or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Blu-ray looks to replace DVDs within three years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-ray looks to replace DVDs within three years - Page 2

post #41 of 88
I think it will take much longer than 3 years but it will definitely be Blu-ray. It's a better name than HD-DVD, much quicker to say (two syllable but sounds like one). HD-DVD takes too long to pronounce having to say two D's in a row.

I think Steve Jobs shouldn't be waiting around to see what format emerges, he's not that type of guy. He should take the initiative and put Blu-ray recorders in the new Macs and get it over with. Once Apple goes in to the water, the masses will begin to wet their feet.8)
post #42 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

Have you tasted baby harp seal? Delicious.










I am so just kidding.


.

I'm thinking fried? Maybe as an entree?
Also kidding!!!

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply

Save your friends from Skynet - whoops, Google.  Recommend they use StartPage for search..

...and no, I am not paid to say this..

Reply
post #43 of 88
Why do I get the feeling that headline is all wrong? Nothing in the article points to the BDA saying it will supplant DVD in three years. When I read, ""Within three years it will just be Blu-ray," it seems to me the guy's saying the HD format war will be completely over. I could be wrong, but I really need to see more than just one short quote from the guy, seeing as how reporters always get things wrong. Of course, I sure hope it ends a lot sooner than three years. One year would be much better.

I also hated Walt Mossberg's column last week, where he told people not to buy into either format and wait for universal players or discs instead. That's not the way to settle the war. The way to settle it is to get on the side of the much stronger competitor and push the weaker one out of the market as soon as possible. There is absolutely no reason to keep two formats around. People like to say that the DVD-R vs. DVD+R battle ended fine, but I don't like that there are still two formats around when there isn't any decisive advantage for either. Yeah, I can buy either kind of blanks, but why should I even have to make a choice?
post #44 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It really depends on the setting and the person. To me, HD looks a lot better than DVD on my 15" MBP.

Your 15" MBP doesn't upsample DVDs, far as I know. Also, it may, depending on your vid card, encode the DVD vid stream in software, not hardware (though there has been some talk of Apple changing this soon & across the board):

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2...08_001806.html

Quote:
It won't make a movie better, but it will make the experience more vivid. But right now, the cost of everything doesn't quite justify the difference. Player costs will go down a lot, but I don't think it will be able to make a sizeable dent in the DVD market as most TVs still in use can't show all the detail on a DVD and a lot of people I know seem to be content with the equipment they have, won't upgrade until stuff dies.

Yep. Blu-ray won't truly conquer DVD until 40"+ HDTVs become commonplace, aka something your average Wal-Mart shopper considers affordable. That's gonna take longer than 3 years. \

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #45 of 88
They can "AIM" for replacing the DVD in 3 years all they want, however that does not means they will "hit" their "target".

Prices for the devices have to come down a heck of a lot, have you seen the price of el-cheapo dvd drives?

Next the movies have be reasonably priced and abundant.

Next more people have to buy an HDTV.

I plan to hold off as long as possible and take advantage of the low price standard movies while I can, and wait for HDTV's to get better and cheaper.

So keep aiming, and get some good archers while you are at it.

Then again, the porn industry may push it thru in 1 year, LOL.
post #46 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Why do I get the feeling that headline is all wrong? Nothing in the article points to the BDA saying it will supplant DVD in three years. When I read, ""Within three years it will just be Blu-ray," it seems to me the guy's saying the HD format war will be completely over.

Doesn't seem to be wrong. Simonis and the Blu-Ray Association apparently DID go there. From another article:

Within three years it will just be Blu-ray." That bold assertion was made by Frank Simonis, the European chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association, in an interview with Reuters at the 2007 CeBIT technology conference in Hanover, Germany.

What makes Simonis' statement remarkable is that he is not merely predicting a victory by the Blu-ray disc over the rival HD DVD format, but that Blu-ray's will completely replace the widely popular current DVD standard by 2010.

One analyst thinks that Simonis' enthusiasm has gotten the better of him. Alison Casey, who follows media format trends for the London-based research firm Understanding & Solutions, said that the standard DVD will not disappear quite so quickly.

"It would be our view that standard DVD is not going to disappear overnight," Casey said. "Just because there's a new format doesn't mean that the old format will disappear."

Blu-ray's PlayStation Factor

Casey pointed out that some consumers will rush out and buy high-definition disc players or PlayStations 3s, but said that for the next five years, the majority of consumers will continue to use standard DVDs.


http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/B...d=10000B5YM8G4

Quote:
I also hated Walt Mossberg's column last week, where he told people not to buy into either format and wait for universal players or discs instead. That's not the way to settle the war. The way to settle it is to get on the side of the much stronger competitor and push the weaker one out of the market as soon as possible. There is absolutely no reason to keep two formats around.

Some people don't care about annointing a winner, they just want to buy something that won't be immediately obsoleted. By that standard, buying a universal player is smart. Not to mention that if either format fails, there'll be some darn nice fire sales on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies.

Though personally I don't care much care... I'll be getting a PlayStation 3 sometime this year anyway.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #47 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I agree that it's overly optimistic. The VHS->DVD transition was a record breaking transition where it took only six years for DVD to pass VHS sales, in terms of media unit sales.

If the BRD groups think they'll beat that by three years, they are kidding themselves. Heck, iPod sales are doing phenomenally well, but even after five years, the iTunes store still only comprises 5% of the music sales, with pretty much all of the rest still being sold on CD. At that rate, even including some rapid acceleration, paid music downloads might not surpass CD sales ten years from now.

I don't think comparing Blu-Ray adoption with iTunes/iPods and music sales is a particularly relevant argument. The obvious difference is that iTunes songs are of inferior quality whereas HD has superior audio and video quality. Not to mention that if you already have the CD, there's no need to consider replacing it with an iTunes version unlike moving from DVD to Blu-Ray. Unless digital music downloads increase their quality to equal or surpass standard DVD's, what is the real incentive for someone to switch exclusively to iTunes or any online music vendor?

And I don't care if this is story is just marketing hype. If it helps to kill off HD-DVD and leave just one HD format, I'm off for it. Unlike the failed attempt to move from CDs to SACD and DVD-Audio, the movie studios are doing things better than the music companies by actually offering HD movies available simultaneously to the standard DVD.
post #48 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

But there is talk of hybrid DVD/BluRay discs. It could easily be possible that all the $7-$20 discs we see on Wal-mart shelves/bins 3 years from now are hybrid discs that have both formats. Shelf space costs money, as does producing outdated, low resolution discs that may never sell. Prices will drop as quickly as mass production ramps up.

You're thinking of the wrong format there. Blu-ray and DVD combos will *never* happen, because the DVD Forum, which controls all things DVD already has it's chosen HD successor to DVD, and it's called (funnily enough) HD DVD. That's why there are already lots of DVD/HD DVD combo discs for sale, and none with blu-ray.

Other than that you may be right, but it would be HD DVD coming out on top. It's also worth noting that there is the promise of very cheap Chinese stand alones for HD DVD later this year, which could break the $200 mark. Once you get there you're entering into impulse buy territory, and this pointless format war could start to get interesting.
post #49 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

I don't think comparing Blu-Ray adoption with iTunes/iPods and music sales is a particularly relevant argument. The obvious difference is that iTunes songs are of inferior quality whereas HD has superior audio and video quality. Not to mention that if you already have the CD, there's no need to consider replacing it with an iTunes version unlike moving from DVD to Blu-Ray. Unless digital music downloads increase their quality to equal or surpass standard DVD's, what is the real incentive for someone to switch exclusively to iTunes or any online music vendor?

And I don't care if this is story is just marketing hype. If it helps to kill off HD-DVD and leave just one HD format, I'm off for it. Unlike the failed attempt to move from CDs to SACD and DVD-Audio, the movie studios are doing things better than the music companies by actually offering HD movies available simultaneously to the standard DVD.

No I think his reasoning is sound. Even when all conditions favor the new product it still takes nigh a decade for one format to complete usurp the other. iTunes didn't require a HDTV to enjoy or even an iPod.

Where is the incentive for someone to choose a Blu-ray player and begin paying %300 for your movies? Other than HD quality (which can be had via satellite or cable or HD DVD or download) there's little coming from Blu-ray and it's bumpy history that leads us to believe they could pull off this feat.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #50 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

You're thinking of the wrong format there. Blu-ray and DVD combos will *never* happen, because the DVD Forum, which controls all things DVD already has it's chosen HD successor to DVD, and it's called (funnily enough) HD DVD. That's why there are already lots of DVD/HD DVD combo discs for sale, and none with blu-ray.

"Funnily enough," the DVD Forum doesn't care. Or maybe you hadn't heard about Warner's planned TotalHD discs. If the Forum detested Blu-ray so much and wanted to block anything having to do with it, then why won't they block a disc that includes both Blu-ray and their "chosen successor"?

Quote:
Other than that you may be right, but it would be HD DVD coming out on top. It's also worth noting that there is the promise of very cheap Chinese stand alones for HD DVD later this year, which could break the $200 mark. Once you get there you're entering into impulse buy territory, and this pointless format war could start to get interesting.

Riiiight. Sure people will buy $200 HD DVD players. Right after they buy $300 HDTVs. Have to have multiple impulses, you know. Do you think someone who's spent $1000 on an HDTV is going to hit Wal-Mart looking for the cheapest of the cheap players?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

Some people don't care about annointing a winner, they just want to buy something that won't be immediately obsoleted. By that standard, buying a universal player is smart. Not to mention that if either format fails, there'll be some darn nice fire sales on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies.

If Blu-ray is handily winning on all fronts, what are the chances it will be obsolete? Is it such a great idea to have to pay more for a combo player that costs more than two separate players combined and maintaining two separate libraries? If you don't choose, you stand a good chance of not only prolonging the battle but also having both formats fail. Look at almost every time there's a war. Incompatible cell phone networks. HDTVs having to support several different standards like 720p and 1080i being broadcast by different channels. That latter lack of standardization has certainly delayed HDTV's mainstream adoption by several years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

Where is the incentive for someone to choose a Blu-ray player and begin paying %300 for your movies? Other than HD quality (which can be had via satellite or cable or HD DVD or download) there's little coming from Blu-ray and it's bumpy history that leads us to believe they could pull off this feat.

Download HD content? Good luck! It takes hours to download a full DVD today. Grabbing something three, five or even ten times bigger than a DVD will take anywhere from most of a day to several days.
post #51 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

I don't think comparing Blu-Ray adoption with iTunes/iPods and music sales is a particularly relevant argument. The obvious difference is that iTunes songs are of inferior quality whereas HD has superior audio and video quality. Not to mention that if you already have the CD, there's no need to consider replacing it with an iTunes version unlike moving from DVD to Blu-Ray. Unless digital music downloads increase their quality to equal or surpass standard DVD's, what is the real incentive for someone to switch exclusively to iTunes or any online music vendor?

Not saying your overall point isn't correct, but on a couple of your contentions:

1) iTunes songs are technically of lower quality, but in the real world, Joe Sixpack listening on his little computer speakers or fairly crappy mid-fi audio system would have a hard time distinguishing between a 128 kbps AAC (iTunes) track and a CD track. Not saying the audiophiles among us can't tell the diff, but most people aren't audiophiles. Also bear in mind that AAC/MP4 is a better codec, audio quality-wise, than mp3.

2) HD DVD or Blu-Ray do obviously have better audio and video quality, but you need a reasonably large HDTV to really see it (especially when going against one of the newer upsampling DVD players), and most people don't have such a set yet.

3) The obvious reasons for going with iTunes over CDs are cost & convenience. You get the song immediately, and you can get full albums for $9.99, pricing even Amazon can't usually match.

Not to mention the 'beeg' reason: Many albums have only one or two good tracks on them, so with iTunes you can cherry pick your songs, getting what you want and paying far, far less than if you bought the CD.

Quote:
And I don't care if this is story is just marketing hype. If it helps to kill off HD-DVD and leave just one HD format, I'm off for it. Unlike the failed attempt to move from CDs to SACD and DVD-Audio, the movie studios are doing things better than the music companies by actually offering HD movies available simultaneously to the standard DVD.

One other reason why the move to 'next gen CDs' failed was, apart from competing formats, the fact that most people thought current CDs were 'good enough'. \

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #52 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Riiiight. Sure people will buy $200 HD DVD players. Right after they buy $300 HDTVs. Have to have multiple impulses, you know. Do you think someone who's spent $1000 on an HDTV is going to hit Wal-Mart looking for the cheapest of the cheap players?

I'd agree with that. My local Wal-Mart used to sell ultracheap DVD players and TVs of a Chinese make. Only problem: the DVD players would overheat and the TVs would often come back. That brand doesn't get sold at any Wal-Marts I've seen anymore.

When brand names you've actually heard of have players for $299 or so, THEN it becomes 'sexay'. And as a side note, Sony has promised Blu-Ray players at that price point by the end of the year.

Quote:
If Blu-ray is handily winning on all fronts, what are the chances it will be obsolete?

The average consumer is unaware that Blu-Ray is winning. And even us tech-junkies have to admit that you can't declare an ultimate victor from only a couple of months of stats. I *think* Blu-Ray will likely win and thrive, but I'm not quite ready yet to bet the house on it.

Quote:
Is it such a great idea to have to pay more for a combo player that costs more than two separate players combined

Obviously, if combo HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players become popular, the price will drop, as it already has begun to for HD DVD and Blu-Ray players. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players are simply further along in the cycle.

Quote:
If you don't choose, you stand a good chance of not only prolonging the battle but also having both formats fail.

Both formats likely wouldn't fail from competition with each other, especially if, as you maintain, Blu-Ray is doing better and, as some articles suggest, is likely to knock out HD-DVD within a year or so.

High-def DVD formats are much more likely to fail or be 'nichified' because of things like slow HDTV adoption and the supremacy of the old DVD format, which, despite the PR zaniness of the Blu-Ray association, is likely to remain dominant for quite a while yet.

You do notice that the Blu-Ray Association took pains to take a swing not only at HD-DVD, but DVD as well, don't you? They know DVD is a major enemy as well, and one they can't knock out easily or quickly.

Quote:
Look at almost every time there's a war. Incompatible cell phone networks.

Which has worked out fine for US cellular consumers, actually. Many carriers use CDMA, many carriers use GSM, and users still get to roam on multiple technologically-compatible networks. Europe, which is all GSM, does have it better than we do coverage-wise, but that's more due to their compact geography (compared to the US) than their use of a single standard.

Quote:
HDTVs having to support several different standards like 720p and 1080i being broadcast by different channels. That latter lack of standardization has certainly delayed HDTV's mainstream adoption by several years.

Funny... I thought it was the incredibly high prices of most HDTVs that did that. Well, that and the whole 'chicken-and-the-egg' thing, where broadcasters were slow to provide HD content due to there not being many HDTVs out there, and there not being many HDTVs due to there not being much HD content out there.

High HDTV pricing made the whole thing so much worse, but manufacturers couldn't really get HDTV prices down until (you guessed it) demand for HDTVs went up, and production runs with them.

Quote:
Download HD content? Good luck! It takes hours to download a full DVD today. Grabbing something three, five or even ten times bigger than a DVD will take anywhere from most of a day to several days.

Yep, for now and for several years, no doubt. Sad thing is, it doesn't have to be this way. Japan apparently has very nice, widely available 100 Mbps broadband. We need to catch up, at least in areas where geographically it isn't prohibitively expensive to do so.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #53 of 88
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me we dont need another sodding NEXT GEN HD disc format thread!
post #54 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

Have you tasted baby harp seal? Delicious.


I am so just kidding.


.

[OT] Have you tried living for more than half the year with no source of fresh food?

Some of the northern outports are physically cut off from civilization for a good portion of the year, and shipping fresh fruits and veggies up by plane would be prohibitively expensive and generate abhorable amounts of carbon emissions.

I'm not commenting on the sensationalized seal hunt where baby harp seals are skinned alive and their caracsses left on the tundra to rot... That video has already been debunked as a contrived example where the hunters involved were actually scripted and paid for by the anti-seal hunt lobby.

I'm talking about the real-life seal hunt, where the Inuit operate under tight regulations on the manner in which their catch must be slaughtered, they use every portion of the seal, and just happen to sell the pelts for a profit.

[/OT]
post #55 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

You're thinking of the wrong format there. Blu-ray and DVD combos will *never* happen, because the DVD Forum, which controls all things DVD already has it's chosen HD successor to DVD, and it's called (funnily enough) HD DVD. That's why there are already lots of DVD/HD DVD combo discs for sale, and none with blu-ray.

Other than that you may be right, but it would be HD DVD coming out on top. It's also worth noting that there is the promise of very cheap Chinese stand alones for HD DVD later this year, which could break the $200 mark. Once you get there you're entering into impulse buy territory, and this pointless format war could start to get interesting.

Nope, pmjoe almost had it right. A hybrid Blu-ray and HD DVD disc is already on its way.

Warner Brothers has already publically committed to a hybrid disc containing both Blu-ray and HD-DVD content on opposite sides of a single piece of physical media. They're calling the format "Total HD".

They expect their titles to be available in that format at Best Buy, Circuit City, and Amazon by the second half of this year.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12760_7-9676225-5.html
post #56 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

Not saying your overall point isn't correct, but on a couple of your contentions:

1) iTunes songs are technically of lower quality, but in the real world, Joe Sixpack listening on his little computer speakers or fairly crappy mid-fi audio system would have a hard time distinguishing between a 128 kbps AAC (iTunes) track and a CD track. Not saying the audiophiles among us can't tell the diff, but most people aren't audiophiles. Also bear in mind that AAC/MP4 is a better codec, audio quality-wise, than mp3.

2) HD DVD or Blu-Ray do obviously have better audio and video quality, but you need a reasonably large HDTV to really see it (especially when going against one of the newer upsampling DVD players), and most people don't have such a set yet.

3) The obvious reasons for going with iTunes over CDs are cost & convenience. You get the song immediately, and you can get full albums for $9.99, pricing even Amazon can't usually match.

Not to mention the 'beeg' reason: Many albums have only one or two good tracks on them, so with iTunes you can cherry pick your songs, getting what you want and paying far, far less than if you bought the CD.


One other reason why the move to 'next gen CDs' failed was, apart from competing formats, the fact that most people thought current CDs were 'good enough'. \

.

1.) I realize that the average person can't tell the difference. Neither would I consider myself an audiophile although I do have 5.1 surround sound setup. I use the Airport Express and Airtunes to stream audio to my receiver and I can definitely tell a difference between CD's and iTunes content. iTunes content is lacking a certain oomph is the best way to describe, it has a certain flatness to it. At work, on my iPod, through crappy headphones, iTunes content meets my needs fine. At home though, it's only benefit is convenience.

2.) At my former residence I had an HD DVR from the cable company which apparently included the HD channels for free. I don't have an HDTV, just a standard TV that was hooked up via component video (the RGB cables). The DVR could down-convert to standard def, and I could easily see that it looked much better than the comparable standard def broadcast. Heck, even episodes of the 80's cheese fest Knight Rider looked pretty spectacular coming over the Universal HD channel to my TV.

3.) I've bought about 30 CD's online in the past 3 months and averaged about $7.00 a piece (this includes about 7 2-disc sets). The standard price I pay is $7.41 which includes shipping and tax. They're not super-new releases but even new albums you can usually pick up at Target, Best Buy, or Circuit City for about $10 the week they are released.

I still don't see iPod and online music sales as comparable to DVD and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD. There's no compelling reason to replace existing CD content with iTunes content like the DVD/HD formats. But the fact that the majority of new movies are coming out in both standard def DVD and HD formats on the same day is a major incentive for people to make the switch sooner rather than later. As I've said, I don't have an HD TV and it's almost compelling to me to start buying Blu-Ray discs now and not have to worry about replacing DVD's later.
post #57 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

[OT] Have you tried living for more than half the year with no source of fresh food?

I lived in Medford, Oregon for a year during the '80s... does that count?

Oops... sorry, I'm confusing 'no fresh food' with 'inbred hillbillyism run rampant'. My mistake.


Typical Medford resident, circa 1981


.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #58 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

1.) I realize that the average person can't tell the difference. Neither would I consider myself an audiophile although I do have 5.1 surround sound setup. I use the Airport Express and Airtunes to stream audio to my receiver and I can definitely tell a difference between CD's and iTunes content. iTunes content is lacking a certain oomph is the best way to describe, it has a certain flatness to it. At work, on my iPod, through crappy headphones, iTunes content meets my needs fine. At home though, it's only benefit is convenience.

Hey, if you can tell the difference, perhaps you're an 'audiophile in the making'. Welcome to the club, for I am definitely an audiophile myself. As you say, Joe Average really can't tell the difference, or enough of a difference for him to give much of a rat's patoot about it. Sadly, it is a mid-fi, 'good enough' world we live in, and that renders whatever quality diff there is between iTunes tracks and CD tracks largely moot, market-wise. \

PS- If you are among the discerning, don't settle for 'crappy' headphones for your iPod- there are some very good ones out there, from makers such as Ultimate Ears and Shure. Avoid the popular Shure E3Cs and various Etymotics headphones though- awesome detail, but no bass.
Quote:
2.) At my former residence I had an HD DVR from the cable company which apparently included the HD channels for free. I don't have an HDTV, just a standard TV that was hooked up via component video (the RGB cables). The DVR could down-convert to standard def, and I could easily see that it looked much better than the comparable standard def broadcast. Heck, even episodes of the 80's cheese fest Knight Rider looked pretty spectacular coming over the Universal HD channel to my TV.

That's an interesting setup that I've never had the opportunity to use. If you see a big difference, congrats. But on the flip side, we have lots of people who don't notice a huge diff between upsampled regular DVDs and hi-def DVDs, believe it or else.

Heck, I even read about such 'comparo' tests in major magazines (Popular Science is the last one I remember), and they'd do their A-B tests on a good-sized (42") HDTV, with the testers sitting relatively close. Result: The 'testers' noticed a 'slight' difference between hi-def DVDs and upsampled regular DVDs. Whaaa? \

I personally think that the differences are significant, and that the average viewer is a careless viewer who needs to be clubbed over the head with a night-and-day difference to truly notice it, but whatever floats each individuals' boat.

Btw, if you're interested in such things, here's a site that does an interesting still comparo of DVD vs HD... the regular still is DVD, but if you mouse-over it, you see the HD shot (downsized to be the same size as DVD). Some of stills show a fairly profound (to me) difference, but in others, you can see how Joe Average wouldn't really notice the difference:

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html


Quote:
3.) I've bought about 30 CD's online in the past 3 months and averaged about $7.00 a piece (this includes about 7 2-disc sets). The standard price I pay is $7.41 which includes shipping and tax. They're not super-new releases but even new albums you can usually pick up at Target, Best Buy, or Circuit City for about $10 the week they are released.

That's awesome, but somehow, someway, when I go to Amazon or any of the stores you mention, the CDs I want are always $12-15. Even if the ones I wanted were oldies priced at $7-10, they still couldn't beat iTunes, because not many CDs are worth buying in their entirety. WIth iTunes, you buy the good tracks and don't end up paying for the bad ones.

Let's just say this... my current iTunes music library has cost me around $1000. If I'd had to build it on CDs alone, I would've paid easily quadruple that, again, because in the majority of cases I'd have to pay $12-15 to get the one or two good songs per CD that I really wanted. No thanks.

Quote:
I still don't see iPod and online music sales as comparable to DVD and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD. There's no compelling reason to replace existing CD content with iTunes content like the DVD/HD formats.

Well, there sure is a good reason to go with iTunes over CDs... see above. But you're right, REPLACING CD content with iTunes makes no sense, plus you can simply rip your CDs into iTunes for free.

I'd agree that the iTunes-CD situation is different enough from the DVD- hi-def DVD one to make most comparisons tenuous at best. Hardware adoption rates alone make the comparison moot- you don't need any new hardware to use iTunes, but you do need a (currently expensive) new player AND an (expensive) HDTV to go hi-def DVD.


Quote:
But the fact that the majority of new movies are coming out in both standard def DVD and HD formats on the same day is a major incentive for people to make the switch sooner rather than later. As I've said, I don't have an HD TV and it's almost compelling to me to start buying Blu-Ray discs now and not have to worry about replacing DVD's later.

Great, but most people, for various reasons, aren't going to get into buying Blu-Ray discs until they get an HDTV. And HDTVs still have a pretty serious price delta compared to standard def TVs.

Unlike the Blu-Ray Association's PR team, give it some time. 8)


.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #59 of 88
I bought a couple hundreds of CDs in 2006, at an average price of $7.00 per disc. You just gotta know where to look.
post #60 of 88
I posted this (plus a bit more) in an ARs forum about this issue. I can't think of a better post for me, so I'm just re-posting it here.

"One reason why DVD seemed to take so long to replace the vcr was mentioned already, Many people, such as myself kept their vcr after we bought a DVD.

But there was another reason. vcr's record. Most DVD models are players only!

most people didn't want to replace a recorder with a player. Many may not remember, but that was a very highly publicized question at the time, and hotly debated.

Only later, did DVD recorders arrive, at a price that most people could afford. But, by that time, DVR's began to appear, and the problem became moot.

How does this affect the move to hi def players? The recording tools are already in place. It's cheap to get a hi def DVR from the cable, or satellite company.

Half of Tv purchases in the US in 2006 were large widescreen models. !n 2009, there will be a mandated switch to digital broadcasts.

The stage is set!

Sony's newest Blu-Ray player is $599, not $999. The difference between the prices of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will continue to shrink. In three years the pricing for both will be far less than now. Perhaps they will even be the same.

As many more major studios support Blu-Ray, more movies will continue to come out for that format.

Don't forget "It's the software, stupid!"

If there are 2,000 movies available for Blu-Ray in three years, but only 700 for HD-DVD, the race will be over.

It will probably take more than three years to totally displace DVD, because players last so long. But it might not take much longer than five.

As far as HD DVD goes, it could be gone in less than three.

I can get internal Blu-Ray recorders for my Mac (and I'm sure it's available for PC's as well) for $559 and up.

What HD-DVD recorders are available for anyone?"
post #61 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galley View Post

I bought a couple hundreds of CDs in 2006, at an average price of $7.00 per disc. You just gotta know where to look.

When I try to go to your link, I get a 'connection has timed out' message.

Addendum: OK, now it's working. Interesting site and good (for CD) prices, but some probs:

1) I was 0 for 8 on the artists I typed in... apparently selection is limited to the more mainstream stuff. Of course they have all the Britney Spears albums (augh), but nothing from Rilo Kiley, A.M. Sixty, Universal Honey, Teddybears, Goldfrapp, etc.... meh.

2) It appears that I have to SUBSCRIBE to buy stuff here. Though being required to buy one CD a month is not much of a commitment admittedly, I don't dig subscriptions.

I guess its good if I wanted to get a 'Best Of' album from a fairly mainstream group... if there's 8 or more good tracks on it for $6.99,that beats iTunes cherry-picking.

Still, judging from the selection, I think it'd be a very occasional use thing for me, and that runs up against the subscription thing. I'll mention it to one of my CD-loving friends though.


.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


...

... But the fact that the majority of new movies are coming out in both standard def DVD and HD formats on the same day is a major incentive for people to make the switch sooner rather than later. As I've said, I don't have an HD TV and it's almost compelling to me to start buying Blu-Ray discs now and not have to worry about replacing DVD's later.

However, there's also another way to look at it. With the competing HD format war, there's little incentive to buy into one of the HD formats or to buy SD-DVDs when they come out. This makes an even more compelling reason to rent new releases from Netflix or Blockbuster.
post #63 of 88
just what we needed - yet another thread on blu-ray v HD-DVD. joy. someone should ban the person who started this new one....
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #64 of 88
The thing about blu-ray to get the best of it you need buy a 1080p TV Until they come down to 1/2 or 1/3 of what they are now. Its out of range for most.

TV store mostly have 720p range, if you going to buy 1080p is a must.

I've got a 1080x1920 screen in my 24" iMac and play HD next to the OLD res, my god HD is so much better it not funny.

Just a TV is more than my 24" iMac, the pricing is still out of sink.

When Apple releases a 24" iMac with blue ray i'll be line up for that.

The real thing is what will the local Video store do? I'm not buying anything until the video store has a range, most of us rent.

I could not find 1 video store with either Blu-ray or HD-DVD on the internet in Auckland, New Zealand.

The only place I've seen Blu-ray is at the sony style store, then they only had 9 discs

I say in 1 year timing will be right for upgrade.

One things is for sure, Im skipping 720p, on going 1080p any likely be blu-ray with the PS3.

I recon the 24" iMac Blu-ray will come first.

Either way my bet on Blu-ray
post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

just what we needed - yet another thread on blu-ray v HD-DVD. joy. someone should ban the person who started this new one....

I fully agree. AppleInsider totally needs to be banned. From AppleInsider. Mods, get hopping!
post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post

I fully agree. AppleInsider totally needs to be banned. From AppleInsider. Mods, get hopping!

exactly!
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #67 of 88
First, comments on everybody else's comments. My original comments follow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Depends on how quickly they and HDTV sets go down in price.

Most TVs larger than 30" already have some amount of HD support. Many smaller ones do as well. This covers just about everything people are going be using in their living rooms, where movies are typically watched.

Sure, the differences will be more noticeable on a giant 60" screen, but that doesn't mean you need a 60" screen to watch HD movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

When you start seeing good name-brand HDTVs (not EDTVs) for $299 that are larger than a postage stamp, THEN it'll be the year of HDTV. I'm guessing 2010.

So, to you, not only do people have to be able to receive HD content, and have an HD capable TV, but it has to be sold for throw-away prices, and you have to be able to get those prices from the most expensive brands.

By your definition, the year of standard-def TV hasn't arrived yet, nor has DVD. After all, the cheap $30 devices are all from no-name brands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

Blu-Ray will replace DVD for me when Apple gets off their collective duff and starts offing it in their computers.

You only plan on watching movies on your computer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

I also hated Walt Mossberg's column last week, where he told people not to buy into either format and wait for universal players or discs instead. That's not the way to settle the war.

Most consumers aren't interested in promoting the technically superior format. They just want to watch movies. If hybrid players are sold, that solves the problem.

If you pick a side and invest in lots of equipment, then you may be forced to throw it away if you happen to have picked the losing side. Maybe that's OK for you. I wouldn't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bevos View Post

The thing about blu-ray to get the best of it you need buy a 1080p TV Until they come down to 1/2 or 1/3 of what they are now. Its out of range for most.

TV store mostly have 720p range, if you going to buy 1080p is a must.

Sure, a 1080p set may look better, but even a 720p set will look better than DVD on an SD set.

The typical consumer doesn't care about specs. They just want better-looking movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bevos

The only place I've seen Blu-ray is at the sony style store, then they only had 9 discs

That's in New Zealand. In the US, they are more common. Best Buy (a common electronics store chain) has several dozen titles in both BD and HDDVD format.

IMO, both BD and HDDVD have market penetration similar to what DVD has in its first year.

- - - - - - -

And now my comments.

I think it really doesn't matter, if all you're thinking about are movies. Both HDDVD and BD use H.264 video encoding. Both will end up looking just as good on whatever device you choose to show them on. Sure, BD can hold more (25G vs 15G per layer, and support for more layers), but even at 1080p, most movies will fit comfortably at either capacity.

Do the math. H.264 gets a 2:1 compression advantage over MPEG-2 (used by DVD). HD content has about 6 times as many pixels (HD=1920x1080 = 2MP, SD =720x480=0.35MP). This means a movie on BD or HDDVD will be about 3 times larger than the same movie on DVD. A dual-layer DVD has a maximum capacity of 8.5GB. 3x that is 25.5GB = well within the capacity of either disc (30G for a dual-layer HDDVD, or 50G for a dual-layer BD).

The additional capacity of BD will only be significant for two applications, and I don't think either one is going to sway consumers in their choice.

The first is for compilations and box-sets. BD's 66% higher capacity means more episodes can be shipped on a single disc. With DVD, you typically get 4 hour-long TV eposides per disc. This is up to 2.125GB per episode. With HD-DVD and BD, we get H.264 compression, making each episode up to 1.06GB (assuming the video is still SD, of course. If old film stock is re-digitized at 1080i, then we're looking at 6.375G per episode, which changes all the numbers quite a bit). This means an HD-DVD disc can hold 28 episodes, and BD can hold 47 episodes. Since a typical TV season is 22-26 episodes, we're looking at whole-season releases on a single disc.

The other justification - the one I'm most interested in - is for data storage. DVD is not very useful as a backup medium, because it takes multiple discs to back up a typical system these days. For those who don't want to use hard drives as their backup media, tape is the only viable option today. VXA-1 tape (one of the few large-capacity tape formats that most individuals can afford) stores up to 33G per tape. HDDVD's 30G per disc is comparable, but BD's 50G capacity is significantly superior. Even at today's prices, BD-RE is price-competitive against tape backup devices, and BD's prices will almost certainly come down in a few years.

All this discussion is based on today's standards - 2-layer discs only. In the future, HD-DVD is promising 3-layer discs (45G capacity), and BD is promising 4-layer discs (100G capacity), with a theoretically possible 8-layer (200G) BD disc.

Neither of these will matter for single movies, but the difference will be tremendous for box sets.

3-layer HD-DVD will be able to hold 42 episodes, 4-layer BD, however, will be able to hold 94 episodes, and 8-layer BD will be able to hold 188 episodes. This means it will become possible to sell box sets of daily shows (like soap operas, or evening talk shows) can become a possibility. With these capacities, a typical season of an hour-long daily show (about 250 episodes) could be packaged on 6 3-layer HD-DVD discs, 3 4-layer BD discs, or 2 8-layer BD discs.

It also allows the possibility of whole-series box sets. For instance, Seinfeld's 9 seasons consist of about 175 episodes. This can fit on a single 8-layer BD. It would require 5 3-layer HD-DVD discs.

But the real advantage of BD over HD-DVD is for computer backup. HD-DVD's top capacity of 45G (for 3 layers) is still smaller than BD-RE's 2-layer capacity. And BD's 4- and 8-layer formats will sport capacities that rival today's industrial tape formats (like SDLT, which stores 400G per tape). And it is far more likely that 4- and 8-layer BD-RE drives will become affordable to consumers than high-capacity tape.

But none of these advantages mean a thing for single-movie discs, and I think that is the content that will ultimately determine which format wins the war.
post #68 of 88
Considering that about half of all Tv's sold in the US last year were large flatscreen models, the prices seem to have already come down far enough. They will drop an estimated 25 to 35% again by the end of this year. They will drop further in 2008 and beyond. I see no problem here.
post #69 of 88
It *can* be in 3 years.

I had an Xbox 360 last year and thought about getting the $199 HD-DVD player add-on as the price was right. However, I bought the Wii and PS3 later on and decided to let go with the Xbox 360 and the whole HD-DVD route.

I have NetFlix and started to rent Blu-ray titles. I never had a chance to experiece the HD-DVD format, but Blu-ray looks good to me. As far as the movie studio concern, I only miss out releases from Universal Studio and some little one. I also purchased a few Blu-ray movies as well.
post #70 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Considering that about half of all Tv's sold in the US last year were large flatscreen models, the prices seem to have already come down far enough. They will drop an estimated 25 to 35% again by the end of this year. They will drop further in 2008 and beyond. I see no problem here.

Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?
post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post

Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?

It doesn't matter. Not everyone who would buy this will buy it right away. Millions of homes do have these Tv's, and that would be enough for sales to get going.

Remember that was last year. Purchases of these Tv's are accelerating this year, and it is this year that Apple is selling this product. Actually, we are already almost through with the first quarter of the year, and the ATv will just be reaching homes in the next few days.

As the year goes on, there will be millions of new Hi Def sets sold, so no problem there.

Besides, I've been saying that a certain percentage of people who would be buying a Hi DEf would buy one more quickly because of the ATV. Some people on this site have confirmed that they plan to do just that.
post #72 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

Most TVs larger than 30" already have some amount of HD support. Many smaller ones do as well. This covers just about everything people are going be using in their living rooms, where movies are typically watched.

Yet even so, HDTV adoption is slow... as of only a few months ago, only 12 percent of US homes had an HDTV set:

As of July 2006, about 12 percent of U.S. homes had at least one HDTV set, up from 7 percent a year earlier, according to Leichtman Research Group.

http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6375647.html

I think people ooh/ahh over the fact that HDTV *sales* are nearing parity with SDTV sales, but forget the fact that not everyone is out buying a new set every year. It's like computers... there's an upgrade cycle, and most people replace their sets only once every several years.

Thus, we have a-ways to go before the majority of folks have HDTVs. Especially since a large price delta remains... Joe Sixpack can still walk into Wal-mart and get a perfectly nice brand-name 27" SDTV for $150-200. HDTV pricing is getting more reasonable, but still needs to drop some more. I give it a couple of years.

Quote:
So, to you, not only do people have to be able to receive HD content, and have an HD capable TV, but it has to be sold for throw-away prices, and you have to be able to get those prices from the most expensive brands.

Certainly, none of that hurts. 8) But also, you don't have to get those prices from the most expensive brands (Sony, etc.), just brands that the mainstream have heard of, aka not the 'Ghetto-quality anonymous Chinese make of the Month'™.

Trust is still an issue in consumer electronics. Many people still will only buy name-brand, despite the fact that they break too (just a little less often).

Quote:
By your definition, the year of standard-def TV hasn't arrived yet, nor has DVD. After all, the cheap $30 devices are all from no-name brands.

Where have you been? You can get a perfectly nice progressive scan DVD player from Phillips, a name brand, for $39. And I doubt the $9 price delta between them and the fly-by-nights has hurt any:

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Phili...oductDetail.do

But perhaps you misunderstand... my assertion is not that adoption only happens after a device is available from name brands at rock-bottom prices, it's that it happens after it's available from name brands at a price that is REASONABLE to the MAINSTREAM.

By that definition, SDTVs and DVD players have been mainstream for many years... obviously.

Quote:
You only plan on watching movies on your computer?

Some people do. I often find myself watching DVDs on my laptop while lying in bed. It's cozy.

Quote:
Most consumers aren't interested in promoting the technically superior format. They just want to watch movies. If hybrid players are sold, that solves the problem.

I'd agree with that. And it's part of the reason why Blu-Ray wants to knock out HD-DVD quickly, before hybrid players drop in price enough to be a viable solution. They may get their wish.

Quote:
Sure, a 1080p set may look better, but even a 720p set will look better than DVD on an SD set.

The typical consumer doesn't care about specs. They just want better-looking movies.

You're right. I find myself looking at 32" 720p LCD HDTVs... the prices are getting closer to reasonable now, and at that screen size 1080p isn't that huge an advantage.

(But of course we all still wish that 50"+ 1080p HDTVs were affordable, don't we? 8) )

Quote:
IMO, both BD and HDDVD have market penetration similar to what DVD has in its first year.

Which ain't much, of course. But yes, just like DVD, give it 5-6 years or so and it'll be dominant... DVD launched in 1997, but it took until 2003 before it outpaced VHS in rentals revenue. Old formats die hard. \

- - - - - - -

Oh and btw, thank you for your education on Blu-Ray storage capacities & compression and what that will mean for TV show box-sets and the like (which is what I usually buy). Great stuff.

Some people complain that since Blu-Ray media costs so much more than DVD media, box-set prices will inevitably rise a lot due to Blu-Ray, but they don't realize how many fewer discs you need for such box sets with BR, thus offsetting that penalty.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger

Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?

Don't know about large-screen TVs, but as of July 2006, only 12 percent of US homes had HDTVs:

http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6375647.html

Mel's probably right in that HDTV sales are nearing parity with SDTVs, but is perhaps forgetting the fact that not everyone is out there replacing their old sets every year (or not- Mel's a pretty sharp guy). HDTVs could be 50% of the market in '07, and you'd still have way less than 50% of US homes with HDTVs simply because only a fraction of households were interested in buying a new TV in '07. Folks sometimes forget that. \

Of course, HDTV prices are dropping all the time. By 2009 or 2010, they won't be much of a barrier to adoption anymore, even for Joe Average who probably still likes his $200 Wal-mart SDTV.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth View Post

It *can* be in 3 years.

But it very likely won't be. 8)

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #75 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

Don't know about large-screen TVs, but as of July 2006, only 12 percent of US homes had HDTVs:

http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6375647.html

Mel's probably right in that HDTV sales are nearing parity with SDTVs, but is perhaps forgetting the fact that not everyone is out there replacing their old sets every year. HDTVs could be 50% of the market in '07, and you'd still have way less than 50% of US homes with HDTVs simply because only a fraction of households were interested in buying a new TV in '07. Folks sometimes forget that. \

Of course, HDTV prices are dropping all the time. By 2009 or 2010, they won't be much of a barrier to adoption anymore, even for Joe Average who probably still likes his $200 Wal-mart SDTV.

.

No, believe me, I'm aware of it. I had a 23" Sony for 15 years, until the tuner died. Then we bought a 32" Sony to replace it. That was ten years ago. Early in 2006, We bought an Hp 65" 1080p DLP, and placed the 32" in the bedroom.

The point here is that those who are about to, or have recently, spent a couple of thousand, or so, to buy a Hi Def model are more likely to also buy the ATv. Many of these people also purchase surround sound systems, etc. If they also have an iPod, and use iTunes, they are even more likely to buy one.

If 10 million homes have, or will soon have a Hi Def Tv, that's surely a good enough customer base for a start. That number will increase by millions by the end of this year.
post #76 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, believe me, I'm aware of it. I had a 23" Sony for 15 years, until the tuner died. Then we bought a 32" Sony to replace it. That was ten years ago. Early in 2006, We bought an Hp 65" 1080p DLP, and placed the 32" in the bedroom.

The point here is that those who are about to, or have recently, spent a couple of thousand, or so, to buy a Hi Def model are more likely to also buy the ATv. Many of these people also purchase surround sound systems, etc. If they also have an iPod, and use iTunes, they are even more likely to buy one.

If 10 million homes have, or will soon have a Hi Def Tv, that's surely a good enough customer base for a start. That number will increase by millions by the end of this year.

You're absolutely right, and Apple's timing is excellent here. There's finally a big enough user base for AppleTV to do 'well enough' initially, and that user base is only going to grow rapidly though the next few years. Apple's putting its foot in the door at just about the perfect time... they're one of the first, but not so early that the product lands with a thud.

And I'm envious of your 65" 1080p set.

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

But it very likely won't be. 8)

.

I still think that there's a good chance that the turnover will be mostly complete in five years.

As the prices rapidly drop (Sony has announced a standalone player for $599), more people will adopt them. The more people adopt them, the more prices will drop.

The advantage here, is that they will play your current DVD's, and do, or will play, the CD formats as well. Thus, no one is losing anything by moving to it, which is very different from any other new format moves that went before, other than 33 1/3 long play turntables, and changers, playing old 78's (and usually, very poorly)

We also no longer have the VCR record capability vs the player only aspect of the early DVD players to contend with.

Moving over will be a plug and play situation, which is just what the average consumer wants, and needs.
post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins View Post

You're absolutely right, and Apple's timing is excellent here. There's finally a big enough user base for AppleTV to do 'well enough' initially, and that user base is only going to grow rapidly though the next few years. Apple's putting its foot in the door at just about the perfect time... they're one of the first, but not so early that the product lands with a thud.

And I'm envious of your 65" 1080p set.

.

If Apple had come out with this at the beginning of 2006, it would have been more questionable.

The set is really good. I bought that one, because, at the time, it was the only 1080p set to have 1080p available through the HDMI (with HDCP) input.

You can truly see the difference between 1080p and 720p content, IF you are close enough. That means close. Eight feet, max. We normally sit at twelve feet, meaning that we can only see barely more than 720p. To see 1080p at our distance, we need a 90" screen. I'm looking at front projection. Sigh! Never happy.

Oh well, it's for the future, right?
post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I still think that there's a good chance that the turnover will be mostly complete in five years.

As the prices rapidly drop (Sony has announced a standalone player for $599), more people will adopt them. The more people adopt them, the more prices will drop.

The advantage here, is that they will play your current DVD's, and do, or will play, the CD formats as well. Thus, no one is losing anything by moving to it, which is very different from any other new format moves that went before, other than 33 1/3 long play turntables, and changers, playing old 78's (and usually, very poorly)

We also no longer have the VCR record capability vs the player only aspect of the early DVD players to contend with.

Moving over will be a plug and play situation, which is just what the average consumer wants, and needs.

Yes, but by the same token, slow HDTV adoption rates are a hurdle that DVD didn't have to contend with. It very likely won't be until 2009-2010 that the majority of folks will even have HDTVs, and most won't be thinking of getting a hi-def player until they do. \

The analysts I've heard say it'll take five years for hi-def DVD to achieve marketshare parity with DVD. That sounds about right. Domination would occur a couple of years after. Ironically, that would make the DVD-to-hi-def DVD changeover no faster than the VHS-to-DVD one, despite the many advantages that hi-def seemingly has in this transition.

That said, I'm looking forward to it, as I am becoming something of a videophile-in-the-making. 8)

.
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
Cut-copy-paste, MMS, landscape keyboard, video-recording, voice-calling, and more... FINALLY
To the 'We Didn't Need It' Crowd/Apple Apologista Squad : Wrong again, lol
Thanks for listening to your...
Reply
post #80 of 88
If I understand correctly... In an HD DVD player you cannot play your standrad DVD's (backwards compatibility). However, in Blu-Ray you can.

That to me is a MAJOR determining factor in which one will ultimately come out the winner here. I mean sure people want the best quality... but lets face it. The general consumer is not going to fork out another thousand dollars or more to go re-purchase their movies. And having a DVD player and HD DVD player hooked up with splitters and hubs like you had to do with VHS before the combo DVD/VHS players were out is just overkill and annoying for your entertainment centers.

The backwards compatibility will be the end of HD DVD and the advantage of Blu-Ray.

Again... if I am understanding correctly.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Blu-ray looks to replace DVDs within three years