DVD players in their third year were still in the thousands.
No they were not. Stop it.
Quote:
Retail prices for consumer-oriented DVD players currently range from $200 (on sale) to more than $1,200, depending on the quality of the player and market environment. InfoTech, Inc. reports that the average retail price for DVD video players has declined from $735 in the first half of 1997 to $470 in the second half of 1998 (see attachment 4). The mean price for all DVD players included in this study during the first half of 1999 was $443.39. The nearly 40 percent decline (from $735 to $443) in the average retail price for DVD players represents the dramatic reduction in price that is often associated with relatively new products.
You and everyone else will keep hearing them until these important issues are resolved!
Some of the buying public got crapped on and the companies must make this right. Or they won't be consumers of BR.
From " The Digital Bits " today in an article about advice for BR studios and manufacturers.
" . The Blu-ray supporting studios who have previously supported HD-DVD need to release Blu-ray versions of those titles previously exclusive to HD-DVD ASAP. This is especially important with key titles like The Matrix, V for Vendetta, Heroes: Season One, Battlestar Galactica: Season One, Transformers, Top Gun and Star Trek: The Original Series Remastered - Season One. Those titles encouraged many people to buy HD-DVD players, and now many of those people feel like they've been led up the creek without a paddle. Meanwhile, the exclusivity of those titles to HD-DVD is a major sore spot with Blu-ray consumers. There's a lot of goodwill that needs to be restored all around with high-def consumers (Special word to Paramount and DreamWorks: Having now abandoned your high-def consumers not once but TWICE, you guys have a LOT of work to do in this area). "
The prices are still years ahead of DVD in price though. You girls scouts are just too young to get it. DVD players in their third year were still in the thousands. You girls can cry, moan and whimper in here till your hearts break from sadness. But your sad little sob stories are falling on deaf ears. Blu Ray prices are more than acceptable and the sales prove it. Again still ahead of DVD.
WRONG!
In 1997 I bought a laser disc / DVD combo player ( since I had a pretty big LD collection this was a good way to get started on DVD ) for $1000.00!
DVD players were around $ 200.00 in 2000 ( the third year )!
A magical $299, that's how much -- $100 less than the cheapest available HD DVD rig ( Toshiba's A2 ) and half of Sony's $600 BDP-S300 Blu-ray Disc player
Now we are three generations down the road, the fourth generation of DVD players is on the market, so it is about time we took a look at how much or little of the universal character has materialized so far. And Marantz, a wholly owned subsidiary of mighty Philips, which evokes memories of a world-class audio manufacturer of yesteryear, seemed like a good place to start. I purposely selected the smallest and cheapest of a line of three...
have you pestered them with a REAL honest to goodness LETTER yet?
I'm betting the answer is "nope"
Wrong.
It's because this is a discussion about " If " BluRay is a viable format.
Also Paramount wasn't the only studio listed. I'm a big fan of BSG also and have season 1 in HD DVD it would be nice to see additional seasons on BR. Necessary if BR wants to survive as this is an extremely popular show.
Also " The Digital Bits " seems to think it's important for the survival of this format.
And if " The Bits " thinks it's important then it's important.
I haven't gotten to the letter writing stage yet. I've been waiting for them to show some common sense as this is an easy call. I'd be willing to bet many already have as they have been writing " The Bits ".
Did you read the article? It has some good advice for the promoters of BR and it's pretty much the same thing I"ve been saying here.
Like I've said it's an easy call. But sometimes companies do things not exactly logically and not in their own best interests.
Does that make it untrue? Blu-Ray Hi-Def® is still not 1.) reasonably-priced and 2.) complete. I want to see a realistically-viable HDM format today, not two years from now. I don't want to see consumers flocking to 720p über-compressed internet downloads, resulting in HDM becoming a niche. I'd like to see Sony consider SD DVD and internet downloads as a serious threat, instead of assuming the death of HD DVD means they can't lose. $199 players two years from now isn't good enough. Two years from now, there may very well be a viable means of purchasing and storing HD movies at affordable prices, which could negate the need for Blu-Ray altogether.
I'd feel much better about the whole thing if people could be stashing $199 Profile 2.0 players under christmas trees in 2008, not 2009.
Jim, while I do agree with you that Paramount and Universal need to begin releasing on BD HD exclusive titles and soon, all the titles you mentioned in post #1624 are non-starters for me. Of course, YMMV.
Cory, I see Profile 2.0 as a smoke screen, important only those people who are more interested in the extras and bells and whistles like PIP. It makes no difference to those of us who only want to watch the movie.
Cory, while I do agree that lower player prices will probably lead to wider adoption, the big bottle neck in my opinion is the lack of titles and the unrealistic price of media, particularly the former.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
A Front Page article today states that Sony and Apple are in talks about adding BD. Once drives become available in the $200 - 300 range I'd be tempted to add one in the empty optical media bay in my MacPro.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
This is something of a myth*. Alternatives to physical media are still in its infancy and suffer from a variety of usability limitations. The rule of thumb has been 10 years for adoption of new technology into the mainstream. Blu-ray technology appeared in 2000. So 2010 is a nice prediction of mass market penetration to replace DVD.
Commercial online movies sales are what? A couple three years old? 2015 before you see AppleTV and (video) MCEs in widespread use. Perhaps a little earlier as they are being built into consoles. Its not JUST providing the console part...the PS3 and 360 are more than capable. Its all the infrastructure to make it not suck that also has to get deployed.
V
* I don't have reference off the top of my head. I can go look but I recall a couple journaled articles that measured the rate of technology adoption and they weren't more than a few years old.
So aptly put. Seriously, you couldn't be any more right.
Ok right there you lost all credibility. When a major website for home media and a major supporter of BR during the format war agrees with what I've been saying you really don't have an argumentative leg to stand on.
" The Digital Bits " is the best authority on the web for this subject. So are you saying you disagree with what they've been saying?
Did you follow the link and read the article or are you just blowing smoke?
Jim, while I do agree with you that Paramount and Universal need to begin releasing on BD HD exclusive titles and soon, all the titles you mentioned in post #1624 are non-starters for me. Of course, YMMV.
Cory, I see Profile 2.0 as a smoke screen, important only those people who are more interested in the extras and bells and whistles like PIP. It makes no difference to those of us who only want to watch the movie.
Cory, while I do agree that lower player prices will probably lead to wider adoption, the big bottle neck in my opinion is the lack of titles and the unrealistic price of media, particularly the former.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
A Front Page article today states that Sony and Apple are in talks about adding BD. Once drives become available in the $200 - 300 range I'd be tempted to add one in the empty optical media bay in my MacPro.
OC they're major starters for most of the buying public so they are a major point to wide acceptance of BR. Follow the link and read the article.
I do agree with this statement : " People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did. "
So in other words they need to get on the stick and follow the advice from " The Digital Bits ". Buit if something else does come along it won't be download as the main way people watch movies. Aside from renting it just won't be a major player in HD for sometime to come. The many reasons for this have already been discussed in this thread. On this subject I really don't care what Bill Gates or Steve Jobs say. They would like you to rent again and again as they both have services that work this way. However I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that something that you could buy a movie on could come along that would blow all other forms of media out of the water.
On this subject I really don't care what Bill Gates or Steve Jobs say. They would like you to rent again and again as they both have services that work this way.
You'd have to rent a movie six times to equal the cost of the Blu-Ray version; how many movies do you own that you've actually watched six times? Something to think about. As movies become more and more easy to rent on a whim from a vast selection with devices like Apple TV, there may be a significant decrease in physical media sales.
You'd have to rent a movie six times to equal the cost of the Blu-Ray version; how many movies do you own that you've actually watched six times? Something to think about. As movies become more and more easy to rent on a whim from a vast selection with devices like Apple TV, there may be a significant decrease in physical media sales.
I really kind of doubt it.
The reason is that owning has increased despite the ease of renting normally.
So it would have happened by now.
Plus if you like a movie who wants to pay for it again and again?
Plus what if you want to take it over to your friend's house to watch on his new tv but he doesn't have Apple TV?
Now you'll say well you transfer it to your ipod. However how do you watch it on your friend's tv?
Can you say portability? You know the kind people are already used to since VHS.
Since you don't own the movie how will you do any of these things when it will only play on your TV ( connected to Apple tv ) or your ipod?
Also Movie studios won't look too kindly on the idea of trying to burn it to a DVD copying it in any way ( and we're talking about the future here so let's make it HD ).
And then there's the problem of bandwidth. All those people downloading HD content all the time. Do you really think the web can stand that kind of traffic?
Maybe someday but there has to be alot of restructuring. And then there's all the other problems.
Plus some people just like to feel something in their hands that they've paid for.
So there you have it. Downloading will only be a secondary means of watching movies for sometime to come.
It was 1995, and that was actually my bad on many parts. I was thinking of VIdeo recorders which were still like $5000.00 in their third year.
Nevertheless the prices are on par with DVD. So if you waited that long to get a DVD player you'll have to do the same for a Blu Ray player.
So let's see VCRs came out in 1977 I believe. In 1979 I worked next to a TV dept. at the time and I seem to remember them costing something like $ 1,000.00
Jim, while I do agree with you that Paramount and Universal need to begin releasing on BD HD exclusive titles and soon, all the titles you mentioned in post #1624 are non-starters for me. Of course, YMMV.
Cory, I see Profile 2.0 as a smoke screen, important only those people who are more interested in the extras and bells and whistles like PIP. It makes no difference to those of us who only want to watch the movie.
Cory, while I do agree that lower player prices will probably lead to wider adoption, the big bottle neck in my opinion is the lack of titles and the unrealistic price of media, particularly the former.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
A Front Page article today states that Sony and Apple are in talks about adding BD. Once drives become available in the $200 - 300 range I'd be tempted to add one in the empty optical media bay in my MacPro.
" People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did. "
So let's see VCRs came out in 1977 I believe. In 1979 I worked next to a TV dept. at the time and I seem to remember them costing something like $ 1,000.00
Maybe the commercial ones from the 60's cost as much as you claimed.
Oh well!
I said video recorder not VCR, VCR came later. Yet they were still expensive. Even though I wasn't referring to the VCR you forgot inflation. In 1977 1,400.00 was probably pretty close to 5,000.00 anyway. If not more. Actually I think it was more, heck I was just a pup. The Pay phone was a nickel.
I said video recorder not VCR, VCR came later. Yet they were still expensive. Even though I wasn't referring to the VCR you forgot inflation. In 1977 1,400.00 was probably pretty close to 5,000.00 anyway. If not more. Actually I think it was more, heck I was just a pup. The Pay phone was a nickel.
Why would you compare ( in this discussion about the rate of price going down for the general publlic ) an industrial product to a commercial one?
I sense some backpeddling.
By the way inflation has been bad but not that bad!
I said video recorder not VCR, VCR came later. Yet they were still expensive. Even though I wasn't referring to the VCR you forgot inflation. In 1977 1,400.00 was probably pretty close to 5,000.00 anyway. If not more. Actually I think it was more, heck I was just a pup. The Pay phone was a nickel.
Why would you compare ( in this discussion about the rate of price going down for the general publlic ) an industrial product to a commercial one?
By the way inflation has been bad but not that bad! But it doesn't matter as they are two different kinds of things. One availible to TV studios and one ( much later ) for home use like the DVD player or the BR player.
By the way inflation has been bad but not that bad! But it doesn't matter as they are two different kinds of things. One availible to TV studios and one ( much later ) for home use like the DVD player or the BR player.
#1 I was going from memory - just the wrong one. And the only reason it wasn't used or considered a commercial product was because the price was so high.
It was readily available if you could afford it. The outlet for media on the other hand was probably harder to come by because there was really no home entertainment market other than personal movies.
#2 The average price of a new car in 1977 was $5,623.66; Today it's $28,000.00 So yes inflation is that bad. So when you say in 1977 the consumer version costed $1,400.00 your really saying that thing was far more expensive than any Blu Ray player ever made.
Comments
DVD players in their third year were still in the thousands.
No they were not. Stop it.
Retail prices for consumer-oriented DVD players currently range from $200 (on sale) to more than $1,200, depending on the quality of the player and market environment. InfoTech, Inc. reports that the average retail price for DVD video players has declined from $735 in the first half of 1997 to $470 in the second half of 1998 (see attachment 4). The mean price for all DVD players included in this study during the first half of 1999 was $443.39. The nearly 40 percent decline (from $735 to $443) in the average retail price for DVD players represents the dramatic reduction in price that is often associated with relatively new products.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpidvd.htm
These are the 1997/1998 prices. DVD was introduced in 1997. The "third year" would place it in 200. You could buy a DVD player for $150 in 2000.
Sorry guys, same song 99th verse.
You and everyone else will keep hearing them until these important issues are resolved!
Some of the buying public got crapped on and the companies must make this right. Or they won't be consumers of BR.
From " The Digital Bits " today in an article about advice for BR studios and manufacturers.
" . The Blu-ray supporting studios who have previously supported HD-DVD need to release Blu-ray versions of those titles previously exclusive to HD-DVD ASAP. This is especially important with key titles like The Matrix, V for Vendetta, Heroes: Season One, Battlestar Galactica: Season One, Transformers, Top Gun and Star Trek: The Original Series Remastered - Season One. Those titles encouraged many people to buy HD-DVD players, and now many of those people feel like they've been led up the creek without a paddle. Meanwhile, the exclusivity of those titles to HD-DVD is a major sore spot with Blu-ray consumers. There's a lot of goodwill that needs to be restored all around with high-def consumers (Special word to Paramount and DreamWorks: Having now abandoned your high-def consumers not once but TWICE, you guys have a LOT of work to do in this area). "
This is only part of what is an interesting read.
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
The prices are still years ahead of DVD in price though. You girls scouts are just too young to get it. DVD players in their third year were still in the thousands. You girls can cry, moan and whimper in here till your hearts break from sadness. But your sad little sob stories are falling on deaf ears. Blu Ray prices are more than acceptable and the sales prove it. Again still ahead of DVD.
WRONG!
In 1997 I bought a laser disc / DVD combo player ( since I had a pretty big LD collection this was a good way to get started on DVD ) for $1000.00!
DVD players were around $ 200.00 in 2000 ( the third year )!
http://www.answers.com/how%20much%20...st%20in%202000
From that website :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" You asked how much did DVD players cost in 2000. Here are some answers found on the web:
I just went through researching $200 DVD players to buy one for my parents
http://faq.arstechnica.com/link.php?i=495
A magical $299, that's how much -- $100 less than the cheapest available HD DVD rig ( Toshiba's A2 ) and half of Sony's $600 BDP-S300 Blu-ray Disc player
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/20/t...99-hd-dvd-play...
Now we are three generations down the road, the fourth generation of DVD players is on the market, so it is about time we took a look at how much or little of the universal character has materialized so far. And Marantz, a wholly owned subsidiary of mighty Philips, which evokes memories of a world-class audio manufacturer of yesteryear, seemed like a good place to start. I purposely selected the smallest and cheapest of a line of three...
http://www.tnt-audio.com/sorgenti/dvd4000_e.html "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course some of their prices for HD DVD and BR are old but you get the idea. Still far short of " Thousands ".
Since these players play DVDs also and the optical disc is now well established BR should drop faster.
Give me an extra big break!
I'm 54 soon to be 55. I remember well!
How old are you?
You and everyone else will keep hearing them until these important issues are resolved!
yes, thats because we all work for Paramount...
have you pestered them with a REAL honest to goodness LETTER yet?
I'm betting the answer is "nope"
yes, thats because we all work for Paramount...
have you pestered them with a REAL honest to goodness LETTER yet?
I'm betting the answer is "nope"
Wrong.
It's because this is a discussion about " If " BluRay is a viable format.
Also Paramount wasn't the only studio listed. I'm a big fan of BSG also and have season 1 in HD DVD it would be nice to see additional seasons on BR. Necessary if BR wants to survive as this is an extremely popular show.
Also " The Digital Bits " seems to think it's important for the survival of this format.
And if " The Bits " thinks it's important then it's important.
I haven't gotten to the letter writing stage yet. I've been waiting for them to show some common sense as this is an easy call. I'd be willing to bet many already have as they have been writing " The Bits ".
Did you read the article? It has some good advice for the promoters of BR and it's pretty much the same thing I"ve been saying here.
Like I've said it's an easy call. But sometimes companies do things not exactly logically and not in their own best interests.
Sorry guys, same song 99th verse.
Sorry guys, same song 99th verse.
Does that make it untrue? Blu-Ray Hi-Def® is still not 1.) reasonably-priced and 2.) complete. I want to see a realistically-viable HDM format today, not two years from now. I don't want to see consumers flocking to 720p über-compressed internet downloads, resulting in HDM becoming a niche. I'd like to see Sony consider SD DVD and internet downloads as a serious threat, instead of assuming the death of HD DVD means they can't lose. $199 players two years from now isn't good enough. Two years from now, there may very well be a viable means of purchasing and storing HD movies at affordable prices, which could negate the need for Blu-Ray altogether.
I'd feel much better about the whole thing if people could be stashing $199 Profile 2.0 players under christmas trees in 2008, not 2009.
Cory, I see Profile 2.0 as a smoke screen, important only those people who are more interested in the extras and bells and whistles like PIP. It makes no difference to those of us who only want to watch the movie.
Cory, while I do agree that lower player prices will probably lead to wider adoption, the big bottle neck in my opinion is the lack of titles and the unrealistic price of media, particularly the former.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
A Front Page article today states that Sony and Apple are in talks about adding BD. Once drives become available in the $200 - 300 range I'd be tempted to add one in the empty optical media bay in my MacPro.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
This is something of a myth*. Alternatives to physical media are still in its infancy and suffer from a variety of usability limitations. The rule of thumb has been 10 years for adoption of new technology into the mainstream. Blu-ray technology appeared in 2000. So 2010 is a nice prediction of mass market penetration to replace DVD.
Commercial online movies sales are what? A couple three years old? 2015 before you see AppleTV and (video) MCEs in widespread use. Perhaps a little earlier as they are being built into consoles. Its not JUST providing the console part...the PS3 and 360 are more than capable. Its all the infrastructure to make it not suck that also has to get deployed.
V
* I don't have reference off the top of my head. I can go look but I recall a couple journaled articles that measured the rate of technology adoption and they weren't more than a few years old.
Ok right there you lost all credibility. When a major website for home media and a major supporter of BR during the format war agrees with what I've been saying you really don't have an argumentative leg to stand on.
" The Digital Bits " is the best authority on the web for this subject. So are you saying you disagree with what they've been saying?
Did you follow the link and read the article or are you just blowing smoke?
Jim, while I do agree with you that Paramount and Universal need to begin releasing on BD HD exclusive titles and soon, all the titles you mentioned in post #1624 are non-starters for me. Of course, YMMV.
Cory, I see Profile 2.0 as a smoke screen, important only those people who are more interested in the extras and bells and whistles like PIP. It makes no difference to those of us who only want to watch the movie.
Cory, while I do agree that lower player prices will probably lead to wider adoption, the big bottle neck in my opinion is the lack of titles and the unrealistic price of media, particularly the former.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
A Front Page article today states that Sony and Apple are in talks about adding BD. Once drives become available in the $200 - 300 range I'd be tempted to add one in the empty optical media bay in my MacPro.
OC they're major starters for most of the buying public so they are a major point to wide acceptance of BR. Follow the link and read the article.
I do agree with this statement : " People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did. "
So in other words they need to get on the stick and follow the advice from " The Digital Bits ". Buit if something else does come along it won't be download as the main way people watch movies. Aside from renting it just won't be a major player in HD for sometime to come. The many reasons for this have already been discussed in this thread. On this subject I really don't care what Bill Gates or Steve Jobs say. They would like you to rent again and again as they both have services that work this way. However I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that something that you could buy a movie on could come along that would blow all other forms of media out of the water.
Here's the link again
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
On this subject I really don't care what Bill Gates or Steve Jobs say. They would like you to rent again and again as they both have services that work this way.
You'd have to rent a movie six times to equal the cost of the Blu-Ray version; how many movies do you own that you've actually watched six times? Something to think about. As movies become more and more easy to rent on a whim from a vast selection with devices like Apple TV, there may be a significant decrease in physical media sales.
No they were not. Stop it.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpidvd.htm
These are the 1997/1998 prices. DVD was introduced in 1997. The "third year" would place it in 200. You could buy a DVD player for $150 in 2000.
It was 1995, and that was actually my bad on many parts. I was thinking of VIdeo recorders which were still like $5000.00 in their third year.
Nevertheless the prices are on par with DVD. So if you waited that long to get a DVD player you'll have to do the same for a Blu Ray player.
You'd have to rent a movie six times to equal the cost of the Blu-Ray version; how many movies do you own that you've actually watched six times? Something to think about. As movies become more and more easy to rent on a whim from a vast selection with devices like Apple TV, there may be a significant decrease in physical media sales.
I really kind of doubt it.
The reason is that owning has increased despite the ease of renting normally.
So it would have happened by now.
Plus if you like a movie who wants to pay for it again and again?
Plus what if you want to take it over to your friend's house to watch on his new tv but he doesn't have Apple TV?
Now you'll say well you transfer it to your ipod. However how do you watch it on your friend's tv?
Can you say portability? You know the kind people are already used to since VHS.
Since you don't own the movie how will you do any of these things when it will only play on your TV ( connected to Apple tv ) or your ipod?
Also Movie studios won't look too kindly on the idea of trying to burn it to a DVD copying it in any way ( and we're talking about the future here so let's make it HD ).
And then there's the problem of bandwidth. All those people downloading HD content all the time. Do you really think the web can stand that kind of traffic?
Maybe someday but there has to be alot of restructuring. And then there's all the other problems.
Plus some people just like to feel something in their hands that they've paid for.
So there you have it. Downloading will only be a secondary means of watching movies for sometime to come.
It was 1995, and that was actually my bad on many parts. I was thinking of VIdeo recorders which were still like $5000.00 in their third year.
Nevertheless the prices are on par with DVD. So if you waited that long to get a DVD player you'll have to do the same for a Blu Ray player.
So let's see VCRs came out in 1977 I believe. In 1979 I worked next to a TV dept. at the time and I seem to remember them costing something like $ 1,000.00
Got a link for you though :
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...638778,00.html
The very first one on the market.
Picture, price, and everything!
$1,400.00
Maybe the commercial ones from the 60's cost as much as you claimed.
Oh well!
Jim, while I do agree with you that Paramount and Universal need to begin releasing on BD HD exclusive titles and soon, all the titles you mentioned in post #1624 are non-starters for me. Of course, YMMV.
Cory, I see Profile 2.0 as a smoke screen, important only those people who are more interested in the extras and bells and whistles like PIP. It makes no difference to those of us who only want to watch the movie.
Cory, while I do agree that lower player prices will probably lead to wider adoption, the big bottle neck in my opinion is the lack of titles and the unrealistic price of media, particularly the former.
People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did.
A Front Page article today states that Sony and Apple are in talks about adding BD. Once drives become available in the $200 - 300 range I'd be tempted to add one in the empty optical media bay in my MacPro.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" People keep trying to compare the rate of HDM adoption to DVDs. I really don't feel that's valid as technological advances are occurring at a much faster rate now and BD doesn't have as big a window as DVD did. "
You mean something like this?
http://www.news.com/Coming-soon-Movi...?tag=nefd.lede
So let's see VCRs came out in 1977 I believe. In 1979 I worked next to a TV dept. at the time and I seem to remember them costing something like $ 1,000.00
Got a link for you though :
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...638778,00.html
The very first one on the market.
Picture, price, and everything!
$1,400.00
Maybe the commercial ones from the 60's cost as much as you claimed.
Oh well!
I said video recorder not VCR, VCR came later. Yet they were still expensive. Even though I wasn't referring to the VCR you forgot inflation. In 1977 1,400.00 was probably pretty close to 5,000.00 anyway. If not more. Actually I think it was more, heck I was just a pup. The Pay phone was a nickel.
I said video recorder not VCR, VCR came later. Yet they were still expensive. Even though I wasn't referring to the VCR you forgot inflation. In 1977 1,400.00 was probably pretty close to 5,000.00 anyway. If not more. Actually I think it was more, heck I was just a pup. The Pay phone was a nickel.
Why would you compare ( in this discussion about the rate of price going down for the general publlic ) an industrial product to a commercial one?
I sense some backpeddling.
By the way inflation has been bad but not that bad!
I said video recorder not VCR, VCR came later. Yet they were still expensive. Even though I wasn't referring to the VCR you forgot inflation. In 1977 1,400.00 was probably pretty close to 5,000.00 anyway. If not more. Actually I think it was more, heck I was just a pup. The Pay phone was a nickel.
Why would you compare ( in this discussion about the rate of price going down for the general publlic ) an industrial product to a commercial one?
I sense some backpeddling.
http://inventors.about.com/library/i...rs/blvideo.htm
By the way inflation has been bad but not that bad! But it doesn't matter as they are two different kinds of things. One availible to TV studios and one ( much later ) for home use like the DVD player or the BR player.
Why would you compare ( in this discussion about the rate of price going down for the general publlic ) an industrial product to a commercial one?
I sense some backpeddling.
http://inventors.about.com/library/i...rs/blvideo.htm
By the way inflation has been bad but not that bad! But it doesn't matter as they are two different kinds of things. One availible to TV studios and one ( much later ) for home use like the DVD player or the BR player.
#1 I was going from memory - just the wrong one. And the only reason it wasn't used or considered a commercial product was because the price was so high.
It was readily available if you could afford it. The outlet for media on the other hand was probably harder to come by because there was really no home entertainment market other than personal movies.
#2 The average price of a new car in 1977 was $5,623.66; Today it's $28,000.00 So yes inflation is that bad. So when you say in 1977 the consumer version costed $1,400.00 your really saying that thing was far more expensive than any Blu Ray player ever made.