AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Blu-ray vs. every other consumer technology (2010)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-ray vs. every other consumer technology (2010) - Page 2

post #41 of 421
1/16/10 at 6:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Do you really expect people to be satisfied with posting their films, shot and edited in 1080p....Onto You Tube!!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Even James had to start somewhere! And iMovie, despite Apples remedial take-up of Blu-ray support, is still the best entry level editor for budding film makers, practically all of whom now shoot on HD video.
...
I doubt posting it on You Tube would be acceptable!
...
As for You Tube, it's good for a laugh but for distributing 1080p video footage it's a non-starter.

Finally:

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

I'm happy to distribute video on You Tube or wherever, this does not preclude the use of optical media.

Who said it precluded the use of optical media? It was you that insisted that digital distribution was unacceptable for "serious" works as opposed to laughs.

So you now agree that your point is moot and you CAN push your projects to YouTube or Vimeo and it is perfectly acceptable for budding film makers? Even budding James Camerons?

Because it seems to me that while Vincent Laforet was a well known still photographer that distributing his early video work on the net really helped him make a name as a solid videographer as well. Now he's Canon's front man for a Canon/Vimeo film contest.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/...ntest-is-open/

Oh look...Russell Carpenter, the DP of Titanic, is one of the contest judges...gosh golly, I bet any number of budding James Camerons would love to get their stuff in front of those guys...and they wont be sending them BR discs to do so...

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/...-film-contest/

I guess if you were a budding James Cameron you would be looking forward to burning your next iMovie or Final Cut project onto Vimeo. But I'm guessing not so much.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 421
1/16/10 at 9:05am
If you'd paid a few thousand for a film project and were then sent a You Tube URL you'd be pretty p'd off. You Tube's fine for getting stuff viewed by a large amount of people, but for decent revenue and the best viewing experience you still currently need hard copies. The BBC and Channel 4 in the UK have their own excellent streaming services which are free to view, you can access these through any set-top box linked to the internet. The quality is pretty good, but they still make most of their revenue on the sale of discs with actual paid-for downloads being a tiny proportion of revenue. The BBC in particular have been very quick to exploit blu-ray with their Planet Earth blu-ray being one of the best selling discs of 2008.

Apple currently have computers with brilliant screens and no way of playing back optical HD media, let alone burning it. it's just silly.

Quote:
It was you that insisted that digital distribution was unacceptable for "serious" works as opposed to laughs.

Well if I was watching Lawrence of Arabia or Avatar I don't think You Tube or Vimeo would currently be my first port of call.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 421
1/16/10 at 9:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

If you'd paid a few thousand for a film project and were then sent a You Tube URL you'd be pretty p'd off.

Sure. So what? What does that have to do with budding film makers? If the customer is paying they get it on whatever media they want to pay for.

Quote:
You Tube's fine for getting stuff viewed by a large amount of people, but for decent revenue and the best viewing experience you still currently need hard copies. The BBC and Channel 4 in the UK have their own excellent streaming services which are free to view, you can access these through any set-top box linked to the internet. The quality is pretty good, but they still make most of their revenue on the sale of discs with actual paid-for downloads being a tiny proportion of revenue. The BBC in particular have been very quick to exploit blu-ray with their Planet Earth blu-ray being one of the best selling discs of 2008.

Free downloads and streams generate little to no income. Who knew?

DEG says digital downloads generated $968M in revenue in 1H 2009...double that of BR.

But lets not let facts interfere shall we? Digital downloads don't generate decent revenues.

Quote:
Apple currently have computers with brilliant screens and no way of playing back optical HD media, let alone burning it. it's just silly.

Perhaps because they've chosen to promote digital downloads since they dominate it? Nah, that would be silly.

Quote:
Well if I was watching Lawrence of Arabia or Avatar I don't think You Tube or Vimeo would currently be my first port of call.

If you want to watch Avatar at home (illegal) digital download is your only option unless your last name is Cameron. And funny enough I recall watching Lawrence Of Arabia in HD via HDNet (okay, broadcast and not download except it WAS digital cable)...has your BR version arrived yet?

Amusingly, while the Avatar in theater you saw may have arrived on discs it also may have arrived via download. DCP allows for either distribution via physical media or download from Technicolor, Kodak or Deluxe (sat or broadband).

Gosh, another snide comment shown to be wrong again. Whoda guessed?
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 421
1/17/10 at 9:46pm
Saw this for sale in this week's Best Buy flyer. Thought I was dreaming.
Looks like an AppleTV without the iTunes Store, but with USB stick support. It's MUCH cheaper than an AppleTV though (no hard drive.)

When did Sony join the downloading bandwagon? Does anyone here have one?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #45 of 421
1/17/10 at 11:32pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Saw this for sale in this week's Best Buy flyer. Thought I was dreaming.
Looks like an AppleTV without the iTunes Store, but with USB stick support. It's MUCH cheaper than an AppleTV though (no hard drive.)

When did Sony join the downloading bandwagon? Does anyone here have one?

But the thing about Sony is that they have an example of every possible configuration of every possible consumer technology on earth, somewhere in their catalog. Most of the time it doesn't represent any kind of strategy or plan or even particular interest-- you get the impression that their hardware design labs are like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, just kind of mindlessly churning out boxes and widgets and devices and systems, unbidden and undirected.

I mean really, it's like they can't stop. I've seen Sony video/ebook/mp3 player things with more buttons and industrial design than an Apache helicopter, and just stood their marveling that it even exists. I don't think even Sony knows what all they're making.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #46 of 421
1/18/10 at 5:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Saw this for sale in this week's Best Buy flyer. Thought I was dreaming.
Looks like an AppleTV without the iTunes Store, but with USB stick support. It's MUCH cheaper than an AppleTV though (no hard drive.)

When did Sony join the downloading bandwagon? Does anyone here have one?

A device with no form of networking whatsoever wouldn't be what I call evidence of Sony getting on the "download bandwagon".

On the other hand, selling movie downloads to their millions of console customers... that could be considered evidence.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 421
1/18/10 at 5:56am
More in (slightly old) netflix news:

Wii to get Netflix streaming this spring:
http://vator.tv/news/show/2010-01-13...-coming-to-wii
That will be another 26 million households with netflix streaming hardware in the US alone!

In the same press release there was also some news about Warner Brothers and Netflix cutting a deal that made new movies available for rental 28 days after going on sale. This would be for streaming and physical media as far as I can tell. But that part of the news is a bit light on details. Anyone know more about that?
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 421
1/18/10 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

A device with no form of networking whatsoever wouldn't be what I call evidence of Sony getting on the "download bandwagon".

On the other hand, selling movie downloads to their millions of console customers... that could be considered evidence.

Quite true. Makes one wonder why they bothered with another consumer box. Adda is probably right.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #49 of 421
1/18/10 at 2:02pm
As an avid movie enthusiast and collector I demand high quality 1080p on monitors 50" or larger or via projectors.

Therefore, to me...

1. Downloads utterly suck in picture quality.
2. Internet speeds (at least in LA) are still crushingly slow and HD downloads are painful.
2. Optical media is still the only way to go and will not be replaced anytime soon.
3. Nothing replaces physical media for film collectors.
4. Film collector are also avid fans of behind-the-scenes and bonus materials.

Yes, yes, I know, some downloads look "decent". But I don't want decent. I want spectacular.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #50 of 421
1/18/10 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

As an avid movie enthusiast and collector I demand high quality 1080p on monitors 50" or larger or via projectors.

[Slightly off topic]

Actually, what I'd like to see is an All-in-One projector (such as the Epson MovieMate) with BluRay and the capacity to throw a 300" projection. (The NCIS MTAC room is my inspiration.)

I'm helping to set up a media room at a local church for movie watching and small group studies.
Haven't seen an AIO system out there that's affordable and easy for non techies to use.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #51 of 421
1/20/10 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbwi View Post

I received a BR player for xmas but I can't tell you the last time I actually visited a movie rental place, including those rental stands at the g store.

That's why Jesus invented Netflix and Blockbuster in-the-mail delivery, and that's how I get my blu-ray movies.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 421
1/20/10 at 11:03am
I don't see myself going to digital download. I like having my wall (nearly literally) of DVDs and Blu-Rays. I think, once the qaulity of the media gets better, that I could do more iTunes rentals, but I don't see it as my primary source for my home entertainment center.

Don't get me wrong though, I would love to have digital copies for my laptop/iPod/tablet one day, but not at the expense of my hard copy (so to speak).

I think it would be neat if future Apple TVs had Blu-Ray players built in, and they will either download a digital copy for your iTunes account or copy it straight from the disk (obviously, you could not watch the disk while it did this, but you could watch other iTunes stuff). I honestly see them doing that before being cable boxes.
The iSlate cometh
Reply
The iSlate cometh
Reply
post #53 of 421
1/20/10 at 12:28pm
Curious... (and to play devil's advocate)
What is it about the wall of physical media that you like?

I too used to collect DVDs and and really enjoyed the act of browsing the shelves full of cases. At first the digital experience couldn't hold a candle to this. The gap has closed in the past few years though. In some ways, each is attractive and each has shortcomings. I'll attempt to address just the browsing experience but do fully acknowledge that there are other reasons for preferring physical or electronically delivered media.

Home physical media libraries provide a tactile experience, high-resolution cover art, and sometimes detailed info booklets.

Browsing of streaming/download/VOD libraries is certainly different. Each person must have a separate electronic device in order to browse independently while with physical media each person can simply stand in front of a different part of the shelf. In real world usage, just one person is control of the browsing while everyone else provides commentary.

Another difference is the organizational scheme. Physical media collections have static organization, typically everything is arranged alphabetically. Electronically delivered libraries can be reorganized on the fly and even offer suggestions. It is possible to select a movie, and have others suggested from the same genre, same staring actors, same director, same topic, or even just preferred by people who happen to have the same taste as you. In this regard, the difference is exactly analogous to that of physical books vs the www. The www allows interlinking and multiple simultaneous classification/browsing architectures.

Ironically, i gave up collecting physical media prior to a equivalent experience being available via a streamed/downloaded library. Other trade-offs such as cost, selection, and immediacy, were what justified the poorer browsing experience. Thankfully though, the situation has changed. I now prefer to browse electronic rather than physical libraries.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 421
1/20/10 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Curious... (and to play devil's advocate)
What is it about the wall of physical media that you like?

I too used to collect DVDs and and really enjoyed the act of browsing the shelves full of cases. At first the digital experience couldn't hold a candle to this. The gap has closed in the past few years though. In some ways, each is attractive and each has shortcomings. I'll attempt to address just the browsing experience but do fully acknowledge that there are other reasons for preferring physical or electronically delivered media.

Home physical media libraries provide a tactile experience, high-resolution cover art, and sometimes detailed info booklets.

Browsing of streaming/download/VOD libraries is certainly different. Each person must have a separate electronic device in order to browse independently while with physical media each person can simply stand in front of a different part of the shelf. In real world usage, just one person is control of the browsing while everyone else provides commentary.

Another difference is the organizational scheme. Physical media collections have static organization, typically everything is arranged alphabetically. Electronically delivered libraries can be reorganized on the fly and even offer suggestions. It is possible to select a movie, and have others suggested from the same genre, same staring actors, same director, same topic, or even just preferred by people who happen to have the same taste as you. In this regard, the difference is exactly analogous to that of physical books vs the www. The www allows interlinking and multiple simultaneous classification/browsing architectures.

Ironically, i gave up collecting physical media prior to a equivalent experience being available via a streamed/downloaded library. Other trade-offs such as cost, selection, and immediacy, were what justified the poorer browsing experience. Thankfully though, the situation has changed. I now prefer to browse electronic rather than physical libraries.

It is more or less simple. With digital media, I worry too much that may harddrive may fail, or I will accidentally delete something that cannot be recovered without a payment. Also, if all my DVDs and Blu-Rays were to become digital, I would need a large harddrive just for them. And there are, of course, the extra features (I enjoy commentaries).

Perhaps, one day, when solutions to these things present themselves and in a simple way, I may be more willing to make a transition and free up the wall for something else. As you said, the fluid way to rapidly rearrange the sorting appeals to me. But we shall see what we shall see. At the moment, the phyiscal media appeals.
The iSlate cometh
Reply
The iSlate cometh
Reply
post #55 of 421
1/20/10 at 3:16pm
Care to comment on what you find appealing about browsing physical media? Or is it just that you prefer the physical media without browsing being the motivating factor?

And to address the non-browsing side of the equation...

The fear of damage to the storage medium is certainly a logical concern. It should be noted that this is a only concern for downloads, but not streaming or VOD. Ironically, this is an inherent weakness of physical media, not electronic media distribution. Download services, as a distinct concept from VOD or streaming, can be structured either way. Either they are available for subsequent re-downloads, or not. But it isn't inherent to the medium.

For me, the anecdotal evidence is in favor of electronic delivery. Netflix streaming has never ever failed me. Yet I've received at least a dozen unplayable disks from netflix. Granted, my own personal library has only seen two DVDs fail out of a couple hundred.

Another aspect to note is that the motivation for video collecting has disappeared for a large percentage of those who used to be avid collectors. Prior to streaming/downloads/VOD, you either watched one of the 35 available cable channels, you watched a purchased DVD/VHS, or you had to take a trip to a rental store. Also, if you really wanted to have something in particular to watch at any time, it had to be owned.

What's key here is that this is no longer the case. People are no longer limited to 30-40 cable channels or their own collection. Instead they can choose from vastly more cable channels, stream, download, PPV, or even watch something on a computer.

I'll be the first to admit that this isn't sufficient for all video collectors. But looking at the changing motivations for collecting, it almost seems inevitable for the vast majority in the long run.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 421
1/20/10 at 5:34pm
People have forgotten that DVD didn't take off until players became affordable. In case you forgot, right after Bluray became the "standard," we experienced a global economic meltdown. Also, people aren't going to be replacing their DVD libraries - ever.

So, now that BR is cheaper (and approaching $100 which is what people are willing to pay for a player), they'll look to replace their aging DVD player. Then they'll start renting and buying DVDs. The idea that the vast majority of nontechnophiles is going to stream/download near HD is ridiculous... they can't even tell the difference between HD and plain DVD.

So, I am a techie but I've been waiting for BR to come down in cost and I'm looking at getting the Sony BR player from Costco this week at $107. I still won't buy but I'll start renting BR discs. I also have two kids so I'll get a BR burner and take their movies to BR discs.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." -Nietzsche
Reply
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." -Nietzsche
Reply
post #57 of 421
1/20/10 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogzilla View Post

I don't see myself going to digital download. I like having my wall (nearly literally) of DVDs and Blu-Rays. I think, once the qaulity of the media gets better, that I could do more iTunes rentals, but I don't see it as my primary source for my home entertainment center.

Don't get me wrong though, I would love to have digital copies for my laptop/iPod/tablet one day, but not at the expense of my hard copy (so to speak).

I think it would be neat if future Apple TVs had Blu-Ray players built in, and they will either download a digital copy for your iTunes account or copy it straight from the disk (obviously, you could not watch the disk while it did this, but you could watch other iTunes stuff). I honestly see them doing that before being cable boxes.

You and I are equally aligned on this issue. I can't describe why I love my physical DVD/Blu collection. I just do. It's like a library. I like walking up to my "wall" of media and browsing through them and deciding what I'm in the mood for. I also like that whenever someone walks into my house and sees that wall of media they know "whoever lives here definitely love movies."

I don't dislike iTunes versions, or Netflix streams, per se. I just don't like the quality of them and I don't like how long it takes to download or to start streaming. I don't like being at the mercy of my IP or the service provider serving me the file. Physical media makes me feel more secure and I at least know what the quality of the presentation is going to be.

Downloads and streaming are definitely the future. But I just don't see it eclipsing physical media for a very long time. And even then physical media will always have a market no matter how much it might shrink.

Or maybe it's because I'm becoming more and more old-fashioned about some things.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #58 of 421
1/27/10 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Free downloads and streams generate little to no income. Who knew?

DEG says digital downloads generated $968M in revenue in 1H 2009...double that of BR.

But lets not let facts interfere shall we? Digital downloads don't generate decent revenues.

The majority of that figure was for VOD
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 421
1/31/10 at 9:22pm
VOD from a cable box. Well that still encourages the expectation of instant streaming of content and not waiting for a physical disc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

The majority of that figure was for VOD
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 421
2/1/10 at 5:08pm
It was pointed out to me that one reason for Apple not adopting blu-ray anytime soon is probably a total lack of Apple blu-ray authoring software. Not much point to stick it in there just for playback/archiving when you'll still have to author stuff on a PC. And no I don't expect the mass iPod market to be clamouring for this, just as I doubt many people actually use Garageband, iMovie or iDVD, but the iApps are still the most user-friendly suite of programs around.

This guys got some good points:

Quote:
To say Apple is forgoing on optical media altogether would be to say its slowly, but surely, bowing out of the video market altogether and nobody in their right mind would believe that is the case...

...If weve learned anything, its to not listen to Apple when it writes off technologies in its shareholder meetings. Though the company has referred to Blu-ray as a bag of hurt in the past, it sits on the Board of Directors of the Blu-ray Disc Association. Apple is a huge proponent of high definition (who wouldnt be at this point?) and, as such, it realizes that more and more people are shooting in HD and need a way to present that. Weve discussed before the limitations of the iPod and iPhone platforms as they do not support HD content, and even the Apple TV is limited in this regard. What other solution is there? YouTube? While thats a great start, Apple is totally aware that people still prefer to have something a bit more portable and higher quality than YouTube.

My personal opinion is that Apple is working on developing Blu-ray authoring solutions (as well as inclusion of Blu-ray drives as the price continues to come down). Weve seen a small taste of this support in the latest version of Compressor; hints of Blu-ray support in the latest version of iTunes; and I think as time goes on, we will see more support in other apps as well. In the meantime, DVD Studio Pro and iDVD will likely stay right where they are at. Its easy to develop new themes for these apps, but why split your resources if youre focusing on some whizz-bang, new app for Blu-ray authoring? In their current states, these applications are quite maxed out for now.

http://theappleblog.com/2009/08/04/w...pport-blu-ray/
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 421
2/1/10 at 6:16pm
Thread Starter 
If I could just pop in here for a moment, I'd just like to thank everyone for looking past my slightly tongue-in-cheek thread title and pitching in to take the simply-cannot-die-ever Blu-ray thread forward into the future. (wipes away tear) It's beautiful.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #62 of 421
3/5/10 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blu-ray.com

According to aggregate weekly estimates from the research department of Home Media Magazine, revenues from Blu-ray sales in the US in 2010 through February were $200.95 million, 59% more than in the same period of 2009. Additionally, thanks to Blu-ray, the revenue from packaged-media sales stopped falling and grew 3% year-on-year.

As to market share, Blu-ray accounted for 11.7% of packaged-media sales revenue in the first two months of the year. In Jan-Feb 2009, this percentage was 7.6%.

The biggest-selling week was the week ended January 3, with $37.72 million in BD sales. The slowest week was the week ended February 21, with $18.58 million.

It is worth mentioning that Blu-ray sold more in these relatively slow two first months of the year than digital downloads did in the whole of 2009 ($199 million, including both standard-definition and high-definition, according to Screen Digest). In spite of all the continuous hype from tech sites and web pundits about the impending digital domination and the disc's demise, the public seems to see much more value in a movie when it comes on a high-quality physical support with top-notch video, audio and extras than on a downloaded video file.

This part bears repeating:

Quote:
It is worth mentioning that Blu-ray sold more in these relatively slow two first months of the year than digital downloads did in the whole of 2009 ($199 million, including both standard-definition and high-definition, according to Screen Digest).

And yet Apple continues to force-feed their customers digital downloads as a sad alternative to blu-ray, which they're waiting to "really catch on" before adopting.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 421
3/5/10 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

This part bears repeating:



And yet Apple continues to force-feed their customers digital downloads as a sad alternative to blu-ray, which they're waiting to "really catch on" before adopting.

Those figures are misleading no matter how large you make the font.

They're useful, and meaningful. However the manner in which they're stated is obviously done as part of an on-going argument within the industry and among consumers like us. It isn't new proof of anything.

Cable TV revenue is absolutely massive, way more than physical media sales. "Digital downloads" are basically the same thing except that the set top box is programmed differently and consumers can watch what they want at any time.

But even if standard cable packages aren't counted, what about VOD, PPV, and netflix? I doubt that these add up to as much as physical media, but it seems as if the huge print numbers probably don't include them. They also compare combined new and old physical media revenue against only the new method of electronically delivering media.

In other words, those numbers don't indicate that people are voting for physical media with their wallets.


Or here's another example of how those numbers are being bent. A careful reading of just the numbers posted above indicates that DVDs sales are 9 times blu-ray sales. That is the same relative difference as between blu-ray and the streaming (according to the quoted numbers). Yet somehow the conclusion drawn is that people prefer high-def disks. If anything, the conclusion from that line of reasoning should have been that people prefer low-def disks.


And what's that nonsense about "force feeding customers digital downloads"? Nobody is forced to buy anything. Your point would be better made without the ridiculous hyperbole.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 421
3/5/10 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

This part bears repeating:



And yet Apple continues to force-feed their customers digital downloads as a sad alternative to blu-ray, which they're waiting to "really catch on" before adopting.

It would be more meaningful data if they made the comparison between number of downloads vs. number of blu-ray titles sold.

Obviously, this is something more disturbing to disclose for blu-ray.

How does blu-ray compare to SD-DVD sales?
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #65 of 421
3/5/10 at 8:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Or here's another example of how those numbers are being bent. A careful reading of just the numbers posted above indicates that DVDs sales are 9 times blu-ray sales. That is the same relative difference as between blu-ray and the streaming (according to the quoted numbers). Yet somehow the conclusion drawn is that people prefer high-def disks. If anything, the conclusion from that line of reasoning should have been that people prefer low-def disks.

The general consensus is that consumers are just fine with standard definition DVDs and aren't looking for a replacement or alternative any time soon; however, fans of Blu-Ray and fans of digital distribution will both argue that consumers want their format next. But the numbers only support a significant movement toward one of those two formats, and digital distribution is not so much it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

And what's that nonsense about "force feeding customers digital downloads"? Nobody is forced to buy anything. Your point would be better made without the ridiculous hyperbole.

When asked about blu-ray support and when it's coming, Apple execs like to point people to the iTunes Store for all of their HD needs. Force-feeding may have been a strong phrase, but they sure aren't offering Mac users much in the way of options, are they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

It would be more meaningful data if they made the comparison between number of downloads vs. number of blu-ray titles sold.

Obviously, this is something more disturbing to disclose for blu-ray.

Why would it be disturbing? For every blu-ray disc that costs more than a digital download, there's one that costs less. For the most part pricing is about even. If you're suggesting that counting revenue instead of units sold is skewing the figures in favor of blu-ray, I think you're sorely mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

How does blu-ray compare to SD-DVD sales?

Ten times better than digital downloads as a whole (not strictly HD digital downloads). Honestly, I wish I could tell you. But the googles can't even find the number of DVD units sold last year, let alone blu-ray discs.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 421
3/6/10 at 6:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

When asked about blu-ray support and when it's coming, Apple execs like to point people to the iTunes Store for all of their HD needs. Force-feeding may have been a strong phrase, but they sure aren't offering Mac users much in the way of options, are they?

The AppleTV doesn't include a TV tuner either. Maybe sony is force feeding us physical media because the PS3 doesn't include a tuner. The iPhone, iPod, and AppleTV all lack a CD player as well. My refrigerator doesn't microwave food. Damn them for force feeding us refrigeration!

What's with the overinflated sense of self entitlement? As if a product that doesn't offer what you want is "forcing" you to do anything.

A more valid point would be that it is unwise for Apple to not offer blu-ray support. Perhaps it is even stupid of them. That could be a well reasoned argument. But this "force feeding" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Quote:
Ten times better than digital downloads as a whole (not strictly HD digital downloads). Honestly, I wish I could tell you. But the googles can't even find the number of DVD units sold last year, let alone blu-ray discs.

Unless I'm missreading the numbers you posted, it would seem to be: "Blu-ray accounted for 11.7% of packaged-media sales revenue" I'm assuming that "packaged media sales" in this context is referring to just video, and almost entirely composed of DVD and blu-ray. Does that seem correct? If so, my previous re-characterization of those statistics seems spot on, DVD sales are roughly 9 times blu-ray sales.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 421
3/6/10 at 9:08am
Well, some standalone blu-ray players cost less than the blu-ray drives. Most consumers will get much more going with standalone players vs. having a blu-ray drive in their PC/Mac with half-cooked playback software support. Blu-Ray playback on HTPC ain't that easy with constant changes in the profile and security. Now, once you ripped the blu-ray disc to a media file, we have something compatible with everything, even from a standalone blu-ray player with streaming capability.

It has been almost 4 years since the HD media optical disc market was introduced, but it is still very slow to consumer adoption. With download streaming, rental and purchase, being more easily accessible to consumers, optical discs sales in general will suffer at end of day.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #68 of 421
3/6/10 at 9:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

The AppleTV doesn't include a TV tuner either. Maybe sony is force feeding us physical media because the PS3 doesn't include a tuner. The iPhone, iPod, and AppleTV all lack a CD player as well. My refrigerator doesn't microwave food. Damn them for force feeding us refrigeration!

A DVB-T tuner is available as an optional extra for the PS3, so that would squash your Sony theory, and they do have a movie download service available in some countries.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 421
3/6/10 at 9:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

Well, some standalone blu-ray players cost less than the blu-ray drives. Most consumers will get much more going with standalone players vs. having a blu-ray drive in their PC/Mac with half-cooked playback software support. Blu-Ray playback on HTPC ain't that easy with constant changes in the profile and security. Now, once you ripped the blu-ray disc to a media file, we have something compatible with everything, even from a standalone blu-ray player with streaming capability.

What constant change to Blu-ray profiles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

It has been almost 4 years since the HD media optical disc market was introduced, but it is still very slow to consumer adoption. With download streaming, rental and purchase, being more easily accessible to consumers, optical discs sales in general will suffer at end of day.

The adoption rate of Blu-ray is greater than that of DVD, Digital downloads are only available to those with broadband, which isn't that high as people like to make out. Yes downloads will take over, but it will be a while longer until that happens, much longer
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 421
3/6/10 at 11:02pm
The much larger Digital Download includes Music Download which greatly inflate the total revenue of Movie Download.

While US is the largest economy in the world, it has one of the worst High Speed Broadband penetration / bandwidth in first world. When you compare to place like Japan / Korea or Even Hong Kong. Stream or Digital Download has never taken up.

In terms of Quality, Stream and Download will properly never ( or in the near future ) catch up to Blu Ray. While US still have to get HDTV first before seeing any benifits of BluRay.

I guess BluRay will still wins out. Layering Network for Streaming and Download TAKES MUCH longer then BluRay prices decrease. But my guess is BluRay will never be what DVD is today.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 421
3/6/10 at 11:34pm
As I mentioned before, I just got a full HD display. I bought an AV>HD upscaler, but it's a piece of junk. The picture quality is horrid. Playing a DVD on my MacBook Pro plugged into the display looks tons better. unfortunately, I absolutely need a region-free player. Living in Hong Kong, I have about an equal number of Region 1, Region 2 and Region 3 discs. My MacBook cannot be made into a region-free player (damn you, Apple!). I am planning on getting a Mac Mini, but it will suffer from the same limitation.

So I'm considering buying a region-free upscaling DVD player (nearly all players sold here are region-free). I could get a cheap upscaling DVD player with HDMI for ~$30 or I could get a BD player for ~$150? Is it worth it to get the Blu-ray? Will Blu-ray players soon go below $100?

Or I could buy a region-free external DVD reader for the Mac Mini, and just have that plugged in all the time. Kind of silly when the Mini already has a DVD reader.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 421
3/7/10 at 3:02am
I still think we'll see Blu-ray BD-RE drives on iMacs, Mac Pros and possibly higher-end MacBook Pros very soon.

I cite the following reasons:

1) Downloading full-length movies are already pushing at the very limits of Internet bandwidth--and that's with 480p quality video. Until we put in more server farms, turn on a lot more network connections, and start the migration to IPv6, all that downloading of 720p video could grind the Internet to a halt rapidly.

2) Thanks to substantially simpler licensing terms, the cost of licensing Blu-ray technology is really cheap nowadays. You can get BD-Live (Profile 2.0) compliant players for well under US$200, and we may see even Wi-Fi-enabled players drop under US$200 later this year.

3) Mac hardware are pretty much HDCP-compliant anyway as of the middle of last year. Right now, all Apple needs is add in some extensions to MacOS X 10.6.x and programs like iTunes and QuickTime easily become software players for Blu-ray discs, and these same extensions could turn iMovie and Final Cut Pro into full-blown Blu-ray disc mastering programs.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 421
3/7/10 at 3:21am
As a follow-up to my post, I bought a $150 VDigi Blu-ray player (BDP Mini 6). It's nice. I'll let you know how it goes. One thing that irks me is that it didn't come with an HDMI cable. I guess you get what you pay for...
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 421
3/7/10 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

What constant change to Blu-ray profiles?

It's more of changes in implementation causing playback issues even in standalone players. It requires constant firmware update on standalone players to stay compatible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

The adoption rate of Blu-ray is greater than that of DVD, Digital downloads are only available to those with broadband, which isn't that high as people like to make out. Yes downloads will take over, but it will be a while longer until that happens, much longer

In regards to when and how, I do not see Blu-ray becoming dominant to DVD. We are likely to witness downloads taking its place as dominant format over both optical solutions prior to Blu-ray can become the major consumer format. Blur-ray is still a niche format even after 4 years and not gaining the market as projected. Should we wait another 4 years to be convinced?
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #75 of 421
3/7/10 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As I mentioned before, I just got a full HD display. I bought an AV>HD upscaler, but it's a piece of junk. The picture quality is horrid. Playing a DVD on my MacBook Pro plugged into the display looks tons better. unfortunately, I absolutely need a region-free player. Living in Hong Kong, I have about an equal number of Region 1, Region 2 and Region 3 discs. My MacBook cannot be made into a region-free player (damn you, Apple!). I am planning on getting a Mac Mini, but it will suffer from the same limitation.

So I'm considering buying a region-free upscaling DVD player (nearly all players sold here are region-free). I could get a cheap upscaling DVD player with HDMI for ~$30 or I could get a BD player for ~$150? Is it worth it to get the Blu-ray? Will Blu-ray players soon go below $100?

Or I could buy a region-free external DVD reader for the Mac Mini, and just have that plugged in all the time. Kind of silly when the Mini already has a DVD reader.

Cheap blu-ray players are no better than cheap DVD players when it comes to upscaling SD video contents to 1080p resolution. Good upscaling players do a very good job. The results may not be as good as reference blu-ray material, but it can definitely compete with average blu-ray quality contents when using a clean SD material on good scaler.

Another option you may want to explore is output 480i content directly to your tv and see if your TV can do a better job upscaling the SD content. Some HDTV's do use quality video processor, which may be better than what's in your blu-ray/SD dvd player.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #76 of 421
3/7/10 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

It's more of changes in implementation causing playback issues even in standalone players. It requires constant firmware update on standalone players to stay compatible.


In regards to when and how, I do not see Blu-ray becoming dominant to DVD. We are likely to witness downloads taking its place as dominant format over both optical solutions prior to Blu-ray can become the major consumer format. Blur-ray is still a niche format even after 4 years and not gaining the market as projected. Should we wait another 4 years to be convinced?

I have a Panasonic 10a dating from 2006. I use it for watching movies; I'm not interested in some of the fancy stuff you can do with the often included extras. In that time I upgraded firmware only once and that was because a disc from one studio wouldn't play without a firmware upgrade.

I do perhaps agree with you, though, about BD totally replacing DVD. IMO, it's going to be a very successful niche product, like LD but much more robust, with probably about 1/2 of the optical disc market. What's driving BD sales is the general acceptance, availability and affordability of large size 1080p flat panel displays.

As for downloads, as someone else has pointed out, the infrastructure isn't here yet and for many areas it will never be.

I guess some people still can't accept that HD-DVD lost out to BD.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 421
3/7/10 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

It's more of changes in implementation causing playback issues even in standalone players. It requires constant firmware update on standalone players to stay compatible.

Lolwut? That argument died two years ago when Profile 2.0 was completed. And that's about how long ago I ran a firmware update for my blu-ray player (May 30, 2008 to be exact).

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

The AppleTV doesn't include a TV tuner either. Maybe sony is force feeding us physical media because the PS3 doesn't include a tuner. The iPhone, iPod, and AppleTV all lack a CD player as well. My refrigerator doesn't microwave food. Damn them for force feeding us refrigeration!

What's with the overinflated sense of self entitlement? As if a product that doesn't offer what you want is "forcing" you to do anything.

A more valid point would be that it is unwise for Apple to not offer blu-ray support. Perhaps it is even stupid of them. That could be a well reasoned argument. But this "force feeding" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

I already said "force-feeding" was an over exaggeration on my part; however, your analogies are bogus as no one is asking for those things. People have been begging Apple to adopt blu-ray for years. It wouldn't be such a big deal if not for the fact that millions of professionals rely on their Final Cut Studio suite, a product they hardly touch now that they control that market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Unless I'm missreading the numbers you posted, it would seem to be: "Blu-ray accounted for 11.7% of packaged-media sales revenue" I'm assuming that "packaged media sales" in this context is referring to just video, and almost entirely composed of DVD and blu-ray. Does that seem correct? If so, my previous re-characterization of those statistics seems spot on, DVD sales are roughly 9 times blu-ray sales.

Yes, that seems about right. And SD and HD digital downloads combined equal 1/10th of blu-ray sales.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 421
3/7/10 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

I have a Panasonic 10a dating from 2006. I use it for watching movies; I'm not interested in some of the fancy stuff you can do with the often included extras. In that time I upgraded firmware only once and that was because a disc from one studio wouldn't play without a firmware upgrade.

I do perhaps agree with you, though, about BD totally replacing DVD. IMO, it's going to be a very successful niche product, like LD but much more robust, with probably about 1/2 of the optical disc market. What's driving BD sales is the general acceptance, availability and affordability of large size 1080p flat panel displays.

As for downloads, as someone else has pointed out, the infrastructure isn't here yet and for many areas it will never be.

There is no question about a robust market for Blu-ray in a niche video enthusiast market. I agree about limitation of download capability for most consumers today in the US market. I know this may not be an issue for few countries out there since they are offered with Gbps or at least 100 mbps connections as normal service. Broadband services in the states will only improve. I saw a commercial the other day that comcast advertising 100mbps service. My current 25mbps comcast service is fast enough for potential streaming for full 1080p solution with DD+ HD audio for sure. So, it might not be true for the mass market, but there is a significant potential market right now for enthusiasts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

I guess some people still can't accept that HD-DVD lost out to BD.

Although, I am a fanboy for HD video contents, I am not married to an optical media format. I am more interested in HD media streaming for my home than inserting a disc to watch movies. In the HD-DVD days, I did support HD-DVD because it would have had much better potential for consumer adoption for many reasons. In retrospect, it may not have been the right assessment even if HD-DVD became successful, due to steep down turn in the economy. The progress of blu-ray is a clear evidence even with all the bribery and unfair business practices.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #79 of 421
3/7/10 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

Cheap blu-ray players are no better than cheap DVD players when it comes to upscaling SD video contents to 1080p resolution. Good upscaling players do a very good job. The results may not be as good as reference blu-ray material, but it can definitely compete with average blu-ray quality contents when using a clean SD material on good scaler.

I guess the VDigi player I bought does a good job. I've tested both Blu-ray (Where the Wild Things Are) and DVD (Interstella 5555). Blu-ray looks awesome. DVD looks way better than it ever did on my SDTV. The VDigi does every bit as good of a job as my MacBook Pro does at upscaling the DVD.
Quote:
Another option you may want to explore is output 480i content directly to your tv and see if your TV can do a better job upscaling the SD content. Some HDTV's do use quality video processor, which may be better than what's in your blu-ray/SD dvd player.

My "TV" is an LCD display (Viewsonic VX2433wm). It has no A/V inputs. My HD tuner box (just like EVERY HD tuner box) accepts antenna input only. There's no way to connect my SD content directly.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 421
3/7/10 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

It's more of changes in implementation causing playback issues even in standalone players. It requires constant firmware update on standalone players to stay compatible.

But that isn't profile changes causing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

In regards to when and how, I do not see Blu-ray becoming dominant to DVD. We are likely to witness downloads taking its place as dominant format over both optical solutions prior to Blu-ray can become the major consumer format. Blur-ray is still a niche format even after 4 years and not gaining the market as projected. Should we wait another 4 years to be convinced?

In regards to the same stage in the DVD lifetime, Blu-ray has a higher adoption rate. It won't hit the same levels in the end as DVD, but I don't think downloads will really take off for several more years yet. There are major infrastructure, and compatibility issues with the current downloading scheme that need to be addressed before it will take off.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Blu-ray vs. every other consumer technology (2010)