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, has more features.
Yep, BD keeps growing. But wouldn't you say the same of network delivered video?
Besides internet based delivery, on-demand via cable, satellite, FiOS... etc. Those are all quite popular. Granted, they're not the exact same thing as hulu or netflix streaming. In the future though, I expect to see the concepts merged. They're basically the same thing, plug a box into your TV and a data network and you can watch whatever you want whenever you want.
I'll have to disagree that downloads have "built [in] limitations". It seems the exact opposite is true, physical media is inherently limited while downloads suffer from being new.
1) Once bandwidth and/or video compression issues are resolved, the preferred medium for HD video will be video downloads, probably (but not limited to) iTunes since it's the only cross-platform DRM'd content provider.
2) Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).
3) Ubiquity of DVD readers. I have four devices that can read DVDs, including my MacBook Pro, XBox 360, $50 upscaling DVD player, and my OpenSolaris box (once I install the drivers from Fluendo). Since I don't have a PS3 (don't plan on getting one) or a $350 Blu-Ray player (don't plan on getting one) I need to go out of my way to get one.
4) My existing movie collection is all DVD. I have no desire to start replacing it, as I finally caved in recently and starting replacing 3 of my VHS tapes with DVDs.
5) Upscaling DVD player makes my DVDs look great on my 46 inch HDTV. Granted, it's not as good a Blu-Ray, but I'm not a videophile, so I probably won't see a significant difference.
The movie studios will have to address all of the above if they hope to convert me to Blu-Ray.
Yep, BD keeps growing. But wouldn't you say the same of network delivered video?
Besides internet based delivery, on-demand via cable, satellite, FiOS... etc. Those are all quite popular. Granted, they're not the exact same thing as hulu or netflix streaming. In the future though, I expect to see the concepts merged. They're basically the same thing, plug a box into your TV and a data network and you can watch whatever you want whenever you want.
I'll have to disagree that downloads have "built [in] limitations". It seems the exact opposite is true, physical media is inherently limited while downloads suffer from being new.
Quote:
They're basically the same thing, plug a box into your TV and a data network and you can watch whatever you want whenever you want.
For a price and will it be 1080p?
Will it have special features or background commentary?
Will it be a rental so you'll have to pay for it again and again?
What if you are at a friend's house and you want him/her to see it? Will they have to pay for it also? Or you could just purchase it once and loan them the disc.
I mean you don't expect this to be free do you? If you do I suggest you do some research into the recent writer's strike. Part of that was concerning royalties from video sales.
Those people want to get paid you understand.
You see I realize you could plunk down $229.00 for an Apple TV unit or you could just go out and buy a BD player for oh $150.00 to $200.00 and have a lot more flexibility. Quality also.
Now I'm not saying that your download nirvana won't happen someday. Like I've said before about 10 years to clear away all the road blocks to true ( not tied to only you computer or iPod or rental ) sales of HD video over the internet that the paranoid studios have in place currently. Also to increase the bandwidth capability of most networks to handle the load when everyone wants to purchase and download their 1080p with special features copy of " Batman Returns Again " and not have the internet collapse under the load.
Yup! About 10 years or about 8 and 1/2 since I've already been discussing this here for a year and a half now.
My how time flies! It'll get here eventually. By that time I'm sure everyone will have a BD player and want the next big thing.
1) Once bandwidth and/or video compression issues are resolved, the preferred medium for HD video will be video downloads, probably (but not limited to) iTunes since it's the only cross-platform DRM'd content provider.
2) Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).
3) Ubiquity of DVD readers. I have four devices that can read DVDs, including my MacBook Pro, XBox 360, $50 upscaling DVD player, and my OpenSolaris box (once I install the drivers from Fluendo). Since I don't have a PS3 (don't plan on getting one) or a $350 Blu-Ray player (don't plan on getting one) I need to go out of my way to get one.
4) My existing movie collection is all DVD. I have no desire to start replacing it, as I finally caved in recently and starting replacing 3 of my VHS tapes with DVDs.
5) Upscaling DVD player makes my DVDs look great on my 46 inch HDTV. Granted, it's not as good a Blu-Ray, but I'm not a videophile, so I probably won't see a significant difference.
The movie studios will have to address all of the above if they hope to convert me to Blu-Ray.
Quote:
Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).
By the way this just in :
Quote:
Managed Copy Will Be Mandatory in Blu-ray
By Mark Fleischmann
Quote:
What exactly is Managed Copy? It allows consumers to make a single copy of any Blu-ray disc to recordable BD or DVD, hard drives, SD cards, portable players (currently excluding iPods), or other media. The option, available in the disc menu, would connect the player to a server to receive authorization. Studios may charge for the privilege. They might also sell the right to make additional copies.
The "managed copy" does not come free. It requires new hardware, a new BD player to implement. It also allows only one copy or multiple copies will be charged.
The proposed managed copy implementations just suck. Why tax the paying consumers and inconvenience them even more, while the non-paying consumers will not need to worry about the one and only opportunity of mking the managed copy.
I do love HiDef movies and do not mind paying for the improved viewing experience, but having them implement such stupid restrictions around the greediness of the movie studios makes me wish for this technology to fail for good.
In a way, it's like being forced to boot XP to use HTPC even when I prefer only using MacOSX.
Will it have special features or background commentary?
Will it be a rental so you'll have to pay for it again and again?
What if you are at a friend's house and you want him/her to see it? Will they have to pay for it also? Or you could just purchase it once and loan them the disc.
I mean you don't expect this to be free do you? If you do I suggest you do some research into the recent writer's strike. Part of that was concerning royalties from video sales.
Those people want to get paid you understand.
You see I realize you could plunk down $229.00 for an Apple TV unit or you could just go out and buy a BD player for oh $150.00 to $200.00 and have a lot more flexibility. Quality also.
Now I'm not saying that your download nirvana won't happen someday. Like I've said before about 10 years to clear away all the road blocks to true ( not tied to only you computer or iPod or rental ) sales of HD video over the internet that the paranoid studios have in place currently. Also to increase the bandwidth capability of most networks to handle the load when everyone wants to purchase and download their 1080p with special features copy of " Batman Returns Again " and not have the internet collapse under the load.
Yup! About 10 years or about 8 and 1/2 since I've already been discussing this here for a year and a half now.
My how time flies! It'll get here eventually. By that time I'm sure everyone will have a BD player and want the next big thing.
The shortcomings you're describing are real. But also keep in mind that they're coming from the mindset of a videophile and that blu-ray also has shortcomings. When looking at the market at a whole, I think you'll find that streaming/vod/downloads are quite apealing to the general public. It just needs to be simple and priced fairly. The public is going to absolutely fall in love with watching anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. This is only possible with network delivered video.
Somewhere buried in there did I see you were touting blu-ray as the cheaper alternative? Other than being the most expensive way to watch content, I suppose it's true.
Please don't put words in the mouths of those you don't agree with. No where did I write anything about expecting video to be free.
Finally, you're portraying network based video delivery as 8.5 to 10 years away. It should be obvious by now that it is already here and growing rapidly. The question is really, how does that growth rate compare to blu-ray? Basically, will it hit critical mass, as happened with music, anytime soon? The timing is critical to the future of blu-ray.
What's infuriating is how aggressively they're pushing it in retail stores. 1/3 of the movie disk space seems to be devoted to Blu-Ray. That's space that IMO should be devoted to DVDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
The "managed copy" does not come free. It requires new hardware, a new BD player to implement. It also allows only one copy or multiple copies will be charged.
The proposed managed copy implementations just suck. Why tax the paying consumers and inconvenience them even more, while the non-paying consumers will not need to worry about the one and only opportunity of mking the managed copy.
I do love HiDef movies and do not mind paying for the improved viewing experience, but having them implement such stupid restrictions around the greediness of the movie studios makes me wish for this technology to fail for good.
In a way, it's like being forced to boot XP to use HTPC even when I prefer only using MacOSX.
The shortcomings you're describing are real. But also keep in mind that they're coming from the mindset of a videophile and that blu-ray also has shortcomings. When looking at the market at a whole, I think you'll find that streaming/vod/downloads are quite apealing to the general public. It just needs to be simple and priced fairly. The public is going to absolutely fall in love with watching anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. This is only possible with network delivered video.
Somewhere buried in there did I see you were touting blu-ray as the cheaper alternative? Other than being the most expensive way to watch content, I suppose it's true.
Please don't put words in the mouths of those you don't agree with. No where did I write anything about expecting video to be free.
Finally, you're portraying network based video delivery as 8.5 to 10 years away. It should be obvious by now that it is already here and growing rapidly. The question is really, how does that growth rate compare to blu-ray? Basically, will it hit critical mass, as happened with music, anytime soon? The timing is critical to the future of blu-ray.
Quote:
The public is going to absolutely fall in love with watching anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. This is only possible with network delivered video.
For a price. I'm not so sure they'll like paying again and again and never really being to own it. Do remember Divx ( no not the codec ) a scheme hatched by Circuit City when DVD's first came out? They would allow you to purchase the disc watch it twice and then it would be a coaster. If you wanted to see the video again you had to buy it again. Well needless to say it died a quick death. People like owning things. Then they really can watch it when they want and not have to pay everytime they do. This could be possible with VOD or downloading but a lot of hurdles have to be considered like those stubborn studios which don't seem to be budging on the subject anymore than they were a year and a half ago. I'm sure they'd love to have us in a position where the only way to watch video is to pay and pay again.
Quote:
Please don't put words in the mouths of those you don't agree with. No where did I write anything about expecting video to be free.
It's only that I've heard this expectation from some of the supporters of downloading. And yes here on this forum.
And last but not least :
Quote:
Basically, will it hit critical mass, as happened with music,
But with music you can burn it to a disc and play it anywhere. On any stereo with a CD player. It's not the same with video. I've downloaded stuff on iTunes I'd love to play on my 53" widescreen in the living room but guess what? And even then it wouldn't be 1080p or the same calibur of sound as a BD.
What's infuriating is how aggressively they're pushing it in retail stores. 1/3 of the movie disk space seems to be devoted to Blu-Ray. That's space that IMO should be devoted to DVDs.
Q1 sales of Blu-ray players in the U.S. grew to more than 400,000 units. That number is a 72% gain over Q1 2008, and dollar sales increased 14% to reach $107.2 million.
Also
Quote:
Along with sales going up and prices coming down, the report also shows that Blu-ray awareness among consumers is at an all time high. Over the last six months, awareness of Blu-ray has hit 90%. Consumers saying they are extremely or very likely to buy Blu-ray in the next six months totaled 6% of those surveyed compared to 5% who said the same thing in an August report.
For a price. I'm not so sure they'll like paying again and again and never really being to own it. Do remember Divx ( no not the codec ) a scheme hatched by Circuit City when DVD's first came out? They would allow you to purchase the disc watch it twice and then it would be a coaster. If you wanted to see the video again you had to buy it again. Well needless to say it died a quick death. People like owning things. Then they really can watch it when they want and not have to pay everytime they do.
Yeah I do remember Divx. I hated that product with a vengeance.
There is an absolutely huge difference though. You still had to drive to the store to get a divx movie. It was the worst of both worlds. You had to drive to the store but you didn't get to own the movie and you couldn't watch it repeatedly. You'd have to drive back to the store to watch it again. The lure of downloads/streaming is that you can watch anything you want right away.
I'd agree that some people like to own things. But I'd bet that the collecting of VHS and DVDs was primarily rooted in the fact that there was no other way to watch a particular video when you wanted to watch it. When rentals came about, they halfway provided what people wanted. They could still pick what to watch and kind of when to watch it. But they still had to drive to the store, no instant satisfaction. So some people continued buying after the advent of renting. But mostly people chose to rent rather than buy.
Downloads provide the final piece of the puzzle for most people. They can watch what they want to watch right away. There will still be collectors. But another whole category of consumers will be swayed by downloads or streaming. My bet is that it will be the vast majority.
Yeah I do remember Divx. I hated that product with a vengeance.
There is an absolutely huge difference though. You still had to drive to the store to get a divx movie. It was the worst of both worlds. You had to drive to the store but you didn't get to own the movie and you couldn't watch it repeatedly. You'd have to drive back to the store to watch it again. The lure of downloads/streaming is that you can watch anything you want right away.
I'd agree that some people like to own things. But I'd bet that the collecting of VHS and DVDs was primarily rooted in the fact that there was no other way to watch a particular video when you wanted to watch it. When rentals came about, they halfway provided what people wanted. They could still pick what to watch and kind of when to watch it. But they still had to drive to the store, no instant satisfaction. So some people continued buying after the advent of renting. But mostly people chose to rent rather than buy.
Downloads provide the final piece of the puzzle for most people. They can watch what they want to watch right away. There will still be collectors. But another whole category of consumers will be swayed by downloads or streaming. My bet is that it will be the vast majority.
Well most say that it was the fact that you never truly owned Divx that killed it. Not the driving to the store. If that were true people would have never gone down to the video store to rent stuff. No it was the paying again and again that sunk it.
Right now purchasing still dwarfs renting by a large margin. The reason? You have to return it. And if you want to watch it again you have to pay again.
Sometimes you don't have time to watch something within the time frame. That's something that really bugs me. Life happens. And there's still the wanting to share it with a friend factor. I know many people who do this with physical media. If they have to pay again it's just not as flexible.
Sometimes the old way is still the easiest. Now this would all change if the movie studios would lighten up and allow you to burn what you've paid for.
Right now purchasing still dwarfs renting by a large margin. The reason? You have to return it. And if you want to watch it again you have to pay again.
What about t being able to watch the movie right away whenever you want? It's almost like you're dismissing that as a motivation for purchasing.
Downloads address this desire directly but do even better. They don't require driving your car somewhere to get the movie. Also keep in mind that downloads and even streaming don't require a rental model. They can also be purchased.
As for purchasing still dwarfing renting... you mentioned this before, to which I replied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
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.
Care to comment on this? I've expounded on the point below.
Yes, we're all aware that purchased DVDs generate more revenue than DVD rentals. But we're moving into new territory here. VOD and expanded cable offerings have already taken away from the rental category. They provide movies and shows that the viewer has never seen before, which was the primary purpose for renting. In other words, you're comparing purchased video to only one category of ways to pay for a single viewing. Non-purchased content is far more prevalent than just rented disks. So the comparison between purchased and rented disks doesn't prove that people prefer purchasing over not-purchasing. To do that, you'd have to look at the vast array of non-(permanently) purchased video options, including cable TV.
[edit]
Thanks for the great discussion! This is the best back and forth this thread has seen in a while without the debate getting ugly.
A great big swath of cable television entertainment will soon be available over the Internet, Time-Warner and Comcast announced this morning.
The entertainment industry realizes that streaming/downloading/VOD is the future and they don't want to be left behind. I can't wait to see how these forays into internet distribution work out!
Edit: I guess I should qualify that this won't replace physical media in the immediate future when looking at the market in aggregate. But it is indicative of the trend toward network delivered video. As more of these option become available, more and more types of consumers will start to rely on those options. Netflix and hulu are two early examples, but they're just the beginning. For people that have already started to use these services, the future is already here.
Viacom?s Paramount Pictures studio is seeking to merge its home entertainment division with a rival and is in advanced talks with Sony Pictures and News Corporation?s Fox studio, signalling that Hollywood could soon see a wave of consolidation.
The negotiations follow an industry-wide slump in DVD sales, the entertainment sector?s most profitable revenue stream. Sales have fallen by as much as 20 per cent in the past year, forcing studios to cut costs in order to maintain profit margins.
Paramount, the studio behind the blockbuster Transformers sequel, initiated the merger discussions, according to several people familiar with the situation. It is unclear which of the two companies will strike a deal with Paramount, which declined to comment. Sony and Fox also declined to comment.
However, people familiar with the situation said the discussions were going well and would result in considerable savings for Paramount if an agreement were struck.
The talks have focused on combining DVD production, distribution and back-office functions. One proposal would see Paramount begin using Sony?s DADC DVD production system rather than Technicolor?s system, which the studio currently uses.
Following the merger, Paramount and its partner would outwardly continue to operate as separate entities. The two studios would also keep their own marketing and sales operations.
But in joining forces behind the scenes, the studios are likely to generate considerable savings at a time when their parent companies are reluctant to commit too much capital to film production.
The slump in DVD sales has coincided with a drying up of third-party money from private equity groups and hedge funds. Meanwhile, marketing and production costs have spiralled, with studios spending an average of $100m for each film they release.
Across Hollywood, belts are being tightened. Time Warner, which owns Warner Brothers, has trimmed the number of films it releases each year from more than 40 to about 20.
Walt Disney has also moved to cut costs at its studio, with Bob Iger, chief executive, saying during a recent earnings call that the cost of ?distributing and marketing DVDs needs to be addressed?.
Hmm...either the studios will get more aggressive promoting Blu-ray to meet the slumping DVD sales or they'll try and save costs by distributing digital/downloadable copies. In all honesty, I think we'll see a hybrid approach.
Hmm...either the studios will get more aggressive promoting Blu-ray to meet the slumping DVD sales or they'll try and save costs by distributing digital/downloadable copies. In all honesty, I think we'll see a hybrid approach.
I don't understand your point.
If people aren't buying DVDs because of the economic situation, how would promoting Blu Ray or Downloads make any business sense? At its core, it's the same product being sold.
Which is why I think Paramount has initiated these talks.
If they can save a few dollars on each current sale, that more money in their pocket.
If people aren't buying DVDs because of the economic situation, how would promoting Blu Ray or Downloads make any business sense? At its core, it's the same product being sold.
Which is why I think Paramount has initiated these talks.
If they can save a few dollars on each current sale, that more money in their pocket.
True, cutting costs by joining forces in certain areas of your business may lead to more efficiencies and money in your pocket. My point is that given the economy and the long trend of DVD sales decline...
studios have the opportunity to cut costs even more by phasing out DVD (eventually) rather that supporting two optical formats (more cost) and getting a higher profit margin on new technology such as Blu-ray (it's called charging a premium) or via digital downloads that doesn't really require any packaging or physical media (less cost). So, yeah, promoting Blu-ray and digital downloads makes perfect sense IMHO as the margin for profit on both are higher.
True, cutting costs by joining forces in certain areas of your business may lead to more efficiencies and money in your pocket. My point is that given the economy and the long trend of DVD sales decline...
studios have the opportunity to cut costs even more by phasing out DVD (eventually) rather that supporting two optical formats (more cost) and getting a higher profit margin on new technology such as Blu-ray (it's called charging a premium) or via digital downloads that doesn't really require any packaging or physical media (less cost). So, yeah, promoting Blu-ray and digital downloads makes perfect sense IMHO as the margin for profit on both are higher.
Given that your own link says two-thirds of sales are DVDs, it would be suicidal for the studios to phase out DVDs anytime soon.
Trying to migrate a market in recession to premium pricing is also a recipe for disaster.
Even Apple, king of price premiums, is reducing margins and pricing in this economy.
Margins are higher on downloads, but only because the middleman (retailers) are cut out.
This also entails fast internet connections or pricey set top boxes. It's got a great future, but we live in the present.
There is simply no getting around the fact that in a recession, entertainment sales take a hit.
Customers are looking for value in this economy, which means DVDs.
Given that your own link says two-thirds of sales are DVDs, it would be suicidal for the studios to phase out DVDs anytime soon.
Trying to migrate a market in recession to premium pricing is also a recipe for disaster.
Even Apple, king of price premiums, is reducing margins and pricing in this economy.
Margins are higher on downloads, but only because the middleman (retailers) are cut out.
This also entails fast internet connections or pricey set top boxes. It's got a great future, but we live in the present.
There is simply no getting around the fact that in a recession, entertainment sales take a hit.
Customers are looking for value in this economy, which means DVDs.
I agree with all that except...
(of course there had to be an except)
Don't retail alcohol sales, TV watching, and movie attendance (historically) go up during a recession? It is partially escapism but also because those tend to be cheaper than vacations or other types of purchases.
Don't retail alcohol sales, TV watching, and movie attendance (historically) go up during a recession? It is partially escapism but also because those tend to be cheaper than vacations or other types of purchases.
True. But I suspect there's a difference between the increased watching of TV/Cable and the purchase of the entire season of a TV series on disc.
Being hooked up to cable or satellite is largely seen as a need, whereas multi-episode disc purchases may be seen as an extravagance. Of course, single DVDs under $20. would essentially see the same increased demand as movies.
Comments
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, has more features.
Yep, BD keeps growing. But wouldn't you say the same of network delivered video?
Besides internet based delivery, on-demand via cable, satellite, FiOS... etc. Those are all quite popular. Granted, they're not the exact same thing as hulu or netflix streaming. In the future though, I expect to see the concepts merged. They're basically the same thing, plug a box into your TV and a data network and you can watch whatever you want whenever you want.
I'll have to disagree that downloads have "built [in] limitations". It seems the exact opposite is true, physical media is inherently limited while downloads suffer from being new.
2) Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).
3) Ubiquity of DVD readers. I have four devices that can read DVDs, including my MacBook Pro, XBox 360, $50 upscaling DVD player, and my OpenSolaris box (once I install the drivers from Fluendo). Since I don't have a PS3 (don't plan on getting one) or a $350 Blu-Ray player (don't plan on getting one) I need to go out of my way to get one.
4) My existing movie collection is all DVD. I have no desire to start replacing it, as I finally caved in recently and starting replacing 3 of my VHS tapes with DVDs.
5) Upscaling DVD player makes my DVDs look great on my 46 inch HDTV. Granted, it's not as good a Blu-Ray, but I'm not a videophile, so I probably won't see a significant difference.
The movie studios will have to address all of the above if they hope to convert me to Blu-Ray.
Yep, BD keeps growing. But wouldn't you say the same of network delivered video?
Besides internet based delivery, on-demand via cable, satellite, FiOS... etc. Those are all quite popular. Granted, they're not the exact same thing as hulu or netflix streaming. In the future though, I expect to see the concepts merged. They're basically the same thing, plug a box into your TV and a data network and you can watch whatever you want whenever you want.
I'll have to disagree that downloads have "built [in] limitations". It seems the exact opposite is true, physical media is inherently limited while downloads suffer from being new.
They're basically the same thing, plug a box into your TV and a data network and you can watch whatever you want whenever you want.
For a price and will it be 1080p?
Will it have special features or background commentary?
Will it be a rental so you'll have to pay for it again and again?
What if you are at a friend's house and you want him/her to see it? Will they have to pay for it also? Or you could just purchase it once and loan them the disc.
I mean you don't expect this to be free do you? If you do I suggest you do some research into the recent writer's strike. Part of that was concerning royalties from video sales.
Those people want to get paid you understand.
You see I realize you could plunk down $229.00 for an Apple TV unit or you could just go out and buy a BD player for oh $150.00 to $200.00 and have a lot more flexibility. Quality also.
Now I'm not saying that your download nirvana won't happen someday. Like I've said before about 10 years to clear away all the road blocks to true ( not tied to only you computer or iPod or rental ) sales of HD video over the internet that the paranoid studios have in place currently. Also to increase the bandwidth capability of most networks to handle the load when everyone wants to purchase and download their 1080p with special features copy of " Batman Returns Again " and not have the internet collapse under the load.
Yup! About 10 years or about 8 and 1/2 since I've already been discussing this here for a year and a half now.
My how time flies! It'll get here eventually. By that time I'm sure everyone will have a BD player and want the next big thing.
1) Once bandwidth and/or video compression issues are resolved, the preferred medium for HD video will be video downloads, probably (but not limited to) iTunes since it's the only cross-platform DRM'd content provider.
2) Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).
3) Ubiquity of DVD readers. I have four devices that can read DVDs, including my MacBook Pro, XBox 360, $50 upscaling DVD player, and my OpenSolaris box (once I install the drivers from Fluendo). Since I don't have a PS3 (don't plan on getting one) or a $350 Blu-Ray player (don't plan on getting one) I need to go out of my way to get one.
4) My existing movie collection is all DVD. I have no desire to start replacing it, as I finally caved in recently and starting replacing 3 of my VHS tapes with DVDs.
5) Upscaling DVD player makes my DVDs look great on my 46 inch HDTV. Granted, it's not as good a Blu-Ray, but I'm not a videophile, so I probably won't see a significant difference.
The movie studios will have to address all of the above if they hope to convert me to Blu-Ray.
Can't rip or make backup copies the way it's possible to with DVDs (legality notwithstanding).
By the way this just in :
Managed Copy Will Be Mandatory in Blu-ray
By Mark Fleischmann
What exactly is Managed Copy? It allows consumers to make a single copy of any Blu-ray disc to recordable BD or DVD, hard drives, SD cards, portable players (currently excluding iPods), or other media. The option, available in the disc menu, would connect the player to a server to receive authorization. Studios may charge for the privilege. They might also sell the right to make additional copies.
http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/061709managed/
And yes I'm a videophile but I can really tell the difference between upscaling and true 1080p.
The proposed managed copy implementations just suck. Why tax the paying consumers and inconvenience them even more, while the non-paying consumers will not need to worry about the one and only opportunity of mking the managed copy.
I do love HiDef movies and do not mind paying for the improved viewing experience, but having them implement such stupid restrictions around the greediness of the movie studios makes me wish for this technology to fail for good.
In a way, it's like being forced to boot XP to use HTPC even when I prefer only using MacOSX.
For a price and will it be 1080p?
Will it have special features or background commentary?
Will it be a rental so you'll have to pay for it again and again?
What if you are at a friend's house and you want him/her to see it? Will they have to pay for it also? Or you could just purchase it once and loan them the disc.
I mean you don't expect this to be free do you? If you do I suggest you do some research into the recent writer's strike. Part of that was concerning royalties from video sales.
Those people want to get paid you understand.
You see I realize you could plunk down $229.00 for an Apple TV unit or you could just go out and buy a BD player for oh $150.00 to $200.00 and have a lot more flexibility. Quality also.
Now I'm not saying that your download nirvana won't happen someday. Like I've said before about 10 years to clear away all the road blocks to true ( not tied to only you computer or iPod or rental ) sales of HD video over the internet that the paranoid studios have in place currently. Also to increase the bandwidth capability of most networks to handle the load when everyone wants to purchase and download their 1080p with special features copy of " Batman Returns Again " and not have the internet collapse under the load.
Yup! About 10 years or about 8 and 1/2 since I've already been discussing this here for a year and a half now.
My how time flies! It'll get here eventually. By that time I'm sure everyone will have a BD player and want the next big thing.
The shortcomings you're describing are real. But also keep in mind that they're coming from the mindset of a videophile and that blu-ray also has shortcomings. When looking at the market at a whole, I think you'll find that streaming/vod/downloads are quite apealing to the general public. It just needs to be simple and priced fairly. The public is going to absolutely fall in love with watching anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. This is only possible with network delivered video.
Somewhere buried in there did I see you were touting blu-ray as the cheaper alternative?
Please don't put words in the mouths of those you don't agree with. No where did I write anything about expecting video to be free.
Finally, you're portraying network based video delivery as 8.5 to 10 years away. It should be obvious by now that it is already here and growing rapidly. The question is really, how does that growth rate compare to blu-ray? Basically, will it hit critical mass, as happened with music, anytime soon? The timing is critical to the future of blu-ray.
What's infuriating is how aggressively they're pushing it in retail stores. 1/3 of the movie disk space seems to be devoted to Blu-Ray. That's space that IMO should be devoted to DVDs.
The "managed copy" does not come free. It requires new hardware, a new BD player to implement. It also allows only one copy or multiple copies will be charged.
The proposed managed copy implementations just suck. Why tax the paying consumers and inconvenience them even more, while the non-paying consumers will not need to worry about the one and only opportunity of mking the managed copy.
I do love HiDef movies and do not mind paying for the improved viewing experience, but having them implement such stupid restrictions around the greediness of the movie studios makes me wish for this technology to fail for good.
In a way, it's like being forced to boot XP to use HTPC even when I prefer only using MacOSX.
The shortcomings you're describing are real. But also keep in mind that they're coming from the mindset of a videophile and that blu-ray also has shortcomings. When looking at the market at a whole, I think you'll find that streaming/vod/downloads are quite apealing to the general public. It just needs to be simple and priced fairly. The public is going to absolutely fall in love with watching anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. This is only possible with network delivered video.
Somewhere buried in there did I see you were touting blu-ray as the cheaper alternative?
Please don't put words in the mouths of those you don't agree with. No where did I write anything about expecting video to be free.
Finally, you're portraying network based video delivery as 8.5 to 10 years away. It should be obvious by now that it is already here and growing rapidly. The question is really, how does that growth rate compare to blu-ray? Basically, will it hit critical mass, as happened with music, anytime soon? The timing is critical to the future of blu-ray.
The public is going to absolutely fall in love with watching anything they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. This is only possible with network delivered video.
For a price. I'm not so sure they'll like paying again and again and never really being to own it. Do remember Divx ( no not the codec ) a scheme hatched by Circuit City when DVD's first came out? They would allow you to purchase the disc watch it twice and then it would be a coaster. If you wanted to see the video again you had to buy it again. Well needless to say it died a quick death. People like owning things. Then they really can watch it when they want and not have to pay everytime they do. This could be possible with VOD or downloading but a lot of hurdles have to be considered like those stubborn studios which don't seem to be budging on the subject anymore than they were a year and a half ago. I'm sure they'd love to have us in a position where the only way to watch video is to pay and pay again.
Please don't put words in the mouths of those you don't agree with. No where did I write anything about expecting video to be free.
It's only that I've heard this expectation from some of the supporters of downloading. And yes here on this forum.
And last but not least :
Basically, will it hit critical mass, as happened with music,
But with music you can burn it to a disc and play it anywhere. On any stereo with a CD player. It's not the same with video. I've downloaded stuff on iTunes I'd love to play on my 53" widescreen in the living room but guess what? And even then it wouldn't be 1080p or the same calibur of sound as a BD.
More reasons not to invest in Blu-Ray.
What's infuriating is how aggressively they're pushing it in retail stores. 1/3 of the movie disk space seems to be devoted to Blu-Ray. That's space that IMO should be devoted to DVDs.
Well.......
http://www.dailytech.com/Bluray+Play...ticle15077.htm
Blu-ray Players Sales Growing
Q1 sales of Blu-ray players in the U.S. grew to more than 400,000 units. That number is a 72% gain over Q1 2008, and dollar sales increased 14% to reach $107.2 million.
Also
Along with sales going up and prices coming down, the report also shows that Blu-ray awareness among consumers is at an all time high. Over the last six months, awareness of Blu-ray has hit 90%. Consumers saying they are extremely or very likely to buy Blu-ray in the next six months totaled 6% of those surveyed compared to 5% who said the same thing in an August report.
For a price. I'm not so sure they'll like paying again and again and never really being to own it. Do remember Divx ( no not the codec ) a scheme hatched by Circuit City when DVD's first came out? They would allow you to purchase the disc watch it twice and then it would be a coaster. If you wanted to see the video again you had to buy it again. Well needless to say it died a quick death. People like owning things. Then they really can watch it when they want and not have to pay everytime they do.
Yeah I do remember Divx. I hated that product with a vengeance.
There is an absolutely huge difference though. You still had to drive to the store to get a divx movie. It was the worst of both worlds. You had to drive to the store but you didn't get to own the movie and you couldn't watch it repeatedly. You'd have to drive back to the store to watch it again. The lure of downloads/streaming is that you can watch anything you want right away.
I'd agree that some people like to own things. But I'd bet that the collecting of VHS and DVDs was primarily rooted in the fact that there was no other way to watch a particular video when you wanted to watch it. When rentals came about, they halfway provided what people wanted. They could still pick what to watch and kind of when to watch it. But they still had to drive to the store, no instant satisfaction. So some people continued buying after the advent of renting. But mostly people chose to rent rather than buy.
Downloads provide the final piece of the puzzle for most people. They can watch what they want to watch right away. There will still be collectors. But another whole category of consumers will be swayed by downloads or streaming. My bet is that it will be the vast majority.
Yeah I do remember Divx. I hated that product with a vengeance.
There is an absolutely huge difference though. You still had to drive to the store to get a divx movie. It was the worst of both worlds. You had to drive to the store but you didn't get to own the movie and you couldn't watch it repeatedly. You'd have to drive back to the store to watch it again. The lure of downloads/streaming is that you can watch anything you want right away.
I'd agree that some people like to own things. But I'd bet that the collecting of VHS and DVDs was primarily rooted in the fact that there was no other way to watch a particular video when you wanted to watch it. When rentals came about, they halfway provided what people wanted. They could still pick what to watch and kind of when to watch it. But they still had to drive to the store, no instant satisfaction. So some people continued buying after the advent of renting. But mostly people chose to rent rather than buy.
Downloads provide the final piece of the puzzle for most people. They can watch what they want to watch right away. There will still be collectors. But another whole category of consumers will be swayed by downloads or streaming. My bet is that it will be the vast majority.
Well most say that it was the fact that you never truly owned Divx that killed it. Not the driving to the store. If that were true people would have never gone down to the video store to rent stuff. No it was the paying again and again that sunk it.
Right now purchasing still dwarfs renting by a large margin. The reason? You have to return it. And if you want to watch it again you have to pay again.
Sometimes you don't have time to watch something within the time frame. That's something that really bugs me. Life happens. And there's still the wanting to share it with a friend factor. I know many people who do this with physical media. If they have to pay again it's just not as flexible.
Sometimes the old way is still the easiest. Now this would all change if the movie studios would lighten up and allow you to burn what you've paid for.
Right now purchasing still dwarfs renting by a large margin. The reason? You have to return it. And if you want to watch it again you have to pay again.
What about t being able to watch the movie right away whenever you want? It's almost like you're dismissing that as a motivation for purchasing.
Downloads address this desire directly but do even better. They don't require driving your car somewhere to get the movie. Also keep in mind that downloads and even streaming don't require a rental model. They can also be purchased.
As for purchasing still dwarfing renting... you mentioned this before, to which I replied.
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.
Care to comment on this? I've expounded on the point below.
Yes, we're all aware that purchased DVDs generate more revenue than DVD rentals. But we're moving into new territory here. VOD and expanded cable offerings have already taken away from the rental category. They provide movies and shows that the viewer has never seen before, which was the primary purpose for renting. In other words, you're comparing purchased video to only one category of ways to pay for a single viewing. Non-purchased content is far more prevalent than just rented disks. So the comparison between purchased and rented disks doesn't prove that people prefer purchasing over not-purchasing. To do that, you'd have to look at the vast array of non-(permanently) purchased video options, including cable TV.
[edit]
Thanks for the great discussion! This is the best back and forth this thread has seen in a while without the debate getting ugly.
A great big swath of cable television entertainment will soon be available over the Internet, Time-Warner and Comcast announced this morning.
The entertainment industry realizes that streaming/downloading/VOD is the future and they don't want to be left behind. I can't wait to see how these forays into internet distribution work out!
Edit: I guess I should qualify that this won't replace physical media in the immediate future when looking at the market in aggregate. But it is indicative of the trend toward network delivered video. As more of these option become available, more and more types of consumers will start to rely on those options. Netflix and hulu are two early examples, but they're just the beginning. For people that have already started to use these services, the future is already here.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/27563712-6...nclick_check=1
Viacom?s Paramount Pictures studio is seeking to merge its home entertainment division with a rival and is in advanced talks with Sony Pictures and News Corporation?s Fox studio, signalling that Hollywood could soon see a wave of consolidation.
The negotiations follow an industry-wide slump in DVD sales, the entertainment sector?s most profitable revenue stream. Sales have fallen by as much as 20 per cent in the past year, forcing studios to cut costs in order to maintain profit margins.
Paramount, the studio behind the blockbuster Transformers sequel, initiated the merger discussions, according to several people familiar with the situation. It is unclear which of the two companies will strike a deal with Paramount, which declined to comment. Sony and Fox also declined to comment.
However, people familiar with the situation said the discussions were going well and would result in considerable savings for Paramount if an agreement were struck.
The talks have focused on combining DVD production, distribution and back-office functions. One proposal would see Paramount begin using Sony?s DADC DVD production system rather than Technicolor?s system, which the studio currently uses.
Following the merger, Paramount and its partner would outwardly continue to operate as separate entities. The two studios would also keep their own marketing and sales operations.
But in joining forces behind the scenes, the studios are likely to generate considerable savings at a time when their parent companies are reluctant to commit too much capital to film production.
The slump in DVD sales has coincided with a drying up of third-party money from private equity groups and hedge funds. Meanwhile, marketing and production costs have spiralled, with studios spending an average of $100m for each film they release.
Across Hollywood, belts are being tightened. Time Warner, which owns Warner Brothers, has trimmed the number of films it releases each year from more than 40 to about 20.
Walt Disney has also moved to cut costs at its studio, with Bob Iger, chief executive, saying during a recent earnings call that the cost of ?distributing and marketing DVDs needs to be addressed?.
Hmm...either the studios will get more aggressive promoting Blu-ray to meet the slumping DVD sales or they'll try and save costs by distributing digital/downloadable copies. In all honesty, I think we'll see a hybrid approach.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/80658/the-...lug#s-p1-st-i1
Hmm...either the studios will get more aggressive promoting Blu-ray to meet the slumping DVD sales or they'll try and save costs by distributing digital/downloadable copies. In all honesty, I think we'll see a hybrid approach.
I don't understand your point.
If people aren't buying DVDs because of the economic situation, how would promoting Blu Ray or Downloads make any business sense? At its core, it's the same product being sold.
Which is why I think Paramount has initiated these talks.
If they can save a few dollars on each current sale, that more money in their pocket.
I don't understand your point.
If people aren't buying DVDs because of the economic situation, how would promoting Blu Ray or Downloads make any business sense? At its core, it's the same product being sold.
Which is why I think Paramount has initiated these talks.
If they can save a few dollars on each current sale, that more money in their pocket.
True, cutting costs by joining forces in certain areas of your business may lead to more efficiencies and money in your pocket. My point is that given the economy and the long trend of DVD sales decline...
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...-decline-16088
studios have the opportunity to cut costs even more by phasing out DVD (eventually) rather that supporting two optical formats (more cost) and getting a higher profit margin on new technology such as Blu-ray (it's called charging a premium) or via digital downloads that doesn't really require any packaging or physical media (less cost). So, yeah, promoting Blu-ray and digital downloads makes perfect sense IMHO as the margin for profit on both are higher.
True, cutting costs by joining forces in certain areas of your business may lead to more efficiencies and money in your pocket. My point is that given the economy and the long trend of DVD sales decline...
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...-decline-16088
studios have the opportunity to cut costs even more by phasing out DVD (eventually) rather that supporting two optical formats (more cost) and getting a higher profit margin on new technology such as Blu-ray (it's called charging a premium) or via digital downloads that doesn't really require any packaging or physical media (less cost). So, yeah, promoting Blu-ray and digital downloads makes perfect sense IMHO as the margin for profit on both are higher.
Given that your own link says two-thirds of sales are DVDs, it would be suicidal for the studios to phase out DVDs anytime soon.
Trying to migrate a market in recession to premium pricing is also a recipe for disaster.
Even Apple, king of price premiums, is reducing margins and pricing in this economy.
Margins are higher on downloads, but only because the middleman (retailers) are cut out.
This also entails fast internet connections or pricey set top boxes. It's got a great future, but we live in the present.
There is simply no getting around the fact that in a recession, entertainment sales take a hit.
Customers are looking for value in this economy, which means DVDs.
Given that your own link says two-thirds of sales are DVDs, it would be suicidal for the studios to phase out DVDs anytime soon.
Trying to migrate a market in recession to premium pricing is also a recipe for disaster.
Even Apple, king of price premiums, is reducing margins and pricing in this economy.
Margins are higher on downloads, but only because the middleman (retailers) are cut out.
This also entails fast internet connections or pricey set top boxes. It's got a great future, but we live in the present.
There is simply no getting around the fact that in a recession, entertainment sales take a hit.
Customers are looking for value in this economy, which means DVDs.
I agree with all that except...
(of course there had to be an except)
Don't retail alcohol sales, TV watching, and movie attendance (historically) go up during a recession? It is partially escapism but also because those tend to be cheaper than vacations or other types of purchases.
Don't retail alcohol sales, TV watching, and movie attendance (historically) go up during a recession? It is partially escapism but also because those tend to be cheaper than vacations or other types of purchases.
True. But I suspect there's a difference between the increased watching of TV/Cable and the purchase of the entire season of a TV series on disc.
Being hooked up to cable or satellite is largely seen as a need, whereas multi-episode disc purchases may be seen as an extravagance. Of course, single DVDs under $20. would essentially see the same increased demand as movies.