At what point will Blu-ray Disc be considered a mass-market success?

[fighthefutureofhd]

no it wouldn't. it would need to do that first to be mass market.

[Bobby Henderson]

If/when that happens, it would be long after BD has gone mass market.

Agreed. VHS tapes were still being offered for sale/rental well into this decade, long after DVD went "mainstream."

The whole notion of what constitutes "mainstream adoption" is very subjective and that definition seems to differ from one person to the next. I certainly will not agree with those who only look at the situation in absolute zero-sum terms (DVD has to be eliminated before Blu-ray can be considered mainstream).

30 million Americans now own at least 1 HDTV monitor. Is that enough to consider HDTV a mainstream thing? Some may say "yes" while others say "no." My own opinion is HDTV is now indeed a mainstream thing for the very simple reason of what you see when you walk into an electronics store. There's no 4:3 TVs for sale anymore. Those antiques finally disappeared from stores over a year or two ago after a phase-out process of several years. HDTVs have actually done better in that regard than DVD players. You can still buy a VHS deck at most electronics stores.

There won't be any magic moment that signals everyone "Blu-ray has gone mainstream!" Even when Blu-ray really seems to be a mainstream item you'll have others arguing that it is not. The format will simply build in popularity with major releases on video doing much to give the format a surge every few months. The Dark Knight is guaranteed to drive lots of home theater equipment sales and seems certain to set Blu-ray Disc sales records -just like The Matrix did for DVD in 1999.

[fighthefutureofhd]

i'm not sure that one blu-ray movie will drive up sales. not this year anyway. people seem to forget the economy is dire and the country's in ruins. until this economy picks up there won't be a high rate of blu-ray adoption. no matter how good the dark knight may look, people are not going to rush and spend thousands and thousands of dollars on equipment, t.v.'s, and such just to watch the dark knight. they'll instead spend the $15 for the dvd. this economy has got to get better before we see real mass adoption.

[Bobby Henderson]

When The Matrix and Gladiator drove DVD into the "mainstream" our economy was in the toilet. The whole "dot-com bust" had taken place. The stock market was plummeting and we were headed into recession.

The Lord of the Rings movies did very well in theaters and on DVD despite all the social and economic fallout from the 9-11 tragedy.

People need entertainment when times are tough. Movies are a far more economical form of entertainment than going on vacations to Europe or taking the kids to Six Flags.

[fighthefutureofhd]

yes, but the economy is worse off now then it was in 1999. and people right now do not have thousands to spend on blu-ray.

[Skunkster]

Originally Posted by clyon

Since dvd player last about 5 years & probably half that on those super cheap'o no name brands, people will have mostly have no choice., when prices drop too a point.

What kind of DVD players are you buying? Even my cheapo in the bedroom will last long past 5 years.

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

i'm not sure that one blu-ray movie will drive up sales. not this year anyway. people seem to forget the economy is dire and the country's in ruins.

I agree that a better economy would definitely help, but it isn't THAT bad. The '30s were BAD! The mid '70s and early '80s were pretty bad, the early '90s were sorta bad. It is just a little slow right now.

BD players will get down into the $200-300 range this holiday season and the HDTVs will again be big sellers. An iPod is $300, so it isn't too much for people to spend that kind of money, especially during the holiday season. Now with blu-rays featured in very visible locations, even in the discount stores, a lot of middle-America will be stepping up this Fall and definitely next year. I believe it isn't too far fetched to believe that BR could be considered "mainstream" by 2010.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Skunkster

I agree that a better economy would definitely help, but it isn't THAT bad. The '30s were BAD! The mid '70s and early '80s were pretty bad, the early '90s were sorta bad. It is just a little slow right now.

I'll have what he's having!!

Seriously though, this whole question isn't answerable until someone can define "mainstream" by percentages?

One person might not consider Blu-ray mainstream until it outsells DVD. Another person might consider Blu-ray mainstream at 25%-30% user penetration. Some people might not consider it until it's higher still...

~Alan

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

i'm not sure that one blu-ray movie will drive up sales. not this year anyway. people seem to forget the economy is dire and the country's in ruins. until this economy picks up there won't be a high rate of blu-ray adoption. no matter how good the dark knight may look, people are not going to rush and spend thousands and thousands of dollars on equipment, t.v.'s, and such just to watch the dark knight. they'll instead spend the $15 for the dvd. this economy has got to get better before we see real mass adoption.

While things would be even better for Blu-Ray right now if it wasn't for the economy being the way it is, things aren't that bad.

Yeah, gas is high and there are some unfortunate people who have lost their homes in the mortgage chrisis and others who are at risk of having the same thing happen to them.

But, as bad as that is, not everyone is being effected on that level. You make it sound like 99.999999999% of everyone in the country is barely scraping by, with almost no disposable income to speak of. But that really isn't the case. There are still plenty of people who have good jobs, make good money, have homes that they aren't at risk of losing, and can afford an HDTV and/or Blu-Ray player.

While I'm sure come this Christmas we will see news reports that holiday sales are not where retailers would like them to be, enough will still be sold that Blu-Ray will do well. Electronics pretty much always sell at least relatively well during the holidays.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I'll have what he's having!!

Seriously though, this whole question isn't answerable until someone can define "mainstream" by percentages?

One person might not consider Blu-ray mainstream until it outsells DVD. Another person might consider Blu-ray mainstream at 25%-30% user penetration. Some people might not consider it until it's higher still...

~Alan

While certainly not an objective measure, perhaps we can look forward to "mainstream" being that state where Blu Ray as a delivery medium becomes as ho hum as DVDs. There will be bins of old Blu Ray titles in the supermarket, and you walk into any local mom'n'pop corner store and find a rack full of Blu Ray's for rent. There will also be no forums discussing whether Blu Ray is mainstream or not. Everyone will just be enjoying movies.

[Anthony P]

dvd didn't go widescreen at all. what happened was that the studios offered a full screen version and widescreen version. and sometimes they offered a bells and whistles version. they won't do that with blu-ray, as it costs more to produce blu-ray. if the studios can get away with cheap they'll do so. they already are in some cases.

so what you are saying is that today no movies are released in wide screen and they are all pan and scanned to 4:3?


PS. tell me down to the cent how much it costs to produce a BD and how it is different then DVD.

[Anthony P]

yes, but the economy is worse off now then it was in 1999. and people right now do not have thousands to spend on blu-ray.

can you show me the % of BD players that are more then 2,000$? a hand full of hundreds gets someone a BD player and lots of movies.

[Skunkster]

Seriously, cost is not really an impediment at this point. An entry level BD player runs about the same as a Wii with an extra controller and those are still flying off the shelves. Consumers are still buying electronics and as more and more BD players enter the market, it will become more and more mainstream. The holiday season will be very good for BD player manufacturers.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by fightthefutureofhd

dvd didn't go widescreen at all. what happened was that the studios offered a full screen version and widescreen version. and sometimes they offered a bells and whistles version.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so what you are saying is that today no movies are released in wide screen and they are all pan and scanned to 4:3?

Movie releases on DVD in its first 3 years were overwhelmingly OAR/widescreen. Very few DVDs during that period had "full screen" (fool screen) versions and when they did they were usually encoded on the same DVD -either on the back side of a "flipper" disc or on a second layer of a dual layer disc.

The big debate in the early years of DVD wasn't whether to do widescreen or not. It was more to do with the kind of widescreen format put on the disc. Most were anamorphic enhanced. Some were not. The original Fox DVD releases of Die Hard, True Lies and The Abyss were not anamorphic enhanced. True Lies and The Abyss never had any Region 1 DVD release that was anamorphic enhanced. At least Titanic had another go-around to finally do 16x9.

The DiVX pay per view format, which rivaled DVD in its first couple of years, used full screen pan and scan on most of its movie releases. Separate full screen releases for DVD didn't become common until the 2001-2002 time frame.

IMHO, I see little reason at all to do separate 16x9 1.77:1 full screen versions of movies on Blu-ray. The black bars on a 2.39:1 super widescreen movie are pretty minor when viewed on a HDTV screen.

[Anthony P]

no it wouldn't. it would need to do that first to be mass market

You do realize that at no point during DVDs life it was the only format that was sold. By your definition it was never mass market.

[fighthefutureofhd]

no i didn't. thanks for the clarification.

[tron3]

It is already a success thanks to the defeat of HD DVD, but success does not come in one fell swoop. It is a series of milestones to be savored.

To me, success is when we see prices appealing to Joe Blow, the average consumer. That is about $250 when people stare, rub their chin and think about it, others say, "Why not." and pick one up. Success doubles when it falls below $200 because then it is a no brainer.

Sure I paid about $350+ for my blu-ray player. But I did NOT pay $1500 for the very first player. Keeps a healthy perspective.

I paid $360 for my first Panasonic VCR. It was the floor model so that was the discount price. Down from about $600! Think that was alot? Recalculate for 1986 dollars.

[ranma]

When Microsoft decides not to pay those column writers.

[Kieranc4]

When do you think they will stop selling DVD's???

[tron3]

Originally Posted by Kieranc4

When do you think they will stop selling DVD's???

Probably not before they stop selling CD's. But definately after the paperless toilet.

"Will people still be using napkins in the year 2000?" -Kramer / Seinfeld

[Tok]

Originally Posted by tron3

I paid $360 for my first Panasonic VCR. It was the floor model so that was the discount price. Down from about $600! Think that was alot? Recalculate for 1986 dollars.

True. The era before throwaway electronics became the norm.

I know Blu-ray is catching on. Talking to neighbors who are emptynesters they said they just bought a new flatscreen and a BD player to go with it this past weekend. Blu-ray is starting to make real inroads now.