus and bring her home. When my BIL came to pick her up she was watching a movie and when her dad said they had to go she asked if she can borrow it to continue it at home. With my disk I pressed eject and she was on her way. How easy would it be to do the same task if all I had was your Kaleidascape system (and assuming the disks are inaccessible for some reason)

[Jacob6875]

That assumes you are downloading a 50GB Blu-ray, which isn't what would happen. You would only download the film and the extras only if you wanted to watch them. The average Blu-ray is 40GB with extras.

Also, they would compress the film more. Don't worry, you will "hardly" notice.

Well a 40gig disc would still cut into my 150gig internet connection pretty badly........... Also I buy a lot of TV shows. Battlestar Galactica Season 2 is 5 discs. What am i supposed to do download the show I bought over 2-3 months or pay overage charges?

In the future, we will have fatter pipes, bigger movie files and compression will still be with us.

Well I have lived here since 1997. The DSL service we currently have hasen't gotten any better and the cable internet companies refuse to send tv/internet lines out here because it would be to expensive to run the lines 3-4 miles from the nearest town just for us.

Hollywood doesn't care about your convenience. They don't want you to lend. They want to make money off of every single rental. If they had it their way, they would charge you for every viewing and probably even charge you a higher rate on a Friday night than a Wednesday afternoon.

Then a lot of people in my situation will either stop buying shows we like on disc or be forced to pirate them. Look what happoned to the music industry when it went digital......... everyone lost money. Don't see why hollywood would want to rush into that situation.

Remember, we are talking about the exact same industry that opposed the VCR and didn't stop until the case reached the Supreme Court and they lost. This same industry sued Kaleidescape, lost, appealed and is still fighting. That case has gone on for 7, yes SEVEN years and they are to this day asking for the case to be pushed back to drag it on for as long as they can but refuse to concede.

They can oppose whatever they want. IF they want to waste time in losing court cases who cares.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

That assumes you are downloading a 50GB Blu-ray, which isn't what would happen. You would only download the film and the extras only if you wanted to watch them. The average Blu-ray is 40GB with extras.

yes but that is still 120GB and so with a 150GB limit he would not be able to have a fourth film (plus he needs some for other internet stuff). Even if it is a bit lower and he gets 4 or even 5 films, is that really a big number for a month? I just bought 4 BDs the other day (Cujo, the relic, the running man and Jacob's ladder) I have already bought 20 BDs in a shot (good prices with an extra 20% off if you bought 20).

Also, they would compress the film more. Don't worry, you will "hardly" notice.

lol

In the future, we will have fatter pipes, bigger movie files and compression will still be with us.

probably, and that is why I see it as a wash, there is no way the internet could handle everyone DL DVD quality today, the next question is when will it be big enough for DVd and then BD and then what will we find acceptable quality at that time. And even though I agree it is extremely slim chance we will have uncompressed movies there is a lot of room for improvement compared to what we have now with BD (what I would like is lossless compression)

Hollywood doesn't care about your convenience. They don't want you to lend. They want to make money off of every single rental. If they had it their way, they would charge you for every viewing and probably even charge you a higher rate on a Friday night than a Wednesday afternoon.

yes and no, if what you say is true then why did Hollywood decide that rental places like redbox and Netflix will have to wait a month? Obviously because they hope some people will say "I won't wait a month just to rent it, I might as well buy it"

[richieb1971]

Most people I know would rather just watch the movie and never have to own a physical copy. I know people that haven't bought a DVD for 10 years.

Blu ray will adopt less people than DVD or VHS I can assure you of that. If something replaces blu ray it will be adopted by even less people than blu ray.

[Elandyll]

It is very possible that Blu-ray as a format could be the last physical format.

This being said, it would have major drawbacks. And also will spur before long major debates about freedom of ownership (debates have been ongoing for intellectual property, but for the first time it will become widespread - even more so than for DL games).

The "cloud" will eventually become the norm I believe (one day), but it will mean the risk of trading major freedom rights against convenience of access. Too many people already have been willing to make that choice (cf Itunes and being married to one portal and one company for the player side forever).

Imagine a future where all content is virtual, streamed on the go for a monthly fee or per item. Wherever you are, you can access mobile or 1080p (and one day even beyond) versions of anything in your library. But some films are available from some providers, others not. Some players read some movies, but many movies are exclusive to 1 or 2 super big portals (whether they be Apple, Amazon, Google or MS then).
Worse, your content is not even present in your player anymore, it's "cloud". Means that if you change provider, you will lose access to the movies you had in your library.
If subscription based, the model could have minimal impact aside from exclusives, but if you have to pay movie by movie, you will never ever "own" a movie again and changing provider would be a major financial hurdle in order to rebuild a collection.

And that doesn't even touch the problem of the millions of people left behind by the "digital train" because they do not have access to or cannot afford broadband.

Those might be dire predictions, but the importance of the right to access the content you bought is something that NEEDS to be addressed by lawmakers before all this comes forward.
Frankly, this is already happening (Amazon cloud, Qriocity, etc.)...

[Clark Kent]

What you will see is an increasingly smaller market for physical media in the future. The majority of people under the age of 25 simply do not have the same conceptions about ownership that the older generations possess. As that generation matures and becomes the coveted 25-54 demographic, physical media will surely shrink in sales. The music industry is already fighting this disturbing trend, as music was the first intellectual property to be digitized and widely disseminated. But it will also happen to the movie industry in due time.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

For example, yesterday I got a call from my sister that she was running late at the doctors and if I can go to her place to pick up my niece when she gets off the bus and bring her home. When my BIL came to pick her up she was watching a movie and when her dad said they had to go she asked if she can borrow it to continue it at home. With my disk I pressed eject and she was on her way. How easy would it be to do the same task if all I had was your Kaleidascape system (and assuming the disks are inaccessible for some reason)

Well, you are assuming the discs are inaccessible, so it would not be possible. We could just as easily assume that your discs are inaccessible too, right?

If that happened here and the title was on Blu-ray, I could go to my computer, select the title and eject it from the vault and hand it to her. However, I would simply say I am not in the loaning movies business and she can pick up the film at Blockbuster. I do not ever let my kids or anybody else's kids touch my discs. I might as well just throw them in the trash because they either forget to bring them back or they lose them or they give them back and they are scratched to hell. While you are able to give the disc to your neice to watch when she gets home, you are now no longer able to watch that disc until she returns it intact, if in fact she does. Not all kids are responsible.

For my DVD collection, the discs actually are inacessible, which is the major plus, not downside of the system. I do not need to dedicated a huge amount of space to storing and displaying my collection. I have them stacked in fileboxes in my storage room that is attached to the house. They take up so much less space that way. The only ones that are relatively easy to get are the most recent ones that are under my desk in the file box that hasn't yet been filled up.

No system is perfect - they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Digital downloads still has some gaping holes that are not likely to be overcome easily which I feel will prevent it from replacing physical media. Seriously, they still sell more CD's than they do for digital music downloads and the bandwidth is miniscule compared to movies, the wait time to download is very short, they can stream realtime reliably and the hardware to listen to digital music is pretty much anybody with a cell phone which is to say almost the entire country and probably higher than the number of people who even own a CD player. And CD still hasn't been killed off after iTunes, DVD-Audio and SACD have all taken their best shots.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

Most people I know would rather just watch the movie and never have to own a physical copy. I know people that haven't bought a DVD for 10 years.

And yet how do you explain the fact that VOD from the cable companies has been relatively unsuccessful?

And while the record business is currently in the dregs, for years the business did really well in spite of free broadcast radio.

The reality is that both technologies are going to co-exist. They each have advantages and disadvantages and different strokes for different folks and all that.

Streaming tends not to work all that well in many situations and is frequently offered only with 2 channel or compress 5.1 soundtracks.

Downloading requires lots of time even on a high speed connection and is usually lesser quality than a BD even if it's supposedly "HD". If it's a download to own, it requires lots of server space. But it requires no physical package space.

The above technologies will become more viable as downloading speeds increase, but the ISPs are not exactly rushing to do this. And in the future, we're probably going to see caps on both bandwidth and total data, or at the very least, we'll be paying by the byte. Once that happens, physical media is going to seem like a bargain.

BD requires shelving space, but no downloading time. In most cases, it provides the highest visual and audio quality. And it frequently contains lots of extras that some people really enjoy and feel are important and others couldn't care less about. Same for the packaging. Of course it also requires a BD player.

So IMO, it's silly to maintain that it's going to be one thing or the other. It's going to be all of them. But I do agree that BD is probably going to be the last mainstream physical media.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

And yet how do you explain the fact that VOD from the cable companies has been relatively unsuccessful?

And while the record business is currently in the dregs, for years the business did really well in spite of free broadcast radio.

The reality is that both technologies are going to co-exist. They each have advantages and disadvantages and different strokes for different folks and all that.

Streaming tends not to work all that well in many situations and is frequently offered only with 2 channel or compress 5.1 soundtracks.

Downloading requires lots of time even on a high speed connection and is usually lesser quality than a BD even if it's supposedly "HD". If it's a download to own, it requires lots of server space. But it requires no physical package space.

The above technologies will become more viable as downloading speeds increase, but the ISPs are not exactly rushing to do this. And in the future, we're probably going to see caps on both bandwidth and total data, or at the very least, we'll be paying by the byte. Once that happens, physical media is going to seem like a bargain.

BD requires shelving space, but no downloading time. In most cases, it provides the highest visual and audio quality. And it frequently contains lots of extras that some people really enjoy and feel are important and others couldn't care less about. Same for the packaging. Of course it also requires a BD player.

So IMO, it's silly to maintain that it's going to be one thing or the other. It's going to be all of them. But I do agree that BD is probably going to be the last mainstream physical media.

With all the technology let lose on us, you can't loose. Their are people that want to own there own media. Than you have alot that don't care.

[Show spoiler] just kidding

[richieb1971]

Physical media bloomed at a time when the internet was not powerful enough for any kind of distribution. Now it does exist its going to eventually over take physical media.

In the ideal world for most people out there, a youtube type service at 1080p for movies is good enough. I guarantee in 10 years time if you tried to lend out a DVD or blu ray to someone they would more than likely say "I haven't had a player for years".

Before any kind of movie business can be successful the torrenting needs to stop. I guarantee if good quality torrents of cinema releases was available cinemas would close down all over the world in less than 2 years.

Right now we live in a world where everyone wants control where there is no control. There is only those that are willing to pay rather than get it for free. Or those who want that 20% extra quality or extras rather than watch the movie by itself.

[dib]

Originally Posted by Rob71

The following are a few artists CD Sales vs Their Digital Sales to date as of 12/27/09.

Lady GaGa - 2.3 mil overall :: 430k digitally

Taylor Swift - 5.3 mil overall :: 329k digitally

Jay-Z - 1.5 mil overall :: 300k digitally

Black Eyed Peas - 1.7 mil overall :: 298k digitally

Eminem - 1.7 mil overall :: 268k digitally

John Mayer - 666k overall :: 201k digitally

Kelly Clarkson - 810k overall :: 168k digitally

Pink - 1.5 mil overall :: 136k digitally

Paramore - 391k overall :: 114k digitally

Beyonce - 2.6 mil overall :: 100k digitally

Maxwell - 941k overall :: 88k digitally

Rihanna - 459k overall :: 82k digitally

Susan Boyle - 3 mil overall :: 81k digitally

Alicia Keys - 699k overall :: 73k digitally

Trey Songz - 423k overall :: 71k digitally

50 Cent - 334k overall :: 69k digitally

Justin Bieber - 676k overall :: 63k digitally

Mary J. Blige - 332k overall :: 30k digitally

Mariah Carey - 386k overall :: 41k digitally

Whitney Houston - 903k overall :: 81k digitally

I have no problem thinking that now, one year later the numbers may shift towards digital a bit, but all this doom and gloom talk about the end of physical media is just that. Talk. If a format that is tailor made for digital, music, can't kill off CD's in over a decade, what would be the evidence that physical discs would disappear for video. There is right now no ownership model for digital that even comes close to the ease of ownership of discs. Sorry, but banks of HDD's and Raid setups are not mass market friendly. And as of now, storing your films "in the cloud" sounds good on paper I guess, but before I put one dime into it, I'm going to need to see it in operation. Add to that the dismal broadband access rates in America, let alone the world and I don't see anyone interested in turning a profit not releasing on disc for decades, with an s.

I Like the way you think.You are covering it pretty well but one thing I have seen is that our government is supposed to prevent monopolies, but recently Time Warner Cable is trying to get laws passed to prevent competition here in NC. There are smaller companines trying to offer 10Mbps up and down for the same cost as TWCs crappy 5Mbps down and 256Kbps up. I don't see capitalism helping to speed along the demise of physical media, rather prevent it. I am sure when streaming of digital media is more popular, they will have extra cost associated with the service.

Also as for cloud storage and other storage of digital media, I see an opportunity for 'Digital Media Insurance'. Then if you loose your stored media, you could pay a deductible to get them back. I seriously doubt digital content will ever be cheaper than physical media. Sure you can pay $1 for a song. That would make getting all the MP3s from an album more expensive than buying the CD ($11.00 usually). The CD would also have better quality, but I doubt people that really like MP3s are not really audiophiles. I can tell a difference between SACD and CD so much so that it is painful listening to SACD then CD. The CD just sounds so synthesized. MP3s are even worse. But mainstream consumers can't hear the difference with their systems and are probably not really audiophiles either. They probably just have music as a background to something else they are doing. They don't really sit and just listen intently to the music.