Why the Media bag Blu-ray

[aktonin]

It's pretty obvious to me.

The primary reason is the HD television networks are in competition against Blu-ray. If someone was subscribing to an HD movie channel, then bought a Blu-ray player and stopped his subscription because of all the new Blu-ray movies he was purchasing for his library. Obviously that's a big threat to them. And often the networks that run these HD movie channels are the same networks with news channels bagging Blu-ray.

[jw]

Isnt competition great!!! It happens in all industries, ours is better than yours but in a nutshell nothing beats the direct format of a disc.I am not a fan of HD tv as most is broadcast at 720p or 1080i and doesn't look as great, IMO. If I had my way I would get rid of cable as I only watch movies anymore, I get my news on the net along with my favorite TV shows, CSI MIAMI, Numb3rs and Mad Men

[SkillzthatKillz]

these big communication companies want blu-ray to either fail or be slowed down so that some kind of VoD or downloading service takes over because they stand to make a lot of money of this because it will be their infrastructure that gets used to deliver everyones movies

[FinalEvangelion]

As I've said before, all of these articles are agenda driven, rather than fact driven. If these journalists can make get the word out that BD is "uncool" and for geeks and otakus only, then they can hopefully steer the average consumer away until these digital downloads (currently vaporware) come around.

The average consumer will be easily swayed by this corrupt journalism. They will agree with the "BD is next LD, DD is coming to make BD irrevelant, DVD is good enough, BD will never get cheaper (selective memory in the fact that they will conveniently forget that DVD was very expensive initally in both HW and SW)."

Let's look at history. Anyone who wants to bring a new thing to society has to cleverly market it because society generally does not want to accept an improvement until the mainstream approves. If I recall correctly, the majority were negative against DVD until 2001. For HDTV, it was late 2007 when it finally became "cool" for the average consumer. BD, it's looking like 2010.

Early adopters are often mocked and laughed at. However, if it weren't for early adopters, we would still be trying to kill animals for food with our bare hands and teeth.

Recently, studios came out with statements that they were optimistic about BD. However, journalists are only delaying the inevitable fact that BD is here to stay. All the average consumers that think BD is uncool now will think BD is cool if it gets more mainstream acceptance. That is the bottom line.

[SpikesBluBlooded]

Originally Posted by FinalEvangelion

As I've said before, all of these articles are agenda driven, rather than fact driven. If these journalists can make get the word out that BD is "uncool" and for geeks and otakus only, then they can hopefully steer the average consumer away until these digital downloads (currently vaporware) come around.

The average consumer will be easily swayed by this corrupt journalism. They will agree with the "BD is next LD, DD is coming to make BD irrevelant, DVD is good enough, BD will never get cheaper (selective memory in the fact that they will conveniently forget that DVD was very expensive initally in both HW and SW)."

Let's look at history. Anyone who wants to bring a new thing to society has to cleverly market it because society generally does not want to accept an improvement until the mainstream approves. If I recall correctly, the majority were negative against DVD until 2001. For HDTV, it was late 2007 when it finally became "cool" for the average consumer. BD, it's looking like 2010.

Early adopters are often mocked and laughed at. However, if it weren't for early adopters, we would still be trying to kill animals for food with our bare hands and teeth.

Recently, studios came out with statements that they were optimistic about BD. However, journalists are only delaying the inevitable fact that BD is here to stay. All the average consumers that think BD is uncool now will think BD is cool if it gets more mainstream acceptance. That is the bottom line.

Very well-put. We experienced the same thing with the recent elections, and it is a sad state of affairs when the media tries to push an agenda rather than try and report what's going on in the world. Thankfully the internet makes it possible to get many different points of views on various subjects, and the general populance can at least get enough information there to make a somewhat educated decision.

[fighthefutureofhd]

like that ever happens though. most of the time the general public makes uneducated guesses. oh well. got to love them the little scamps.

[SpikesBluBlooded]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

like that ever happens though. most of the time the general public makes uneducated guesses. oh well. got to love them the little scamps.

LOL! Too true, too true. Fortunately for the rest of us, we're in big enough numbers to fight the ignorance of the masses...

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by aktonin

The primary reason is the HD television networks are in competition against Blu-ray. If someone was subscribing to an HD movie channel, then bought a Blu-ray player and stopped his subscription because of all the new Blu-ray movies he was purchasing for his library.

I don't agree that. Your point overlooks two important factors.

1.: Movie releases are staggered in time through different viewing platforms. Theatrical release, BD/DVD, PPV/VOD, premium cable, basic cable/network TV and syndication all happen at different times so they don't compete against each other. Hollywood movie studios do not release movies on Blu-ray and premiere them on HBO at the same time. I Am Legend was released on Blu-ray last March. The same movie is premiering on HBO in December -9 months later.

2.: Most people prioritize movies according to their level of interest in that movie. Someone just itching to see a certain movie ASAP will probably pay extra to see it at the movie theater. Or he may wait 3-4 months to buy/rent it on Blu-ray. Movies that grab only so much interest will only be seen for the first time on cable. I'll see trailers for some movies and just mutter, "they would have to pay me to watch that crap."

I have had HBO as part of my satellite TV programming package for nearly 10 years. It didn't interfere with my DVD rentals or purchases and hasn't had much of any impact on Blu-ray either. Sweeny Todd is the only notable example, but that's only because Paramount delayed the Blu-ray release half a year after the DVD was released. By the time the BD hit the shelves, my interest in that title had waned and been replaced by interest in other newer movies on Blu-ray. So I settled for watching it on HBO instead. Most of the movies I've watched for the first time on HBO were movies that didn't interest me enough to see them at theaters or rent the disc.

[aktonin]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I don't agree that. Your point overlooks two important factors.

1.: Movie releases are staggered in time through different viewing platforms.

2.: Most people prioritize movies according to their level of interest in that movie. ...

1.: Some people are happy to wait.

2.: Some people don't care what they watch.

The networks know that there are people out there who aren't like you.
It is THEM who they are worried about.

There is a certain similarity to the piracy debate here.

Movie studios will want to encypt their movies out of fear that they will lose revenues. But not everyone pirates, and sometimes people will want to listen to an mp3 before deciding it's worth buying, then going out and purchasing it.

I know there's lots of people out there who are exactly like you, ok.
It's all the don't care people, the networks are concerned about.

People who will buy something because someone told them it's cool.
Not because they understand the technology and have high standards for what makes a good movie for them.

So yeah. The media could tell people how Blu-ray is here to stay and how the quality is awesome.
But because of 'don't care too much people', they'll screw the format for the rest of us.

My original point was mainly aimed at people with tight budgets.
Some will allot a certain amount of money each month for entertainment. Some would have to choose between HDTV and Blu-ray.

To have SDTV with Blu-ray. Or an HDTV subscription. The networks don't want to lose ANYONE.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by FinalEvangelion

As I've said before, all of these articles are agenda driven, rather than fact driven. If these journalists can make get the word out that BD is "uncool" and for geeks and otakus only, then they can hopefully steer the average consumer away until these digital downloads (currently vaporware) come around.

Blu has done remarkably well fighting its way upstream against the constant stream of flotsum that has been thrown at it over the years.

As you say, way too many of the anti-Blu articles are from paid shills of other interests. And that the articles get republished, and the concepts requoted, without a single thought to the integrity of the source, is a commentary on the sad state of what passes for journalism today.

There are some objective observers, like the guys at The Digital Bits. They've been slandered over the years for taking a pro-quality stance. But, their name implies a willingness to accept all things digital, which would include downloads if the quality and user experience were there.

What I find incredible is how all the problems of downloads are seldom mentioned:

- Bandwidth: It takes too long to download, and streaming isn't feasible even for DVD quality.

- Bandwidth caps: ISPs are throwing up 2-3 BD movies per month limits, with excess charges that would make the download more expensive than a disc.

- Storage costs and complexity: How do you store all those movies? Or is this the end of ownership?

- DRM issues: How do you migrate, recover, give away, or resell?

- A lack of standards for the services, and hence the hardware

For some it is an attack on the whole concept of BD quality (lossy audio is good enough, sub 10Mbps is good enough), since they are desperate to lower the consumers' expectations so as to make downloads viable sooner.

Gary

[plee]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Blu has done remarkably well fighting its way upstream against the constant stream of flotsum that has been thrown at it over the years.

As you say, way too many of the anti-Blu articles are from paid shills of other interests. And that the articles get republished, and the concepts requoted, without a single thought to the integrity of the source, is a commentary on the sad state of what passes for journalism today.

There are some objective observers, like the guys at The Digital Bits. They've been slandered over the years for taking a pro-quality stance. But, their name implies a willingness to accept all things digital, which would include downloads if the quality and user experience were there.

What I find incredible is how all the problems of downloads are seldom mentioned:

- Bandwidth: It takes too long to download, and streaming isn't feasible even for DVD quality.

- Bandwidth caps: ISPs are throwing up 2-3 BD movies per month limits, with excess charges that would make the download more expensive than a disc.

- Storage costs and complexity: How do you store all those movies? Or is this the end of ownership?

- DRM issues: How do you migrate, recover, give away, or resell?

- A lack of standards for the services, and hence the hardware

For some it is an attack on the whole concept of BD quality (lossy audio is good enough, sub 10Mbps is good enough), since they are desperate to lower the consumers' expectations so as to make downloads viable sooner.

Gary

Agreed!

[SpikesBluBlooded]

This is going to go way out in left field (no pun intended), but honestly I believe that the mainstream media is just plain-ole, anti-capitalism. Private enterprise and private ownership is under attack, not just in the US, but worldwide. Much of the media (in the US anyway) is heavily biased to the more socialistic side of the fence, and it's no surprise that they're attacking a product that is considered "out of reach" by much of the public due to cost and social standing.

I realize that this sounds a bit "conspiracy theory"-ish, but understand that this is just an opinion. Don't hate on me too much!

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

Isnt competition great!!! It happens in all industries, ours is better than yours but in a nutshell nothing beats the direct format of a disc.I am not a fan of HD tv as most is broadcast at 720p or 1080i and doesn't look as great, IMO. If I had my way I would get rid of cable as I only watch movies anymore, I get my news on the net along with my favorite TV shows, CSI MIAMI, Numb3rs and Mad Men

.
You are abosolutely correct. The PQ of 720p/1080i looks worse on HD cable or HD satellite compared to 720p/1080i on a BD player. Most newer HDTVs being sold these days however are now 1080p. So those just getting started now who buy HD cable and 1080p HDTVs will never even see what real 1080p (not upscaled) looks like. They need a BD player before they can see what their 1080p HDTVs are really capable of.

SciFi HD and a few other programs available in HD are all I watch on cable/satellite anymore. I dropped my subscriptions to HBO and Showtime because I stopped watching those. I can rent or buy BDs any time I want and watch them in 1080p. I will never go back to the inferior PQ of those channels on HD cable or satellite. I can buy BDs with the money I saved after dropping HBO and Showtime.

Like DVDs did in the past because the players/AVRs were there to utilize their potential to the fullest, so it will be for Blu-ray. Just give it time as the learning curve is slow at first. IMHO, Blu-ray will triumph over DVDs and HD cable/satellite.

[jasontkelley1746]

Whats odd is that HBO programing has actually got me to buy more BD's. It's seems like alot of the older movies that come out on BD also are getting put on HBO at the same time or a little befor. Some of them I watch for the first time ever on HBO and it sells me on buying the BD if I enjoyed the movie on HBO.

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by jasontkelley1746

Whats odd is that HBO programing has actually got me to buy more BD's. It's seems like alot of the older movies that come out on BD also are getting put on HBO at the same time or a little befor. Some of them I watch for the first time ever on HBO and it sells me on buying the BD if I enjoyed the movie on HBO.

That is rather ironic. I still wasn't watching HBO that much to make it worth my money. I get TNT HD, Universal HD, FOX HD, and HDNET movies which are good enough for me for no extra monthly charge on my HD cable service. I don't know for sure if any of those are showing BD releases of older movies or not. But just seeing them again reminds me of ones to look for when they do get released in BD like: Lawrence of Arabia, ET, and others.

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by aktonin

My original point was mainly aimed at people with tight budgets.
Some will allot a certain amount of money each month for entertainment. Some would have to choose between HDTV and Blu-ray.

No one is going to dump their cable/satellite TV subscription and do all their HDTV viewing via Blu-ray -not even 100% of their HD movie viewing for that matter. HDTV broadcasting serves a very different purpose than watching recorded movies via an optical disc.

If anyone has a tight budget, they're simply going to be buying/renting fewer movies on DVD or Blu-ray and they may dump their premium cable subscriptions. They may even get rid of their cable service entirely if their financial situation is bad enough. But if the situation is that bad those same cash-strapped folks are not going to be buying any movies on Blu-ray or DVD either.

That's a hypothetical situation that does nothing to support an argument that Blu-ray is somehow in competition with HD cable/satellite.

Hollywood is not losing any money by having their movies play on HBO or other cable channels either. The studios are re-selling the movie over and over again and actually making even more money by doing that.

The window of time between when a movie appears on Blu-ray and when it appears on HBO is actually longer than the difference of time between a movie opening in theaters and going to DVD/Blu-ray. By the time a movie appears on HBO, the vast majority of people that were ever going to buy/rent the movie on Blu-ray or DVD have already long since done so.

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

I dropped my subscriptions to HBO and Showtime because I stopped watching those. I can rent or buy BDs any time I want and watch them in 1080p.

Movies on Blu-ray certainly have much better video and audio quality than anything you can get on cable, satellite, downloads, etc. On the other hand, you don't get any live programming with Blu-ray. You don't have nearly as wide a variety of programming. Lots of TV series episodes debut first via broadcast. You get to wait a few months or even much longer for the same shows to arrive on DVD and/or Blu-ray.

With that in mind, most people with Blu-ray players and HDTV monitors are doing like me: enjoying both.

[FinalEvangelion]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Blu has done remarkably well fighting its way upstream against the constant stream of flotsum that has been thrown at it over the years.

As you say, way too many of the anti-Blu articles are from paid shills of other interests. And that the articles get republished, and the concepts requoted, without a single thought to the integrity of the source, is a commentary on the sad state of what passes for journalism today.

There are some objective observers, like the guys at The Digital Bits. They've been slandered over the years for taking a pro-quality stance. But, their name implies a willingness to accept all things digital, which would include downloads if the quality and user experience were there.

What I find incredible is how all the problems of downloads are seldom mentioned:

- Bandwidth: It takes too long to download, and streaming isn't feasible even for DVD quality.

- Bandwidth caps: ISPs are throwing up 2-3 BD movies per month limits, with excess charges that would make the download more expensive than a disc.

- Storage costs and complexity: How do you store all those movies? Or is this the end of ownership?

- DRM issues: How do you migrate, recover, give away, or resell?

- A lack of standards for the services, and hence the hardware

For some it is an attack on the whole concept of BD quality (lossy audio is good enough, sub 10Mbps is good enough), since they are desperate to lower the consumers' expectations so as to make downloads viable sooner.

Gary

Yep. With the report from the DEG meeting, movie studios were optimistic about the BD adoption, beside the bad economy. However, we had the journalist "doom" team find away to spin the facts that the studios were pessimistic.

The journalists that want to steer people away from BD know that what they write, the anti-PS3 fanboys will spread the news and give the public a false message that scares them from investing in BD.

Yeah, BD is really standing up against all the hate very well. It's because owners of BD like us show all the skeptics (because they have been influenced too much by journalists too much), and they re-evaluate their stance on BD once they see it in action.