I don't have as much problem with BR making as I do vinea and the snide comments.
I'm just trying to present other sides than BR being a definite thing and maybe looking at ways that might help it become a definite thing. However some people have problems with asking questions.
Vinea is simply a good and thorough debater...don't take things personally...well I hope your not at least. I understand where you are coming from and I think that most here agree that prices can stand to come down, but I also think most aren't worried about it as there is A LOT of time before the holiday shopping season for prices to come down...and they will, it is inevitable.
So I don't think people have problems with asking questions, at least that's my opinion. I think people are objecting to the level and/or intenstity of you being "realistic" in that it is coming off a bit "pessimistic." Blu-ray, given the economies of scale will drop in price just as other formats have done in the past. So, no need to sound off the alarm bells just yet.
Question for you all...I just mentioned the Matrix Trilogy as one I covet the most in terms of wanting. What's your guys' take? What floats your boat? What Blu-ray movie are you guys and gals chompin at the bit, waiting to see?
My screen at home is 53". I wouldn't consider anything less for my living room than 50 ".
I don't have any data but I'd be willing to bet the larger screen sizes are the one's that are showing the most growth.
I know a few people with larger TV's but my 32" Aquos seems enormous in my modestly sized living room.
Depends how big your place is, which will vary from country to country and city to town. A 53" TV in my apartment in London would probably turn me into one if those slab worshipping monkeys from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Even if you compare size for size though a top of the range 53" 720p/1080i set should give a 'better' picture than a bargain basement 1080p screen. Top of the range 1080p will, of course, be 'better'. Although even then it will depend on the original source material and how you are inputting the signal.
People should be made to do a Pepsi challenge and choose the TV with the picture they like the best. The resolution can then be revealed to them when they get home.
I have a 46" Sony Bravia & since my apartment is small I sit about 6-7 feet away from when I watch. I'm kinda amazed that I haven't burned my retinas out yet.
I know a few people with larger TV's but my 32" Aquos seems enormous in my modestly sized living room.
Depends how big your place is, which will vary from country to country and city to town. A 53" TV in my apartment in London would probably turn me into one if those slab worshipping monkeys from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
This is one of the reasons I have a feeling HDM could very well remain a niche; the massive televisions required to appreciate the additional resolution is largely a suburban/rural American phenomenon. Even if cost wasn't an issue, most people in the world simply don't have the space for a television 46" or greater in their homes. And DVD is more than fine on a 32" tv, unless you're sitting 2 feet away. A 50" television with Blu-Ray player is like the SUV of the living room.
Studies show that only 5% of European HDTV owners actually have HD service, but it would be my guess that most Eurorpean HDTV owners are watching 36"~ screens.
Vinea is simply a good and thorough debater...don't take things personally...well I hope your not at least. I understand where you are coming from and I think that most here agree that prices can stand to come down, but I also think most aren't worried about it as there is A LOT of time before the holiday shopping season for prices to come down...and they will, it is inevitable.
So I don't think people have problems with asking questions, at least that's my opinion. I think people are objecting to the level and/or intenstity of you being "realistic" in that it is coming off a bit "pessimistic." Blu-ray, given the economies of scale will drop in price just as other formats have done in the past. So, no need to sound off the alarm bells just yet.
Really I hope So!
I'm always the one to jump first.
I purchased a HD DVD player knowing full well that BR would probably win the war. I just didn't think it would be this fast. I just wanted to see what an HD player would look like on my TV and the price was low enough I could take a chance.
This time however I just want to wait and see. It shouldn't take too long to see if BR is becoming accepted and for the prices to come down.
About the other points it seems like vinea is the one who's taking it seriously. Home Video has been my hobby for many years. I do know alot about it. And when I discuss a point and someone takes the contrary point of course I'm going to speak up.
" 3. What is the original title of Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan (1982)?
Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan. The Roman numeral II was added to the on screen title for the video release. This was also the first sell-through VHS release at $39.95. "
Which if I believe correctly was in 1983 the year after it was released in the theater.
Anyway even if a person doesn't like Star Trek it's been a big seller for Home Video of any format. And apparently still is if people would pay the full price for the HD DVD 1rst season copy ( as many did ). Like I said I got mine for $129.00. I think it would help alot if Universal and Paramount would announce what they are going to do in terms of BR.
The things I listed were in the form of ideas that BR might try to speed things up.
Since I read the similar things on " The Digital Bits " I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Really your response was much friendlier so I'll say again : I want BR to succeed ( God Damn it! )
You are really naive about the MPAA. For one thing when you say it was all about Blank Tape that's leaving part of the picture out. Back then Home Video ( in it's infancy ) was all about renting. There was no buying. Yes you could buy but it would cost you $100.00 or more for one movie. It wasn't until later that they slowly tried selling a movie at a reasonable price. I see no reason to return to that kind of control by the studios over how you watch and when. If selling had been a real part of the picture it would have been a target also. The only real sales market was video discs ( CED and Laser Disc ). Tape ( with the exception of buying it from a club which obligated you to buy more ) was out of the average person's ball park as far as price.
"In the early 1960s major players in the U.S. electronics and entertainment industries began making plans to develop some form of home video system. All of these projects conceived of home video as a playback-only system, employing some kind of disc. The basic assumption was that consumers would purchase copies of video programs just as they purchased phonograph records. "
...
Nevertheless, a Michigan entrepreneur named Andre Blay decided to start a pre-recorded videocassette business. He began soliciting the studios, seeking to purchase the rights to distribute films on tape. All but one rejected him. 20th Century Fox, strapped for cash at the time, signed on, and in late 1976 Blay began selling tapes through a video club arrangement advertised in TV Guide. The promotion was an instant success. Blay and Fox made more money than they had imagined, and the other film companies slowly but surely followed them to this new source of profit.
So much for no buying.
Renting came after because the cost to purchase was still relatively high ($49.95 + $10 membership to start). Note that MCA sued Sony not because of pre-recorded media but because of potential piracy on blank media. Fox went with sales for one reason only. Money. Other companies followed suit for the same reason. Money.
Had sales been low for Blay, yes, there never would have been pre-recorded movies on tape because there would have been no money and the studios were pissed at Sony anyway.
Early on, from the perspective of the studios, it was all sales whether to a private collector or a mom and pop video rental store or later to a wholesaler. It was enormously profitable because increased sales reduced costs to $5 while wholesale prices were $65.
But even here, from the start of rentals in 1977 to the first sell-through title (Wrath of Khan as you mentioned) at $39.95 (not $100) in 1982 was only 5 years. VCRs still had less than 10% market penetration. That's still pretty early in the product lifecycle and not quite mass market yet.
It's not until 1985 that VCR's had 30% market penetration. While rental is a $2.55B business, video sales revenue was $773M.
Later 1988, ten years after introduction, they negotiated large scale revenue sharing to reduce the captial costs for stocking a lot of rental units. Then studio revenue included rentals. Before 1988? Sales. Even sell-through sales to the general public.
You know, two minutes of research can provide the benefit of not being wrong on nearly every post. READING your source material also helps since even your source indicates purchases.
Oh...and this is just a forum. I don't take anything here seriously...at most it's an amusing passtime where I get a little focus for what to google about. Typically you quickly learn that what you assumed to be true really didn't play out the way you remembered. Which is why I bother googling. It's easy, it's fast and it's decent enough for unimportant research.
I don't have as much problem with BR making as I do vinea and the snide comments.
My old dad used to say "take the stick out of your own eye, before complaining about other peoples snide comments" but then that was back in the black and white days, and colour television will never catch on, no-one has a set! They are too expensive, and anyway what's wrong with radio? after all its "good enough."
If people got a colour set all the black and white programmes will have to be upgraded, so it won't happen! I'd LIKE it to happen, but it won't happen! I'm going to write a sharp note every week to "farmers journal" and complain about this NOT happening, don't get me wrong I'd love it to, but I just don't think it will, given the current "good enough" programming on radio, and after all because "I" say it won't happen, it just won't ok!, and that's all that matters and everyone else has to agree with me, or so help me I'll keep sending letters in to "Farmers Journal"
Dear me how dare they have an advert for a colour television set! don't they know that as an emerging technology that very few people will have them? but don't you worry, I'm right and thats all there is too it, and If "Farmers Journal" gets letters in reply to mine, I'll tell them that I bought into Wax cylinder at the end of the century before last "So I should know!" I mean look how that turned out! NO ONE bought into it, well at least not in significant numbers, and by then it was too late!!
That damned Edison company had turned against its customers and brought out the "gramophone" well I can tell you, I NEVER bought into that anti consumer format! a plague on Edisons house! I stuck to my wax cylinders because they were "good enough" I mean I WANTED the gramophone to take off, I really did.. but I just couldn't support it. It was so much easier in those days to send a telegram of complaint, that was before the damned telephone took off, but don't get me started on that, I DIDN'T want that to take off, but IT DID!
But anyway, as people keep ignoring me about those damned colour Television sets, I'm going to keep sending in the letters to "Farmers Journal" it's so much better for my blood pressure to get worked up about it in as pointless a way as possible, that will have no bearing on the matter, than to actually do something constructive with my time, AND AFTER ALL .. I'M RIGHT.
got it
If you have a problem with a poster, try a different site, I believe there are one or two, check out a place called "google" I'm sure with the amount of uninformed bloggers out there, you could find a home where every fear and doubt will be well fostered and kept warm, very easily.
DVD is more than fine on a 32" tv, unless you're sitting 2 feet away.
Upscaled DVD is okay, but after you've been watching HD films going back to standard definition DVD is pretty jarring. You don't need a giant TV to appreciate the improvement, although I consider 32" to be pretty jumbo anyway.
The difference will be even more pronounced in the next year or so as HD TV broadcasts become the norm.
Upscaled DVD is okay, but after you've been watching HD films going back to standard definition DVD is pretty jarring. You don't need a giant TV to appreciate the improvement, although I consider 32" to be pretty jumbo anyway.
The difference will be even more pronounced in the next year or so as HD TV broadcasts become the norm.
The only thing about next year that is for sure is digital broadcasts. There is no HD law, or whatever it is, going into effect. It's only been, from the beginning, all digital broadcasting by 2009.
The only thing about next year that is for sure is digital broadcasts. There is no HD law, or whatever it is, going into effect. It's only been, from the beginning, all digital broadcasting by 2009.
At the moment receiving them (in the UK) requires a rather expensive set top box, but from the end of April FreeSat is launched which will replace the current Freeview over time. It provides cheap HD reception. The BBC is committed to full HD output in the next few years.
Practically all mainstream shows in the US, Japan and increasingly Europe can be received in HD. HD TV's are all over the place, so the final part of the jigsaw is a cheap, accessible means to receive them.
I doubt many people with HDTV's will be watching all their TV in standard definition over the next year or so. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an HDTV.
"In the early 1960s major players in the U.S. electronics and entertainment industries began making plans to develop some form of home video system. All of these projects conceived of home video as a playback-only system, employing some kind of disc. The basic assumption was that consumers would purchase copies of video programs just as they purchased phonograph records. "
...
Nevertheless, a Michigan entrepreneur named Andre Blay decided to start a pre-recorded videocassette business. He began soliciting the studios, seeking to purchase the rights to distribute films on tape. All but one rejected him. 20th Century Fox, strapped for cash at the time, signed on, and in late 1976 Blay began selling tapes through a video club arrangement advertised in TV Guide. The promotion was an instant success. Blay and Fox made more money than they had imagined, and the other film companies slowly but surely followed them to this new source of profit.
So much for no buying.
Renting came after because the cost to purchase was still relatively high ($49.95 + $10 membership to start). Note that MCA sued Sony not because of pre-recorded media but because of potential piracy on blank media. Fox went with sales for one reason only. Money. Other companies followed suit for the same reason. Money.
Had sales been low for Blay, yes, there never would have been pre-recorded movies on tape because there would have been no money and the studios were pissed at Sony anyway.
Early on, from the perspective of the studios, it was all sales whether to a private collector or a mom and pop video rental store or later to a wholesaler. It was enormously profitable because increased sales reduced costs to $5 while wholesale prices were $65.
But even here, from the start of rentals in 1977 to the first sell-through title (Wrath of Khan as you mentioned) at $39.95 (not $100) in 1982 was only 5 years. VCRs still had less than 10% market penetration. That's still pretty early in the product lifecycle and not quite mass market yet.
It's not until 1985 that VCR's had 30% market penetration. While rental is a $2.55B business, video sales revenue was $773M.
Later 1988, ten years after introduction, they negotiated large scale revenue sharing to reduce the captial costs for stocking a lot of rental units. Then studio revenue included rentals. Before 1988? Sales. Even sell-through sales to the general public.
You know, two minutes of research can provide the benefit of not being wrong on nearly every post. READING your source material also helps since even your source indicates purchases.
Oh...and this is just a forum. I don't take anything here seriously...at most it's an amusing passtime where I get a little focus for what to google about. Typically you quickly learn that what you assumed to be true really didn't play out the way you remembered. Which is why I bother googling. It's easy, it's fast and it's decent enough for unimportant research.
For real research, I still hit the library.
" "In the early 1960s major players in the U.S. electronics and entertainment industries began making plans to develop some form of home video system. All of these projects conceived of home video as a playback-only system, employing some kind of disc. The basic assumption was that consumers would purchase copies of video programs just as they purchased phonograph records. "
...
Nevertheless, a Michigan entrepreneur named Andre Blay decided to start a pre-recorded videocassette business. He began soliciting the studios, seeking to purchase the rights to distribute films on tape. All but one rejected him. 20th Century Fox, strapped for cash at the time, signed on, and in late 1976 Blay began selling tapes through a video club arrangement advertised in TV Guide. The promotion was an instant success. Blay and Fox made more money than they had imagined, and the other film companies slowly but surely followed them to this new source of profit.
So much for no buying. "
You do still understand this all hunges on the approval of the MPAA don't you? And as I've previously posted " Selling " or what commonly refered to as " Sell Through " didn't start for the general public ( that's if you didn't join a club and by a title in a limited collection like the book of the month club ) until 1983. You know the year after Jack Valenti's testomony.
So much for selling.
" Oh...and this is just a forum. I don't take anything here seriously...at most it's an amusing passtime where I get a little focus for what to google about. Typically you quickly learn that what you assumed to be true really didn't play out the way you remembered. Which is why I bother googling. It's easy, it's fast and it's decent enough for unimportant research. "
I prefer the results I get through Yahoo. Yes us old guys learned to use the internet also. Myself I've been using the web and seach engines since 1995.
Also I'm sure there's money to be made. That's not in question here. However I'm thinking that the MPAA would rather everybody rent at this point. More control and ultimately more money ( again and aagin ). And yes I'm aware that selling currently makes more money ( as it should ) but for more control I think for them it's a trade off.
My old dad used to say "take the stick out of your own eye, before complaining about other peoples snide comments" but then that was back in the black and white days, and colour television will never catch on, no-one has a set! They are too expensive, and anyway what's wrong with radio? after all its "good enough."
If people got a colour set all the black and white programmes will have to be upgraded, so it won't happen! I'd LIKE it to happen, but it won't happen! I'm going to write a sharp note every week to "farmers journal" and complain about this NOT happening, don't get me wrong I'd love it to, but I just don't think it will, given the current "good enough" programming on radio, and after all because "I" say it won't happen, it just won't ok!, and that's all that matters and everyone else has to agree with me, or so help me I'll keep sending letters in to "Farmers Journal"
Dear me how dare they have an advert for a colour television set! don't they know that as an emerging technology that very few people will have them? but don't you worry, I'm right and thats all there is too it, and If "Farmers Journal" gets letters in reply to mine, I'll tell them that I bought into Wax cylinder at the end of the century before last "So I should know!" I mean look how that turned out! NO ONE bought into it, well at least not in significant numbers, and by then it was too late!!
That damned Edison company had turned against its customers and brought out the "gramophone" well I can tell you, I NEVER bought into that anti consumer format! a plague on Edisons house! I stuck to my wax cylinders because they were "good enough" I mean I WANTED the gramophone to take off, I really did.. but I just couldn't support it. It was so much easier in those days to send a telegram of complaint, that was before the damned telephone took off, but don't get me started on that, I DIDN'T want that to take off, but IT DID!
But anyway, as people keep ignoring me about those damned colour Television sets, I'm going to keep sending in the letters to "Farmers Journal" it's so much better for my blood pressure to get worked up about it in as pointless a way as possible, that will have no bearing on the matter, than to actually do something constructive with my time, AND AFTER ALL .. I'M RIGHT.
got it
If you have a problem with a poster, try a different site, I believe there are one or two, check out a place called "google" I'm sure with the amount of uninformed bloggers out there, you could find a home where every fear and doubt will be well fostered and kept warm, very easily.
Different market now days with different issues and dynamics. Haven't you been paying attention?
You do still understand this all hunges on the approval of the MPAA don't you? And as I've previously posted " Selling " or what commonly refered to as " Sell Through " didn't start for the general public ( that's if you didn't join a club and by a title in a limited collection like the book of the month club ) until 1983. You know the year after Jack Valenti's testomony.
So much for selling.
No, it doesn't hinge on the MPAA. Fox unilaterally allowed sales at $49.95 in 1977 as sell-throughs. Columbia followed in 1979. Long before 1983. Disney had sell-through in 1980.
And which part of they were all sales from the perspective of the studios do you NOT understand? Studios saw no rental revenue until 1988 with revenue sharing.
Here are the top 10 sales for the early 80s. Note that Billboard did not track rentals until 1982.
I prefer the results I get through Yahoo. Yes us old guys learned to use the internet also. Myself I've been using the web and seach engines since 1995.
Then learn to read what you actually find. I even bolded the relevant section for you. There are dates and numbers and if you don't like that particular history site you can find another with support for your position.
Which you can't because there WERE sales from the very beginning and it didn't go from zero to $700M in sales between 1983 and 1985 starting with Wrath of Khan.
Your position is untenable and wrong.
Quote:
Also I'm sure there's money to be made. That's not in question here. However I'm thinking that the MPAA would rather everybody rent at this point. More control and ultimately more money ( again and aagin ). And yes I'm aware that selling currently makes more money ( as it should ) but for more control I think for them it's a trade off.
The MPAA is controlled by the studios, not the other way around. It's a trade organization that lobbies in the interest of studios. Not decide what they are going to do.
The members are competitors and not monolithic (or they'd have backed only one format from the get go). If Disney wants sales, then that's what they'll do. Just as Fox did in 1977 and the MPAA won't say Boo.
At the moment receiving them (in the UK) requires a rather expensive set top box, but from the end of April FreeSat is launched which will replace the current Freeview over time. It provides cheap HD reception. The BBC is committed to full HD output in the next few years.
Practically all mainstream shows in the US, Japan and increasingly Europe can be received in HD. HD TV's are all over the place, so the final part of the jigsaw is a cheap, accessible means to receive them.
I doubt many people with HDTV's will be watching all their TV in standard definition over the next year or so. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an HDTV.
FreeSat is interesting, but i would hope it doesnt replace Freeview for 10/20 years after the 2012 switchover, far too many people are having enough problems accepting freeview as it involves an extra box and cables. the TV manus or the Freeview ass. have messed up by not INSISTING that ALL new TVs MUST come with a freeview reciever, but there they are still selling merrily away in 2008.. I really hope that changes from 2009 though, but then said the same last year.
It's really difficult to see (just at the moment) how HD would be possible a la "HD for all" movement on Freeview, new STBs would need to be implemented to allow for MPEG4 decoding. It's all a bit of a mess IMO.
I'm dubious about Freesat NOT being taken over by SKY/Virgin, and to a lesser extent Telewest. but at least we live in interesting times \
Comments
I don't have as much problem with BR making as I do vinea and the snide comments.
I'm just trying to present other sides than BR being a definite thing and maybe looking at ways that might help it become a definite thing. However some people have problems with asking questions.
Vinea is simply a good and thorough debater...don't take things personally...well I hope your not at least. I understand where you are coming from and I think that most here agree that prices can stand to come down, but I also think most aren't worried about it as there is A LOT of time before the holiday shopping season for prices to come down...and they will, it is inevitable.
So I don't think people have problems with asking questions, at least that's my opinion. I think people are objecting to the level and/or intenstity of you being "realistic" in that it is coming off a bit "pessimistic." Blu-ray, given the economies of scale will drop in price just as other formats have done in the past. So, no need to sound off the alarm bells just yet.
I'm also waiting for:
The Lord of the Ring Trilogy
Batman Begins & Dark Knight
Indiana Jones 1-4
Pulp Fiction
Saving Private Ryan
The Green Mile
Forest Gump
Big Trouble in Little China
I've been waiting for Band of Brothers which I just found out will be released sometime in 2008 according to High-Def Digest.
I'm also waiting for:
The Lord of the Ring Trilogy
Batman Begins & Dark Knight
Indiana Jones 1-4
Pulp Fiction
Saving Private Ryan
The Green Mile
Forest Gump
Big Trouble in Little China
I never did get to see Band of Brothers, but some friends here in Texas said it is flippin awesome. I'm gonna have to give that a rent on DVD.
Big Trouble in Little China...awesome...INDEEEED! (Girl with greeeeen eyehhhs)
I never did get to see Band of Brothers, but some friends here in Texas said it is flippin awesome. I'm gonna have to give that a rent on DVD.
Big Trouble in Little China...awesome...INDEEEED! (Girl with greeeeen eyehhhs)
Every now & then, the History Channel HD will have a Band of Brothers marathon on the weekend.
My screen at home is 53". I wouldn't consider anything less for my living room than 50 ".
I don't have any data but I'd be willing to bet the larger screen sizes are the one's that are showing the most growth.
I know a few people with larger TV's but my 32" Aquos seems enormous in my modestly sized living room.
Depends how big your place is, which will vary from country to country and city to town. A 53" TV in my apartment in London would probably turn me into one if those slab worshipping monkeys from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Even if you compare size for size though a top of the range 53" 720p/1080i set should give a 'better' picture than a bargain basement 1080p screen. Top of the range 1080p will, of course, be 'better'. Although even then it will depend on the original source material and how you are inputting the signal.
People should be made to do a Pepsi challenge and choose the TV with the picture they like the best. The resolution can then be revealed to them when they get home.
I know a few people with larger TV's but my 32" Aquos seems enormous in my modestly sized living room.
Depends how big your place is, which will vary from country to country and city to town. A 53" TV in my apartment in London would probably turn me into one if those slab worshipping monkeys from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
This is one of the reasons I have a feeling HDM could very well remain a niche; the massive televisions required to appreciate the additional resolution is largely a suburban/rural American phenomenon. Even if cost wasn't an issue, most people in the world simply don't have the space for a television 46" or greater in their homes. And DVD is more than fine on a 32" tv, unless you're sitting 2 feet away. A 50" television with Blu-Ray player is like the SUV of the living room.
Studies show that only 5% of European HDTV owners actually have HD service, but it would be my guess that most Eurorpean HDTV owners are watching 36"~ screens.
Vinea is simply a good and thorough debater...don't take things personally...well I hope your not at least. I understand where you are coming from and I think that most here agree that prices can stand to come down, but I also think most aren't worried about it as there is A LOT of time before the holiday shopping season for prices to come down...and they will, it is inevitable.
So I don't think people have problems with asking questions, at least that's my opinion. I think people are objecting to the level and/or intenstity of you being "realistic" in that it is coming off a bit "pessimistic." Blu-ray, given the economies of scale will drop in price just as other formats have done in the past. So, no need to sound off the alarm bells just yet.
Really I hope So!
I'm always the one to jump first.
I purchased a HD DVD player knowing full well that BR would probably win the war. I just didn't think it would be this fast. I just wanted to see what an HD player would look like on my TV and the price was low enough I could take a chance.
This time however I just want to wait and see. It shouldn't take too long to see if BR is becoming accepted and for the prices to come down.
About the other points it seems like vinea is the one who's taking it seriously. Home Video has been my hobby for many years. I do know alot about it. And when I discuss a point and someone takes the contrary point of course I'm going to speak up.
Here's an interesting page I found :
http://www.prophotos.net/kelso/QuizAnswers.html
From that page :
" 3. What is the original title of Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan (1982)?
Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan. The Roman numeral II was added to the on screen title for the video release. This was also the first sell-through VHS release at $39.95. "
Which if I believe correctly was in 1983 the year after it was released in the theater.
Anyway even if a person doesn't like Star Trek it's been a big seller for Home Video of any format. And apparently still is if people would pay the full price for the HD DVD 1rst season copy ( as many did ). Like I said I got mine for $129.00. I think it would help alot if Universal and Paramount would announce what they are going to do in terms of BR.
The things I listed were in the form of ideas that BR might try to speed things up.
Since I read the similar things on " The Digital Bits " I know I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Really your response was much friendlier so I'll say again : I want BR to succeed ( God Damn it! )
You are really naive about the MPAA. For one thing when you say it was all about Blank Tape that's leaving part of the picture out. Back then Home Video ( in it's infancy ) was all about renting. There was no buying. Yes you could buy but it would cost you $100.00 or more for one movie. It wasn't until later that they slowly tried selling a movie at a reasonable price. I see no reason to return to that kind of control by the studios over how you watch and when. If selling had been a real part of the picture it would have been a target also. The only real sales market was video discs ( CED and Laser Disc ). Tape ( with the exception of buying it from a club which obligated you to buy more ) was out of the average person's ball park as far as price.
Here's a little bit of history.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/H/.../homevideo.htm
"In the early 1960s major players in the U.S. electronics and entertainment industries began making plans to develop some form of home video system. All of these projects conceived of home video as a playback-only system, employing some kind of disc. The basic assumption was that consumers would purchase copies of video programs just as they purchased phonograph records. "
...
Nevertheless, a Michigan entrepreneur named Andre Blay decided to start a pre-recorded videocassette business. He began soliciting the studios, seeking to purchase the rights to distribute films on tape. All but one rejected him. 20th Century Fox, strapped for cash at the time, signed on, and in late 1976 Blay began selling tapes through a video club arrangement advertised in TV Guide. The promotion was an instant success. Blay and Fox made more money than they had imagined, and the other film companies slowly but surely followed them to this new source of profit.
So much for no buying.
Renting came after because the cost to purchase was still relatively high ($49.95 + $10 membership to start). Note that MCA sued Sony not because of pre-recorded media but because of potential piracy on blank media. Fox went with sales for one reason only. Money. Other companies followed suit for the same reason. Money.
Had sales been low for Blay, yes, there never would have been pre-recorded movies on tape because there would have been no money and the studios were pissed at Sony anyway.
Early on, from the perspective of the studios, it was all sales whether to a private collector or a mom and pop video rental store or later to a wholesaler. It was enormously profitable because increased sales reduced costs to $5 while wholesale prices were $65.
But even here, from the start of rentals in 1977 to the first sell-through title (Wrath of Khan as you mentioned) at $39.95 (not $100) in 1982 was only 5 years. VCRs still had less than 10% market penetration. That's still pretty early in the product lifecycle and not quite mass market yet.
It's not until 1985 that VCR's had 30% market penetration. While rental is a $2.55B business, video sales revenue was $773M.
http://www.entmerch.org/industry_history.html
$773M of "no buying". Wrong again.
Later 1988, ten years after introduction, they negotiated large scale revenue sharing to reduce the captial costs for stocking a lot of rental units. Then studio revenue included rentals. Before 1988? Sales. Even sell-through sales to the general public.
You know, two minutes of research can provide the benefit of not being wrong on nearly every post. READING your source material also helps since even your source indicates purchases.
Oh...and this is just a forum. I don't take anything here seriously...at most it's an amusing passtime where I get a little focus for what to google about. Typically you quickly learn that what you assumed to be true really didn't play out the way you remembered. Which is why I bother googling. It's easy, it's fast and it's decent enough for unimportant research.
For real research, I still hit the library.
And your arguments are inane.
And that's putting it politely!
Nah, BD doesn't stand a chance because Paramount won't release Star Trek Season 2 in BD.
???!!!WHAT!!!???
That's it! I'm going to post misery and bile on some technology forum because I'm too "experienced" to learn how to change the web page address!
Not to mention I'm going to boycott all current and future technologies, because I can!
I will NEVER be satisfied!
--
Star Trek Season 2 "see the cardboard (sets) as you've never seen it before!"
I don't have as much problem with BR making as I do vinea and the snide comments.
My old dad used to say "take the stick out of your own eye, before complaining about other peoples snide comments" but then that was back in the black and white days, and colour television will never catch on, no-one has a set! They are too expensive, and anyway what's wrong with radio? after all its "good enough."
If people got a colour set all the black and white programmes will have to be upgraded, so it won't happen! I'd LIKE it to happen, but it won't happen! I'm going to write a sharp note every week to "farmers journal" and complain about this NOT happening, don't get me wrong I'd love it to, but I just don't think it will, given the current "good enough" programming on radio, and after all because "I" say it won't happen, it just won't ok!, and that's all that matters and everyone else has to agree with me, or so help me I'll keep sending letters in to "Farmers Journal"
Dear me how dare they have an advert for a colour television set! don't they know that as an emerging technology that very few people will have them? but don't you worry, I'm right and thats all there is too it, and If "Farmers Journal" gets letters in reply to mine, I'll tell them that I bought into Wax cylinder at the end of the century before last "So I should know!" I mean look how that turned out! NO ONE bought into it, well at least not in significant numbers, and by then it was too late!!
That damned Edison company had turned against its customers and brought out the "gramophone" well I can tell you, I NEVER bought into that anti consumer format! a plague on Edisons house! I stuck to my wax cylinders because they were "good enough" I mean I WANTED the gramophone to take off, I really did.. but I just couldn't support it. It was so much easier in those days to send a telegram of complaint, that was before the damned telephone took off, but don't get me started on that, I DIDN'T want that to take off, but IT DID!
But anyway, as people keep ignoring me about those damned colour Television sets, I'm going to keep sending in the letters to "Farmers Journal" it's so much better for my blood pressure to get worked up about it in as pointless a way as possible, that will have no bearing on the matter, than to actually do something constructive with my time, AND AFTER ALL .. I'M RIGHT.
got it
If you have a problem with a poster, try a different site, I believe there are one or two, check out a place called "google" I'm sure with the amount of uninformed bloggers out there, you could find a home where every fear and doubt will be well fostered and kept warm, very easily.
DVD is more than fine on a 32" tv, unless you're sitting 2 feet away.
Upscaled DVD is okay, but after you've been watching HD films going back to standard definition DVD is pretty jarring. You don't need a giant TV to appreciate the improvement, although I consider 32" to be pretty jumbo anyway.
The difference will be even more pronounced in the next year or so as HD TV broadcasts become the norm.
Upscaled DVD is okay, but after you've been watching HD films going back to standard definition DVD is pretty jarring. You don't need a giant TV to appreciate the improvement, although I consider 32" to be pretty jumbo anyway.
The difference will be even more pronounced in the next year or so as HD TV broadcasts become the norm.
The only thing about next year that is for sure is digital broadcasts. There is no HD law, or whatever it is, going into effect. It's only been, from the beginning, all digital broadcasting by 2009.
The only thing about next year that is for sure is digital broadcasts. There is no HD law, or whatever it is, going into effect. It's only been, from the beginning, all digital broadcasting by 2009.
At the moment receiving them (in the UK) requires a rather expensive set top box, but from the end of April FreeSat is launched which will replace the current Freeview over time. It provides cheap HD reception. The BBC is committed to full HD output in the next few years.
Practically all mainstream shows in the US, Japan and increasingly Europe can be received in HD. HD TV's are all over the place, so the final part of the jigsaw is a cheap, accessible means to receive them.
I doubt many people with HDTV's will be watching all their TV in standard definition over the next year or so. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an HDTV.
"In the early 1960s major players in the U.S. electronics and entertainment industries began making plans to develop some form of home video system. All of these projects conceived of home video as a playback-only system, employing some kind of disc. The basic assumption was that consumers would purchase copies of video programs just as they purchased phonograph records. "
...
Nevertheless, a Michigan entrepreneur named Andre Blay decided to start a pre-recorded videocassette business. He began soliciting the studios, seeking to purchase the rights to distribute films on tape. All but one rejected him. 20th Century Fox, strapped for cash at the time, signed on, and in late 1976 Blay began selling tapes through a video club arrangement advertised in TV Guide. The promotion was an instant success. Blay and Fox made more money than they had imagined, and the other film companies slowly but surely followed them to this new source of profit.
So much for no buying.
Renting came after because the cost to purchase was still relatively high ($49.95 + $10 membership to start). Note that MCA sued Sony not because of pre-recorded media but because of potential piracy on blank media. Fox went with sales for one reason only. Money. Other companies followed suit for the same reason. Money.
Had sales been low for Blay, yes, there never would have been pre-recorded movies on tape because there would have been no money and the studios were pissed at Sony anyway.
Early on, from the perspective of the studios, it was all sales whether to a private collector or a mom and pop video rental store or later to a wholesaler. It was enormously profitable because increased sales reduced costs to $5 while wholesale prices were $65.
But even here, from the start of rentals in 1977 to the first sell-through title (Wrath of Khan as you mentioned) at $39.95 (not $100) in 1982 was only 5 years. VCRs still had less than 10% market penetration. That's still pretty early in the product lifecycle and not quite mass market yet.
It's not until 1985 that VCR's had 30% market penetration. While rental is a $2.55B business, video sales revenue was $773M.
http://www.entmerch.org/industry_history.html
$773M of "no buying". Wrong again.
Later 1988, ten years after introduction, they negotiated large scale revenue sharing to reduce the captial costs for stocking a lot of rental units. Then studio revenue included rentals. Before 1988? Sales. Even sell-through sales to the general public.
You know, two minutes of research can provide the benefit of not being wrong on nearly every post. READING your source material also helps since even your source indicates purchases.
Oh...and this is just a forum. I don't take anything here seriously...at most it's an amusing passtime where I get a little focus for what to google about. Typically you quickly learn that what you assumed to be true really didn't play out the way you remembered. Which is why I bother googling. It's easy, it's fast and it's decent enough for unimportant research.
For real research, I still hit the library.
" "In the early 1960s major players in the U.S. electronics and entertainment industries began making plans to develop some form of home video system. All of these projects conceived of home video as a playback-only system, employing some kind of disc. The basic assumption was that consumers would purchase copies of video programs just as they purchased phonograph records. "
...
Nevertheless, a Michigan entrepreneur named Andre Blay decided to start a pre-recorded videocassette business. He began soliciting the studios, seeking to purchase the rights to distribute films on tape. All but one rejected him. 20th Century Fox, strapped for cash at the time, signed on, and in late 1976 Blay began selling tapes through a video club arrangement advertised in TV Guide. The promotion was an instant success. Blay and Fox made more money than they had imagined, and the other film companies slowly but surely followed them to this new source of profit.
So much for no buying. "
You do still understand this all hunges on the approval of the MPAA don't you? And as I've previously posted " Selling " or what commonly refered to as " Sell Through " didn't start for the general public ( that's if you didn't join a club and by a title in a limited collection like the book of the month club ) until 1983. You know the year after Jack Valenti's testomony.
So much for selling.
" Oh...and this is just a forum. I don't take anything here seriously...at most it's an amusing passtime where I get a little focus for what to google about. Typically you quickly learn that what you assumed to be true really didn't play out the way you remembered. Which is why I bother googling. It's easy, it's fast and it's decent enough for unimportant research. "
I prefer the results I get through Yahoo. Yes us old guys learned to use the internet also. Myself I've been using the web and seach engines since 1995.
Also I'm sure there's money to be made. That's not in question here. However I'm thinking that the MPAA would rather everybody rent at this point. More control and ultimately more money ( again and aagin ). And yes I'm aware that selling currently makes more money ( as it should ) but for more control I think for them it's a trade off.
My old dad used to say "take the stick out of your own eye, before complaining about other peoples snide comments" but then that was back in the black and white days, and colour television will never catch on, no-one has a set! They are too expensive, and anyway what's wrong with radio? after all its "good enough."
If people got a colour set all the black and white programmes will have to be upgraded, so it won't happen! I'd LIKE it to happen, but it won't happen! I'm going to write a sharp note every week to "farmers journal" and complain about this NOT happening, don't get me wrong I'd love it to, but I just don't think it will, given the current "good enough" programming on radio, and after all because "I" say it won't happen, it just won't ok!, and that's all that matters and everyone else has to agree with me, or so help me I'll keep sending letters in to "Farmers Journal"
Dear me how dare they have an advert for a colour television set! don't they know that as an emerging technology that very few people will have them? but don't you worry, I'm right and thats all there is too it, and If "Farmers Journal" gets letters in reply to mine, I'll tell them that I bought into Wax cylinder at the end of the century before last "So I should know!" I mean look how that turned out! NO ONE bought into it, well at least not in significant numbers, and by then it was too late!!
That damned Edison company had turned against its customers and brought out the "gramophone" well I can tell you, I NEVER bought into that anti consumer format! a plague on Edisons house! I stuck to my wax cylinders because they were "good enough" I mean I WANTED the gramophone to take off, I really did.. but I just couldn't support it. It was so much easier in those days to send a telegram of complaint, that was before the damned telephone took off, but don't get me started on that, I DIDN'T want that to take off, but IT DID!
But anyway, as people keep ignoring me about those damned colour Television sets, I'm going to keep sending in the letters to "Farmers Journal" it's so much better for my blood pressure to get worked up about it in as pointless a way as possible, that will have no bearing on the matter, than to actually do something constructive with my time, AND AFTER ALL .. I'M RIGHT.
got it
If you have a problem with a poster, try a different site, I believe there are one or two, check out a place called "google" I'm sure with the amount of uninformed bloggers out there, you could find a home where every fear and doubt will be well fostered and kept warm, very easily.
Different market now days with different issues and dynamics. Haven't you been paying attention?
But I agree. That's the way it should work.
You do still understand this all hunges on the approval of the MPAA don't you? And as I've previously posted " Selling " or what commonly refered to as " Sell Through " didn't start for the general public ( that's if you didn't join a club and by a title in a limited collection like the book of the month club ) until 1983. You know the year after Jack Valenti's testomony.
So much for selling.
No, it doesn't hinge on the MPAA. Fox unilaterally allowed sales at $49.95 in 1977 as sell-throughs. Columbia followed in 1979. Long before 1983. Disney had sell-through in 1980.
And which part of they were all sales from the perspective of the studios do you NOT understand? Studios saw no rental revenue until 1988 with revenue sharing.
Here are the top 10 sales for the early 80s. Note that Billboard did not track rentals until 1982.
http://www.inthe80s.com/vidtop10.shtml
I prefer the results I get through Yahoo. Yes us old guys learned to use the internet also. Myself I've been using the web and seach engines since 1995.
Then learn to read what you actually find. I even bolded the relevant section for you. There are dates and numbers and if you don't like that particular history site you can find another with support for your position.
Which you can't because there WERE sales from the very beginning and it didn't go from zero to $700M in sales between 1983 and 1985 starting with Wrath of Khan.
Your position is untenable and wrong.
Also I'm sure there's money to be made. That's not in question here. However I'm thinking that the MPAA would rather everybody rent at this point. More control and ultimately more money ( again and aagin ). And yes I'm aware that selling currently makes more money ( as it should ) but for more control I think for them it's a trade off.
The MPAA is controlled by the studios, not the other way around. It's a trade organization that lobbies in the interest of studios. Not decide what they are going to do.
The members are competitors and not monolithic (or they'd have backed only one format from the get go). If Disney wants sales, then that's what they'll do. Just as Fox did in 1977 and the MPAA won't say Boo.
At the moment receiving them (in the UK) requires a rather expensive set top box, but from the end of April FreeSat is launched which will replace the current Freeview over time. It provides cheap HD reception. The BBC is committed to full HD output in the next few years.
Practically all mainstream shows in the US, Japan and increasingly Europe can be received in HD. HD TV's are all over the place, so the final part of the jigsaw is a cheap, accessible means to receive them.
I doubt many people with HDTV's will be watching all their TV in standard definition over the next year or so. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an HDTV.
FreeSat is interesting, but i would hope it doesnt replace Freeview for 10/20 years after the 2012 switchover, far too many people are having enough problems accepting freeview as it involves an extra box and cables. the TV manus or the Freeview ass. have messed up by not INSISTING that ALL new TVs MUST come with a freeview reciever, but there they are still selling merrily away in 2008.. I really hope that changes from 2009 though, but then said the same last year.
It's really difficult to see (just at the moment) how HD would be possible a la "HD for all" movement on Freeview, new STBs would need to be implemented to allow for MPEG4 decoding. It's all a bit of a mess IMO.
I'm dubious about Freesat NOT being taken over by SKY/Virgin, and to a lesser extent Telewest. but at least we live in interesting times