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?
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):
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. \
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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'. \
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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:
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)
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.
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.
Comments
Have you tasted baby harp seal? Delicious.
I am so just kidding.
.
I'm thinking fried? Maybe as an entree?
Also kidding!!!
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?
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
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.
.
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.
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
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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'.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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]
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
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.
[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
.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
.
"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?"
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.
.