... But the fact that the majority of new movies are coming out in both standard def DVD and HD formats on the same day is a major incentive for people to make the switch sooner rather than later. As I've said, I don't have an HD TV and it's almost compelling to me to start buying Blu-Ray discs now and not have to worry about replacing DVD's later.
However, there's also another way to look at it. With the competing HD format war, there's little incentive to buy into one of the HD formats or to buy SD-DVDs when they come out. This makes an even more compelling reason to rent new releases from Netflix or Blockbuster.
The thing about blu-ray to get the best of it you need buy a 1080p TV Until they come down to 1/2 or 1/3 of what they are now. Its out of range for most.
TV store mostly have 720p range, if you going to buy 1080p is a must.
I've got a 1080x1920 screen in my 24" iMac and play HD next to the OLD res, my god HD is so much better it not funny.
Just a TV is more than my 24" iMac, the pricing is still out of sink.
When Apple releases a 24" iMac with blue ray i'll be line up for that.
The real thing is what will the local Video store do? I'm not buying anything until the video store has a range, most of us rent.
I could not find 1 video store with either Blu-ray or HD-DVD on the internet in Auckland, New Zealand.
The only place I've seen Blu-ray is at the sony style store, then they only had 9 discs
I say in 1 year timing will be right for upgrade.
One things is for sure, Im skipping 720p, on going 1080p any likely be blu-ray with the PS3.
First, comments on everybody else's comments. My original comments follow....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
Depends on how quickly they and HDTV sets go down in price.
Most TVs larger than 30" already have some amount of HD support. Many smaller ones do as well. This covers just about everything people are going be using in their living rooms, where movies are typically watched.
Sure, the differences will be more noticeable on a giant 60" screen, but that doesn't mean you need a 60" screen to watch HD movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBaggins
When you start seeing good name-brand HDTVs (not EDTVs) for $299 that are larger than a postage stamp, THEN it'll be the year of HDTV. I'm guessing 2010.
So, to you, not only do people have to be able to receive HD content, and have an HD capable TV, but it has to be sold for throw-away prices, and you have to be able to get those prices from the most expensive brands.
By your definition, the year of standard-def TV hasn't arrived yet, nor has DVD. After all, the cheap $30 devices are all from no-name brands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984
Blu-Ray will replace DVD for me when Apple gets off their collective duff and starts offing it in their computers.
You only plan on watching movies on your computer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
I also hated Walt Mossberg's column last week, where he told people not to buy into either format and wait for universal players or discs instead. That's not the way to settle the war.
Most consumers aren't interested in promoting the technically superior format. They just want to watch movies. If hybrid players are sold, that solves the problem.
If you pick a side and invest in lots of equipment, then you may be forced to throw it away if you happen to have picked the losing side. Maybe that's OK for you. I wouldn't do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bevos
The thing about blu-ray to get the best of it you need buy a 1080p TV Until they come down to 1/2 or 1/3 of what they are now. Its out of range for most.
TV store mostly have 720p range, if you going to buy 1080p is a must.
Sure, a 1080p set may look better, but even a 720p set will look better than DVD on an SD set.
The typical consumer doesn't care about specs. They just want better-looking movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bevos
The only place I've seen Blu-ray is at the sony style store, then they only had 9 discs
That's in New Zealand. In the US, they are more common. Best Buy (a common electronics store chain) has several dozen titles in both BD and HDDVD format.
IMO, both BD and HDDVD have market penetration similar to what DVD has in its first year.
- - - - - - -
And now my comments.
I think it really doesn't matter, if all you're thinking about are movies. Both HDDVD and BD use H.264 video encoding. Both will end up looking just as good on whatever device you choose to show them on. Sure, BD can hold more (25G vs 15G per layer, and support for more layers), but even at 1080p, most movies will fit comfortably at either capacity.
Do the math. H.264 gets a 2:1 compression advantage over MPEG-2 (used by DVD). HD content has about 6 times as many pixels (HD=1920x1080 = 2MP, SD =720x480=0.35MP). This means a movie on BD or HDDVD will be about 3 times larger than the same movie on DVD. A dual-layer DVD has a maximum capacity of 8.5GB. 3x that is 25.5GB = well within the capacity of either disc (30G for a dual-layer HDDVD, or 50G for a dual-layer BD).
The additional capacity of BD will only be significant for two applications, and I don't think either one is going to sway consumers in their choice.
The first is for compilations and box-sets. BD's 66% higher capacity means more episodes can be shipped on a single disc. With DVD, you typically get 4 hour-long TV eposides per disc. This is up to 2.125GB per episode. With HD-DVD and BD, we get H.264 compression, making each episode up to 1.06GB (assuming the video is still SD, of course. If old film stock is re-digitized at 1080i, then we're looking at 6.375G per episode, which changes all the numbers quite a bit). This means an HD-DVD disc can hold 28 episodes, and BD can hold 47 episodes. Since a typical TV season is 22-26 episodes, we're looking at whole-season releases on a single disc.
The other justification - the one I'm most interested in - is for data storage. DVD is not very useful as a backup medium, because it takes multiple discs to back up a typical system these days. For those who don't want to use hard drives as their backup media, tape is the only viable option today. VXA-1 tape (one of the few large-capacity tape formats that most individuals can afford) stores up to 33G per tape. HDDVD's 30G per disc is comparable, but BD's 50G capacity is significantly superior. Even at today's prices, BD-RE is price-competitive against tape backup devices, and BD's prices will almost certainly come down in a few years.
All this discussion is based on today's standards - 2-layer discs only. In the future, HD-DVD is promising 3-layer discs (45G capacity), and BD is promising 4-layer discs (100G capacity), with a theoretically possible 8-layer (200G) BD disc.
Neither of these will matter for single movies, but the difference will be tremendous for box sets.
3-layer HD-DVD will be able to hold 42 episodes, 4-layer BD, however, will be able to hold 94 episodes, and 8-layer BD will be able to hold 188 episodes. This means it will become possible to sell box sets of daily shows (like soap operas, or evening talk shows) can become a possibility. With these capacities, a typical season of an hour-long daily show (about 250 episodes) could be packaged on 6 3-layer HD-DVD discs, 3 4-layer BD discs, or 2 8-layer BD discs.
It also allows the possibility of whole-series box sets. For instance, Seinfeld's 9 seasons consist of about 175 episodes. This can fit on a single 8-layer BD. It would require 5 3-layer HD-DVD discs.
But the real advantage of BD over HD-DVD is for computer backup. HD-DVD's top capacity of 45G (for 3 layers) is still smaller than BD-RE's 2-layer capacity. And BD's 4- and 8-layer formats will sport capacities that rival today's industrial tape formats (like SDLT, which stores 400G per tape). And it is far more likely that 4- and 8-layer BD-RE drives will become affordable to consumers than high-capacity tape.
But none of these advantages mean a thing for single-movie discs, and I think that is the content that will ultimately determine which format wins the war.
Considering that about half of all Tv's sold in the US last year were large flatscreen models, the prices seem to have already come down far enough. They will drop an estimated 25 to 35% again by the end of this year. They will drop further in 2008 and beyond. I see no problem here.
I had an Xbox 360 last year and thought about getting the $199 HD-DVD player add-on as the price was right. However, I bought the Wii and PS3 later on and decided to let go with the Xbox 360 and the whole HD-DVD route.
I have NetFlix and started to rent Blu-ray titles. I never had a chance to experiece the HD-DVD format, but Blu-ray looks good to me. As far as the movie studio concern, I only miss out releases from Universal Studio and some little one. I also purchased a few Blu-ray movies as well.
Considering that about half of all Tv's sold in the US last year were large flatscreen models, the prices seem to have already come down far enough. They will drop an estimated 25 to 35% again by the end of this year. They will drop further in 2008 and beyond. I see no problem here.
Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?
Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?
It doesn't matter. Not everyone who would buy this will buy it right away. Millions of homes do have these Tv's, and that would be enough for sales to get going.
Remember that was last year. Purchases of these Tv's are accelerating this year, and it is this year that Apple is selling this product. Actually, we are already almost through with the first quarter of the year, and the ATv will just be reaching homes in the next few days.
As the year goes on, there will be millions of new Hi Def sets sold, so no problem there.
Besides, I've been saying that a certain percentage of people who would be buying a Hi DEf would buy one more quickly because of the ATV. Some people on this site have confirmed that they plan to do just that.
Most TVs larger than 30" already have some amount of HD support. Many smaller ones do as well. This covers just about everything people are going be using in their living rooms, where movies are typically watched.
Yet even so, HDTV adoption is slow... as of only a few months ago, only 12 percent of US homes had an HDTV set:
As of July 2006, about 12 percent of U.S. homes had at least one HDTV set, up from 7 percent a year earlier, according to Leichtman Research Group.
I think people ooh/ahh over the fact that HDTV *sales* are nearing parity with SDTV sales, but forget the fact that not everyone is out buying a new set every year. It's like computers... there's an upgrade cycle, and most people replace their sets only once every several years.
Thus, we have a-ways to go before the majority of folks have HDTVs. Especially since a large price delta remains... Joe Sixpack can still walk into Wal-mart and get a perfectly nice brand-name 27" SDTV for $150-200. HDTV pricing is getting more reasonable, but still needs to drop some more. I give it a couple of years.
Quote:
So, to you, not only do people have to be able to receive HD content, and have an HD capable TV, but it has to be sold for throw-away prices, and you have to be able to get those prices from the most expensive brands.
Certainly, none of that hurts. 8) But also, you don't have to get those prices from the most expensive brands (Sony, etc.), just brands that the mainstream have heard of, aka not the 'Ghetto-quality anonymous Chinese make of the Month'™.
Trust is still an issue in consumer electronics. Many people still will only buy name-brand, despite the fact that they break too (just a little less often).
Quote:
By your definition, the year of standard-def TV hasn't arrived yet, nor has DVD. After all, the cheap $30 devices are all from no-name brands.
Where have you been? You can get a perfectly nice progressive scan DVD player from Phillips, a name brand, for $39. And I doubt the $9 price delta between them and the fly-by-nights has hurt any:
But perhaps you misunderstand... my assertion is not that adoption only happens after a device is available from name brands at rock-bottom prices, it's that it happens after it's available from name brands at a price that is REASONABLE to the MAINSTREAM.
By that definition, SDTVs and DVD players have been mainstream for many years... obviously.
Quote:
You only plan on watching movies on your computer?
Some people do. I often find myself watching DVDs on my laptop while lying in bed. It's cozy.
Quote:
Most consumers aren't interested in promoting the technically superior format. They just want to watch movies. If hybrid players are sold, that solves the problem.
I'd agree with that. And it's part of the reason why Blu-Ray wants to knock out HD-DVD quickly, before hybrid players drop in price enough to be a viable solution. They may get their wish.
Quote:
Sure, a 1080p set may look better, but even a 720p set will look better than DVD on an SD set.
The typical consumer doesn't care about specs. They just want better-looking movies.
You're right. I find myself looking at 32" 720p LCD HDTVs... the prices are getting closer to reasonable now, and at that screen size 1080p isn't that huge an advantage.
(But of course we all still wish that 50"+ 1080p HDTVs were affordable, don't we? 8) )
Quote:
IMO, both BD and HDDVD have market penetration similar to what DVD has in its first year.
Which ain't much, of course. But yes, just like DVD, give it 5-6 years or so and it'll be dominant... DVD launched in 1997, but it took until 2003 before it outpaced VHS in rentals revenue. Old formats die hard. \
- - - - - - -
Oh and btw, thank you for your education on Blu-Ray storage capacities & compression and what that will mean for TV show box-sets and the like (which is what I usually buy). Great stuff.
Some people complain that since Blu-Ray media costs so much more than DVD media, box-set prices will inevitably rise a lot due to Blu-Ray, but they don't realize how many fewer discs you need for such box sets with BR, thus offsetting that penalty.
Mel's probably right in that HDTV sales are nearing parity with SDTVs, but is perhaps forgetting the fact that not everyone is out there replacing their old sets every year (or not- Mel's a pretty sharp guy). HDTVs could be 50% of the market in '07, and you'd still have way less than 50% of US homes with HDTVs simply because only a fraction of households were interested in buying a new TV in '07. Folks sometimes forget that. \
Of course, HDTV prices are dropping all the time. By 2009 or 2010, they won't be much of a barrier to adoption anymore, even for Joe Average who probably still likes his $200 Wal-mart SDTV.
Mel's probably right in that HDTV sales are nearing parity with SDTVs, but is perhaps forgetting the fact that not everyone is out there replacing their old sets every year. HDTVs could be 50% of the market in '07, and you'd still have way less than 50% of US homes with HDTVs simply because only a fraction of households were interested in buying a new TV in '07. Folks sometimes forget that. \
Of course, HDTV prices are dropping all the time. By 2009 or 2010, they won't be much of a barrier to adoption anymore, even for Joe Average who probably still likes his $200 Wal-mart SDTV.
.
No, believe me, I'm aware of it. I had a 23" Sony for 15 years, until the tuner died. Then we bought a 32" Sony to replace it. That was ten years ago. Early in 2006, We bought an Hp 65" 1080p DLP, and placed the 32" in the bedroom.
The point here is that those who are about to, or have recently, spent a couple of thousand, or so, to buy a Hi Def model are more likely to also buy the ATv. Many of these people also purchase surround sound systems, etc. If they also have an iPod, and use iTunes, they are even more likely to buy one.
If 10 million homes have, or will soon have a Hi Def Tv, that's surely a good enough customer base for a start. That number will increase by millions by the end of this year.
No, believe me, I'm aware of it. I had a 23" Sony for 15 years, until the tuner died. Then we bought a 32" Sony to replace it. That was ten years ago. Early in 2006, We bought an Hp 65" 1080p DLP, and placed the 32" in the bedroom.
The point here is that those who are about to, or have recently, spent a couple of thousand, or so, to buy a Hi Def model are more likely to also buy the ATv. Many of these people also purchase surround sound systems, etc. If they also have an iPod, and use iTunes, they are even more likely to buy one.
If 10 million homes have, or will soon have a Hi Def Tv, that's surely a good enough customer base for a start. That number will increase by millions by the end of this year.
You're absolutely right, and Apple's timing is excellent here. There's finally a big enough user base for AppleTV to do 'well enough' initially, and that user base is only going to grow rapidly though the next few years. Apple's putting its foot in the door at just about the perfect time... they're one of the first, but not so early that the product lands with a thud.
I still think that there's a good chance that the turnover will be mostly complete in five years.
As the prices rapidly drop (Sony has announced a standalone player for $599), more people will adopt them. The more people adopt them, the more prices will drop.
The advantage here, is that they will play your current DVD's, and do, or will play, the CD formats as well. Thus, no one is losing anything by moving to it, which is very different from any other new format moves that went before, other than 33 1/3 long play turntables, and changers, playing old 78's (and usually, very poorly)
We also no longer have the VCR record capability vs the player only aspect of the early DVD players to contend with.
Moving over will be a plug and play situation, which is just what the average consumer wants, and needs.
You're absolutely right, and Apple's timing is excellent here. There's finally a big enough user base for AppleTV to do 'well enough' initially, and that user base is only going to grow rapidly though the next few years. Apple's putting its foot in the door at just about the perfect time... they're one of the first, but not so early that the product lands with a thud.
And I'm envious of your 65" 1080p set.
.
If Apple had come out with this at the beginning of 2006, it would have been more questionable.
The set is really good. I bought that one, because, at the time, it was the only 1080p set to have 1080p available through the HDMI (with HDCP) input.
You can truly see the difference between 1080p and 720p content, IF you are close enough. That means close. Eight feet, max. We normally sit at twelve feet, meaning that we can only see barely more than 720p. To see 1080p at our distance, we need a 90" screen. I'm looking at front projection. Sigh! Never happy.
I still think that there's a good chance that the turnover will be mostly complete in five years.
As the prices rapidly drop (Sony has announced a standalone player for $599), more people will adopt them. The more people adopt them, the more prices will drop.
The advantage here, is that they will play your current DVD's, and do, or will play, the CD formats as well. Thus, no one is losing anything by moving to it, which is very different from any other new format moves that went before, other than 33 1/3 long play turntables, and changers, playing old 78's (and usually, very poorly)
We also no longer have the VCR record capability vs the player only aspect of the early DVD players to contend with.
Moving over will be a plug and play situation, which is just what the average consumer wants, and needs.
Yes, but by the same token, slow HDTV adoption rates are a hurdle that DVD didn't have to contend with. It very likely won't be until 2009-2010 that the majority of folks will even have HDTVs, and most won't be thinking of getting a hi-def player until they do. \
The analysts I've heard say it'll take five years for hi-def DVD to achieve marketshare parity with DVD. That sounds about right. Domination would occur a couple of years after. Ironically, that would make the DVD-to-hi-def DVD changeover no faster than the VHS-to-DVD one, despite the many advantages that hi-def seemingly has in this transition.
That said, I'm looking forward to it, as I am becoming something of a videophile-in-the-making. 8)
If I understand correctly... In an HD DVD player you cannot play your standrad DVD's (backwards compatibility). However, in Blu-Ray you can.
That to me is a MAJOR determining factor in which one will ultimately come out the winner here. I mean sure people want the best quality... but lets face it. The general consumer is not going to fork out another thousand dollars or more to go re-purchase their movies. And having a DVD player and HD DVD player hooked up with splitters and hubs like you had to do with VHS before the combo DVD/VHS players were out is just overkill and annoying for your entertainment centers.
The backwards compatibility will be the end of HD DVD and the advantage of Blu-Ray.
If I understand correctly... In an HD DVD player you cannot play your standrad DVD's (backwards compatibility). However, in Blu-Ray you can.
That to me is a MAJOR determining factor in which one will ultimately come out the winner here. I mean sure people want the best quality... but lets face it. The general consumer is not going to fork out another thousand dollars or more to go re-purchase their movies. And having a DVD player and HD DVD player hooked up with splitters and hubs like you had to do with VHS before the combo DVD/VHS players were out is just overkill and annoying for your entertainment centers.
The backwards compatibility will be the end of HD DVD and the advantage of Blu-Ray.
Again... if I am understanding correctly.
No, most HD-DVD players are backwards-compatible with DVDs also, just like Blu-Ray.
That said, most people feel that Blu-Ray will win the format war, in large part due to the 'Trojan Horse' effect of all PlayStation 3s having a Blu-ray drive in them. Also, more movie studios support Blu-ray than HD-DVD, and retailers don't really want to have to support two hi-def DVD formats.
Comments
...
... But the fact that the majority of new movies are coming out in both standard def DVD and HD formats on the same day is a major incentive for people to make the switch sooner rather than later. As I've said, I don't have an HD TV and it's almost compelling to me to start buying Blu-Ray discs now and not have to worry about replacing DVD's later.
However, there's also another way to look at it. With the competing HD format war, there's little incentive to buy into one of the HD formats or to buy SD-DVDs when they come out. This makes an even more compelling reason to rent new releases from Netflix or Blockbuster.
TV store mostly have 720p range, if you going to buy 1080p is a must.
I've got a 1080x1920 screen in my 24" iMac and play HD next to the OLD res, my god HD is so much better it not funny.
Just a TV is more than my 24" iMac, the pricing is still out of sink.
When Apple releases a 24" iMac with blue ray i'll be line up for that.
The real thing is what will the local Video store do? I'm not buying anything until the video store has a range, most of us rent.
I could not find 1 video store with either Blu-ray or HD-DVD on the internet in Auckland, New Zealand.
The only place I've seen Blu-ray is at the sony style store, then they only had 9 discs
I say in 1 year timing will be right for upgrade.
One things is for sure, Im skipping 720p, on going 1080p any likely be blu-ray with the PS3.
I recon the 24" iMac Blu-ray will come first.
Either way my bet on Blu-ray
just what we needed - yet another thread on blu-ray v HD-DVD. joy. someone should ban the person who started this new one....
I fully agree. AppleInsider totally needs to be banned. From AppleInsider. Mods, get hopping!
I fully agree. AppleInsider totally needs to be banned. From AppleInsider. Mods, get hopping!
exactly!
Depends on how quickly they and HDTV sets go down in price.
Most TVs larger than 30" already have some amount of HD support. Many smaller ones do as well. This covers just about everything people are going be using in their living rooms, where movies are typically watched.
Sure, the differences will be more noticeable on a giant 60" screen, but that doesn't mean you need a 60" screen to watch HD movies.
When you start seeing good name-brand HDTVs (not EDTVs) for $299 that are larger than a postage stamp, THEN it'll be the year of HDTV. I'm guessing 2010.
So, to you, not only do people have to be able to receive HD content, and have an HD capable TV, but it has to be sold for throw-away prices, and you have to be able to get those prices from the most expensive brands.
By your definition, the year of standard-def TV hasn't arrived yet, nor has DVD. After all, the cheap $30 devices are all from no-name brands.
Blu-Ray will replace DVD for me when Apple gets off their collective duff and starts offing it in their computers.
You only plan on watching movies on your computer?
I also hated Walt Mossberg's column last week, where he told people not to buy into either format and wait for universal players or discs instead. That's not the way to settle the war.
Most consumers aren't interested in promoting the technically superior format. They just want to watch movies. If hybrid players are sold, that solves the problem.
If you pick a side and invest in lots of equipment, then you may be forced to throw it away if you happen to have picked the losing side. Maybe that's OK for you. I wouldn't do it.
The thing about blu-ray to get the best of it you need buy a 1080p TV Until they come down to 1/2 or 1/3 of what they are now. Its out of range for most.
TV store mostly have 720p range, if you going to buy 1080p is a must.
Sure, a 1080p set may look better, but even a 720p set will look better than DVD on an SD set.
The typical consumer doesn't care about specs. They just want better-looking movies.
The only place I've seen Blu-ray is at the sony style store, then they only had 9 discs
That's in New Zealand. In the US, they are more common. Best Buy (a common electronics store chain) has several dozen titles in both BD and HDDVD format.
IMO, both BD and HDDVD have market penetration similar to what DVD has in its first year.
- - - - - - -
And now my comments.
I think it really doesn't matter, if all you're thinking about are movies. Both HDDVD and BD use H.264 video encoding. Both will end up looking just as good on whatever device you choose to show them on. Sure, BD can hold more (25G vs 15G per layer, and support for more layers), but even at 1080p, most movies will fit comfortably at either capacity.
Do the math. H.264 gets a 2:1 compression advantage over MPEG-2 (used by DVD). HD content has about 6 times as many pixels (HD=1920x1080 = 2MP, SD =720x480=0.35MP). This means a movie on BD or HDDVD will be about 3 times larger than the same movie on DVD. A dual-layer DVD has a maximum capacity of 8.5GB. 3x that is 25.5GB = well within the capacity of either disc (30G for a dual-layer HDDVD, or 50G for a dual-layer BD).
The additional capacity of BD will only be significant for two applications, and I don't think either one is going to sway consumers in their choice.
The first is for compilations and box-sets. BD's 66% higher capacity means more episodes can be shipped on a single disc. With DVD, you typically get 4 hour-long TV eposides per disc. This is up to 2.125GB per episode. With HD-DVD and BD, we get H.264 compression, making each episode up to 1.06GB (assuming the video is still SD, of course. If old film stock is re-digitized at 1080i, then we're looking at 6.375G per episode, which changes all the numbers quite a bit). This means an HD-DVD disc can hold 28 episodes, and BD can hold 47 episodes. Since a typical TV season is 22-26 episodes, we're looking at whole-season releases on a single disc.
The other justification - the one I'm most interested in - is for data storage. DVD is not very useful as a backup medium, because it takes multiple discs to back up a typical system these days. For those who don't want to use hard drives as their backup media, tape is the only viable option today. VXA-1 tape (one of the few large-capacity tape formats that most individuals can afford) stores up to 33G per tape. HDDVD's 30G per disc is comparable, but BD's 50G capacity is significantly superior. Even at today's prices, BD-RE is price-competitive against tape backup devices, and BD's prices will almost certainly come down in a few years.
All this discussion is based on today's standards - 2-layer discs only. In the future, HD-DVD is promising 3-layer discs (45G capacity), and BD is promising 4-layer discs (100G capacity), with a theoretically possible 8-layer (200G) BD disc.
Neither of these will matter for single movies, but the difference will be tremendous for box sets.
3-layer HD-DVD will be able to hold 42 episodes, 4-layer BD, however, will be able to hold 94 episodes, and 8-layer BD will be able to hold 188 episodes. This means it will become possible to sell box sets of daily shows (like soap operas, or evening talk shows) can become a possibility. With these capacities, a typical season of an hour-long daily show (about 250 episodes) could be packaged on 6 3-layer HD-DVD discs, 3 4-layer BD discs, or 2 8-layer BD discs.
It also allows the possibility of whole-series box sets. For instance, Seinfeld's 9 seasons consist of about 175 episodes. This can fit on a single 8-layer BD. It would require 5 3-layer HD-DVD discs.
But the real advantage of BD over HD-DVD is for computer backup. HD-DVD's top capacity of 45G (for 3 layers) is still smaller than BD-RE's 2-layer capacity. And BD's 4- and 8-layer formats will sport capacities that rival today's industrial tape formats (like SDLT, which stores 400G per tape). And it is far more likely that 4- and 8-layer BD-RE drives will become affordable to consumers than high-capacity tape.
But none of these advantages mean a thing for single-movie discs, and I think that is the content that will ultimately determine which format wins the war.
I had an Xbox 360 last year and thought about getting the $199 HD-DVD player add-on as the price was right. However, I bought the Wii and PS3 later on and decided to let go with the Xbox 360 and the whole HD-DVD route.
I have NetFlix and started to rent Blu-ray titles. I never had a chance to experiece the HD-DVD format, but Blu-ray looks good to me. As far as the movie studio concern, I only miss out releases from Universal Studio and some little one. I also purchased a few Blu-ray movies as well.
Considering that about half of all Tv's sold in the US last year were large flatscreen models, the prices seem to have already come down far enough. They will drop an estimated 25 to 35% again by the end of this year. They will drop further in 2008 and beyond. I see no problem here.
Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?
Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?
It doesn't matter. Not everyone who would buy this will buy it right away. Millions of homes do have these Tv's, and that would be enough for sales to get going.
Remember that was last year. Purchases of these Tv's are accelerating this year, and it is this year that Apple is selling this product. Actually, we are already almost through with the first quarter of the year, and the ATv will just be reaching homes in the next few days.
As the year goes on, there will be millions of new Hi Def sets sold, so no problem there.
Besides, I've been saying that a certain percentage of people who would be buying a Hi DEf would buy one more quickly because of the ATV. Some people on this site have confirmed that they plan to do just that.
Most TVs larger than 30" already have some amount of HD support. Many smaller ones do as well. This covers just about everything people are going be using in their living rooms, where movies are typically watched.
Yet even so, HDTV adoption is slow... as of only a few months ago, only 12 percent of US homes had an HDTV set:
As of July 2006, about 12 percent of U.S. homes had at least one HDTV set, up from 7 percent a year earlier, according to Leichtman Research Group.
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6375647.html
I think people ooh/ahh over the fact that HDTV *sales* are nearing parity with SDTV sales, but forget the fact that not everyone is out buying a new set every year. It's like computers... there's an upgrade cycle, and most people replace their sets only once every several years.
Thus, we have a-ways to go before the majority of folks have HDTVs. Especially since a large price delta remains... Joe Sixpack can still walk into Wal-mart and get a perfectly nice brand-name 27" SDTV for $150-200. HDTV pricing is getting more reasonable, but still needs to drop some more. I give it a couple of years.
So, to you, not only do people have to be able to receive HD content, and have an HD capable TV, but it has to be sold for throw-away prices, and you have to be able to get those prices from the most expensive brands.
Certainly, none of that hurts. 8) But also, you don't have to get those prices from the most expensive brands (Sony, etc.), just brands that the mainstream have heard of, aka not the 'Ghetto-quality anonymous Chinese make of the Month'™.
Trust is still an issue in consumer electronics. Many people still will only buy name-brand, despite the fact that they break too (just a little less often).
By your definition, the year of standard-def TV hasn't arrived yet, nor has DVD. After all, the cheap $30 devices are all from no-name brands.
Where have you been? You can get a perfectly nice progressive scan DVD player from Phillips, a name brand, for $39. And I doubt the $9 price delta between them and the fly-by-nights has hurt any:
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Phili...oductDetail.do
But perhaps you misunderstand... my assertion is not that adoption only happens after a device is available from name brands at rock-bottom prices, it's that it happens after it's available from name brands at a price that is REASONABLE to the MAINSTREAM.
By that definition, SDTVs and DVD players have been mainstream for many years... obviously.
You only plan on watching movies on your computer?
Some people do. I often find myself watching DVDs on my laptop while lying in bed. It's cozy.
Most consumers aren't interested in promoting the technically superior format. They just want to watch movies. If hybrid players are sold, that solves the problem.
I'd agree with that. And it's part of the reason why Blu-Ray wants to knock out HD-DVD quickly, before hybrid players drop in price enough to be a viable solution. They may get their wish.
Sure, a 1080p set may look better, but even a 720p set will look better than DVD on an SD set.
The typical consumer doesn't care about specs. They just want better-looking movies.
You're right. I find myself looking at 32" 720p LCD HDTVs... the prices are getting closer to reasonable now, and at that screen size 1080p isn't that huge an advantage.
(But of course we all still wish that 50"+ 1080p HDTVs were affordable, don't we? 8) )
IMO, both BD and HDDVD have market penetration similar to what DVD has in its first year.
Which ain't much, of course. But yes, just like DVD, give it 5-6 years or so and it'll be dominant... DVD launched in 1997, but it took until 2003 before it outpaced VHS in rentals revenue. Old formats die hard.
- - - - - - -
Oh and btw, thank you for your education on Blu-Ray storage capacities & compression and what that will mean for TV show box-sets and the like (which is what I usually buy). Great stuff.
Some people complain that since Blu-Ray media costs so much more than DVD media, box-set prices will inevitably rise a lot due to Blu-Ray, but they don't realize how many fewer discs you need for such box sets with BR, thus offsetting that penalty.
.
Mel, even if your 50% figure is correct, that begs the larger question: what percentage of homes have large screen TVs? 10%? 20%? 30%?
Don't know about large-screen TVs, but as of July 2006, only 12 percent of US homes had HDTVs:
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6375647.html
Mel's probably right in that HDTV sales are nearing parity with SDTVs, but is perhaps forgetting the fact that not everyone is out there replacing their old sets every year (or not- Mel's a pretty sharp guy). HDTVs could be 50% of the market in '07, and you'd still have way less than 50% of US homes with HDTVs simply because only a fraction of households were interested in buying a new TV in '07. Folks sometimes forget that.
Of course, HDTV prices are dropping all the time. By 2009 or 2010, they won't be much of a barrier to adoption anymore, even for Joe Average who probably still likes his $200 Wal-mart SDTV.
.
It *can* be in 3 years.
But it very likely won't be. 8)
.
Don't know about large-screen TVs, but as of July 2006, only 12 percent of US homes had HDTVs:
http://www.cedmagazine.com/article/CA6375647.html
Mel's probably right in that HDTV sales are nearing parity with SDTVs, but is perhaps forgetting the fact that not everyone is out there replacing their old sets every year. HDTVs could be 50% of the market in '07, and you'd still have way less than 50% of US homes with HDTVs simply because only a fraction of households were interested in buying a new TV in '07. Folks sometimes forget that.
Of course, HDTV prices are dropping all the time. By 2009 or 2010, they won't be much of a barrier to adoption anymore, even for Joe Average who probably still likes his $200 Wal-mart SDTV.
.
No, believe me, I'm aware of it. I had a 23" Sony for 15 years, until the tuner died. Then we bought a 32" Sony to replace it. That was ten years ago. Early in 2006, We bought an Hp 65" 1080p DLP, and placed the 32" in the bedroom.
The point here is that those who are about to, or have recently, spent a couple of thousand, or so, to buy a Hi Def model are more likely to also buy the ATv. Many of these people also purchase surround sound systems, etc. If they also have an iPod, and use iTunes, they are even more likely to buy one.
If 10 million homes have, or will soon have a Hi Def Tv, that's surely a good enough customer base for a start. That number will increase by millions by the end of this year.
No, believe me, I'm aware of it. I had a 23" Sony for 15 years, until the tuner died. Then we bought a 32" Sony to replace it. That was ten years ago. Early in 2006, We bought an Hp 65" 1080p DLP, and placed the 32" in the bedroom.
The point here is that those who are about to, or have recently, spent a couple of thousand, or so, to buy a Hi Def model are more likely to also buy the ATv. Many of these people also purchase surround sound systems, etc. If they also have an iPod, and use iTunes, they are even more likely to buy one.
If 10 million homes have, or will soon have a Hi Def Tv, that's surely a good enough customer base for a start. That number will increase by millions by the end of this year.
You're absolutely right, and Apple's timing is excellent here. There's finally a big enough user base for AppleTV to do 'well enough' initially, and that user base is only going to grow rapidly though the next few years. Apple's putting its foot in the door at just about the perfect time... they're one of the first, but not so early that the product lands with a thud.
And I'm envious of your 65" 1080p set.
.
But it very likely won't be. 8)
.
I still think that there's a good chance that the turnover will be mostly complete in five years.
As the prices rapidly drop (Sony has announced a standalone player for $599), more people will adopt them. The more people adopt them, the more prices will drop.
The advantage here, is that they will play your current DVD's, and do, or will play, the CD formats as well. Thus, no one is losing anything by moving to it, which is very different from any other new format moves that went before, other than 33 1/3 long play turntables, and changers, playing old 78's (and usually, very poorly)
We also no longer have the VCR record capability vs the player only aspect of the early DVD players to contend with.
Moving over will be a plug and play situation, which is just what the average consumer wants, and needs.
You're absolutely right, and Apple's timing is excellent here. There's finally a big enough user base for AppleTV to do 'well enough' initially, and that user base is only going to grow rapidly though the next few years. Apple's putting its foot in the door at just about the perfect time... they're one of the first, but not so early that the product lands with a thud.
And I'm envious of your 65" 1080p set.
.
If Apple had come out with this at the beginning of 2006, it would have been more questionable.
The set is really good. I bought that one, because, at the time, it was the only 1080p set to have 1080p available through the HDMI (with HDCP) input.
You can truly see the difference between 1080p and 720p content, IF you are close enough. That means close. Eight feet, max. We normally sit at twelve feet, meaning that we can only see barely more than 720p. To see 1080p at our distance, we need a 90" screen. I'm looking at front projection. Sigh! Never happy.
Oh well, it's for the future, right?
I still think that there's a good chance that the turnover will be mostly complete in five years.
As the prices rapidly drop (Sony has announced a standalone player for $599), more people will adopt them. The more people adopt them, the more prices will drop.
The advantage here, is that they will play your current DVD's, and do, or will play, the CD formats as well. Thus, no one is losing anything by moving to it, which is very different from any other new format moves that went before, other than 33 1/3 long play turntables, and changers, playing old 78's (and usually, very poorly)
We also no longer have the VCR record capability vs the player only aspect of the early DVD players to contend with.
Moving over will be a plug and play situation, which is just what the average consumer wants, and needs.
Yes, but by the same token, slow HDTV adoption rates are a hurdle that DVD didn't have to contend with. It very likely won't be until 2009-2010 that the majority of folks will even have HDTVs, and most won't be thinking of getting a hi-def player until they do.
The analysts I've heard say it'll take five years for hi-def DVD to achieve marketshare parity with DVD. That sounds about right. Domination would occur a couple of years after. Ironically, that would make the DVD-to-hi-def DVD changeover no faster than the VHS-to-DVD one, despite the many advantages that hi-def seemingly has in this transition.
That said, I'm looking forward to it, as I am becoming something of a videophile-in-the-making. 8)
.
That to me is a MAJOR determining factor in which one will ultimately come out the winner here. I mean sure people want the best quality... but lets face it. The general consumer is not going to fork out another thousand dollars or more to go re-purchase their movies. And having a DVD player and HD DVD player hooked up with splitters and hubs like you had to do with VHS before the combo DVD/VHS players were out is just overkill and annoying for your entertainment centers.
The backwards compatibility will be the end of HD DVD and the advantage of Blu-Ray.
Again... if I am understanding correctly.
If I understand correctly... In an HD DVD player you cannot play your standrad DVD's (backwards compatibility). However, in Blu-Ray you can.
That to me is a MAJOR determining factor in which one will ultimately come out the winner here. I mean sure people want the best quality... but lets face it. The general consumer is not going to fork out another thousand dollars or more to go re-purchase their movies. And having a DVD player and HD DVD player hooked up with splitters and hubs like you had to do with VHS before the combo DVD/VHS players were out is just overkill and annoying for your entertainment centers.
The backwards compatibility will be the end of HD DVD and the advantage of Blu-Ray.
Again... if I am understanding correctly.
No, most HD-DVD players are backwards-compatible with DVDs also, just like Blu-Ray.
That said, most people feel that Blu-Ray will win the format war, in large part due to the 'Trojan Horse' effect of all PlayStation 3s having a Blu-ray drive in them. Also, more movie studios support Blu-ray than HD-DVD, and retailers don't really want to have to support two hi-def DVD formats.
.