I recently ripped all my DVDs to my HD. I had resisted doing it for years, because I didn't want the (slight) loss of quality that comes with re-encoding. And you really have to re-encode, because MPEG2 files are just too big. But it occurred to me - "So what?" - DVDs are low quality to begin with by today's standards.
The point is, I think that people's (not just me) expectation of video quality have gone up in recent years, after being static for the longest time. And it is not really Blu Ray that has done it, but HDTV. And so people expect their movies they buy to be at least as good as TV.
So basically what your saying is that you like to be very aggressive/jackass/asshole against people with your posts and at the same time you don't want to admit that your sales figures are wrong making your main point in terms of sales moot and at the same time that your environment point is also essentially moot.
I would hazard to ask the same of you, since you wish to be pointed about it. I am not against anyone in these posts and I have stated I have no skin in this "game" as I have no stated or unstated format preference. I don't need to admit my sales figures are wrong - they are not MY sales figures, they are simply the ones reported from the sources I cited. Those numbers have been challenged by Cory and jfanning (who was particularly snarky if I recall - but then this I expect), the numbers reported by the industry driving blu-ray adoption are equally at risk for manipulation and inaccuracy, but this seems to less important than defending the format, or simply snarking whenever the chance presents itself.
And no the environmental impact is not moot, it is very real regardless of the data center statistics or rather IN ADDITION to those statistics. If you were at the least alert enough to ponder the issues they represent you would not disregard the problems as "moot". But no in your rush to defend a format I didn't even attack you decide that it's OK to dump hundreds of thousands of lbs of optical plastic trash in landfills - because its Blu-ray and too cool to be bad.
How puerilely adolescent of you. You owe the media industry no loyalty for jacking you out of your hard-earned money by switching formats every few years to offer you the opportunity to repurchase your media in "new and exciting formats". So buy away. There, blunt as a brick wall. I am also willing to exchange politeness and intelligent discussion as well if you care to offer it in turn. You decide.
Aye, i meant to sound like I was agreeing. I don't get bashing Blu-ray as a format when it was based in the needs of the studios who own the content and seek to protect it from misuse. I think people forget that DVD has encryption and region encoding but it's so easily cracked and software for (illegally) ripping is commonplace.
Sorry. And you raise a point, the iTunes downloads have an even greater region coding stuck on them than DVD, or Blu-ray.
Guess you don't know about ------ and how I can start viewing 1080p instantly and download 1+MiB a second. Btw, how instant is you going to the video store or waiting for a day for a BD to arrive via netflix?
Those 1080p downloads you refer to are so low of a bit rate they benefit nothing from the resolution. I can walk to the video store and back again in 10 minutes, less if I drove or took my push bike.
from some of the supporting sources cited by the denizens here previously. From HomeMediaMagazine arguably one of the industry's leading cheerleaders backing Blu-ray uptake by consumers:
Quote:
Total consumer spending on Blu-ray Disc and DVD purchases and rentals, as well as digital delivery, is estimated at $4.8 billion, down 8% from the first quarter of 2009, according to numbers released April 15 from DEG: The Digital Entertainment Group. Conspicuously absent from the latest DEG report is transaction data. Last year, consumer spending was down 5%, but transactions were up 2.8%.
The bright spot for home entertainment in the first quarter of 2010: a sharp rise in consumer spending on Blu-ray Disc, with sellthrough up 74% and rental up 36%, according to the DEG, which compiles its numbers each quarter with input from all the major studios. The software gains were accompanied by a 125% growth in Blu-ray Disc hardware sales in the quarter, the DEG said.
Digital delivery, too, rose 27% in the first quarter of 2010 from the year-ago quarter, growing to $617 million.
Now let's be cautious and not put too much emphasis on the reported percentages numbers, because industry reporters use percentages often where the real numbers don't look as impressive. However according to this site and the DEG report supporting it, two statements are worth noting:
Quote:
Recent moves by three of the six major studios to impose a month-long window on new releases coming to the rental market are expected to boost DVD sales, with a minimal impact on the rental business. Indeed, some observers believe the rental window, which applies only to Netflix and Redbox, will grow the business. Consumers who want new releases as soon as they come out will have to shell out more money to buy them, while fans of renting movies will simply rent something else instead of foregoing the experience altogether.
Note first that the studios are controlling how the releases are hitting the market in order to maximize their profits, part of which hinges on consumer adoption of Blu-ray as the new standard in optical media delivery.
and this comment:
Quote:
The health of the Blu-ray Disc market is underscored by the fact that during the quarter, more than 34 million discs were shipped to retail, 72% more than during the first quarter of 2009, according to figures compiled by Swicker & Associates on behalf of the DEG. More than 18 million U.S. homes now have some sort of Blu-ray Disc playback device, either a set-top machine or a PlayStation 3 console.
Note that like some other manufacturers, the industry is reporting channel input, not channel output. This allows for the practice of channel stuffing, which gives the impression of more "sales", when in fact, channel output is the more accurate report - showing actual consumer purchases made and except in the case of BOGO's is less apt to be manipulated.
The problem with an "average person analysis" of this information is - the feed looks golden - every thing hunky-dory, things are growing as predicted and everyone is luvin' on our new strategy - that a market analyst does a simple keyword/keyphrase review and sees the telltales of the numbers being "handled" (to be polite). Channel-in reporting is generally disregarded as inaccurate since retailers are often stuck with more stock than needed for demand and end up running BOGOs or clearances to get rid of excess stock - losing profit in the process. Note in the top of the quote that DEG was not reporting transaction numbers for 1Q 2010 against the same last year.
The upshot of all this is that Blu-ray is being adopted by consumers, but slower than the industry would like. In light of this why commit Apple to adopt something that consumers, while mildly interested, still haven't been convinced as to it's value against a substantial existing library of DVDs they own and don't feel compelled to replace in a down economy.
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Going back to the above, when DVD came out, even though it was more expensive than VHS, when I went into a store to buy a movie, I ALWAYS bought the DVD version (when available). The quality difference justified it. For BD, it doesn't justify a 50% (or more) premium for many people.
wow, i think you are overpaying for your blu ray movies. i bought Avatar on blu ray from amazon for $17.99 during the first week it was released. best buy is the last place someone should buy a blu ray movie, UNLESS its on sale. in fact most things at best buy are overpriced and can be found cheaper at other stores, brick-and-mortar and online. i would never buy any blu ray or dvd at retail price because i know i will be able to find it cheaper somewhere else. i buy my blu ray movies from amazon, buy.com, ebay, and half.com and a few other places. all my new blu ray movies cost the same, if not less than the same movie on DVD. in fact right now, at best buy, they have like 50 awesome blu ray titles for $14.99, where the dvd counterparts are the same price or more. there is absolutely no reason to buy a dvd over blu ray, unless you don't have a blu ray player, which a person can get for around $79 or more. blu ray looks and sounds twenty times better than dvd, hands down.
bottom line, we should have the choice if we want a blu ray player in our mac. i'd happily pay reasonably more to have a blu ray/superdrive in my mac. i know lots of people that aren't buying a mac JUST because there is no blu ray player to watch their movies, or for their kids to watch movies. apple is making the wrong choice by not offering blu ray just to save their precious movie download portion of the itunes store.
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK.
Because it costs pretty much the same for Apple to DHL the same computer to either my home in Buckinghamshire, or to the Apple Store in Milton Keynes where I might opt to go and purchase it instead -- for the buying experience and the availability of a Genius. Apple must deliver the product, either to your home or to your nearest store. You might think that it costs substantially less to stock the store, because they would use a larger truck and make a more efficient delivery -- but they actually keep very little stock on hand in stores (and I don't think they use intermediary warehouses in different regions). Apple thereby saves money on storage and the spaces it must rent, for one thing; and for another thing, it has the best channel control in the industry -- no unsold stock languishing away somewhere; no "channel-stuffing", however much analysts looking at great sales figures assume that Apple must be stuffing channels because everyone else is. You can choose your buying experience and you get the same product for the same price. Furthermore, if you buy it online, you are still welcome at the Genius Bar.
Apple has a great distribution system, and they have it down to a science. They have, I think, one major distribution point in Europe (Ireland). Presumably, the products get shipped from China to Ireland. Apple regularly uses a courier service to deliver a few of each product to each Apple Store across Europe, and to each supplier when they ask. AND Apple uses a courier service to deliver products directly to the customer buying through its online store, usually for free (free delivery above a certain transaction level I think, which is most online Apple purchases).
I don't think all this negates the proposition that doing business generally costs more in Europe, to which you were responding. Delivery (courier to final location, whether store or customer's home) probably has a higher cost on average in Europe than in USA; and higher costs of doing business (like delivery and rent and taxes) would be reflected in product prices that are higher in Europe than in USA. Despite the fact that I would love things, especially Apple things, to cost the same in Europe as they do in the US (and I have posted about VAT etc.), I can understand this and I am OK with it.
Because it costs pretty much the same for Apple to DHL the same computer to either my home in Buckinghamshire, or to the Apple Store in Milton Keynes where I might opt to go and purchase it instead --
I think you missed the point, for Apple online they don't have a physical store, or employees in that store, or electricity in that store etc etc to add to the costs
I think you missed the point, for Apple online they don't have a physical store, or employees in that store, or electricity in that store etc etc to add to the costs
No, I think you missed the point: "Apple Online" *is* the Store.
The bulk of the stock is located in one place, Ireland. It either goes directly to your house, or directly to a physical shop front. Either way, the same security people watch the stock in Ireland, and the same packing people are employed to pack the stock up for delivery. The warehouse in Ireland costs the same all the time, whether they ship a Mac to your house or to your local physical incarnation of the Store.
At the same time, each physical store, a very small store, has employees in it and lights on in it all the time -- whether they stock 2 iMacs or 200 or 2000. They don't stock 2000, I doubt they stock 200, they probably stock 20.
But, the physical stores came later (and continue to open in more places). Why not ask it in reverse, "why is buying from the brick-and-mortar store not more expensive than the online price; after all, Apple has to employ sales assistants and genius' (who are there for online customers as well) and keep the lights on?"
I highly doubt Apple is saving a whole lot of money, as you seem to assume, by shipping your order directly to you instead of handling it through a physical store. On the contrary, Apple is running their brick-and-mortar stores incredibly well. Apple has once again shown how to do something right -- how to have profitable physical stores. Apple has about the most profitable physical stores on the planet -- the revenue per square foot is phenomenal. People like to walk in and see Apple stuff and buy it on the spot.
While it did take 6 years for the US to go from VHS to DVD there are differences here:
1) Player cost is dropping like crazy.
You can already get a blu-ray player for your TV at low as $131.
2) A Blu ray player can play both DVDs and Blu-ray disks
This back comparability make blu-ray adoption easier then it was for DVD when VHS was king.
3) The quality difference between DVD and VHS is significant...especially with tapes as they age. The quality difference between upconverted DVD and BR less so for the general populace with smaller HDTVs and sit too far away from them to benefit as much from the resolution increase.
Given that some folks still watch SD cable on their HDTVs and most folks seem to consider low-bitrate "HD" from cable as acceptable I'm thinking that folks that believe a huge rush to quality will occur need to make a better case that increased quality is really a driver over low bitrate HD digital download.
Especially in the face of integrated youtube and netflix streaming being built into some LG HDTVs...
The upshot of all this is that Blu-ray is being adopted by consumers, but slower than the industry would like. In light of this why commit Apple to adopt something that consumers, while mildly interested, still haven't been convinced as to it's value against a substantial existing library of DVDs they own and don't feel compelled to replace in a down economy.
I'll preface my comment with the disclaimer that I, in no way, consider it to be the norm, just one example out of millions. With that said, I'll throw in my 2 cents by stating that I haven't necessarily replaced all my DVDs with their blu-ray counterparts. Quite the opposite actually. Yes, I have re-purchased some of my favorite catalog titles on blu-ray, but I'm referring to movies that I love and can watch over and over again. At a point in 2007, I decided that, going forward, I would only purchase those new releases on blu-ray that I felt were worth owning. The rest, I would rent from Netflix. I'm quite a movie buff and owning copies of those favorites in what amounts to be the best currently available format is totally worthwhile to me. Currently, that's blu-ray. Does that mean I'll buy them again when the next big thing comes out, not necessarily. It all depends on the merits of that hypothetical "next big thing". And for me, it's not 3D.
Note first that the studios are controlling how the releases are hitting the market in order to maximize their profits, part of which hinges on consumer adoption of Blu-ray as the new standard in optical media delivery.
Is this supposed to be an argument against blu-ray? Because that sounds like a very valid reason for including blu-ray playback in every device with an optical drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore
The upshot of all this is that Blu-ray is being adopted by consumers, but slower than the industry would like. In light of this why commit Apple to adopt something that consumers, while mildly interested, still haven't been convinced as to it's value against a substantial existing library of DVDs they own and don't feel compelled to replace in a down economy.
Nonsense. Current blu-ray adoption numbers are the same as DVDs were in it's 5th year. Apple started offering DVD playback as an option in Macs the second year it was on market in the US, and made it standard in their iMacs the third year. So while blu-ray adoption is right on track with DVD in terms of adoption, Apple is 3-4 years behind where they were with DVD at this time in it's life cycle. Apple has not offered a single valid reason for why blu-ray can't at the very least be an option to Mac customers; there is demand for it, every major review of the new Mac Mini noted its absence as a negative, and blu-ray is going to be around for many, many years.
Lastly, consumer adoption of blu-ray has nothing to do with replacing one's DVD library; its about enjoying the best quality possible for the movies one buys or rents moving forward. The option to buy an older title on blu-ray is often there, but there is absolutely no need to replace your DVDs with blu-rays since the players are backwards compatible.
3) The quality difference between DVD and VHS is significant...especially with tapes as they age. The quality difference between upconverted DVD and BR less so for the general populace with smaller HDTVs and sit too far away from them to benefit as much from the resolution increase.
The resolution boost from DVD to blu-ray is actually greater than VHS to DVD, that is like you said though before VHS decays. But It'd be hard to appreciate the difference between VHS and DVD on a tiny screen across the room, as well, and yet people made the move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Given that some folks still watch SD cable on their HDTVs and most folks seem to consider low-bitrate "HD" from cable as acceptable I'm thinking that folks that believe a huge rush to quality will occur need to make a better case that increased quality is really a driver over low bitrate HD digital download.
Like the HDTV, consumer adoption of blu-ray will eventually reach those who wouldn't otherwise pay for the improvement by way of backwards compatibility. You can't walk out of a retail store with a television that isn't high definition anymore, whether you intend to use it or not, and eventually you won't be able to buy a DVD player that doesn't also happen to play blu-rays. So when Joe consumer's dvd player breaks down and he goes to buy a new one, he'll find all they have is blu-ray players that also play his DVDs, and bring it home. And when blu-ray player adoption reaches that level, studios can start to phase out DVD prints in the same way they did VHS. And when that happens, ol' Joe consumer will start coming home with blu-ray versions of movies whether he appreciates the additional quality or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Especially in the face of integrated youtube and netflix streaming being built into some LG HDTVs...
Netflix streaming is not an alternative to blu-ray; you'd be hard pressed to find six HD movies from there selection that you'd actually want to watch. And that's not changing for any streaming service so long as the studios continue their highly lucrative business practice of limited distribution windows.
Lastly, consumer adoption of blu-ray has nothing to do with replacing one's DVD library; its about enjoying the best quality possible for the movies one buys or rents moving forward. The option to buy an older title on blu-ray is often there, but there is absolutely no need to replace your DVDs with blu-rays since the players are backwards compatible.
How have you seen already existing Blu-Ray drives?
Complicated trays with doors.
Maybe it's not so far-fetched that they would have to redesign or get the licensing to comply with their trademark disc drive style. A combination of design and licensing problems?
PS3 is a slot loading drive. Shouldn't be a mechanical issue with the drive. Could be that the HDCP spec would require incorporating stuff into the computer or OS that slows it down or adds cost (speculation on my part). BluRay is beautiful on my 50 inch Pioneer with DefTech speakers, but i doubt that it would make difference on my 24 inch iMac with its mediocre built in speakers or on the 13 inch Macbook. iTunes grade content (or Handbrake'd DVDs) are okay for those.
PS3 is a slot loading drive. Shouldn't be a mechanical issue with the drive. Could be that the HDCP spec would require incorporating stuff into the computer or OS that slows it down or adds cost (speculation on my part). BluRay is beautiful on my 50 inch Pioneer with DefTech speakers, but i doubt that it would make difference on my 24 inch iMac with its mediocre built in speakers or on the 13 inch Macbook. iTunes grade content (or Handbrake'd DVDs) are okay for those.
I agree with the iTunes is good enough for Macbook, iMac, iPod/iPhone.. . My consumer choice is not to double-dip on content especially when it is a step down in quality. This means I'm not going to buy or rent on blu-ray and then buy it on good-enough-iTunes just so I can have it mobile. I'd like the choice to view my blu on a macbook or mac desktop but since I don't have that easy option, I'll do without.
Guess you don't know about ------ and how I can start viewing 1080p instantly and download 1+MiB a second. Btw, how instant is you going to the video store or waiting for a day for a BD to arrive via netflix?
Didn't you have to wait from the time the movie was available at the movie theater from the time it was available for download? And how often does the movie become available on BD before available for downloads (more waiting)? Many times the movie isn't even available for download (I guess this really isn't waiting though).
Sound like picking and choosing the type of waiting to suit your argument.
Blu-ray has been compared to just "downloads" a few times in this thread. That's an interesting discussion but it is just part of the picture. There are so many more options than there used to be and only comparing it to downloads misses some fundamental changes in the way people watch videos.
It used to be either you bought the physical media or you had no guarantee of it being available immediately when the whim struck to watch something in particular. Also, it used to be that there were relatively few options on cable and so owning a movie was the best way to get exactly what you wanted when you wanted it.
Rentals changed that somewhat. But getting exactly what you want still required a trip to the store.
Similarly proliferation of channels decreased the desire to own because it was much more likely that something of interest would be on when you wanted to watch something. Then came VOD. Meaning, even less incentive to own or even rent. New and popular movies are instantly available, without owning them.
Then came streaming with Netflix and various other services. All of a sudden, people have access to massive libraries of video content without needing to actually buy that content.
(torrents fit into the picture somewhere as well)
In other words, the trade-off between renting/subscribing and buying has changed drastically. Many people who used buy movies are finding that owning movies is no longer necessary. This differs from music which is almost always listened to repeatedly. Videos tend to be watched few enough times that a rental or subscription model is actually reasonable.
So there you have it... my reasoning why blu-ray will never enjoy the monolithic success of VHS, DVD, and CDs. And keep in mind that this is coming from a blu-ray owning resolution junkie with a 1080p24 projector. Blu-ray offers excellent picture quality. But most of the time I find myself watching content delivered electronically. Physical media is just too inconvenient and expensive. My physical media collection stopped growing years ago, topping out at nearly 500 DVDs. To this date, i've only bought two blu-ray. Blu-ray via netflix is nice, but my days of going to the store to buy physical media are over.
While it did take 6 years for the US to go from VHS to DVD there are differences here:
1) Player cost is dropping like crazy.
You can already get a blu-ray player for your TV at low as $131.
2) A Blu ray player can play both DVDs and Blu-ray disks
This back comparability make blu-ray adoption easier then it was for DVD when VHS was king.
This misses the influence of electronically delivered video. Back when DVD was battling VHS, you had to own a movie or choose from the 30 channels on cable. Either that or drive to a rental store.
The difference is that now there are many more channels on cable/satellite/fios, VOD is an option, torrents are an option, and every one and their cousin is offering streaming media.
People are so satisfied with these options that the rental industry is nearly dead. Google for "Blockbuster bankrupcy". Blockbuster lost $65 million last quarter and the future looks even worse. People are so satisfied with the electronically delivered options that they are no longer willing to leave the house. There just is not sufficient motivation to do so.
This isn't saying blu-ray is dead. But rather just that it will never enjoy the monolithic success of previous physical media formats.
Comments
teste de paternité
keys to happiness
The point is, I think that people's (not just me) expectation of video quality have gone up in recent years, after being static for the longest time. And it is not really Blu Ray that has done it, but HDTV. And so people expect their movies they buy to be at least as good as TV.
So basically what your saying is that you like to be very aggressive/jackass/asshole against people with your posts and at the same time you don't want to admit that your sales figures are wrong making your main point in terms of sales moot and at the same time that your environment point is also essentially moot.
I would hazard to ask the same of you, since you wish to be pointed about it. I am not against anyone in these posts and I have stated I have no skin in this "game" as I have no stated or unstated format preference. I don't need to admit my sales figures are wrong - they are not MY sales figures, they are simply the ones reported from the sources I cited. Those numbers have been challenged by Cory and jfanning (who was particularly snarky if I recall - but then this I expect), the numbers reported by the industry driving blu-ray adoption are equally at risk for manipulation and inaccuracy, but this seems to less important than defending the format, or simply snarking whenever the chance presents itself.
And no the environmental impact is not moot, it is very real regardless of the data center statistics or rather IN ADDITION to those statistics. If you were at the least alert enough to ponder the issues they represent you would not disregard the problems as "moot". But no in your rush to defend a format I didn't even attack you decide that it's OK to dump hundreds of thousands of lbs of optical plastic trash in landfills - because its Blu-ray and too cool to be bad.
How puerilely adolescent of you. You owe the media industry no loyalty for jacking you out of your hard-earned money by switching formats every few years to offer you the opportunity to repurchase your media in "new and exciting formats". So buy away. There, blunt as a brick wall. I am also willing to exchange politeness and intelligent discussion as well if you care to offer it in turn. You decide.
Aye, i meant to sound like I was agreeing. I don't get bashing Blu-ray as a format when it was based in the needs of the studios who own the content and seek to protect it from misuse. I think people forget that DVD has encryption and region encoding but it's so easily cracked and software for (illegally) ripping is commonplace.
Sorry. And you raise a point, the iTunes downloads have an even greater region coding stuck on them than DVD, or Blu-ray.
Guess you don't know about ------ and how I can start viewing 1080p instantly and download 1+MiB a second. Btw, how instant is you going to the video store or waiting for a day for a BD to arrive via netflix?
Those 1080p downloads you refer to are so low of a bit rate they benefit nothing from the resolution. I can walk to the video store and back again in 10 minutes, less if I drove or took my push bike.
Total consumer spending on Blu-ray Disc and DVD purchases and rentals, as well as digital delivery, is estimated at $4.8 billion, down 8% from the first quarter of 2009, according to numbers released April 15 from DEG: The Digital Entertainment Group. Conspicuously absent from the latest DEG report is transaction data. Last year, consumer spending was down 5%, but transactions were up 2.8%.
The bright spot for home entertainment in the first quarter of 2010: a sharp rise in consumer spending on Blu-ray Disc, with sellthrough up 74% and rental up 36%, according to the DEG, which compiles its numbers each quarter with input from all the major studios. The software gains were accompanied by a 125% growth in Blu-ray Disc hardware sales in the quarter, the DEG said.
Digital delivery, too, rose 27% in the first quarter of 2010 from the year-ago quarter, growing to $617 million.
Now let's be cautious and not put too much emphasis on the reported percentages numbers, because industry reporters use percentages often where the real numbers don't look as impressive. However according to this site and the DEG report supporting it, two statements are worth noting:
Recent moves by three of the six major studios to impose a month-long window on new releases coming to the rental market are expected to boost DVD sales, with a minimal impact on the rental business. Indeed, some observers believe the rental window, which applies only to Netflix and Redbox, will grow the business. Consumers who want new releases as soon as they come out will have to shell out more money to buy them, while fans of renting movies will simply rent something else instead of foregoing the experience altogether.
Note first that the studios are controlling how the releases are hitting the market in order to maximize their profits, part of which hinges on consumer adoption of Blu-ray as the new standard in optical media delivery.
and this comment:
The health of the Blu-ray Disc market is underscored by the fact that during the quarter, more than 34 million discs were shipped to retail, 72% more than during the first quarter of 2009, according to figures compiled by Swicker & Associates on behalf of the DEG. More than 18 million U.S. homes now have some sort of Blu-ray Disc playback device, either a set-top machine or a PlayStation 3 console.
Note that like some other manufacturers, the industry is reporting channel input, not channel output. This allows for the practice of channel stuffing, which gives the impression of more "sales", when in fact, channel output is the more accurate report - showing actual consumer purchases made and except in the case of BOGO's is less apt to be manipulated.
The problem with an "average person analysis" of this information is - the feed looks golden - every thing hunky-dory, things are growing as predicted and everyone is luvin' on our new strategy - that a market analyst does a simple keyword/keyphrase review and sees the telltales of the numbers being "handled" (to be polite). Channel-in reporting is generally disregarded as inaccurate since retailers are often stuck with more stock than needed for demand and end up running BOGOs or clearances to get rid of excess stock - losing profit in the process. Note in the top of the quote that DEG was not reporting transaction numbers for 1Q 2010 against the same last year.
The upshot of all this is that Blu-ray is being adopted by consumers, but slower than the industry would like. In light of this why commit Apple to adopt something that consumers, while mildly interested, still haven't been convinced as to it's value against a substantial existing library of DVDs they own and don't feel compelled to replace in a down economy.
lol how many years did it take for America to switch from VCR to DVD?
It's safe to say that DVD's not going anywhere soon.
While it did take 6 years for the US to go from VHS to DVD there are differences here:
1) Player cost is dropping like crazy.
You can already get a blu-ray player for your TV at low as $131.
2) A Blu ray player can play both DVDs and Blu-ray disks
This back comparability make blu-ray adoption easier then it was for DVD when VHS was king.
Really? Where?
Avatar is $30 on BD at Best Buy, DVD is $20. That's about the same ratio as almost everything I've seen there. I've bought dozens of movies at Best Buy since I got my Blu-Ray player and don't recall EVER seeing the price being the same. In fact, about 75% of the time, the price difference is high enough that I buy the DVD version.
Going back to the above, when DVD came out, even though it was more expensive than VHS, when I went into a store to buy a movie, I ALWAYS bought the DVD version (when available). The quality difference justified it. For BD, it doesn't justify a 50% (or more) premium for many people.
wow, i think you are overpaying for your blu ray movies. i bought Avatar on blu ray from amazon for $17.99 during the first week it was released. best buy is the last place someone should buy a blu ray movie, UNLESS its on sale. in fact most things at best buy are overpriced and can be found cheaper at other stores, brick-and-mortar and online. i would never buy any blu ray or dvd at retail price because i know i will be able to find it cheaper somewhere else. i buy my blu ray movies from amazon, buy.com, ebay, and half.com and a few other places. all my new blu ray movies cost the same, if not less than the same movie on DVD. in fact right now, at best buy, they have like 50 awesome blu ray titles for $14.99, where the dvd counterparts are the same price or more. there is absolutely no reason to buy a dvd over blu ray, unless you don't have a blu ray player, which a person can get for around $79 or more. blu ray looks and sounds twenty times better than dvd, hands down.
bottom line, we should have the choice if we want a blu ray player in our mac. i'd happily pay reasonably more to have a blu ray/superdrive in my mac. i know lots of people that aren't buying a mac JUST because there is no blu ray player to watch their movies, or for their kids to watch movies. apple is making the wrong choice by not offering blu ray just to save their precious movie download portion of the itunes store.
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK.
Because it costs pretty much the same for Apple to DHL the same computer to either my home in Buckinghamshire, or to the Apple Store in Milton Keynes where I might opt to go and purchase it instead -- for the buying experience and the availability of a Genius. Apple must deliver the product, either to your home or to your nearest store. You might think that it costs substantially less to stock the store, because they would use a larger truck and make a more efficient delivery -- but they actually keep very little stock on hand in stores (and I don't think they use intermediary warehouses in different regions). Apple thereby saves money on storage and the spaces it must rent, for one thing; and for another thing, it has the best channel control in the industry -- no unsold stock languishing away somewhere; no "channel-stuffing", however much analysts looking at great sales figures assume that Apple must be stuffing channels because everyone else is. You can choose your buying experience and you get the same product for the same price. Furthermore, if you buy it online, you are still welcome at the Genius Bar.
Apple has a great distribution system, and they have it down to a science. They have, I think, one major distribution point in Europe (Ireland). Presumably, the products get shipped from China to Ireland. Apple regularly uses a courier service to deliver a few of each product to each Apple Store across Europe, and to each supplier when they ask. AND Apple uses a courier service to deliver products directly to the customer buying through its online store, usually for free (free delivery above a certain transaction level I think, which is most online Apple purchases).
I don't think all this negates the proposition that doing business generally costs more in Europe, to which you were responding. Delivery (courier to final location, whether store or customer's home) probably has a higher cost on average in Europe than in USA; and higher costs of doing business (like delivery and rent and taxes) would be reflected in product prices that are higher in Europe than in USA. Despite the fact that I would love things, especially Apple things, to cost the same in Europe as they do in the US (and I have posted about VAT etc.), I can understand this and I am OK with it.
Because it costs pretty much the same for Apple to DHL the same computer to either my home in Buckinghamshire, or to the Apple Store in Milton Keynes where I might opt to go and purchase it instead --
I think you missed the point, for Apple online they don't have a physical store, or employees in that store, or electricity in that store etc etc to add to the costs
I think you missed the point, for Apple online they don't have a physical store, or employees in that store, or electricity in that store etc etc to add to the costs
No, I think you missed the point: "Apple Online" *is* the Store.
The bulk of the stock is located in one place, Ireland. It either goes directly to your house, or directly to a physical shop front. Either way, the same security people watch the stock in Ireland, and the same packing people are employed to pack the stock up for delivery. The warehouse in Ireland costs the same all the time, whether they ship a Mac to your house or to your local physical incarnation of the Store.
At the same time, each physical store, a very small store, has employees in it and lights on in it all the time -- whether they stock 2 iMacs or 200 or 2000. They don't stock 2000, I doubt they stock 200, they probably stock 20.
But, the physical stores came later (and continue to open in more places). Why not ask it in reverse, "why is buying from the brick-and-mortar store not more expensive than the online price; after all, Apple has to employ sales assistants and genius' (who are there for online customers as well) and keep the lights on?"
I highly doubt Apple is saving a whole lot of money, as you seem to assume, by shipping your order directly to you instead of handling it through a physical store. On the contrary, Apple is running their brick-and-mortar stores incredibly well. Apple has once again shown how to do something right -- how to have profitable physical stores. Apple has about the most profitable physical stores on the planet -- the revenue per square foot is phenomenal. People like to walk in and see Apple stuff and buy it on the spot.
While it did take 6 years for the US to go from VHS to DVD there are differences here:
1) Player cost is dropping like crazy.
You can already get a blu-ray player for your TV at low as $131.
2) A Blu ray player can play both DVDs and Blu-ray disks
This back comparability make blu-ray adoption easier then it was for DVD when VHS was king.
3) The quality difference between DVD and VHS is significant...especially with tapes as they age. The quality difference between upconverted DVD and BR less so for the general populace with smaller HDTVs and sit too far away from them to benefit as much from the resolution increase.
Given that some folks still watch SD cable on their HDTVs and most folks seem to consider low-bitrate "HD" from cable as acceptable I'm thinking that folks that believe a huge rush to quality will occur need to make a better case that increased quality is really a driver over low bitrate HD digital download.
Especially in the face of integrated youtube and netflix streaming being built into some LG HDTVs...
The upshot of all this is that Blu-ray is being adopted by consumers, but slower than the industry would like. In light of this why commit Apple to adopt something that consumers, while mildly interested, still haven't been convinced as to it's value against a substantial existing library of DVDs they own and don't feel compelled to replace in a down economy.
I'll preface my comment with the disclaimer that I, in no way, consider it to be the norm, just one example out of millions.
Note first that the studios are controlling how the releases are hitting the market in order to maximize their profits, part of which hinges on consumer adoption of Blu-ray as the new standard in optical media delivery.
Is this supposed to be an argument against blu-ray? Because that sounds like a very valid reason for including blu-ray playback in every device with an optical drive.
The upshot of all this is that Blu-ray is being adopted by consumers, but slower than the industry would like. In light of this why commit Apple to adopt something that consumers, while mildly interested, still haven't been convinced as to it's value against a substantial existing library of DVDs they own and don't feel compelled to replace in a down economy.
Nonsense. Current blu-ray adoption numbers are the same as DVDs were in it's 5th year. Apple started offering DVD playback as an option in Macs the second year it was on market in the US, and made it standard in their iMacs the third year. So while blu-ray adoption is right on track with DVD in terms of adoption, Apple is 3-4 years behind where they were with DVD at this time in it's life cycle. Apple has not offered a single valid reason for why blu-ray can't at the very least be an option to Mac customers; there is demand for it, every major review of the new Mac Mini noted its absence as a negative, and blu-ray is going to be around for many, many years.
Lastly, consumer adoption of blu-ray has nothing to do with replacing one's DVD library; its about enjoying the best quality possible for the movies one buys or rents moving forward. The option to buy an older title on blu-ray is often there, but there is absolutely no need to replace your DVDs with blu-rays since the players are backwards compatible.
3) The quality difference between DVD and VHS is significant...especially with tapes as they age. The quality difference between upconverted DVD and BR less so for the general populace with smaller HDTVs and sit too far away from them to benefit as much from the resolution increase.
The resolution boost from DVD to blu-ray is actually greater than VHS to DVD, that is like you said though before VHS decays. But It'd be hard to appreciate the difference between VHS and DVD on a tiny screen across the room, as well, and yet people made the move.
Given that some folks still watch SD cable on their HDTVs and most folks seem to consider low-bitrate "HD" from cable as acceptable I'm thinking that folks that believe a huge rush to quality will occur need to make a better case that increased quality is really a driver over low bitrate HD digital download.
Like the HDTV, consumer adoption of blu-ray will eventually reach those who wouldn't otherwise pay for the improvement by way of backwards compatibility. You can't walk out of a retail store with a television that isn't high definition anymore, whether you intend to use it or not, and eventually you won't be able to buy a DVD player that doesn't also happen to play blu-rays. So when Joe consumer's dvd player breaks down and he goes to buy a new one, he'll find all they have is blu-ray players that also play his DVDs, and bring it home. And when blu-ray player adoption reaches that level, studios can start to phase out DVD prints in the same way they did VHS. And when that happens, ol' Joe consumer will start coming home with blu-ray versions of movies whether he appreciates the additional quality or not.
Especially in the face of integrated youtube and netflix streaming being built into some LG HDTVs...
Netflix streaming is not an alternative to blu-ray; you'd be hard pressed to find six HD movies from there selection that you'd actually want to watch. And that's not changing for any streaming service so long as the studios continue their highly lucrative business practice of limited distribution windows.
Lastly, consumer adoption of blu-ray has nothing to do with replacing one's DVD library; its about enjoying the best quality possible for the movies one buys or rents moving forward. The option to buy an older title on blu-ray is often there, but there is absolutely no need to replace your DVDs with blu-rays since the players are backwards compatible.
Bingo! My sentiments exactly.
How does Apple make their optical drives?
Minimalist slot drives.
How have you seen already existing Blu-Ray drives?
Complicated trays with doors.
Maybe it's not so far-fetched that they would have to redesign or get the licensing to comply with their trademark disc drive style. A combination of design and licensing problems?
PS3 is a slot loading drive. Shouldn't be a mechanical issue with the drive. Could be that the HDCP spec would require incorporating stuff into the computer or OS that slows it down or adds cost (speculation on my part). BluRay is beautiful on my 50 inch Pioneer with DefTech speakers, but i doubt that it would make difference on my 24 inch iMac with its mediocre built in speakers or on the 13 inch Macbook. iTunes grade content (or Handbrake'd DVDs) are okay for those.
PS3 is a slot loading drive. Shouldn't be a mechanical issue with the drive. Could be that the HDCP spec would require incorporating stuff into the computer or OS that slows it down or adds cost (speculation on my part). BluRay is beautiful on my 50 inch Pioneer with DefTech speakers, but i doubt that it would make difference on my 24 inch iMac with its mediocre built in speakers or on the 13 inch Macbook. iTunes grade content (or Handbrake'd DVDs) are okay for those.
I agree with the iTunes is good enough for Macbook, iMac, iPod/iPhone.. . My consumer choice is not to double-dip on content especially when it is a step down in quality. This means I'm not going to buy or rent on blu-ray and then buy it on good-enough-iTunes just so I can have it mobile. I'd like the choice to view my blu on a macbook or mac desktop but since I don't have that easy option, I'll do without.
Guess you don't know about ------ and how I can start viewing 1080p instantly and download 1+MiB a second. Btw, how instant is you going to the video store or waiting for a day for a BD to arrive via netflix?
Didn't you have to wait from the time the movie was available at the movie theater from the time it was available for download? And how often does the movie become available on BD before available for downloads (more waiting)? Many times the movie isn't even available for download (I guess this really isn't waiting though).
Sound like picking and choosing the type of waiting to suit your argument.
It used to be either you bought the physical media or you had no guarantee of it being available immediately when the whim struck to watch something in particular. Also, it used to be that there were relatively few options on cable and so owning a movie was the best way to get exactly what you wanted when you wanted it.
Rentals changed that somewhat. But getting exactly what you want still required a trip to the store.
Similarly proliferation of channels decreased the desire to own because it was much more likely that something of interest would be on when you wanted to watch something. Then came VOD. Meaning, even less incentive to own or even rent. New and popular movies are instantly available, without owning them.
Then came streaming with Netflix and various other services. All of a sudden, people have access to massive libraries of video content without needing to actually buy that content.
(torrents fit into the picture somewhere as well)
In other words, the trade-off between renting/subscribing and buying has changed drastically. Many people who used buy movies are finding that owning movies is no longer necessary. This differs from music which is almost always listened to repeatedly. Videos tend to be watched few enough times that a rental or subscription model is actually reasonable.
So there you have it... my reasoning why blu-ray will never enjoy the monolithic success of VHS, DVD, and CDs. And keep in mind that this is coming from a blu-ray owning resolution junkie with a 1080p24 projector. Blu-ray offers excellent picture quality. But most of the time I find myself watching content delivered electronically. Physical media is just too inconvenient and expensive. My physical media collection stopped growing years ago, topping out at nearly 500 DVDs. To this date, i've only bought two blu-ray. Blu-ray via netflix is nice, but my days of going to the store to buy physical media are over.
While it did take 6 years for the US to go from VHS to DVD there are differences here:
1) Player cost is dropping like crazy.
You can already get a blu-ray player for your TV at low as $131.
2) A Blu ray player can play both DVDs and Blu-ray disks
This back comparability make blu-ray adoption easier then it was for DVD when VHS was king.
This misses the influence of electronically delivered video. Back when DVD was battling VHS, you had to own a movie or choose from the 30 channels on cable. Either that or drive to a rental store.
The difference is that now there are many more channels on cable/satellite/fios, VOD is an option, torrents are an option, and every one and their cousin is offering streaming media.
People are so satisfied with these options that the rental industry is nearly dead. Google for "Blockbuster bankrupcy". Blockbuster lost $65 million last quarter and the future looks even worse. People are so satisfied with the electronically delivered options that they are no longer willing to leave the house. There just is not sufficient motivation to do so.
This isn't saying blu-ray is dead. But rather just that it will never enjoy the monolithic success of previous physical media formats.