a lot of people? You are aware that most of the world can not access Hulu, and most of the world does not have on demand (or can access it if they wanted it) HD cable?
Don?t be obtuse. He didn?t say the majority of the world?s people, he said a lot of people.
Quote:
Hulu was watched at least once by 38 million people in July, whereas Time Warner Cable was viewed by some 34 million souls.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn?t have an optical disc player of any kind?
Quote:
I have some SACD as well, and they do sound better than the iTunes downloads
Yeah, they do, but you missed his point, again. Convenience often wins out over quality when it comes to media formats. The same seems to be happening here. I love watching certain things on Blu-ray but I watch a lot more Hulu and other downloads, on-demand and streaming sources. I don?t even torrent anymore if it?s on Hulu because it is so convenient. 480p on Hulu on a 13? MBP is more than "good enough?.
;-) that, and the fact that BR is niche. I honestly think BR are pretty much DOA as far as the general public goes. When BR is the only option out there Macs may include it, but my feeling is that by that time optical media will be as common as tape drives.
You will see how Blu-ray DVD sales are increasing greatly this year and with over 3 million more BR players being sold...this totals up to a lot of players/people buying even more BR DVDs.
I still want a BR in my Mac because I can see the difference in quality even on my 23" Cinema Screen and it also means I wouldn't have to duplicate my hardware. I can do my photography editing with Aperture and the 27" would help with me seeing even more shots at once. So if iMac does come out with the matte screen and Blu-ray then I would buy the 27" version. Ok, it seems like I am a minority but I have a long list of BR movies to buy when I eventually get the player. I have been patient now for at least a year so another won't make much difference.
As far as downloads go - I use Netflix and get the DVD because I want all the extras. DLs may be fine for quick viewing but it's the behind the scenes and interviews I want. Also, BR offers more of this with most of it in HD. One last point--if BR were in the iMac or Mac Pro then I would think that incorporating BR data disk burning would be included. A 50GB disk makes sense with all the data that needs backup these days. Sure, drives may be lower in cost per GB now buy eventually all media comes down in price the more it's produced. I remember when the Apple store sold a blank DVD for $20 when they first had the superdrive.
I have brought real issues up today- blu- ray, matte, etc. See my first post. We are all discussing these topics back and forth. No complaints but real issues. What's your problem?
His comment if you read it directly appears literal not sarcastic. He should have added an emoticon or worded it differently. I can't help if he can't write.
It was clearly a sarcastic remark, but it didn't make a solid point anyway. Apple doesn't need to dominate computer market share to make a ton of cash and similarly Blu-ray doesn't need to dominate the movie market for it to be a worthwhile addition (as an option) to the Mac lineup.
I feel that some people will defend Apple in everything they do, but my question would be as follows:
Some seemingly reliable rumors indicated that Blu-ray was in the works for this refresh. How would everyones arguments change if Blu-ray was included. Would it still be irrelevant? And for the mac haters, would it become a non-issue?
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn’t have an optical disc player of any kind?
Yeah, they do, but you missed his point, again. Convenience often wins out over quality when it comes to media formats. The same seems to be happening here. I love watching certain things on Blu-ray but I watch a lot more Hulu and other downloads, on-demand and streaming sources. I don’t even torrent anymore if it’s on Hulu because it is so convenient. 480p on Hulu on a 13” MBP is more than "good enough”.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn’t have a computer of any kind?
Stop wasting the space with your stupid graohics . Just read this:
You can get a decent Logitech Bluetooth mouse (the m555b) for about £30 and the Dell 2209WA 22" IPS for under £200.
I'd say these iMac models are a decent improvement but starting the quads at £1600 is not a huge improvement when the last generation Mac Pro started at £1500. Fair enough the 27" screen is huge but who really needs a screen that size, especially when you can't adjust it? No height adjustment, swivel or tilt and only glossy.
I might actually make my peace with the chin on this model. I still prefer the Cinema design but this isn't bad.
The 21.5" ones should have been dual core and the 27" both quads, Core i5 on the lower, Core i7 on the upper.
I also don't care about Blu-Ray. Imagine the price they would charge for the iMac with those. You can get an external anyway or standalone and plug it in via the video input. A PS3 is only $250, which is not much if you are paying so much for a computer - just get the base model and use the PS3 for games/Blu-Ray.
My preference is still the Mini because it lets me use my own superior (and cheaper) display. If they offered the nice Core i5 in a different package, I'd find it interesting but not in this package.
The install base for blu-ray is higher than downloads, so that means when blu-ray has a 66% growth, and downloads an %18 one, then blu-ray is growing a lot faster than downloads, and downloads will not be able to catch up until blu-ray starts decreasing...
But what does "installed user base" mean for downloads? One way to describe it would be "everyone with a reasonably fast internet connection", which is a vastly larger number than blu-ray players in use. That's what makes the dl business so disruptive-- there's very little friction against uptake, no player to buy or format library to replace-- just a mouse click.
Another way would to be compare revenues, but even there the latest figures I can find put Blu-ray at about $500 million and digital at $1.4 billion, so I'm not actually sure what you're using for your installed user base figures.
And, of course, we have to distinguish among rentals, on-demand, and purchase.
I don't doubt that Blu-ray is currently outstripping other forms for purchase-- it just makes sense. However, I don't think that's were the money is, when it comes to video. Most people aren't going to want to watch most movies more than once, and fans buying up blockbuster boxed sets are a big enough segment to drive all over profits.
Don?t be obtuse. He didn?t say the majority of the world?s people, he said a lot of people.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn?t have an optical disc player of any kind?
Yeah, they do, but you missed his point, again. Convenience often wins out over quality when it comes to media formats. The same seems to be happening here. I love watching certain things on Blu-ray but I watch a lot more Hulu and other downloads, on-demand and streaming sources. I don?t even torrent anymore if it?s on Hulu because it is so convenient. 480p on Hulu on a 13? MBP is more than "good enough?.
I don't think that the statement about Hulu or the chart have any meaning in this context.
To say that people watched Hulu at least once during a month doesn't mean anything.
People watch Tv an AVERAGE of 5 hours a day. Yes, that's 5 hours. So how does watching Hulu at least once a month stack up? Not very well. How many hours? Likely very few.
As far as the access goes. All that means is that there are a certain number of POTENTIAL watchers. It says nothing about how many are actually watching.
I'm starting to wonder if blu ray is even going to survive in the long run. I was reading today that overall DVD sales including Blu ray dropped 13.9%. They dropped another 13.5% the first six months of 2009. This happening while digital distribution keeps rising.
Everyone thought when HD-DVD died Blu Ray would jump and it hasn't, in fact numbers keep falling. Most people don't seem interested.
DEG has Blu-ray sales up 83% over last year. It's also growing in relation to DVD and depending on the sites you read, it is outpacing DVD in adoption rate and player sales. Lots depends on if they count the PS3 as a player.
The hurt with Blu-ray is the same pain as with DVD - the playback. Shocker here - DVD has DRM, region encoding, and encryption. The cost of the hardware is small but licensing, development and support of a player (the software) isn't.
Again, percentage increases don't tell you much unless you account for what they're increasing from. The fact is that digital already pulls in way more money than BluRay.
Digital distribution includes PPV (including cable and satellite), downloading, streaming, on demand services, etc. This market has been around longer than even the DVD format, and its current 10% share of revenue is not all that different from the PPV/on-demand market share back in the VHS/early-DVD era. Blu-ray's barely a three-year old format, and it currently accounts for 4% of all home video revenue, which is not an inconsequential growth base.
Also, Blu-ray is strictly an HD optical format, while digital distribution is primarily SD. I have yet to see a breakdown, but I would venture to guess that Blu-ray's revenues already far outpace the digital distribution revenues for HD content. Digital distribution is playing to a very different market because most of the revenues come from rentals and one-time viewing, rather than purchases. Blu-ray and DVD revenue primarily comes from sell-through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
That seems like a very convoluted and somewhat conspiratorial way to account for what's being reported. An easier way to explain it is that the tech press is aware of the misleading nature of talking about rates of increase that doesn't acknowledge absolute numbers.
The tech press has had it out for Blu-ray from the very beginning, and largely ignored the market data time after time as the writers pushed the downloading angle. I mean, how many more "make or break time for Blu-ray" articles are going to come out between now and Christmas? I would guess about the same number that came out last year and the year before that? An optical format is simply not exciting to tech writers, yet it remains what the vast majority of consumers are buying and renting.
Unlike with the computer market where changes and shifts can occur relatively quickly, the consumer market moves much slower and tech writers generally don't acknowledge that. Remember that it took the DVD format almost seven years before it finally surpassed VHS, and the DVD was the most successful consumer electronics debut ever. It also took the CD format about 12 years before displacing the cassette; and despite the growth in the music downloading market, CD sales still commanded 65% of the music market during the first half of THIS year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Of course it's doing "fine", the question is what's going to happen in the near future.
In the near future, Blu-ray will simply find its way into living rooms by attrition as more households replace broken or otherwise worn DVD players with Blu-ray players, and more households purchase HDTVs. For the NEAR future (i.e., the next couple of years), Blu-ray will be the fastest growing segment in the home entertainment industry. How fast that growth occurs will be up to the studios, who can build up Blu-ray's market share by simply lowering disc prices. Industry analyst surveys I've read about indicate that consumer interest in Blu-ray increases significantly once the player price point goes below $150, and the typical selling prices have not yet reached that point (probably will go below $150 either around the holidays or early next year).
Six or seven years down the line, who knows where things will be at that point. By then, the Blu-ray format will be close to a decade old and probably past its growth phase. But, that's pretty much the same trajectory that the DVD format took. The DVD's growth trend leveled out only about three years after it finally surpassed VHS in 2003.
For all the hype that online video gets, the vast majority of video viewing still occurs on TVs, and most of those are not networked. The killer app that finally creates a simple seamless bridge between online media and the home living room has not arrived yet. When that time comes, (and more households have sufficient bandwidth for HD streaming) then we can talk about digital distribution as the dominant market force. That time just isn't here, and probably won't be for the short term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Look at what you wrote-- you start by citing Blu-Ray's increasing percentage of optical disc market share as evidence of the format's success, then follow up by dismissing the slump in the DVD market as inevitable. So...... Blu-Ray gets a bigger percentage of a decreasing market.
Try reading what I wrote. The DVD's growth was spurred on by marketing to both the catalog and new release markets. The huge catalog sales for the DVD format is a one-time stimulus that the format will not be able to repeat. The lack of compelling catalog titles and the maturing of the DVD format (from a high margin growth product to a commodity) would have made a sales decline inevitable under any circumstances, and the current economic slump made things worse. It's the same one-time phenomenon that spurred the huge growth of the CD format, and contributed to its subsequent decline.
I doubt that Blu-ray will have the same kind of traction with catalog titles that the DVD format did. The DVD format created a whole generation of video collectors, and completely shifted the video market from a rental-driven market to one driven by sell-through. Most collectors will not repurchase their DVD collections for Blu-ray discs if for no other reason than most movies are not worth purchasing more than once. Blu-ray will not have that same kind of seismic effect, but it will continue to make inroads with the new release market (where the majority of sales come from) and to some degree will drive growth in the home video market for at least the time being.
Some seemingly reliable rumors indicated that Blu-ray was in the works for this refresh. How would everyones arguments change if Blu-ray was included. Would it still be irrelevant? And for the mac haters, would it become a non-issue?
They shut up -that's what they do. Just ask solipsism- he's been missing in action for months ever since the iPhone got MMS, Video and cut and paste.
And FYI- just because you want Blu-ray doesn't make you a Mac Hater nor a complainer. 'Nuff said!
And yes, you are tackling 'real' issues, but in a) the wrong thread and b) every day and c) by posting the same thing and by d) being intentionally antagonistic. Which is fine. I'm just posting about the 'real' issue of you flooding the board with "omg no bluray" comments
I'm far from the only one "flooding " these halls with blu-ray comments. Talk about who can't read? Jeesh! (just kidding )
I have brought real issues up today- blu- ray, matte, etc. See my first post. We are all discussing these topics back and forth. No complaints but real issues. What's your problem?
His comment if you read it directly appears literal not sarcastic. He should have added an emoticon or worded it differently. I can't help if he can't write.
You know Teckstud at a level I agree with those of you that want Blu-ray and Matte screens because I figure that these features are why you have a BTO program. BTO has to mean more than adding RAM, HDD and software.
The problem with Blu-ray is that it became a political issue for Apple once they got into the media distribution market with iTunes. I want to see it but moreso I want to have the ability to record 50GB of data so simply adding a Blu-ray player isn't going to make me happy unless I get increased functionality. This is why I think that Blu-ray hits the Mac Pro in a recorder version before anywhere else.
Matte screens. I think most humans are attracted to shiny things though there I feel for the people that get headaches dealing with glossy screens.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn?t have a computer of any kind?
Which simply reinforces the point he was making. Instead of just snapping at people, could you maybe read the posts they're responding to and think a second about the context?
For the first time in years (since I bought my Mac Pro 2006), I'm actually totally impressed by an Apple product and its price. The 27" iMac, is an amazing deal. For 2000 dollars, you get a quad-core all-in-one computer, with a high-pixel-density 27" LED-backlit IPS display, 4GB of RAM, a good graphics card with BT keyboard and Magic Mouse.
How could such a monster go for anything *less* than 2000?
This thing costs almost 400 dollars less than my Mac Pro 2006, yet has a 27" LED-backlit IPS display (a 30" Cinema HD Display with slightly more resolution back in 2006 would have set me back almost another 3 grand...shit, even today it costs almost the same as the new 27" iMac), comes with Bluetooth and WiFi (options I didn't take when I bought my Mac Pro), comes with 8 times the RAM, and 4 times the storage.
I love my Mac Pro 2006 very much. It was the best purchase I've ever done. It's still amazingly fast, has tons of expandability, has never KPed on me, ever. But holy shit, if I wanted something like the 27" iMac back in 2006 but by upgrading the Mac Pro to 4GB of RAM, 1TB of storage, a 2560x1440 capable display and a decent video card, it would have cost me 12 000 dollars. The Mac Pro's expandabilty is nice, and I've been able to add a ton of storage to it as well as more RAM. But let's face it, other than HD and RAM, the Mac Pro is for suckers. Apple almost always immediately obsoletes your Mac Pro by releasing new ones that have, oh say, a 64-bit EFI with video cards that only work on 64-bit EFIs. I think I've been screwed enough by Apple on upgradability to make sure my next purchase will be a decent all-in-one that costs less. And by less I mean, a heck of a lot less...like twice less than the current gen Mac Pros.
Sure, technology advances and stuff gets cheaper but...we're talking about a difference of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS here. TEN FRICKIN' THOUSAND DOLLARS...in THREE YEARS.
Anyway...this 27" iMac is absolutely perfect for a living room or TV room. If my Mac Pro wasn't still running like a dream, I'd be all over this thing.
Equivalent PC - $1300 (NZD) (also has quad not dual core)
Seems hard to justify a 27" Imac when I can have a pc build to match its specs and a second machine with the specs of the 21" for $3162. Or replace the lowly 4850 for a Gt280, double the ram and hb space - for an extra 400-500 (NZD) So $2362 and use the $1000 for a trip to Fiji (or buy some crappy pc software).
I love Apples integration between hardware and software and osx is amazing, but build quality isn't as much better than any other pc these days, components are no more reliable - Both consequences of trying to compete on price, and more than allowable if the price reflected this. I would happily pay an extra 500-700 dollars premium to have a mac, honestly I would. But when I can build a superior computer and have almost $1000 left over it's very hard to go Mac
For the time being, I think I'll just cherish the time I spend working on my work Mac
Did you happen to include the cost of a 27" IPS, LED backlit LCD monitor in your calculations? I kind of doubt it. Not to mention the form factor. Yes a tower + monitor is cheaper, but that isn't what Apple is selling. I'm actually not aware of anything on the PC side that could be directly compared to these iMacs, but I'm sure someone will inform me.
How many times does Apple have to reiterate their belief about HDMI vs DisplayPort?
HDMI= consumer electronics connection and comes with royalties
DP- PC oriented connection with legacy support for HDMI and is royalty free (unless you buy HDMI adapters)
How many times did they reiterate their belief about ADC over DVI? DisplayPort is effectively dead in the water and going it alone on display has never ended well. Plus I think the customer can afford an extra nickel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Blu-ray is a magic trick besides a bag of hurt? Thank you for that enlightenment.
Plus digital downloads dish out their own share of pain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
In what year?
That is the question. Obviously its going to happen some day, buy right now neither Apple, the movie/television studios, or anyone else is making it real enticing. They had a good example of how it should be done with digital music, but everyone's let greed cloud everything.
My PS3 BluRay died after a firmware update, won't read any disk. PS3 works and does the Folding@home now but that's it.
Had to buy another PS3, so now I got two nice heaters.
Sony is being sued because of the bricking of so many PS3 BluRays, something I'm sure had to do with copy protection/HDMI being broken. Perhaps serials being copied/stolen or something. So mine got hit.
Blu-RAY IS A BAG OF HURT!!
The iMac is a pain as it is with nothing being user accessible, much less a malfunctioning Blu-Ray and firmware updates coming from (of DRM/Rookit fame) Sony Inc. to protect the copy protection.
You need BluRay? Get a external device. It's not ready for the mainstream and perhaps never will be.
The MIAA (which Sony is part of) really doesn't want BluRay movies on computers, unless they can control the DRM and playblack so it can't be copied. Apple won't go for that naturally, all that evil Sony code in OS X.
Apple is trending towards less mechanical, less laborious, more all on the logicboard type devices anyway.
Which simply reinforces the point he was making. Instead of just snapping at people, could you maybe read the posts they're responding to and think a second about the context?
No- he's trying to drive home his ludicrous point on here that discs are useless simply because HE's opted for that decision. And you know it.
Comments
a lot of people? You are aware that most of the world can not access Hulu, and most of the world does not have on demand (or can access it if they wanted it) HD cable?
Don?t be obtuse. He didn?t say the majority of the world?s people, he said a lot of people.
Hulu was watched at least once by 38 million people in July, whereas Time Warner Cable was viewed by some 34 million souls.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn?t have an optical disc player of any kind?
I have some SACD as well, and they do sound better than the iTunes downloads
Yeah, they do, but you missed his point, again. Convenience often wins out over quality when it comes to media formats. The same seems to be happening here. I love watching certain things on Blu-ray but I watch a lot more Hulu and other downloads, on-demand and streaming sources. I don?t even torrent anymore if it?s on Hulu because it is so convenient. 480p on Hulu on a 13? MBP is more than "good enough?.
;-) that, and the fact that BR is niche. I honestly think BR are pretty much DOA as far as the general public goes. When BR is the only option out there Macs may include it, but my feeling is that by that time optical media will be as common as tape drives.
If you read this article: http://www.dvdtown.com/news/blu-ray-...ard-times/7098
You will see how Blu-ray DVD sales are increasing greatly this year and with over 3 million more BR players being sold...this totals up to a lot of players/people buying even more BR DVDs.
I still want a BR in my Mac because I can see the difference in quality even on my 23" Cinema Screen and it also means I wouldn't have to duplicate my hardware. I can do my photography editing with Aperture and the 27" would help with me seeing even more shots at once. So if iMac does come out with the matte screen and Blu-ray then I would buy the 27" version. Ok, it seems like I am a minority but I have a long list of BR movies to buy when I eventually get the player. I have been patient now for at least a year so another won't make much difference.
As far as downloads go - I use Netflix and get the DVD because I want all the extras. DLs may be fine for quick viewing but it's the behind the scenes and interviews I want. Also, BR offers more of this with most of it in HD. One last point--if BR were in the iMac or Mac Pro then I would think that incorporating BR data disk burning would be included. A 50GB disk makes sense with all the data that needs backup these days. Sure, drives may be lower in cost per GB now buy eventually all media comes down in price the more it's produced. I remember when the Apple store sold a blank DVD for $20 when they first had the superdrive.
I'm here and ready SJ.
I have brought real issues up today- blu- ray, matte, etc. See my first post. We are all discussing these topics back and forth. No complaints but real issues. What's your problem?
His comment if you read it directly appears literal not sarcastic. He should have added an emoticon or worded it differently. I can't help if he can't write.
It was clearly a sarcastic remark, but it didn't make a solid point anyway. Apple doesn't need to dominate computer market share to make a ton of cash and similarly Blu-ray doesn't need to dominate the movie market for it to be a worthwhile addition (as an option) to the Mac lineup.
I feel that some people will defend Apple in everything they do, but my question would be as follows:
Some seemingly reliable rumors indicated that Blu-ray was in the works for this refresh. How would everyones arguments change if Blu-ray was included. Would it still be irrelevant? And for the mac haters, would it become a non-issue?
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn’t have an optical disc player of any kind?
Yeah, they do, but you missed his point, again. Convenience often wins out over quality when it comes to media formats. The same seems to be happening here. I love watching certain things on Blu-ray but I watch a lot more Hulu and other downloads, on-demand and streaming sources. I don’t even torrent anymore if it’s on Hulu because it is so convenient. 480p on Hulu on a 13” MBP is more than "good enough”.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn’t have a computer of any kind?
Stop wasting the space with your stupid graohics . Just read this:
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/blu-ray-...ard-times/7098
Base: £649, Magic Mouse £55, Wired KB £28, iWork £54 -> £786 (+ monitor (£200) TN)
2.53GHz, 320GB, 4GB, 9400M
You can get a decent Logitech Bluetooth mouse (the m555b) for about £30 and the Dell 2209WA 22" IPS for under £200.
I'd say these iMac models are a decent improvement but starting the quads at £1600 is not a huge improvement when the last generation Mac Pro started at £1500. Fair enough the 27" screen is huge but who really needs a screen that size, especially when you can't adjust it? No height adjustment, swivel or tilt and only glossy.
I might actually make my peace with the chin on this model. I still prefer the Cinema design but this isn't bad.
The 21.5" ones should have been dual core and the 27" both quads, Core i5 on the lower, Core i7 on the upper.
I also don't care about Blu-Ray. Imagine the price they would charge for the iMac with those. You can get an external anyway or standalone and plug it in via the video input. A PS3 is only $250, which is not much if you are paying so much for a computer - just get the base model and use the PS3 for games/Blu-Ray.
My preference is still the Mini because it lets me use my own superior (and cheaper) display. If they offered the nice Core i5 in a different package, I'd find it interesting but not in this package.
well you just made my point.
The install base for blu-ray is higher than downloads, so that means when blu-ray has a 66% growth, and downloads an %18 one, then blu-ray is growing a lot faster than downloads, and downloads will not be able to catch up until blu-ray starts decreasing...
But what does "installed user base" mean for downloads? One way to describe it would be "everyone with a reasonably fast internet connection", which is a vastly larger number than blu-ray players in use. That's what makes the dl business so disruptive-- there's very little friction against uptake, no player to buy or format library to replace-- just a mouse click.
Another way would to be compare revenues, but even there the latest figures I can find put Blu-ray at about $500 million and digital at $1.4 billion, so I'm not actually sure what you're using for your installed user base figures.
And, of course, we have to distinguish among rentals, on-demand, and purchase.
I don't doubt that Blu-ray is currently outstripping other forms for purchase-- it just makes sense. However, I don't think that's were the money is, when it comes to video. Most people aren't going to want to watch most movies more than once, and fans buying up blockbuster boxed sets are a big enough segment to drive all over profits.
Don?t be obtuse. He didn?t say the majority of the world?s people, he said a lot of people.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn?t have an optical disc player of any kind?
Yeah, they do, but you missed his point, again. Convenience often wins out over quality when it comes to media formats. The same seems to be happening here. I love watching certain things on Blu-ray but I watch a lot more Hulu and other downloads, on-demand and streaming sources. I don?t even torrent anymore if it?s on Hulu because it is so convenient. 480p on Hulu on a 13? MBP is more than "good enough?.
I don't think that the statement about Hulu or the chart have any meaning in this context.
To say that people watched Hulu at least once during a month doesn't mean anything.
People watch Tv an AVERAGE of 5 hours a day. Yes, that's 5 hours. So how does watching Hulu at least once a month stack up? Not very well. How many hours? Likely very few.
As far as the access goes. All that means is that there are a certain number of POTENTIAL watchers. It says nothing about how many are actually watching.
I'm starting to wonder if blu ray is even going to survive in the long run. I was reading today that overall DVD sales including Blu ray dropped 13.9%. They dropped another 13.5% the first six months of 2009. This happening while digital distribution keeps rising.
Everyone thought when HD-DVD died Blu Ray would jump and it hasn't, in fact numbers keep falling. Most people don't seem interested.
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/blu-ray-...ard-times/7098
DEG has Blu-ray sales up 83% over last year. It's also growing in relation to DVD and depending on the sites you read, it is outpacing DVD in adoption rate and player sales. Lots depends on if they count the PS3 as a player.
The hurt with Blu-ray is the same pain as with DVD - the playback. Shocker here - DVD has DRM, region encoding, and encryption. The cost of the hardware is small but licensing, development and support of a player (the software) isn't.
Again, percentage increases don't tell you much unless you account for what they're increasing from. The fact is that digital already pulls in way more money than BluRay.
Digital distribution includes PPV (including cable and satellite), downloading, streaming, on demand services, etc. This market has been around longer than even the DVD format, and its current 10% share of revenue is not all that different from the PPV/on-demand market share back in the VHS/early-DVD era. Blu-ray's barely a three-year old format, and it currently accounts for 4% of all home video revenue, which is not an inconsequential growth base.
Also, Blu-ray is strictly an HD optical format, while digital distribution is primarily SD. I have yet to see a breakdown, but I would venture to guess that Blu-ray's revenues already far outpace the digital distribution revenues for HD content. Digital distribution is playing to a very different market because most of the revenues come from rentals and one-time viewing, rather than purchases. Blu-ray and DVD revenue primarily comes from sell-through.
That seems like a very convoluted and somewhat conspiratorial way to account for what's being reported. An easier way to explain it is that the tech press is aware of the misleading nature of talking about rates of increase that doesn't acknowledge absolute numbers.
The tech press has had it out for Blu-ray from the very beginning, and largely ignored the market data time after time as the writers pushed the downloading angle. I mean, how many more "make or break time for Blu-ray" articles are going to come out between now and Christmas? I would guess about the same number that came out last year and the year before that? An optical format is simply not exciting to tech writers, yet it remains what the vast majority of consumers are buying and renting.
Unlike with the computer market where changes and shifts can occur relatively quickly, the consumer market moves much slower and tech writers generally don't acknowledge that. Remember that it took the DVD format almost seven years before it finally surpassed VHS, and the DVD was the most successful consumer electronics debut ever. It also took the CD format about 12 years before displacing the cassette; and despite the growth in the music downloading market, CD sales still commanded 65% of the music market during the first half of THIS year.
Of course it's doing "fine", the question is what's going to happen in the near future.
In the near future, Blu-ray will simply find its way into living rooms by attrition as more households replace broken or otherwise worn DVD players with Blu-ray players, and more households purchase HDTVs. For the NEAR future (i.e., the next couple of years), Blu-ray will be the fastest growing segment in the home entertainment industry. How fast that growth occurs will be up to the studios, who can build up Blu-ray's market share by simply lowering disc prices. Industry analyst surveys I've read about indicate that consumer interest in Blu-ray increases significantly once the player price point goes below $150, and the typical selling prices have not yet reached that point (probably will go below $150 either around the holidays or early next year).
Six or seven years down the line, who knows where things will be at that point. By then, the Blu-ray format will be close to a decade old and probably past its growth phase. But, that's pretty much the same trajectory that the DVD format took. The DVD's growth trend leveled out only about three years after it finally surpassed VHS in 2003.
For all the hype that online video gets, the vast majority of video viewing still occurs on TVs, and most of those are not networked. The killer app that finally creates a simple seamless bridge between online media and the home living room has not arrived yet. When that time comes, (and more households have sufficient bandwidth for HD streaming) then we can talk about digital distribution as the dominant market force. That time just isn't here, and probably won't be for the short term.
Look at what you wrote-- you start by citing Blu-Ray's increasing percentage of optical disc market share as evidence of the format's success, then follow up by dismissing the slump in the DVD market as inevitable. So...... Blu-Ray gets a bigger percentage of a decreasing market.
Try reading what I wrote. The DVD's growth was spurred on by marketing to both the catalog and new release markets. The huge catalog sales for the DVD format is a one-time stimulus that the format will not be able to repeat. The lack of compelling catalog titles and the maturing of the DVD format (from a high margin growth product to a commodity) would have made a sales decline inevitable under any circumstances, and the current economic slump made things worse. It's the same one-time phenomenon that spurred the huge growth of the CD format, and contributed to its subsequent decline.
I doubt that Blu-ray will have the same kind of traction with catalog titles that the DVD format did. The DVD format created a whole generation of video collectors, and completely shifted the video market from a rental-driven market to one driven by sell-through. Most collectors will not repurchase their DVD collections for Blu-ray discs if for no other reason than most movies are not worth purchasing more than once. Blu-ray will not have that same kind of seismic effect, but it will continue to make inroads with the new release market (where the majority of sales come from) and to some degree will drive growth in the home video market for at least the time being.
Some seemingly reliable rumors indicated that Blu-ray was in the works for this refresh. How would everyones arguments change if Blu-ray was included. Would it still be irrelevant? And for the mac haters, would it become a non-issue?
They shut up -that's what they do. Just ask solipsism- he's been missing in action for months ever since the iPhone got MMS, Video and cut and paste.
And FYI- just because you want Blu-ray doesn't make you a Mac Hater nor a complainer. 'Nuff said!
edit: is it his fault if you can't read?
And yes, you are tackling 'real' issues, but in a) the wrong thread and b) every day and c) by posting the same thing and by d) being intentionally antagonistic. Which is fine. I'm just posting about the 'real' issue of you flooding the board with "omg no bluray" comments
I'm far from the only one "flooding " these halls with blu-ray comments. Talk about who can't read? Jeesh! (just kidding
I have brought real issues up today- blu- ray, matte, etc. See my first post. We are all discussing these topics back and forth. No complaints but real issues. What's your problem?
His comment if you read it directly appears literal not sarcastic. He should have added an emoticon or worded it differently. I can't help if he can't write.
You know Teckstud at a level I agree with those of you that want Blu-ray and Matte screens because I figure that these features are why you have a BTO program. BTO has to mean more than adding RAM, HDD and software.
The problem with Blu-ray is that it became a political issue for Apple once they got into the media distribution market with iTunes. I want to see it but moreso I want to have the ability to record 50GB of data so simply adding a Blu-ray player isn't going to make me happy unless I get increased functionality. This is why I think that Blu-ray hits the Mac Pro in a recorder version before anywhere else.
Matte screens. I think most humans are attracted to shiny things though there I feel for the people that get headaches dealing with glossy screens.
PS: Are you aware that most of the world doesn?t have a computer of any kind?
Which simply reinforces the point he was making. Instead of just snapping at people, could you maybe read the posts they're responding to and think a second about the context?
How could such a monster go for anything *less* than 2000?
This thing costs almost 400 dollars less than my Mac Pro 2006, yet has a 27" LED-backlit IPS display (a 30" Cinema HD Display with slightly more resolution back in 2006 would have set me back almost another 3 grand...shit, even today it costs almost the same as the new 27" iMac), comes with Bluetooth and WiFi (options I didn't take when I bought my Mac Pro), comes with 8 times the RAM, and 4 times the storage.
I love my Mac Pro 2006 very much. It was the best purchase I've ever done. It's still amazingly fast, has tons of expandability, has never KPed on me, ever. But holy shit, if I wanted something like the 27" iMac back in 2006 but by upgrading the Mac Pro to 4GB of RAM, 1TB of storage, a 2560x1440 capable display and a decent video card, it would have cost me 12 000 dollars. The Mac Pro's expandabilty is nice, and I've been able to add a ton of storage to it as well as more RAM. But let's face it, other than HD and RAM, the Mac Pro is for suckers. Apple almost always immediately obsoletes your Mac Pro by releasing new ones that have, oh say, a 64-bit EFI with video cards that only work on 64-bit EFIs. I think I've been screwed enough by Apple on upgradability to make sure my next purchase will be a decent all-in-one that costs less. And by less I mean, a heck of a lot less...like twice less than the current gen Mac Pros.
Sure, technology advances and stuff gets cheaper but...we're talking about a difference of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS here. TEN FRICKIN' THOUSAND DOLLARS...in THREE YEARS.
Anyway...this 27" iMac is absolutely perfect for a living room or TV room. If my Mac Pro wasn't still running like a dream, I'd be all over this thing.
I would love to go back to using a mac but:
Imac 27" w/4850 - $3300 (NZD)
Equivalent PC - $1862 (NZD)
Imac 21" - $2000 (NZD)
Equivalent PC - $1300 (NZD) (also has quad not dual core)
Seems hard to justify a 27" Imac when I can have a pc build to match its specs and a second machine with the specs of the 21" for $3162. Or replace the lowly 4850 for a Gt280, double the ram and hb space - for an extra 400-500 (NZD) So $2362 and use the $1000 for a trip to Fiji (or buy some crappy pc software).
I love Apples integration between hardware and software and osx is amazing, but build quality isn't as much better than any other pc these days, components are no more reliable - Both consequences of trying to compete on price, and more than allowable if the price reflected this. I would happily pay an extra 500-700 dollars premium to have a mac, honestly I would. But when I can build a superior computer and have almost $1000 left over it's very hard to go Mac
For the time being, I think I'll just cherish the time I spend working on my work Mac
Did you happen to include the cost of a 27" IPS, LED backlit LCD monitor in your calculations? I kind of doubt it. Not to mention the form factor. Yes a tower + monitor is cheaper, but that isn't what Apple is selling. I'm actually not aware of anything on the PC side that could be directly compared to these iMacs, but I'm sure someone will inform me.
How many times does Apple have to reiterate their belief about HDMI vs DisplayPort?
HDMI= consumer electronics connection and comes with royalties
DP- PC oriented connection with legacy support for HDMI and is royalty free (unless you buy HDMI adapters)
How many times did they reiterate their belief about ADC over DVI? DisplayPort is effectively dead in the water and going it alone on display has never ended well. Plus I think the customer can afford an extra nickel.
Blu-ray is a magic trick besides a bag of hurt? Thank you for that enlightenment.
Plus digital downloads dish out their own share of pain.
In what year?
That is the question. Obviously its going to happen some day, buy right now neither Apple, the movie/television studios, or anyone else is making it real enticing. They had a good example of how it should be done with digital music, but everyone's let greed cloud everything.
My PS3 BluRay died after a firmware update, won't read any disk. PS3 works and does the Folding@home now but that's it.
Had to buy another PS3, so now I got two nice heaters.
Sony is being sued because of the bricking of so many PS3 BluRays, something I'm sure had to do with copy protection/HDMI being broken. Perhaps serials being copied/stolen or something. So mine got hit.
Blu-RAY IS A BAG OF HURT!!
The iMac is a pain as it is with nothing being user accessible, much less a malfunctioning Blu-Ray and firmware updates coming from (of DRM/Rookit fame) Sony Inc. to protect the copy protection.
You need BluRay? Get a external device. It's not ready for the mainstream and perhaps never will be.
The MIAA (which Sony is part of) really doesn't want BluRay movies on computers, unless they can control the DRM and playblack so it can't be copied. Apple won't go for that naturally, all that evil Sony code in OS X.
Apple is trending towards less mechanical, less laborious, more all on the logicboard type devices anyway.
Which simply reinforces the point he was making. Instead of just snapping at people, could you maybe read the posts they're responding to and think a second about the context?
No- he's trying to drive home his ludicrous point on here that discs are useless simply because HE's opted for that decision. And you know it.