Blu-ray vs. DVD/VOD (2009)

1232426282934

Comments

  • Reply 501 of 668
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    You call it superior, but the 1950's gramophone-like disk-loading experience is not a winner with audiences. Once audiences figure out the convenience of a jukebox, they don't look back.



    Think about the iPod versus the CD. The CD had superior audio. -but the convenience of immediate and instant access to a full media library won the battle in a heartbeat.



    Right now, the difference in video quality difference is marginal, and technology means that quality gap is reducing with each passing week. The convenience and usability issue has been won already.



    Blu Ray is a good collector format. But even if player sales pick up - Sony will want to migrate consumers to direct download. Not because of quality or convenience, but because the profits are higher and content producers no longer want to share revenues with retailers.



    C.



    Yes but is it portable to other screens like one in your living room or at your friend's house? Last I checked you can't hook an iPod to a tv and get more than 640 x 480 from the output. And you have to spend $ 49.00 to do it. We've been talking about this now ( not just in this thread but in the previous one on basically the same subject ) for a year and a half. Has downloading shown any signs of taking over everything? Meanwhile BD continues to grow even in an economic crisis.



    Quote:

    Blu Ray is a good collector format. But even if player sales pick up - Sony will want to migrate consumers to direct download. Not because of quality or convenience, but because the profits are higher and content producers no longer want to share revenues with retailers.




    Yes but because of the issues will the customer go for it big time? I doubt it. Until those are fully resolved. You might get a few people going after they buy into it " What do you mean I can't burn this to a disc? or What do you mean my iPod doesn't output in HD? ".





    My guess is you'll be saying the same things at 2 years.
  • Reply 502 of 668
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Yes but is it portable to other screens like one in your living room or at your friend's house? Last I checked you can't hook an iPod to a tv and get more than 640 x 480 from the output. And you have to spend $ 49.00 to do it. We've been talking about this now ( not just in this thread but in the previous one on basically the same subject ) for a year and a half. Has downloading shown any signs of taking over everything? Meanwhile BD continues to grow even in an economic crisis.





    Yes but because of the issues will the customer go for it big time? I doubt it. Until those are fully resolved. You might get a few people going after they buy into it " What do you mean I can't burn this to a disc? or What do you mean my iPod doesn't output in HD? ".





    My guess is you'll be saying the same things at 2 years.



    And perhaps you'll be saying the same thing in 2 years time too.



    Seriously, Blu-ray is not that widespread yet. A very tiny percentage of my friends and relatives own a blu-ray drive. So in otherwords, for me (and many other people) blu-ray isn't portable yet either.



    Is network-based delivery growing? I'd say definately. Netflix and other paid services are growing. Ad supported services like hulu are growing as well. The hulu desktop app is worth checking out if you haven't already.



    Streaming certainly isn't high fidelity (yet), but it does have other advantages. While I can play blu-ray in my home theater, I actually end up watching more streamed content than blu-ray content. Why? Because I can browse through thousands of choices and watch any of them immediately.
  • Reply 503 of 668
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Yes but is it portable to other screens like one in your living room or at your friend's house?



    Yes! Much more so than your little silver gramophone records.



    My Apple TV is slightly larger than a VHS tape - it's a lot more portable than your Blu Ray player. In fact 3BluRays are about the same size.



    My 16 GB memory stick is a lot more portable than one DVD box. Files are really portable.



    And my iPod is much more portable than your CD collection.



    I completely don't get your point. Physical media are bulky, slow to use and inconvenient - and impose non-skippable content on their audience.



    Currently, customers are not being offered a great way of getting their content as files. But as soon as they do, the physical disk is as dead as the CD. (apart from the collector market who don't care about this stuff)



    Commercially, physical disks rely heavily on one particular outdated technology; the shop.



    Even Sony realise that sharing 50% of their revenue with shop-keepers is a bad deal. And at the end of the day, it is this which will motivate companies push consumers in the direction of files.



    C.
  • Reply 504 of 668
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    I completely don't get your point. Physical media are bulky, slow to use and inconvenient - and impose non-skippable content on their audience.



    I'm mostly in agreement with you but perhaps this excerpt goes too far.



    Physical media for movie playback isn't really that bulky for how it is generally used. That is, in a living room instead of being carried around like music is. Music can be a secondary activity while doing many other things, driving, exercising, etc. So being more portable is far more critical.



    Slow to use, I'd agree with but only in reference for needing to purchase disks. They either have to be delivered or one must travel to a brick and mortar store. However, they should actually be quicker to load since local physical drives are quicker than network connections. Granted, blu-ray is a bit on the slow side. But that isn't really tied to it being physical media.



    Non-skippable content isn't a physical media thing either. It can be imposed on any delivery mechanism.





    But otherwise, yeah I agree. Streaming is the future. The question is, how quickly is that future happening for everyone? That would seem to be what will dictate how wide spread blu-ray becomes before streaming takes over.





    I own a blu-ray player but am about to go watch some streamed content. Not because I have an agenda, but because I have no physical media that I haven't already watched a few times. Meanwhile, thousands of movies and shows are available via streaming this very second. Time to go watch one...



    (Though when netflix delivers two blu-rays tomorrow, i'll certainly watch them and enjoy the higher quality.)
  • Reply 505 of 668
    taurontauron Posts: 911member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    I'm mostly in agreement with you but perhaps this excerpt goes too far.



    Physical media for movie playback isn't really that bulky for how it is generally used. That is, in a living room instead of being carried around like music is. Music can be a secondary activity while doing many other things, driving, exercising, etc. So being more portable is far more critical.



    Slow to use, I'd agree with but only in reference for needing to purchase disks. They either have to be delivered or one must travel to a brick and mortar store. However, they should actually be quicker to load since local physical drives are quicker than network connections. Granted, blu-ray is a bit on the slow side. But that isn't really tied to it being physical media.



    Non-skippable content isn't a physical media thing either. It can be imposed on any delivery mechanism.





    But otherwise, yeah I agree. Streaming is the future. The question is, how quickly is that future happening for everyone? That would seem to be what will dictate how wide spread blu-ray becomes before streaming takes over.





    I own a blu-ray player but am about to go watch some streamed content. Not because I have an agenda, but because I have no physical media that I haven't already watched a few times. Meanwhile, thousands of movies and shows are available via streaming this very second. Time to go watch one...



    (Though when netflix delivers two blu-rays tomorrow, i'll certainly watch them and enjoy the higher quality.)



    Finally a smart person. Why pay for HD content when you can have all the content in the world for free and stream it thru your $300 ATV?



    Bluray is dieing, lets help it along so it can die faster.
  • Reply 506 of 668
    taurontauron Posts: 911member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    This is certainly one reason I don't like disks, and have just cancelled my subscription for LoveFilm



    From the internets...







    C.



    QED.



    Not to mention the unskippable trailers they make you watch. Nonononono... even if I can get a DVD for FREE I would rather pirate it just out of spite.
  • Reply 507 of 668
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tauron View Post


    Finally a smart person. Why pay for HD content when you can have all the content in the world for free and stream it thru your $300 ATV?



    Bluray is dieing, lets help it along so it can die faster.



    Do you really want blu-ray to die before streaming lives up to its potential?



    I've always been critical of blu-ray, citing that it was designed for desires of copyright holders rather than around what consumers actually want. But at the same time, the alternative (streaming) is also flawed.



    It would have been preferable to stick with DVDs using a more aggressive codec. DVD players would have needed a tiny bit more processing power to decode the content, but they were fairly capable already. We could have been watching near HD quality at extremely low prices and years sooner than blu-ray. Players like this have cost less than $100 USD for quite a few years now. Meanwhile blu-ray disks and players are still priced too high for most consumers. The near HD quality would have been enough to hold me over until HD streaming is ubiquitous.



    But now that blu-ray here and is one of the few viable options, I wouldn't want to see it disappear until streaming is perfected. Options are good!
  • Reply 508 of 668
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tauron View Post


    QED.



    Not to mention the unskippable trailers they make you watch. Nonononono... even if I can get a DVD for FREE I would rather pirate it just out of spite.



    I'm unclear where you got the idea that trailers and previews are "unskipable". All you have to do is press the skip chapter button. If there's more than one preview/trailer you may have to press chapter skip more than once.
  • Reply 509 of 668
    taurontauron Posts: 911member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OldCodger73 View Post


    I'm unclear where you got the idea that trailers and previews are "unskipable". All you have to do is press the skip chapter button. If there's more than one preview/trailer you may have to press chapter skip more than once.



    Look, you insert the DVD and it starts to play trailers... WTF is that? Didnt' I pay $20 for it? Paying means NO ADDS.



    Now I have declared war against those corporations and I am winning. So far I have pirated about 500 DVDs for free or $1 per media.



    Good riddance.
  • Reply 510 of 668
    taurontauron Posts: 911member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Do you really want blu-ray to die before streaming lives up to its potential?



    I've always been critical of blu-ray, citing that it was designed for desires of copyright holders rather than around what consumers actually want. But at the same time, the alternative (streaming) is also flawed.



    It would have been preferable to stick with DVDs using a more aggressive codec. DVD players would have needed a tiny bit more processing power to decode the content, but they were fairly capable already. We could have been watching near HD quality at extremely low prices and years sooner than blu-ray. Players like this have cost less than $100 USD for quite a few years now. Meanwhile blu-ray disks and players are still priced too high for most consumers. The near HD quality would have been enough to hold me over until HD streaming is ubiquitous.



    But now that blu-ray here and is one of the few viable options, I wouldn't want to see it disappear until streaming is perfected. Options are good!



    Streaming IS perfected enough. You can watch good TV shows in Hulu. You can have loads of content watched using inexpensive ATV, paid content or otherwise. What else do you want?
  • Reply 511 of 668
    mac.flymac.fly Posts: 10member
    Because I need to buy 4 iMacs in the next months (much money!),

    I tried to find out when there will be new models.

    (e.g. with backlit LED display, blu-ray support...)

    I just don't want to invest in "old" computers (don't get me wrong).



    Will there really be - again - no new models for the christmas business?



    So it would be helpful to know if new models will be released

    within the next 3...6 months. I couldn't wait longer...



    Where could I find more information?

    Where are you insiders...?

    Or when could this information be available?

    Thanks!



    (I couldn't read this whole thread - so if there were already

    helpful answers given, please tell me where.)
  • Reply 512 of 668
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tauron View Post


    Streaming IS perfected enough. You can watch good TV shows in Hulu. You can have loads of content watched using inexpensive ATV, paid content or otherwise. What else do you want?



    Keep in mind you're preaching to the choir here. I consider streaming to be the future and watch a good percentage of my entertainment via streaming.



    But it isn't "perfected". It is "good enough" or perhaps even "nice and extremely convenient". The image and sound quality clearly can't compare to blu-ray (yet).



    Neither does it offer anywhere close to the amount of content available via other sources. What it does have is sufficient much of the time and instantaneous gratification is great. But the selection still is a fairly small fraction of that available via more traditional methods.





    On a separate note, I wouldn't consider ATV to be inexpensive. But then again, I don't consider cable TV or blu-ray to be inexpensive either. Hulu and even netflix win in that regard.
  • Reply 513 of 668
    bg_nycbg_nyc Posts: 189member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    But otherwise, yeah I agree. Streaming is the future. The question is, how quickly is that future happening for everyone? That would seem to be what will dictate how wide spread blu-ray becomes before streaming takes over.



    Isn't it also bandwith availablility and cost, adoption rate of 1080p HDTV, installation rate of home wireless networks, falling cost of BD players, and re-education of the public that dictate how widespread blu-ray will become?



    Streaming is the future ONLY if technology evolves so that high-quality 1080p video can be streamed to the living room in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable cost. Video is not like music, where we will sacrifice quality for portability. Most will not accept low-bitrate, low res movie watching on their expensive 1080p video if there is an affordable alternative.



    So maybe we have 2 conflicting consumer demands here... the convenience of low-res digital delivery vs the ultra-coolness of HD. One is fast but ugly (on your HDTV); the other is slow but beautiful. Both require big up-front costs. Nether is perfect.
  • Reply 514 of 668
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bg_nyc View Post


    Isn't it also bandwith availablility and cost, adoption rate of 1080p HDTV, installation rate of home wireless networks, falling cost of BD players, and re-education of the public that dictate how widespread blu-ray will become?



    Streaming is the future ONLY if technology evolves so that high-quality 1080p video can be streamed to the living room in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable cost. Video is not like music, where we will sacrifice quality for portability. Most will not accept low-bitrate, low res movie watching on their expensive 1080p video if there is an affordable alternative.



    So maybe we have 2 conflicting consumer demands here... the convenience of low-res digital delivery vs the ultra-coolness of HD. One is fast but ugly (on your HDTV); the other is slow but beautiful. Both require big up-front costs. Nether is perfect.



    We're basically in agreement.



    Although I'd like to point out that streaming video quality is already "good enough" for a significant percentage of the public. This is tempered by the fact that people who don't mind non-HD video are the same people who don't want to deal with the current technical hurdles of getting a streaming solution setup. For them physical media is still easier. You buy any ole player, plug it in, and insert disks. That's simpler than reading about, picking, and setting up a streaming solution.



    If you haven't seen HD netflix streaming recently, you might be surprised. I'd bet that most average joes would say it looks better than DVD. And most average joes think DVDs look good. Granted, you and I can tell the difference in audio and video compression. At times I actually prefer the higher resolution of the streaming, despite it being a lower bit rate than DVDs.



    This isn't meant to contradict any of your reasoning. Instead it just recharacterizes the tradeoffs while focusing on the perspective of non-geeks.
  • Reply 515 of 668
    bitemymacbitemymac Posts: 1,147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    We're basically in agreement.



    Although I'd like to point out that streaming video quality is already "good enough" for a significant percentage of the public. This is tempered by the fact that people who don't mind non-HD video are the same people who don't want to deal with the current technical hurdles of getting a streaming solution setup. For them physical media is still easier. You buy any ole player, plug it in, and insert disks. That's simpler than reading about, picking, and setting up a streaming solution.



    Anyone who can read the instructions and set up a router at home can definitely set up a streaming media service. Anyone who can set-up a BD-J profile 2.0 on their BD player can set up for an online streaming service. It's seems to be norm that most newer BD players do come ready for streaming services via online or private network with fully capable of playing divx, mkv, mpeg4, and etc. video formats.



    I currently have a cheap 3TB NAS and does great job streaming media on all PC's & Mac's. For those purchasing current model BD players will have a choice to load a disc or just stream from their own server or online services.

    Anyway, my wife stopped loading the Barnie and Elmo DVD discs for our little one because we have many of the DVD's stored in more storage efficient "avi/mkv" file in NAS. The storage efficient files are also streaming efficient. Another added convenience is that we don't have to go through the dvd menu or go through all the copy right BS every time we play Barnie or Elmo. You can also buy a cheap HD media player for $80, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-NA-_-NA-_-NA and use it in the car or any of your friends TV. I was never fond of looking for DVD discs in the minivan for our kids and I don't have to do that anymore with a cheap media player. However, I would always would like a physical disc as a backup for my backup storage device.
  • Reply 516 of 668
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bg_nyc View Post


    Streaming is the future ONLY if technology evolves so that high-quality 1080p video can be streamed to the living room in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable cost. Video is not like music, where we will sacrifice quality for portability. Most will not accept low-bitrate, low res movie watching on their expensive 1080p video if there is an affordable alternative.



    No. I don't think that is the case.



    You are describing the streaming case for videophiles. People who care desperately about image quality and are able to immediately tell the difference between watching a 1080p image source and a 720p image source. (And who sit close enough to their screens to be able to perceive such a difference)



    In the past they would buy 12" videodisks - and the same folks might also pay top dollar for audio gear.



    But, you must be aware that such people are the minority.



    The majority are not home-theater nuts.



    The consumer market is not driven by a quest for ever better quality. It is much more sensitive to price and convenience. So while I am sure that Blu Ray will persist as a *collectors* format. The mass market is heading in a different direction. Given a choice, consumers prefer the video iPod experience over the video gramophone experience.



    For content creators, the reasons to move to download are even more compelling. If a studio, hires the writers, finds the star, funds the picture, pays for the publicity and takes 100% of the risk. Why should the content creator share 50% of the take with a freaking shop-keeper?



    C.
  • Reply 517 of 668
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post


    Anyone who can read the instructions and set up a router at home can definitely set up a streaming media service. Anyone who can set-up a BD-J profile 2.0 on their BD player can set up for an online streaming service. It's seems to be norm that most newer BD players do come ready for streaming services via online or private network with fully capable of playing divx, mkv, mpeg4, and etc. video formats.



    I currently have a cheap 3TB NAS and does great job streaming media on all PC's & Mac's. For those purchasing current model BD players will have a choice to load a disc or just stream from their own server or online services.

    Anyway, my wife stopped loading the Barnie and Elmo DVD discs for our little one because we have many of the DVD's stored in more storage efficient "avi/mkv" file in NAS. The storage efficient files are also streaming efficient. Another added convenience is that we don't have to go through the dvd menu or go through all the copy right BS every time we play Barnie or Elmo. You can also buy a cheap HD media player for $80, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc..._-NA-_-NA-_-NA and use it in the car or any of your friends TV. I was never fond of looking for DVD discs in the minivan for our kids and I don't have to do that anymore with a cheap media player. However, I would always would like a physical disc as a backup for my backup storage device.



    The above was in reply to my post. It seems as if you're trying to convince me of the merits of streaming.



    So I suppose that I should point out that I'm a huge fan of networked media players and consider them to be the future. In fact, your setup sounds very similar to mine, a NAS in the basement with a built in media server. All of the screens in my home are capable of displaying content from the NAS. Also in the basement is a networked based TV tuner.



    Unfortunately, this type of setup is still not as simple as physical media for most people. It will certainly get there in the future, but it isn't as simple yet. Your router analogy seems to support this. People have incredible difficulty setting up home routers. They routinely need to bring in a friend or have their kid do it for them. The only reason they go to this trouble is because the internet is important and there is no alternative. The difference with streaming media is that they don't have to jump through all those hoops. Instead they can opt for physical media. If the cord fits, they're generally good to go.



    Quote:

    Anyone who can set-up a BD-J profile 2.0 on their BD player can set up for an online streaming service.



    I think you'll find that almost no average consumer is setting up a BD-J profile 2.0 on their BD player.



    Don't get me wrong, streaming is definitely the future of the video distribution market. I was just pointing out one contributing factor as to why it is the "future" and not the "present". Plenty of people would think the video quality of streaming is already "good enough". But they haven't jumped on board because it hasn't been made simple enough yet. The people for which the quality isn't "good enough" yet, ironically have no difficulty going the streaming route. Of course there are many outliers to these stereotypes. But I do think it accurately characterizes the situation from an aggregate, market perspective.
  • Reply 518 of 668
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    And perhaps you'll be saying the same thing in 2 years time too.



    Seriously, Blu-ray is not that widespread yet. A very tiny percentage of my friends and relatives own a blu-ray drive. So in otherwords, for me (and many other people) blu-ray isn't portable yet either.



    Is network-based delivery growing? I'd say definately. Netflix and other paid services are growing. Ad supported services like hulu are growing as well. The hulu desktop app is worth checking out if you haven't already.



    Streaming certainly isn't high fidelity (yet), but it does have other advantages. While I can play blu-ray in my home theater, I actually end up watching more streamed content than blu-ray content. Why? Because I can browse through thousands of choices and watch any of them immediately.



    Quote:

    Netflix and other paid services are growing. Ad supported services like hulu are growing as well.



    Once again you want to keep it for yourself on a permanant basis and loan it to a friend so he/she can watch it on their big screen. How do you do that? Without a lot more bother than inserting a disc and waiting for it to load.



    Once again we're not as close to this becoming the mainstream way people watch video as you think. Rememer sales stilll dwarf renting.
  • Reply 519 of 668
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Once again you want to keep it for yourself on a permanant basis and loan it to a friend so he/she can watch it on their big screen. How do you do that? Without a lot more bother than inserting a disc and waiting for it to load.



    Once again we're not as close to this becoming the mainstream way people watch video as you think. Rememer sales stilll dwarf renting.



    While what you're saying is based in reality, i think it frames the situation in a manner that obscures what is actually going on.



    The desire to own movies has long been rooted in the fact that unless you owned it, you'd have to drive to a store or rental shop prior to watching the film. There are people who enjoy collecting. But the vast majority of people were buying simply because it made it possible to watch the movie at whim. There was no alternative.



    You point to being able to take a movie to a friend's house as convenient. While I do consider this nice, it is actually inherently inconvenient. Having to tote around physical disks is not a plus, it's a minus. I will admit that as of today, DVDs are easier to take to friend's house than internet delivered content. But I don't think the same is true of blu-ray. I can't take blu-ray to any of my friends' houses and be able to play it.



    Finally, you point out that sales still dwarf renting. This is true but also misleading. When cable TV is figured in, non-purchased video content dwarfs sales. Looking at it this way, it is hard to say that people prefer buying physical media. Instead, I'd characterize consumers as wanting what is most convenient. It is convenient to have cable TV for lots of new content and to purchase disks for things to watch repeatedly, at whim, or at a specific time.



    Networked delivered video will be more convenient for nearly all consumers eventually. For some it already meets that criteria. The shortcomings of network based delivery are because the technology is new. The shortcomings of physical media are inherent to physical media and can't be overcome.



    With all that said, please note that I've been critical of streaming in the previous few posts. I love streaming and use it daily, but acknowledge that it still needs work. I also watch blu-ray on a regular basis. Hopefully it doesn't seem like i'm being dogmatic one way or the other.
  • Reply 520 of 668
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    While what you're saying is based in reality, i think it frames the situation in a manner that obscures what is actually going on.



    The desire to own movies has long been rooted in the fact that unless you owned it, you'd have to drive to a store or rental shop prior to watching the film. There are people who enjoy collecting. But the vast majority of people were buying simply because it made it possible to watch the movie at whim. There was no alternative.



    You point to being able to take a movie to a friend's house as convenient. While I do consider this nice, it is actually inherently inconvenient. Having to tote around physical disks is not a plus, it's a minus. I will admit that as of today, DVDs are easier to take to friend's house than internet delivered content. But I don't think the same is true of blu-ray. I can't take blu-ray to any of my friends' houses and be able to play it.



    Finally, you point out that sales still dwarf renting. This is true but also misleading. When cable TV is figured in, non-purchased video content dwarfs sales. Looking at it this way, it is hard to say that people prefer buying physical media. Instead, I'd characterize consumers as wanting what is most convenient. It is convenient to have cable TV for lots of new content and to purchase disks for things to watch repeatedly, at whim, or at a specific time.



    Networked delivered video will be more convenient for nearly all consumers eventually. For some it already meets that criteria. The shortcomings of network based delivery are because the technology is new. The shortcomings of physical media are inherent to physical media and can't be overcome.



    With all that said, please note that I've been critical of streaming in the previous few posts. I love streaming and use it daily, but acknowledge that it still needs work. I also watch blu-ray on a regular basis. Hopefully it doesn't seem like i'm being dogmatic one way or the other.



    Quote:

    While I do consider this nice, it is actually inherently inconvenient. Having to tote around physical disks is not a plus, it's a minus. I will admit that as of today, DVDs are easier to take to friend's house than internet delivered content. But I don't think the same is true of blu-ray. I can't take blu-ray to any of my friends' houses and be able to play it.




    Well I know lots of people at work that have one. But I work at a local college so I guess we're kind of progressive. However there are many out there that own DVD players and as long as that remains the model BD has a chance of replacing it. Certainly more own DVD than say Apple TV or the other special equipment you'd have to own to accomplish the same operation. Downloads are nice but they have built limitations that aren't going away anytime soon. Meanwhile BD keeps growing, looks better, sounds better, and has more features.
Sign In or Register to comment.