Actually, your analogy is a little off. Railroads put hauling freight by canals obsolete. When the railroads laid sufficient trackage they did become the transportation of choice for moving large loads over distance, but horse cartage was still the norm for short distances and for distribution transportation until it was displaced by the motor vehicle.
Yeah, but that would have meant I could not use the picture of a really big horse. ( Thereby comedically lampooning BluRay.) A really big canal boat has no comedy impact.
I do agree that it will be some time before the internet replaces TV Broadcast (via Satellite, Antenna and Cable) - Families consume many hours of TV a day and broadcast is still an inexpensive way to shift video in bulk. So I think we will still be seeing broadcast media, of some sort, in 10 years time.
But displacing physical disk distribution can happen much sooner. And has of course is kicking-off with Netflix and Apple in a perfectly viable way. Sony plan to start doing direct downloads soon.
The games industry is about to make a similar transition. The motivation is to cut-out the middle-men retailers who take about half of the revenue (simply for selling a box)
C.
Well with the current issues I give it about 10 years to sort out.
Trust me this battle has been going on for 30 years with the movie companies. They'll be a much tougher nut to crack than the record companies. While the record companies were looking the other way for years with cassete tape copys of records the movie companies were up in arms about the VCR. Yes we won eventually but they haven't stopped being obsessed with people having free rein over their product. Even though they make more money they still want total control. If it was up to them we wouldn't have home video or computers to copy with. Absolutely paranoid about it.
Also there's currently only so much bandwidth. An HD movie takes up a lot more room than a song.
So if this was so easy how come iTunes doesn't let you burn ( or write to a portable device ) HD video right now?
I think the reason the movie studio's are so adamant about copy protection is because most people only watch a whole movie once, sometimes twice. Beyond that, that sale is lost forever. They've only got one or two chances to get you to pay for their content.
Also, if record companies spent $200M to record an album, you bet your ass they wouldn't let people copy it. This is no disrespect to the artists of the recording industry, but let's face it, it only takes a one to three people to put out an album at a cost of tens of thousands. A motion picture takes hundreds of people and costs millions. So it's hard to compare the two industries.
In the third quarter earnings call in July, Apple warned investors about an upcoming product transition that would eat away at the company's cushy margins. However, in the intermediate, no new or updated products have surfaced that look like they could be responsible for significantly reduced margins.
In last week's fourth quarter earnings call, Apple execs added that operating margins this quarter were 18.3 percent "due to higher-than-anticipated gross margins." Apparently, the new "unibodies" for the MacBooks and MacBook Pros were responsible for a slight margin reduction, but either Apple is playing its well-known "under-promise, over-deliver" game with more gusto than usual, or a mystery margin-reducing product or feature failed to make an appearance. What could that be?
Blu-ray drives in the Mac, perhaps? Let's examine the evidence.
Exhibit A: Apple is on the board of directors of the Blu-ray Disc Association. During the format war between Blu-ray and HD-DVD, conventional thinking was that the Mac maker would wait to adopt a next-generation optical format in its products until the war would be over. That happened some nine months ago, clearing the way for Blu-ray adoption by Apple.
Exhibit B: There is talk that the version of QuickTime included with the new unibody laptops uses GPU acceleration for decoding H.264 video. This is a capability announced for QuickTime X in Snow Leopard, but it's apparently showing up early.
Exhibit C: The bag of hurt. In the Q&A session after unveiling the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros, Steve Jobs was asked about Blu-ray. The reply: "Blu-ray is a bag of hurt. Not from the consumer point of view; it's great to watch movies, but the licensing is very complex. So we're waiting until things settle down, and waiting until Blu-ray takes off before we burden our customers with the cost of licensing."
And of course, Exhibit D, the margin-reducing product transition that didn't manage to reduce margins all that much after all.
Now, there are those who say that Apple has deliberately omitted Blu-ray drives from its computers because the company wants to push HD downloads through iTunes. I don't believe that for a second. First of all, a company full of obsessive perfectionists led by the most obsessive perfectionist of them all isn't going to accept the barely-better-than-DVD quality "HD" downloads in lieu of the real thing.
Add to that the fact that downloading 20GB movies isn't going to happen in the near future. Even at today's one to two gigabytes?and geographical restrictions?the number of people who can download HD movies (if they wanted to) is only a fraction of those who can buy or rent Blu-ray discs. But apart from that, Blu-ray isn't just a movie distribution medium; it's also on its way to replace DVD as removable media for data use. Apple can afford to be a bit behind the curve here?just like it can afford to be ahead of the curve in other areas?but the company can't ignore the direction the industry is going in for too long.
Besides, Jobs' comment clearly indicates that he has been looking into adding Blu-ray drives to the Mac product line, but got somewhat frustrated along the way. It sounds a lot like last year's concerns about battery use with 3G on the iPhone, which (of course) ceased to be an issue this summer. So, if I can find a bank that I can trust to be around next year around this time, I'm going to start saving for that MacBook Pro with Blu-ray.
I think the reason the movie studio's are so adamant about copy protection is because most people only watch a whole movie once, sometimes twice. Beyond that, that sale is lost forever. They've only got one or two chances to get you to pay for their content.
The tighter they squeeze the more slips through their fingers. The problem with all DRM is it punishes the consumers and rewards the pirates.
Legitimate purchasers of a DRM disk, get less for their money. They can't back up their content, or move it to another medium once the player goes out of style. DRM copies are less valuable to consumers.
The piracy option is not just cheaper, it ends up being faster and leaves you with media you can do whatever you want to. ie. Put it on you iPhone.
And in the meantime, these anti-piracy efforts have done precisely *nothing* to prevent good quality copies of all movies hitting the nets. So we get this bizarre situation where illegitimate copies are preferable to the the real thing.
The studios need to adopt methods which rewards legitimate purchase and discourages casual copying.
Here's my suggestions:
1) Improve the experience in theaters. Currently it sucks. Insist on quality standards for picture, audio etc.
2) Reward consumers with bonus content , prizes for their loyalty - and the best, most flexible copies of the media. Maintain contact with those customers and especially reward fans who help create a buzz and keep the product alive.
3) Deter casual copying with watermarking.
4) Acknowledge there are two forms of viewer. Casual watch-once-viewers and hardcore fans. Create different products, with different price points for the two audiences.
The tighter they squeeze the more slips through their fingers. The problem with all DRM is it punishes the consumers and rewards the pirates.
Legitimate purchasers of a DRM disk, get less for their money. They can't back up their content, or move it to another medium once the player goes out of style. DRM copies are less valuable to consumers.
The piracy option is not just cheaper, it ends up being faster and leaves you with media you can do whatever you want to. ie. Put it on you iPhone.
And in the meantime, these anti-piracy efforts have done precisely *nothing* to prevent good quality copies of all movies hitting the nets. So we get this bizarre situation where illegitimate copies are preferable to the the real thing.
The studios need to adopt methods which rewards legitimate purchase and discourages casual copying.
Here's my suggestions:
1) Improve the experience in theaters. Currently it sucks. Insist on quality standards for picture, audio etc.
2) Reward consumers with bonus content , prizes for their loyalty - and the best, most flexible copies of the media. Maintain contact with those customers and especially reward fans who help create a buzz and keep the product alive.
3) Deter casual copying with watermarking.
4) Acknowledge there are two forms of viewer. Casual watch-once-viewers and hardcore fans. Create different products, with different price points for the two audiences.
5) Target commercial piracy aggressively.
C.
Quote:
The tighter they squeeze the more slips through their fingers. The problem with all DRM is it punishes the consumers and rewards the pirates.
Kind of like our anti drug policies? Well to use that analogy that's been going on longer than 10 years. You just don't get how stubborn these people are.
You're talking about people like Jack Valenti ( dead now ) who testified before congress about the evils of the VCR and how it would destroy the movie industry.
That was back in the early 80's. They haven't changed much since then even though we won that battle. They want strict control. Getting them to give up that idea will take a while. It would be like watching paint dry.
Kind of like our anti drug policies? Well to use that analogy that's been going on longer than 10 years. You just don't get how stubborn these people are.
You're talking about people like Jack Valenti ( dead now ) who testified before congress about the evils of the VCR and how it would destroy the movie industry.
That was back in the early 80's. They haven't changed much since then even though we won that battle. They want strict control. Getting them to give up that idea will take a while. It would be like watching paint dry.
You must have noticed that when it comes to human behavior, people just do whatever they want, and the law is just an irritant. Anti drug policies seem to have zero impact.
The record industry wasted years trying to prevent something that had already happened. The genie was out of the box. Adding ever more padlocks to that box was just a waste of money. DRM infected CDs drove even more people away!
The movie people are doing the same thing; comically trying to hang-on to a business model from the previous century. But I agree they'll take some time to reconsider. After a few years, curiosity gets the better of them. They peek inside the box and realise that it's empty.
What the industry does won't change how people chose to use media or technology. They don't have that power.
But the industry *can* attempt to monetize what people are doing.
Alternatively they can just sit there and watch their business model slowly evaporate.
1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.
Like I said earlier in this thread, if I'm going to sit through a film for two hours, I think I can take thirty seconds to remove the movie from a case and put the disc in a tray. Especially if that means getting the best picture and sound quality possible in return for my extra 20 seconds of strenuous, laborious work. Movies are not like songs; you're not going to decide to change it every 3 minutes, so you don't need instant access to every movie you own instantaneously. And unlike the inevitable drive failure that comes with an all-digital collection, the only way I can lose my thousands of dollars of physical media at once is by fire or theft — neither of which are likely scenarios.
Like I said earlier in this thread, if I'm going to sit through a film for two hours, I think I can take thirty seconds to remove the movie from a case and put the disc in a tray. Especially if that means getting the best picture and sound quality possible in return for my extra 20 seconds of strenuous, laborious work. Movies are not like songs; you're not going to decide to change it every 3 minutes, so you don't need instant access to every movie you own instantaneously. And unlike the inevitable drive failure that comes with an all-digital collection, the only way I can lose my thousands of dollars of physical media at once is by fire or theft ? neither of which are likely scenarios.
True. But that's not the future of downloads.
The most likely future won't involve your collection being in your house at all.
You'll sign in to NetFlix (or whomever) and add a movie to your "collection" for a fee.
Nobody will press any discs, ship anything from China or mail anything out to customers. You never have to worry about your collection being stolen, burned or lost due to a drive failure. Personal 'lockboxes' of digital content are the future.
It will take awhile for this to happen. The current system of downloading and storage is an intermediary step.
The Blu-ray Disc Association hoped for a massive cash bonanza as millions of consumers discovered that standard DVDs looked awful on HDTV. To cash in they loaded Blu-ray licenses with costly fees. Blu-ray doesn?t just suck for consumers: small producers can?t afford it either.
According to Digital Content Producer Blu-ray doesn?t cut it for business:
Recordable discs don?t play reliably across the range of Blu-ray players - so you can?t do low-volume runs yourself.
Service bureau reproduction runs $20 per single layer disc in quantities of 300 or less.
Hollywood style printed/replicated Blu-ray discs are considerably cheaper once you reach the thousand unit quantity: just $3.50 per disc.
High-quality authoring programs like Sony Blu-print or Sonic Solutions Scenarist cost $40,000.
The Advanced Access Content System - the already hacked DRM - has a one-time fee of $3000 plus a per project cost of almost $1600 plus $.04 per disk. And who defines ?project??
Then the Blu-ray disc Association charges another $3000 annually to use their very exclusive - on 4% of all video disks! - logo.
That?s why you don?t see quirky indie flicks on Blu-ray. Small producers can?t afford it - even though they shoot in HDV and HD.
Then he says
Quote:
A forward looking strategy would include:
Recognition that consumers don?t need Blu-ray. It is a nice-to-have and must be priced accordingly.
Accept the money spent on Blu-ray is gone and will never earn back the investment. Then you can begin thinking clearly about how to maximize Blu-ray penetration.
The average consumer will probably pay $50 more for a Blu-ray player that is competitive with the average up-sampling DVD player. Most of the current Blu-ray players are junk: slow, feature-poor and way over-priced.
Disk price margins can?t be higher than DVDs and probably should be less. The question the studios need to ask is: ?do we want to be selling disks in 5 years?? No? Then keep it up. Turn distribution over to your very good friends at Comcast, Apple and Time Warner. You?ll be like Procter & Gamble paying Safeway to stock your products.
Fire all the market research firms telling you how great it is going to be. They are playing you. Your #1 goal: market share. High volume is your only chance to earn your way out of this mess and keep some control of your distribution.
For content producers who aren't making large budget flicks. I think it's already time to move on.
murch, you've been crying doom and gloom about BD ever since the original HD/BD thread started. Will BD survive? Will it become a niche product? Who knows, only time will tell. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy BD movies on my "clunky, overpriced, feature poor" player.
murch, you've been crying doom and gloom about BD ever since the original HD/BD thread started. Will BD survive? Will it become a niche product? Who knows, only time will tell. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy BD movies on my "clunky, overpriced, feature poor" player.
No one doubts about having to enjoy HiDef discs we already own, but it is becoming more apparent that BD is not going to succeed even the path of LD. Whatever the reason for the poor consumer acceptance, it is real.
No one doubts about having to enjoy HiDef discs we already own, but it is becoming more apparent that BD is not going to succeed even the path of LD. Whatever the reason for the poor consumer acceptance, it is real.
bite, that's just your perception. There's always nay-sayers out there. Time will tell but if BD doesn't replace DVD, IMO it'll succeed on a larger scale than LD did.
No one doubts about having to enjoy HiDef discs we already own, but it is becoming more apparent that BD is not going to succeed even the path of LD. Whatever the reason for the poor consumer acceptance, it is real.
I'm pretty sure Blu-Ray has already well surpassed laserdisc in terms of success. I doubt Laserdisc ever accounted for 12% of physical media sales. Nor do I believe it ever had the steady release of popular titles that Blu-Ray has now. There's not a single desirable new release that isn't published on both DVD and Blu-Ray.
In another year, since Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with DVDs (and most of the time make them look even better), we'll start to see DVD player shelf space being taken over by Blu-Ray players. Much in the same way people weren't necessarily willing to pay more for an HDTV, consumers can't walk out of a store with a television anymore that isn't high definition.
I'm pretty sure Blu-Ray has already well surpassed laserdisc in terms of success. I doubt Laserdisc ever accounted for 12% of physical media sales. Nor do I believe it ever had the steady release of popular titles that Blu-Ray has now. There's not a single desirable new release that isn't published on both DVD and Blu-Ray.
Has average disc sales on blu-ray surpassed 12% of total optical disc sales? This would be great news if it's true. Only news I'm aware of that gets me excited on Blu-ray is projected Feb. release for Amadeous, just in time for my new home theater set up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer
In another year, since Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with DVDs (and most of the time make them look even better), we'll start to see DVD player shelf space being taken over by Blu-Ray players. Much in the same way people weren't necessarily willing to pay more for an HDTV, consumers can't walk out of a store with a television anymore that isn't high definition.
Well, let's hope that all the studios in some day stop new dvd releases and have them only available on BD. But I really don't see this happening even in next 3 years. It would also help if Sony can influence all the hardware manufacturers to stop producing DVD players and manufacture only the BD optical disc player. This is a lot of obstacles to overcome for a diminishing cause. I have experienced several 720p/1080p online contents and I'm more than satisfied with video and audio quality for the time being. For $20+ for a blu-ray movie, most consumers will not mind the downloads, at fraction of the retail price or for the convenience of live streaming, even with small compromise on video and audio quality for next three years.
bite, that's just your perception. There's always nay-sayers out there. Time will tell but if BD doesn't replace DVD, IMO it'll succeed on a larger scale than LD did.
I hope you're right. I'm now living in the Gaithersburg, Maryland area where many of the coworkers do own professionally setup home theater in their basement. The funny thing is that most of them own HDM optical disc players, but still buy DVD's over blu-ray releases. I know, it's a shame, but that is the reality for now.
Has average disc sales on blu-ray surpassed 12% of total optical disc sales? This would be great news if it's true.
Blu-Ray has been accounting for 12% of the DVD Pie fairly regularly, yes. In fact, they say 18% of Hulks optical media sales were Blu-Ray. That's a pretty fat niche.
Blu-Ray has been accounting for 12% of the DVD Pie fairly regularly, yes. In fact, they say 18% of Hulks optical media sales were Blu-Ray. That's a pretty fat niche.
Thanks for the link. The data looked good for a second, but when you look closely, the data by Nielson is misleading as usual. Even if the presented data is absolutely accurate, the pie percentage shown from the link is by $ amount spent, but not comparing the number of discs sold. I would guess that average movie disc price would easily cost 2X to 4X more for the Blu-ray discs which means that number of discs sold is still less than or equal to about 5-7% of the overall market. Yes, it is still interesting market size.
Comments
Actually, your analogy is a little off. Railroads put hauling freight by canals obsolete. When the railroads laid sufficient trackage they did become the transportation of choice for moving large loads over distance, but horse cartage was still the norm for short distances and for distribution transportation until it was displaced by the motor vehicle.
Yeah, but that would have meant I could not use the picture of a really big horse. ( Thereby comedically lampooning BluRay.) A really big canal boat has no comedy impact.
C.
I do agree that it will be some time before the internet replaces TV Broadcast (via Satellite, Antenna and Cable) - Families consume many hours of TV a day and broadcast is still an inexpensive way to shift video in bulk. So I think we will still be seeing broadcast media, of some sort, in 10 years time.
But displacing physical disk distribution can happen much sooner. And has of course is kicking-off with Netflix and Apple in a perfectly viable way. Sony plan to start doing direct downloads soon.
The games industry is about to make a similar transition. The motivation is to cut-out the middle-men retailers who take about half of the revenue (simply for selling a box)
C.
Well with the current issues I give it about 10 years to sort out.
Trust me this battle has been going on for 30 years with the movie companies. They'll be a much tougher nut to crack than the record companies. While the record companies were looking the other way for years with cassete tape copys of records the movie companies were up in arms about the VCR. Yes we won eventually but they haven't stopped being obsessed with people having free rein over their product. Even though they make more money they still want total control. If it was up to them we wouldn't have home video or computers to copy with. Absolutely paranoid about it.
Also there's currently only so much bandwidth. An HD movie takes up a lot more room than a song.
So if this was so easy how come iTunes doesn't let you burn ( or write to a portable device ) HD video right now?
I think the reason the movie studio's are so adamant about copy protection is because most people only watch a whole movie once, sometimes twice. Beyond that, that sale is lost forever. They've only got one or two chances to get you to pay for their content.
Also, if record companies spent $200M to record an album, you bet your ass they wouldn't let people copy it. This is no disrespect to the artists of the recording industry, but let's face it, it only takes a one to three people to put out an album at a cost of tens of thousands. A motion picture takes hundreds of people and costs millions. So it's hard to compare the two industries.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-wasnt-blu-ray
In the third quarter earnings call in July, Apple warned investors about an upcoming product transition that would eat away at the company's cushy margins. However, in the intermediate, no new or updated products have surfaced that look like they could be responsible for significantly reduced margins.
In last week's fourth quarter earnings call, Apple execs added that operating margins this quarter were 18.3 percent "due to higher-than-anticipated gross margins." Apparently, the new "unibodies" for the MacBooks and MacBook Pros were responsible for a slight margin reduction, but either Apple is playing its well-known "under-promise, over-deliver" game with more gusto than usual, or a mystery margin-reducing product or feature failed to make an appearance. What could that be?
Blu-ray drives in the Mac, perhaps? Let's examine the evidence.
Exhibit A: Apple is on the board of directors of the Blu-ray Disc Association. During the format war between Blu-ray and HD-DVD, conventional thinking was that the Mac maker would wait to adopt a next-generation optical format in its products until the war would be over. That happened some nine months ago, clearing the way for Blu-ray adoption by Apple.
Exhibit B: There is talk that the version of QuickTime included with the new unibody laptops uses GPU acceleration for decoding H.264 video. This is a capability announced for QuickTime X in Snow Leopard, but it's apparently showing up early.
Exhibit C: The bag of hurt. In the Q&A session after unveiling the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros, Steve Jobs was asked about Blu-ray. The reply: "Blu-ray is a bag of hurt. Not from the consumer point of view; it's great to watch movies, but the licensing is very complex. So we're waiting until things settle down, and waiting until Blu-ray takes off before we burden our customers with the cost of licensing."
And of course, Exhibit D, the margin-reducing product transition that didn't manage to reduce margins all that much after all.
Now, there are those who say that Apple has deliberately omitted Blu-ray drives from its computers because the company wants to push HD downloads through iTunes. I don't believe that for a second. First of all, a company full of obsessive perfectionists led by the most obsessive perfectionist of them all isn't going to accept the barely-better-than-DVD quality "HD" downloads in lieu of the real thing.
Add to that the fact that downloading 20GB movies isn't going to happen in the near future. Even at today's one to two gigabytes?and geographical restrictions?the number of people who can download HD movies (if they wanted to) is only a fraction of those who can buy or rent Blu-ray discs. But apart from that, Blu-ray isn't just a movie distribution medium; it's also on its way to replace DVD as removable media for data use. Apple can afford to be a bit behind the curve here?just like it can afford to be ahead of the curve in other areas?but the company can't ignore the direction the industry is going in for too long.
Besides, Jobs' comment clearly indicates that he has been looking into adding Blu-ray drives to the Mac product line, but got somewhat frustrated along the way. It sounds a lot like last year's concerns about battery use with 3G on the iPhone, which (of course) ceased to be an issue this summer. So, if I can find a bank that I can trust to be around next year around this time, I'm going to start saving for that MacBook Pro with Blu-ray.
I think the reason the movie studio's are so adamant about copy protection is because most people only watch a whole movie once, sometimes twice. Beyond that, that sale is lost forever. They've only got one or two chances to get you to pay for their content.
The tighter they squeeze the more slips through their fingers. The problem with all DRM is it punishes the consumers and rewards the pirates.
Legitimate purchasers of a DRM disk, get less for their money. They can't back up their content, or move it to another medium once the player goes out of style. DRM copies are less valuable to consumers.
The piracy option is not just cheaper, it ends up being faster and leaves you with media you can do whatever you want to. ie. Put it on you iPhone.
And in the meantime, these anti-piracy efforts have done precisely *nothing* to prevent good quality copies of all movies hitting the nets. So we get this bizarre situation where illegitimate copies are preferable to the the real thing.
The studios need to adopt methods which rewards legitimate purchase and discourages casual copying.
Here's my suggestions:
1) Improve the experience in theaters. Currently it sucks. Insist on quality standards for picture, audio etc.
2) Reward consumers with bonus content , prizes for their loyalty - and the best, most flexible copies of the media. Maintain contact with those customers and especially reward fans who help create a buzz and keep the product alive.
3) Deter casual copying with watermarking.
4) Acknowledge there are two forms of viewer. Casual watch-once-viewers and hardcore fans. Create different products, with different price points for the two audiences.
5) Target commercial piracy aggressively.
C.
The tighter they squeeze the more slips through their fingers. The problem with all DRM is it punishes the consumers and rewards the pirates.
Legitimate purchasers of a DRM disk, get less for their money. They can't back up their content, or move it to another medium once the player goes out of style. DRM copies are less valuable to consumers.
The piracy option is not just cheaper, it ends up being faster and leaves you with media you can do whatever you want to. ie. Put it on you iPhone.
And in the meantime, these anti-piracy efforts have done precisely *nothing* to prevent good quality copies of all movies hitting the nets. So we get this bizarre situation where illegitimate copies are preferable to the the real thing.
The studios need to adopt methods which rewards legitimate purchase and discourages casual copying.
Here's my suggestions:
1) Improve the experience in theaters. Currently it sucks. Insist on quality standards for picture, audio etc.
2) Reward consumers with bonus content , prizes for their loyalty - and the best, most flexible copies of the media. Maintain contact with those customers and especially reward fans who help create a buzz and keep the product alive.
3) Deter casual copying with watermarking.
4) Acknowledge there are two forms of viewer. Casual watch-once-viewers and hardcore fans. Create different products, with different price points for the two audiences.
5) Target commercial piracy aggressively.
C.
The tighter they squeeze the more slips through their fingers. The problem with all DRM is it punishes the consumers and rewards the pirates.
Kind of like our anti drug policies? Well to use that analogy that's been going on longer than 10 years. You just don't get how stubborn these people are.
You're talking about people like Jack Valenti ( dead now ) who testified before congress about the evils of the VCR and how it would destroy the movie industry.
That was back in the early 80's. They haven't changed much since then even though we won that battle. They want strict control. Getting them to give up that idea will take a while. It would be like watching paint dry.
Kind of like our anti drug policies? Well to use that analogy that's been going on longer than 10 years. You just don't get how stubborn these people are.
You're talking about people like Jack Valenti ( dead now ) who testified before congress about the evils of the VCR and how it would destroy the movie industry.
That was back in the early 80's. They haven't changed much since then even though we won that battle. They want strict control. Getting them to give up that idea will take a while. It would be like watching paint dry.
You must have noticed that when it comes to human behavior, people just do whatever they want, and the law is just an irritant. Anti drug policies seem to have zero impact.
The record industry wasted years trying to prevent something that had already happened. The genie was out of the box. Adding ever more padlocks to that box was just a waste of money. DRM infected CDs drove even more people away!
The movie people are doing the same thing; comically trying to hang-on to a business model from the previous century. But I agree they'll take some time to reconsider. After a few years, curiosity gets the better of them. They peek inside the box and realise that it's empty.
What the industry does won't change how people chose to use media or technology. They don't have that power.
But the industry *can* attempt to monetize what people are doing.
Alternatively they can just sit there and watch their business model slowly evaporate.
C.
Apple's Margin-Reducing Product that Wasn't: Blu-ray?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-wasnt-blu-ray
The Margin-Reducing transition was clearly the unibody process on the MacBook/MBPro line.
1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.
Like I said earlier in this thread, if I'm going to sit through a film for two hours, I think I can take thirty seconds to remove the movie from a case and put the disc in a tray. Especially if that means getting the best picture and sound quality possible in return for my extra 20 seconds of strenuous, laborious work. Movies are not like songs; you're not going to decide to change it every 3 minutes, so you don't need instant access to every movie you own instantaneously. And unlike the inevitable drive failure that comes with an all-digital collection, the only way I can lose my thousands of dollars of physical media at once is by fire or theft — neither of which are likely scenarios.
The Margin-Reducing transition was clearly the unibody process on the MacBook/MBPro line.
At the prices Apple's asking for their currently-specced Macbooks and MacBook Pros, those unibody cases better be costing them about $400 a piece.
Like I said earlier in this thread, if I'm going to sit through a film for two hours, I think I can take thirty seconds to remove the movie from a case and put the disc in a tray. Especially if that means getting the best picture and sound quality possible in return for my extra 20 seconds of strenuous, laborious work. Movies are not like songs; you're not going to decide to change it every 3 minutes, so you don't need instant access to every movie you own instantaneously. And unlike the inevitable drive failure that comes with an all-digital collection, the only way I can lose my thousands of dollars of physical media at once is by fire or theft ? neither of which are likely scenarios.
True. But that's not the future of downloads.
The most likely future won't involve your collection being in your house at all.
You'll sign in to NetFlix (or whomever) and add a movie to your "collection" for a fee.
Nobody will press any discs, ship anything from China or mail anything out to customers. You never have to worry about your collection being stolen, burned or lost due to a drive failure. Personal 'lockboxes' of digital content are the future.
It will take awhile for this to happen. The current system of downloading and storage is an intermediary step.
Robin makes some interesting points.
Piggies at the trough
The Blu-ray Disc Association hoped for a massive cash bonanza as millions of consumers discovered that standard DVDs looked awful on HDTV. To cash in they loaded Blu-ray licenses with costly fees. Blu-ray doesn?t just suck for consumers: small producers can?t afford it either.
According to Digital Content Producer Blu-ray doesn?t cut it for business:
Recordable discs don?t play reliably across the range of Blu-ray players - so you can?t do low-volume runs yourself.
Service bureau reproduction runs $20 per single layer disc in quantities of 300 or less.
Hollywood style printed/replicated Blu-ray discs are considerably cheaper once you reach the thousand unit quantity: just $3.50 per disc.
High-quality authoring programs like Sony Blu-print or Sonic Solutions Scenarist cost $40,000.
The Advanced Access Content System - the already hacked DRM - has a one-time fee of $3000 plus a per project cost of almost $1600 plus $.04 per disk. And who defines ?project??
Then the Blu-ray disc Association charges another $3000 annually to use their very exclusive - on 4% of all video disks! - logo.
That?s why you don?t see quirky indie flicks on Blu-ray. Small producers can?t afford it - even though they shoot in HDV and HD.
Then he says
A forward looking strategy would include:
Recognition that consumers don?t need Blu-ray. It is a nice-to-have and must be priced accordingly.
Accept the money spent on Blu-ray is gone and will never earn back the investment. Then you can begin thinking clearly about how to maximize Blu-ray penetration.
The average consumer will probably pay $50 more for a Blu-ray player that is competitive with the average up-sampling DVD player. Most of the current Blu-ray players are junk: slow, feature-poor and way over-priced.
Disk price margins can?t be higher than DVDs and probably should be less. The question the studios need to ask is: ?do we want to be selling disks in 5 years?? No? Then keep it up. Turn distribution over to your very good friends at Comcast, Apple and Time Warner. You?ll be like Procter & Gamble paying Safeway to stock your products.
Fire all the market research firms telling you how great it is going to be. They are playing you. Your #1 goal: market share. High volume is your only chance to earn your way out of this mess and keep some control of your distribution.
For content producers who aren't making large budget flicks. I think it's already time to move on.
murch, you've been crying doom and gloom about BD ever since the original HD/BD thread started. Will BD survive? Will it become a niche product? Who knows, only time will tell. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy BD movies on my "clunky, overpriced, feature poor" player.
No one doubts about having to enjoy HiDef discs we already own, but it is becoming more apparent that BD is not going to succeed even the path of LD. Whatever the reason for the poor consumer acceptance, it is real.
No one doubts about having to enjoy HiDef discs we already own, but it is becoming more apparent that BD is not going to succeed even the path of LD. Whatever the reason for the poor consumer acceptance, it is real.
bite, that's just your perception. There's always nay-sayers out there. Time will tell but if BD doesn't replace DVD, IMO it'll succeed on a larger scale than LD did.
No one doubts about having to enjoy HiDef discs we already own, but it is becoming more apparent that BD is not going to succeed even the path of LD. Whatever the reason for the poor consumer acceptance, it is real.
I'm pretty sure Blu-Ray has already well surpassed laserdisc in terms of success. I doubt Laserdisc ever accounted for 12% of physical media sales. Nor do I believe it ever had the steady release of popular titles that Blu-Ray has now. There's not a single desirable new release that isn't published on both DVD and Blu-Ray.
In another year, since Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with DVDs (and most of the time make them look even better), we'll start to see DVD player shelf space being taken over by Blu-Ray players. Much in the same way people weren't necessarily willing to pay more for an HDTV, consumers can't walk out of a store with a television anymore that isn't high definition.
I'm pretty sure Blu-Ray has already well surpassed laserdisc in terms of success. I doubt Laserdisc ever accounted for 12% of physical media sales. Nor do I believe it ever had the steady release of popular titles that Blu-Ray has now. There's not a single desirable new release that isn't published on both DVD and Blu-Ray.
Has average disc sales on blu-ray surpassed 12% of total optical disc sales? This would be great news if it's true. Only news I'm aware of that gets me excited on Blu-ray is projected Feb. release for Amadeous, just in time for my new home theater set up.
In another year, since Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with DVDs (and most of the time make them look even better), we'll start to see DVD player shelf space being taken over by Blu-Ray players. Much in the same way people weren't necessarily willing to pay more for an HDTV, consumers can't walk out of a store with a television anymore that isn't high definition.
Well, let's hope that all the studios in some day stop new dvd releases and have them only available on BD. But I really don't see this happening even in next 3 years. It would also help if Sony can influence all the hardware manufacturers to stop producing DVD players and manufacture only the BD optical disc player. This is a lot of obstacles to overcome for a diminishing cause. I have experienced several 720p/1080p online contents and I'm more than satisfied with video and audio quality for the time being. For $20+ for a blu-ray movie, most consumers will not mind the downloads, at fraction of the retail price or for the convenience of live streaming, even with small compromise on video and audio quality for next three years.
bite, that's just your perception. There's always nay-sayers out there. Time will tell but if BD doesn't replace DVD, IMO it'll succeed on a larger scale than LD did.
I hope you're right. I'm now living in the Gaithersburg, Maryland area where many of the coworkers do own professionally setup home theater in their basement. The funny thing is that most of them own HDM optical disc players, but still buy DVD's over blu-ray releases. I know, it's a shame, but that is the reality for now.
Has average disc sales on blu-ray surpassed 12% of total optical disc sales? This would be great news if it's true.
Blu-Ray has been accounting for 12% of the DVD Pie fairly regularly, yes. In fact, they say 18% of Hulks optical media sales were Blu-Ray. That's a pretty fat niche.
Blu-Ray has been accounting for 12% of the DVD Pie fairly regularly, yes. In fact, they say 18% of Hulks optical media sales were Blu-Ray. That's a pretty fat niche.
Thanks for the link. The data looked good for a second, but when you look closely, the data by Nielson is misleading as usual. Even if the presented data is absolutely accurate, the pie percentage shown from the link is by $ amount spent, but not comparing the number of discs sold. I would guess that average movie disc price would easily cost 2X to 4X more for the Blu-ray discs which means that number of discs sold is still less than or equal to about 5-7% of the overall market. Yes, it is still interesting market size.