but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.
I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.
As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.
So basically what your saying is that you like to be very aggressive/jackass/asshole against people with your posts and at the same time you don't want to admit that your sales figures are wrong making your main point in terms of sales moot and at the same time that your environment point is also essentially moot.
Does this include SD and HD? If it includes SD, DVD's would have to be included into comparison.
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
I think you're overestimating the average consumer. I have Blu-Ray and while it's better than the average DVD (especially with upsampling), it's not like watching Hi-Def compared to 1960s Black and White. It's a very subtle difference - and if the movie's any good, you'll be watching the movie rather than examining pixels.
Considering your constant Apple praise, even when they have done something terrible means I can't really believe what you say in relation to other products.
There is a massive difference between blu-ray and DVD, and a large difference between blu-ray and upscaled DVD
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Second, it's all about compatibility. When I buy a movie, I'd like to be able to watch it on my TV, but also load it onto my iPad, my daughter's iPod, or play it on a portable DVD player or computer. Because of the cost and licensing restrictions of BD, that's not going to happen any time soon.
Compatibility? You have tried to play the compatibility card with blu-ray, and iTunes videos?
Let's see, I have purchased a video from iTunes, I would like to play it on non Apple hardware. What do you mean I can't? I have to purchase a computer, or Apple hardware to view it? Is Apple that greedy that they want to restrict the advancement of digital downloads by placing greedy, backward restrictions on the playback?
I can purchase a blu-ray player from a number of difference companies, I can purchase portable blu-ray players, I can purchase blu-ray drives for computers. The only one with restrictions is Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Bottom line is that the Blu-Ray consortium was greedy. Instead of pushing for rapid adoption and wide-spread sales, they decided to add onerous DRM and to set extremely high pricing - both of which slow adoption. The result is that BD doesn't drive the market they way they should at this stage in the cycle.
DRM? What are you talking about, the iTunes videos are full of DRM as well, more restrictive DRM than in Blu-ray.
The problem, though, is that you're assuming that the cost of doing business is the same in the UK as in the US. You have very different laws and rules and it costs more to do business there. The prices reflect that.
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK.
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
I think what it comes down to is SJ doesn't think there is a payoff since the experience would be lackluster on Apple platforms and to some extent I agree with that. Viewing Blu-ray video on laptops and desktops are not my first choice and the audio experience is a disappointment to say the least. I'm lost on the licensing arguments since that's all wrapped up in the player. Content owners can choose not to use BD+ and region coding.
To those that don't see or hear the difference on your HT, the only thing I can recommend is make sure your listening to lossless and get your display calibrated. Detail due to better codecs and bandwidth, color-depth, and 6x the pixels over DVD and the content is non-interlaced on the disc. All goodness.
My system is a couple of years old, but it was a top of the line 55" LCD projection system with LED lighting (Samsung, I think, but I don't remember). Connected directly to a same-brand Blu-Ray/DVD player with HDMI cable. Audio is a Sony amp with Infinity speakers all around. So just what am I doing wrong?
I would say it is your vision, go get your eyes checked.
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
You know, no matter which way we slice it, I think there will always (unfortunately) be a stigma attached to the blu-ray format. Those who were against it from day one will always feel that it undeservedly won the format war and those who were for it will always wonder how much more success it may have enjoyed had the whole format war never happened. Would we even be debating about whether Macs will ever get blu-ray drives or how soon digital downloads will be become the norm? The truth is, we'll never know. Back in reality, I'll continue to enjoy my movies on blu-ray until it's replaced by the next big thing, whatever that may be.
I can purchase a blu-ray player from a number of difference companies, I can purchase portable blu-ray players, I can purchase blu-ray drives for computers. The only one with restrictions is Apple.
And I can loan my blu-rays to parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, friends, etc, who own players by Sony (not just the PS3), Pioneer, Samsung, Oppo, Panasonic and so on. I'm not such a fan of handing my iPod around for people to view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
DRM? What are you talking about, the iTunes videos are full of DRM as well, more restrictive DRM than in Blu-ray.
The DRM issue is an odd one. It's the content owners that want DRM. This is one item that kept content owners away from HD DVD. Small owners like FOX and Disney. . .
It is more complicated than that. Not only does the hardware have to be specialized for Blu-Ray playback, but so does the operating system. From my understanding, there is a performance hit on the system related to simply building Blu-Ray playback into a computer's OS.
Yes this a known fact as for the OS support, but performance hit it purely guesswork, and until they release an OS with support for AACS then any ideas placed forward don't really count for anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp
Now, let's look at this from Apple's perspective.
If we are looking at it from Apple's perspective then the answer is much simpler. Apple is pushing for digital downloads, and Blu-ray is superior to digital downloads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp
Support Blu-Ray:
Minuses
*Additional cost which either equates to higher prices or lower margins.
*Decreased performance due to required DRM demands
*Decreased battery life due to required DRM demands, even on systems that might not have Blu-Ray
*Increased complexity of OS code due to required DRM
*More people having access to proprietary OS code during validation that DRM has been properly implemented
*Longer time between OS updates as another, outside source must vet the new code to determine that no DRM bypasses are possible
*Increased time to require optical drives to support payback of investment in Blu-Ray
Pluses
*Might sell some more computers (although this is highly unlikely as the people who really want Blu-Ray on a computer also likely want HDMI. Which means more cost and development moving in a direction counter to the move to DisplayPort).
What proof do you have to any of these points you raise? None? You are pushing them to backup you points. For example, why would you have an increased performance hit on a machine without a blu-ray drive in it? How would this be any different to when Apple didn't install any DVD tools when there wasn't an Apple supplied DVD player in the machine?
Apple could bury the cost within their already high margins, or charge slightly more for blu-ray support (other companies do, why would it be bad for Apple to do this?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp
You could add onto that the very minimal loss in sales of movies through iTunes, but nobody in the know thinks that iTunes profits are anywhere high enough to lead business decisions. Even independent analyst have said that iTunes profits are marginal at best.
The loss of sales would be minor, for the likes of me, I have purchased next to nothing when it comes to iTunes movies, and since they sell SD movies for more than blu-ray prices I can't see this changing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp
At least that is my take on it. Personally, I am glad that Apple isn't messing with Blu-Ray. That is why I have a PS3.
Apples lack of blu-ray support is why I have two ps3's, I would have purchased a Mac with blu-ray, but Apple decided I should give my money to Sony instead.
The DRM issue is an odd one. It's the content owners that want DRM. This is one item that kept content owners away from HD DVD. Small owners like FOX and Disney. . .
But iTunes videos have DRM in them, they are more restrictive as Apple only allows their hardware and iTunes for windows to play them
Lack of Blu-ray hasn't stopped anyone from buying a Mac or any other computer.
It stopped me from getting a Mac, I would have purchased a Mini with blu-ray, but since Apple didn't want to sell me one I purchased a second PS3 instead.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
That was an old statistic, and an incorrect one. The majority of those download figures were actually VOD. Movie downloads are still a fraction of Blu-ray.
So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).
I have these vision issues you talk about, what I did was get glasses, it meant I could see properly while wearing them
And I can loan my blu-rays to parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, friends, etc, who own players by Sony (not just the PS3), Pioneer, Samsung, Oppo, Panasonic and so on. I'm not such a fan of handing my iPod around for people to view.
Yes, also with Blu-ray you get the movie and the storage. For downloads you pay for the movie, then you pay for the hard drive storage, then you pay for another hard drive to back up the movies, then you get another hard drive and juggle between them when the drive is full. And on top of that, many movie download are more expensive than Blu-ray on Amazon. Thanks but no thanks.
But iTunes videos have DRM in them, they are more restrictive as Apple only allows their hardware and iTunes for windows to play them
Aye, i meant to sound like I was agreeing. I don't get bashing Blu-ray as a format when it was based in the needs of the studios who own the content and seek to protect it from misuse. I think people forget that DVD has encryption and region encoding but it's so easily cracked and software for (illegally) ripping is commonplace.
Is there the belief that those same studios are going to drop protections just because it's downloaded?
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
Because both are emergent technology that compete to replace DVD as the primary medium. As such both SD and HD digital downloads are considered together.
Arguing otherwise would be like saying that only high-fidelity lossless audio digitial downloads (essentially zero) should have been considered against DVD-A and SACD and not lossy 96 kbit MP3/AAC downloads. Digital downloads may not have totally replaced CDs but it sure did kill DVD-A and SACD as mainstream media.
The Q1 numbers from DEG are:
"The DEG also announced that Blu-ray Disc hardware sales experienced remarkable growth, with set-tops up an astounding 125 percent versus first quarter 2009. Additionally, digital distribution, which includes electronic sell-through (EST) and video-on-demand (VOD), grew a combined 27 percent to $617 million in the first quarter compared to the same period last year."
(go to the press releases...the relevant one is dated 4/15/10)
Personally, I only buy either cheap BR discs or ones with Digital Copy included (largely the Disney ones). MOST of the time, viewing is done on a iPhone/iPod Touch and only occasionally on the BR on the big screen (100" FP). On the smaller LCD TV uprezed DVD or even the crappier SD digitial copy works fine for non-critical viewing.
I don't think the BR will go the way of DVDA/SACD but I do think that digital downloads will significantly limit BR to ultimately have less than half of the market.
That's hilarious. Have you ever seen a Blu-Ray movie? A minute (perhaps on older players, not on a PS3) wait for the menu to pop up is a small, small price to pay for 45mbit 1080p video with lossless audio.
Compare to a 5mbit 720p DD5.1 iTunes download. See the difference? I know I do.
Who said I used itunes vs 1080p who knows what mbit ps cause we all encode via CRF not a target bit rate.
Btw, I doubt you hear any diff with DD vs. lossless audio. No one ever complained about artifacts in it before.
That's an absurd statement. Regardless of those checks, it's still far faster for the Blu-ray to load and start playing than it is to download a file. If the U.S. were on the verge of supplying low-cost high-speed internet access along the lines of what's available in South Korea, I might agree that Blu-ray is completely unnecessary. But until then, and for those who want the highest quality in both picture and multichannel sound, BR is the way to go.
Personally, I have a separate combo BR/CD Audio/SACD player plugged into my audio/home theatre system, but it would still be nice if Apple would support BR so I could use those same discs on my laptop from time to time.
The thing that bothers me the most about Apple's lack of support (hell..just support it in the OS and let third parties supply the hardware) is not so much the hardware choice, but Apple's arrogance in the matter. Apple was always supposed to represent the highest quality - that's one of the things we were paying the Apple premium for. 720p is not the highest quality and their library is not very large in any case. But this still looks to me not like a strategic technology decision, but more like Jobs' personal feelings and to protect Apple store revenue.
Guess you don't know about ------ and how I can start viewing 1080p instantly and download 1+MiB a second. Btw, how instant is you going to the video store or waiting for a day for a BD to arrive via netflix?
Comments
but misplaced. The sources were cited in my post: Strategic Analytics and FutureSource among others. The video games and music dowloads were broken out as separate delivery populations wherever I checked.
I am personally fine with whatever format is your pleasure, but do not assume that because numbers do not meet your desires, or that reported numbers conflict depend on source that I have any skin in this game whatsoever. My only chief concern is that the head of the organization that has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray reports numbers that do not completely jive with numbers reported by other sources. I am a jaded cynic, and whether I think blu-ray delivers a superior media experience has very little to do with whether I think that the statistics he reports are deliberately cast in the best possible light and do not maintain the highest possible data integrity.
As for your secondary post about power and data center impacts - is it your intent to say that the landfill issue is therefore unimportant because it sucks LESS? That is highly irresponsible and the numbers escalate rapidly as the dumping continues, yes? Power generation and it's impact can be mitigated, the generational half-life of the long-string hydrocarbons in the dump cannot.
So basically what your saying is that you like to be very aggressive/jackass/asshole against people with your posts and at the same time you don't want to admit that your sales figures are wrong making your main point in terms of sales moot and at the same time that your environment point is also essentially moot.
Does this include SD and HD? If it includes SD, DVD's would have to be included into comparison.
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
I think you're overestimating the average consumer. I have Blu-Ray and while it's better than the average DVD (especially with upsampling), it's not like watching Hi-Def compared to 1960s Black and White. It's a very subtle difference - and if the movie's any good, you'll be watching the movie rather than examining pixels.
Considering your constant Apple praise, even when they have done something terrible means I can't really believe what you say in relation to other products.
There is a massive difference between blu-ray and DVD, and a large difference between blu-ray and upscaled DVD
Second, it's all about compatibility. When I buy a movie, I'd like to be able to watch it on my TV, but also load it onto my iPad, my daughter's iPod, or play it on a portable DVD player or computer. Because of the cost and licensing restrictions of BD, that's not going to happen any time soon.
Compatibility? You have tried to play the compatibility card with blu-ray, and iTunes videos?
Let's see, I have purchased a video from iTunes, I would like to play it on non Apple hardware. What do you mean I can't? I have to purchase a computer, or Apple hardware to view it? Is Apple that greedy that they want to restrict the advancement of digital downloads by placing greedy, backward restrictions on the playback?
I can purchase a blu-ray player from a number of difference companies, I can purchase portable blu-ray players, I can purchase blu-ray drives for computers. The only one with restrictions is Apple.
Bottom line is that the Blu-Ray consortium was greedy. Instead of pushing for rapid adoption and wide-spread sales, they decided to add onerous DRM and to set extremely high pricing - both of which slow adoption. The result is that BD doesn't drive the market they way they should at this stage in the cycle.
DRM? What are you talking about, the iTunes videos are full of DRM as well, more restrictive DRM than in Blu-ray.
The problem, though, is that you're assuming that the cost of doing business is the same in the UK as in the US. You have very different laws and rules and it costs more to do business there. The prices reflect that.
Why does it cost the same to purchase a Mac from an Apple store in the UK as it does to purchase the same Mac purchased through the Apple Online store, you know the one, the one that is sold in Ireland and shipped from China to the UK.
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
I think what it comes down to is SJ doesn't think there is a payoff since the experience would be lackluster on Apple platforms and to some extent I agree with that. Viewing Blu-ray video on laptops and desktops are not my first choice and the audio experience is a disappointment to say the least. I'm lost on the licensing arguments since that's all wrapped up in the player. Content owners can choose not to use BD+ and region coding.
To those that don't see or hear the difference on your HT, the only thing I can recommend is make sure your listening to lossless and get your display calibrated. Detail due to better codecs and bandwidth, color-depth, and 6x the pixels over DVD and the content is non-interlaced on the disc. All goodness.
-Chris
My system is a couple of years old, but it was a top of the line 55" LCD projection system with LED lighting (Samsung, I think, but I don't remember). Connected directly to a same-brand Blu-Ray/DVD player with HDMI cable. Audio is a Sony amp with Infinity speakers all around. So just what am I doing wrong?
I would say it is your vision, go get your eyes checked.
Really? Where?
Amazon.com, maybe you have heard of them?
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
You know, no matter which way we slice it, I think there will always (unfortunately) be a stigma attached to the blu-ray format. Those who were against it from day one will always feel that it undeservedly won the format war and those who were for it will always wonder how much more success it may have enjoyed had the whole format war never happened. Would we even be debating about whether Macs will ever get blu-ray drives or how soon digital downloads will be become the norm? The truth is, we'll never know. Back in reality, I'll continue to enjoy my movies on blu-ray until it's replaced by the next big thing, whatever that may be.
I can purchase a blu-ray player from a number of difference companies, I can purchase portable blu-ray players, I can purchase blu-ray drives for computers. The only one with restrictions is Apple.
And I can loan my blu-rays to parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, friends, etc, who own players by Sony (not just the PS3), Pioneer, Samsung, Oppo, Panasonic and so on. I'm not such a fan of handing my iPod around for people to view.
DRM? What are you talking about, the iTunes videos are full of DRM as well, more restrictive DRM than in Blu-ray.
The DRM issue is an odd one. It's the content owners that want DRM. This is one item that kept content owners away from HD DVD. Small owners like FOX and Disney. . .
-Chris
It is more complicated than that. Not only does the hardware have to be specialized for Blu-Ray playback, but so does the operating system. From my understanding, there is a performance hit on the system related to simply building Blu-Ray playback into a computer's OS.
Yes this a known fact as for the OS support, but performance hit it purely guesswork, and until they release an OS with support for AACS then any ideas placed forward don't really count for anything.
Now, let's look at this from Apple's perspective.
If we are looking at it from Apple's perspective then the answer is much simpler. Apple is pushing for digital downloads, and Blu-ray is superior to digital downloads.
Support Blu-Ray:
Minuses
*Additional cost which either equates to higher prices or lower margins.
*Decreased performance due to required DRM demands
*Decreased battery life due to required DRM demands, even on systems that might not have Blu-Ray
*Increased complexity of OS code due to required DRM
*More people having access to proprietary OS code during validation that DRM has been properly implemented
*Longer time between OS updates as another, outside source must vet the new code to determine that no DRM bypasses are possible
*Increased time to require optical drives to support payback of investment in Blu-Ray
Pluses
*Might sell some more computers (although this is highly unlikely as the people who really want Blu-Ray on a computer also likely want HDMI. Which means more cost and development moving in a direction counter to the move to DisplayPort).
What proof do you have to any of these points you raise? None? You are pushing them to backup you points. For example, why would you have an increased performance hit on a machine without a blu-ray drive in it? How would this be any different to when Apple didn't install any DVD tools when there wasn't an Apple supplied DVD player in the machine?
Apple could bury the cost within their already high margins, or charge slightly more for blu-ray support (other companies do, why would it be bad for Apple to do this?)
You could add onto that the very minimal loss in sales of movies through iTunes, but nobody in the know thinks that iTunes profits are anywhere high enough to lead business decisions. Even independent analyst have said that iTunes profits are marginal at best.
The loss of sales would be minor, for the likes of me, I have purchased next to nothing when it comes to iTunes movies, and since they sell SD movies for more than blu-ray prices I can't see this changing.
At least that is my take on it. Personally, I am glad that Apple isn't messing with Blu-Ray. That is why I have a PS3.
Apples lack of blu-ray support is why I have two ps3's, I would have purchased a Mac with blu-ray, but Apple decided I should give my money to Sony instead.
The DRM issue is an odd one. It's the content owners that want DRM. This is one item that kept content owners away from HD DVD. Small owners like FOX and Disney. . .
But iTunes videos have DRM in them, they are more restrictive as Apple only allows their hardware and iTunes for windows to play them
Lack of Blu-ray hasn't stopped anyone from buying a Mac or any other computer.
It stopped me from getting a Mac, I would have purchased a Mini with blu-ray, but since Apple didn't want to sell me one I purchased a second PS3 instead.
Digital downloads (sources Sony Playstation Store, XBox Live, iTunes, Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have grown to roughly $1 billion per year compared to $400 million for Blu-ray.
That was an old statistic, and an incorrect one. The majority of those download figures were actually VOD. Movie downloads are still a fraction of Blu-ray.
So fully one half of the potential US market has no chance to remark upon the evident quality of Blu-ray, or can in fact appreciate it (at least without some considerable correction).
I have these vision issues you talk about, what I did was get glasses, it meant I could see properly while wearing them
And I can loan my blu-rays to parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, friends, etc, who own players by Sony (not just the PS3), Pioneer, Samsung, Oppo, Panasonic and so on. I'm not such a fan of handing my iPod around for people to view.
Yes, also with Blu-ray you get the movie and the storage. For downloads you pay for the movie, then you pay for the hard drive storage, then you pay for another hard drive to back up the movies, then you get another hard drive and juggle between them when the drive is full. And on top of that, many movie download are more expensive than Blu-ray on Amazon. Thanks but no thanks.
But iTunes videos have DRM in them, they are more restrictive as Apple only allows their hardware and iTunes for windows to play them
Aye, i meant to sound like I was agreeing. I don't get bashing Blu-ray as a format when it was based in the needs of the studios who own the content and seek to protect it from misuse. I think people forget that DVD has encryption and region encoding but it's so easily cracked and software for (illegally) ripping is commonplace.
Is there the belief that those same studios are going to drop protections just because it's downloaded?
Bingo. Every digital distribution figure I've ever seen was a combination of SD and HD, rentals and sales, and yet that all-encompassing figure is what's always compared to Blu-Ray. This makes absolutely zero sense. Let's see how the digital HD sales figures compare to blu-ray's $331M from Q1 2010 alone. Oh wait, we can't because the figures are so low that no one will release them.
Because both are emergent technology that compete to replace DVD as the primary medium. As such both SD and HD digital downloads are considered together.
Arguing otherwise would be like saying that only high-fidelity lossless audio digitial downloads (essentially zero) should have been considered against DVD-A and SACD and not lossy 96 kbit MP3/AAC downloads. Digital downloads may not have totally replaced CDs but it sure did kill DVD-A and SACD as mainstream media.
The Q1 numbers from DEG are:
"The DEG also announced that Blu-ray Disc hardware sales experienced remarkable growth, with set-tops up an astounding 125 percent versus first quarter 2009. Additionally, digital distribution, which includes electronic sell-through (EST) and video-on-demand (VOD), grew a combined 27 percent to $617 million in the first quarter compared to the same period last year."
http://www.degonline.org/
(go to the press releases...the relevant one is dated 4/15/10)
Personally, I only buy either cheap BR discs or ones with Digital Copy included (largely the Disney ones). MOST of the time, viewing is done on a iPhone/iPod Touch and only occasionally on the BR on the big screen (100" FP). On the smaller LCD TV uprezed DVD or even the crappier SD digitial copy works fine for non-critical viewing.
I don't think the BR will go the way of DVDA/SACD but I do think that digital downloads will significantly limit BR to ultimately have less than half of the market.
That's hilarious. Have you ever seen a Blu-Ray movie? A minute (perhaps on older players, not on a PS3) wait for the menu to pop up is a small, small price to pay for 45mbit 1080p video with lossless audio.
Compare to a 5mbit 720p DD5.1 iTunes download. See the difference? I know I do.
Who said I used itunes vs 1080p who knows what mbit ps cause we all encode via CRF not a target bit rate.
Btw, I doubt you hear any diff with DD vs. lossless audio. No one ever complained about artifacts in it before.
Nice to see the advocacy of theft. Can we get that in writing?? The MPAA might be interested in your statements. BTW, I am joking but not.
Don't give a shit.
That's an absurd statement. Regardless of those checks, it's still far faster for the Blu-ray to load and start playing than it is to download a file. If the U.S. were on the verge of supplying low-cost high-speed internet access along the lines of what's available in South Korea, I might agree that Blu-ray is completely unnecessary. But until then, and for those who want the highest quality in both picture and multichannel sound, BR is the way to go.
Personally, I have a separate combo BR/CD Audio/SACD player plugged into my audio/home theatre system, but it would still be nice if Apple would support BR so I could use those same discs on my laptop from time to time.
The thing that bothers me the most about Apple's lack of support (hell..just support it in the OS and let third parties supply the hardware) is not so much the hardware choice, but Apple's arrogance in the matter. Apple was always supposed to represent the highest quality - that's one of the things we were paying the Apple premium for. 720p is not the highest quality and their library is not very large in any case. But this still looks to me not like a strategic technology decision, but more like Jobs' personal feelings and to protect Apple store revenue.
Guess you don't know about ------ and how I can start viewing 1080p instantly and download 1+MiB a second. Btw, how instant is you going to the video store or waiting for a day for a BD to arrive via netflix?