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.
Frank, I agree with you, especially with the Mao-Bama economy in full swing. However, all I'm saying is that whenever businesses see a sales decline in their chosen media format, just as they did with VHS, they will phase out to the newer technologies. Of course, I'm not saying it's going to happen overnight, but I do think companies will begin to more aggressively promote the newer technologies--both Blu-ray and VOD.
Japan's Toshiba Corp. will enter the Blu-ray DVD market, more than a year after it gave up on its own next-generation format that failed to gain industry support, a report said.
The media-electronics conglomerate will launch Blu-ray products as early as this year, a complete reversal of its position over the high-density DVD standard, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said.
Toshiba had promoted its "HD DVD format", pitting itself against the Blu-ray system developed by Sony and its partners, in a competition characterised as a re-run of the VHS-Betamax battle in video cassette tapes in the late 1970s.
Major Hollywood studios with vast movie back catalogues sided with Blu-ray, which then dominated the key Japanese market.
The move pushed Toshiba to concede defeat and give up on promoting HD DVD in early 2008, in an echo of Sony's Betamax setback a generation ago.
Toshiba considered making a comeback by developing next-generation televisions and eyeing distribution of television programmes and movies via the Internet.
But rapid growth of demand for Blu-ray products in Japan encouraged Toshiba to enter the Blu-ray market, the Yomiuri said.
Hell has frozen ovah!! JK, I think we all knew they would come around eventually.
Customers are looking for value in this economy, which means DVDs.
I bought Nightwatch and Daywatch together for £8. Four pounds a movie! For the blu-rays! Why would I buy an inferior product that costs pretty much the same, or in that case, more?
There are loads of blu-rays available at £10 or less, plenty of 3 for 2 offers as well.
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:
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.
For first run movies is this still true? Do you have a link? VOD for cable is still really small selection wise. The idea of watching a movie on a whim might be true for renting but if you like that movie, want your friends to see it ( and maybe they'll buy it also ) at no initial cost, or just want to see it again and again without paying again and again sales win out.
That's why I say VOD or internet delivered video is a threat to the local video store not to purchasing. Also do you have data to support your claim that collecting isn't that big? I know many who love ( not just like or out of necessity but love ) to collect. That's the ultimate watch on a whim and use it as you want because you own it. Also because the content is small ( VOD ) the movies that are available change. Now over time this may change and that's why I always go back to my original argument the idea that VOD or from the internet replacing physical media is at least 10 years away ( 8 1/2 now since we've been discussing it on this forum ). Now I can see that if all the hurdles are overcome you could download your purchase store it on something like a HD and be able to transfer it to another medium for portabilty ( loaning it to a friend like you would physical media so he/she could play it on whatever they want with the same quality ). But this would have to be worked out somehow with the movies companies so they would be satisfied no piracy was taking place.
That's why I've said 10 years. It will take that long to over come the hurdles of portability, quality, calming the movie studios so you can actually purchase the media like you would it's physical counter part, bandwidth issues ( anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is selling something. For instance can you imagine the first day Batman 14 is released for the public in 1080p HD and everyone wants a copy over the internet? )
Also the quality that you get with VOD from cable or the internet ( and deliver to your big screen without special equipment like Apple TV ) still isn't up to what a BD can deliver. If you love movies and want the best picture on your big screen ( and big screens show the most area of growth now ) BD is the way to see that.
For now.
PS. By the way a friend of mine at work just had a birthday. He and his wife aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. They have a 46" Samsung flatscreen and guess what his wife bought him for a gift? He's not a videophile ( I had to advise him that he should purchase an HDMI cable that wasn't included ) he now is in love with the picture quality and " Would never go back ".
For first run movies is this still true? Do you have a link? VOD for cable is still really small selection wise.
The point I was making in the below quote was that far more money is spent on non-purchased video. In particular, I was refering to cable subscriptions, not VOD.
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.
In other words, while disc-sales is a larger market than renting (i think), this doesn't indicate that the general public prefers to own their movies. Comparing sales to rentals is only part of the equation when addressing the subject of whether people prefer to own.
A bit more rambling on the subject while I'm at it ...
This isn't meant to suggest that collectors don't exist or that ownership is bad. But rather, if just looking at dollar amounts, cable TV subscriptions should be figured in as well. People spend a lot of money to watch things just once... or even not at all. What they really prefer is convenience, being able to watch something they like without spending lots of time or money. For most people, historically the purpose for buying a movie was convenience and a low price for repeated viewings. Ownership, instead of a philosophical or principled stance, was just an intermediate goal, a means to an end.
With that said, I'm not anti-blu-ray. I can't wait to go home and enjoy my recent home theater upgrades. I finally splurged on a 1080p24 native projector and an HDMI equiped receiver with support for the better audio formats. Blu-ray looks even more spectacular at my house than it did before. But you know what... I still find myself watching streamed video simply because there are thousands of choices immediately available at the press of a button.
This isn't meant to suggest that collectors don't exist or that ownership is bad. But rather, if just looking at dollar amounts, cable TV subscriptions should be figured in as well. People spend a lot of money to watch things just once... or even not at all.
Good post!
The collectors market is significant. But small compared to the convenience market.
If movie buyers were offered a product that offered:
1) good-enough audio/visual quality.
2) immediate-play file-based video jukebox hardware.
3) sensible pricing for keep and rental.
4) very large catalog
The blu-ray collectors market would remain in existence. But it would dwindle to Laserdisk size.
For me today, the text advertisement at the bottom of this forum page is:
"LG BD390 Blu Ray Player
Stream Movies Instantly To Your TV W/ LG's Blu Ray DVD Player!
Interesting... so the PS3 was used to leverage blu-ray players into the home market. Yet now non-PS3 blu-ray players are being used to leverage streaming-hardware into the home market. I'm sure there's irony in there somewhere.
Just when Blu-ray thought it had clear sailing, a tempest has risen in the East: China Blue Hi-definition Disk (CBHD). Toshiba has licensed its HD DVD to them and it will be the unit world leader in HD optical technology in just 12 months.
Why? The Times Online reports that the CBHD players are outselling Blu-ray in China by 3-1 and the CBHD disks cost a quarter of Blu-ray.
Blu-ray, we hardly knew ye
What happened to Blu-ray?s dominance? Blu-ray?s dominance.
Conceived by Sony at a time when few thought upscaling would succeed, the idea was that HDTVs would require HD content on optical media. Reliving the glory days of DVD adoption they forecast tens of billions in revenue from players and disks, enormous licensing fees and consumer-proof DRM.
Watching the CD business crater, studio thought that HD would drive their business to new heights while eliminating piracy. It was an optical gold rush - that has turned into a mirage.
The fundamental problem is that the slightly sharper HD picture isn?t worth the extra dollars. 10%-15% max.
Enter the dragon
China has good reasons to support a home-grown HD format. First, the exorbitant Blu-ray royalties hurts Chinese manufacturers ability to compete on price.
An equally important, but unspoken, issue is the econoclypse. The Chinese government has made a deal with the Chinese people: leave us in control and we?ll deliver rising living standards. The current slow down has hit China hard: millions have been laid off and economic growth is anemic.
CBHD is a double win for the Chinese government: billions saved in royalties; and a much cheaper, locally manufactured, luxury item for the restless masses. Blu-ray is simply collateral damage.
Studio knuckle-draggers no doubt are salivating at a tough new form of Region encoding: incompatible formats for the West and Asia. But will that really work?
English is the #2 language in Asia, so English-language CBHDs will be popular. Shanghai vendors will happily sell CBHD players and disks on Ebay. The economics are irresistible and, other than the studios, who will turn down HD content at DVD prices?
The Storage Bits take
Toshiba?s gambit is brilliant. Instead of taking a total loss on their billion-dollar HD DVD investment, they?ll get incremental revenue and, no doubt, valuable future consideration from the Chinese government.
It is a nice win for the Chinese government and manufacturers. Blu-ray?s high cost has slowed its acceptance to a crawl, so Chinese CBHD players will rapidly climb down the cost curve to prices lower than DVD-only players since they aren?t paying DVD royalties either.
The studios get a couple of years to make some money on Chinese CBHD releases, but will piracy disappear? Not anytime soon.
The big loser is the Blu-ray camp. Boo-hoo. They?ve consistently misjudged the market and Blu-ray?s appeal. Guys, I?m sorry you made a bad business decision, but it?s time to man up and take your write-offs.
CBHD vendors should not ignore the writable CBHD market. Many consumers would like something larger than DVDs for backup and much cheaper - and more compatible - than Blu-ray.
Here?s hoping the CBHD storage market is running wild by this time next year. CBHD will be the world?s #1 format in unit volume by next year.
What's the relevance? Young people are streaming tv shows because it's free, they're poor and have opted to not have cable television due to cost. It has nothing to do with the adoption of paid Video on demand. Start charging for the streaming of television shows and those numbers would disappear overnight.
What's the relevance? Young people are streaming tv shows because it's free, they're poor and have opted to not have cable television due to cost. It has nothing to do with the adoption of paid Video on demand. Start charging for the streaming of television shows and those numbers would disappear overnight.
What's the relevance? Young people are streaming tv shows because it's free, they're poor and have opted to not have cable television due to cost. It has nothing to do with the adoption of paid Video on demand. Start charging for the streaming of television shows and those numbers would disappear overnight.
Is that a serious question? (I'm honestly baffled by it)
A commonly cited and quite reasonable criticism of streaming video is that the A/V quality is lower than available elsewhere. This can drive people away from streaming video no matter whether that video is free, purchased, or rented. What these statistics shed light on, among other things, is whether people are willing to watch streaming video despite the currently inferior quality level. (Note: Netflix HD streaming to a set top box is already subjectively better than DVD quality.)
If free streaming is to completely ignored, then so should broadcast TV from the major networks. After all, both hulu and broadcast TV are both funded by selling advertising slots during otherwise free programming.
Sony on Tuesday finally took the wraps off the much-rumored PS3 Slim and gave it the more affordable $299 price tag consumers have been clamoring for.
Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Kaz Hirai performed the unveiling at a press conference in Cologne, Germany, preceding the opening of the Gamescom Expo. He took the stage and announced the PS3 was "getting a new model" and that indeed it was called the PS3 Slim.
The Slim is hitting stores September 1 in North America and will cost $299 (or for those who live in other regions, 299 euros or 29,980 yen). Hirai says the device has the same features and functions as the "old" PS3 but is 33 percent smaller, 36 percent lighter, and comes with a 120GB hard drive.
Sony says that to achieve the new form factor, the internal design architecture of the new PS3 system has been completely redesigned--"from the main semiconductors and power supply unit to the cooling mechanism."
The PS3 slim is powered by a new 45nm version of the Cell processor, which runs at the same speed as the 60nm processor in the "old" PS3 but is smaller and more energy efficient. According to company reps, power consumption for the Slim also been cut to two-thirds, "helping to reduce fan noise," which is important.
Kaz Hirai unveils the PS3 Slim in Cologne, Germany.
On the cosmetic front, this model has a textured surface finish that gives the PS3 a fresh, "casual" look that the company hopes will make it more appealing to a wider audience (read: casual gamers). As previously rumored, the PS3 logo has undergone a redesign and Sony's changing the PS3 brand name from "PLAYSTATION 3" to "PlayStation 3" (we've actually been calling it the PlayStation 3 for a while).
Like the 80GB and 160GB models, the 120GB PS3 Slim has built-in Wi-Fi and two USB ports (sorry, Sony didn't add IR). You can also upgrade/replace the hard drive without voiding the warranty, though Sony has moved the hard drive from the side of the unit to the front for "easier access." (To remove the hard drive, you simply unscrew the screws). The one feature missing from the Slim is the ability to install another operating system (i.e., Linux)--Sony is doing away with that feature.
With earlier PS3s, you could prop your unit up vertically or lay it down horizontally. Out of the box, the Slim is only designed to be used in a horizontal position, but Sony will sell a $24 stand that allows you to stand it up vertically.
In making the move to the PS3 Slim, Sony will be upgrading the firmware to 3.0 and phasing out its legacy 80GB and 160GB models, selling them for $299 and $399 respectively.
John Koller, director of hardware marketing for Sony Computer Entertainment America, says they've been able to run down inventory of older models, but he didn't have the best answer as to why someone would buy an old 80GB model over the new 120GB Slim. "Some people want a unit right away and they may like the look of the old unit," he said. "People will have their reasons for wanting one."
I think you'll see a definite uptick in Blu-ray sales this holiday season...especially with this guy selling at $299.
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.
And you sir are a petty thief. Sorry if that offends. But for guys like me who earn their living producing content for you fuck nuts and then to only have you guys steal it without paying for it simply because you refuse to press the stupid "skip forward" button is well .... thievery at best, larceny at worst.
It would be like me saying, "I don't like how much Apple charges for their iPhones so I'm going to break into their store and steal one. That'll teach 'em."
I also find it frackin' hilarious that you say "I've delcared war against those corporations and I am winning." Winning? Winning what, exactly? Winning at taking part in killing the motion picture business? You want to take down the studios so you can feel good about rampant advertising? You want to eradicate movies altogether because no one can earn an honest dollar anymore?
At least rent the damn movie, rip it and throw it onto your terabytes of other stolen intellectual property!!
With this type of group-think short-sighedness we're well on our way to seeing no quality movies or music anymore. We'll all be stuck with a bunch of skateboarding idiots and their stupid antics on YouTube and we'll pass that off as "entertainment."
Please don't drag this thread into the perpetual arguing about the morality of copyrights and copyright infringement.
Hey, you go out and hustle up half a million dollars, then bust your ass for two years for no pay to get the movie made, then hit the pavement selling it to distributors who don't want to give you any money anymore for it because of declining DVD sales and piracy! And then come in here and tolerate blanket statements of "i steal my movies" and not blow a gasket.
It's the little guys like us who don't have millions of dollars, who are trying to do it the right way, and then ultimately get shafted by these childish morons who think all music and movies should be free.
Comments
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...eed&subj=Crave
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.
Frank, I agree with you, especially with the Mao-Bama economy in full swing.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...pz7D4vScAcHj-Q
Japan's Toshiba Corp. will enter the Blu-ray DVD market, more than a year after it gave up on its own next-generation format that failed to gain industry support, a report said.
The media-electronics conglomerate will launch Blu-ray products as early as this year, a complete reversal of its position over the high-density DVD standard, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said.
Toshiba had promoted its "HD DVD format", pitting itself against the Blu-ray system developed by Sony and its partners, in a competition characterised as a re-run of the VHS-Betamax battle in video cassette tapes in the late 1970s.
Major Hollywood studios with vast movie back catalogues sided with Blu-ray, which then dominated the key Japanese market.
The move pushed Toshiba to concede defeat and give up on promoting HD DVD in early 2008, in an echo of Sony's Betamax setback a generation ago.
Toshiba considered making a comeback by developing next-generation televisions and eyeing distribution of television programmes and movies via the Internet.
But rapid growth of demand for Blu-ray products in Japan encouraged Toshiba to enter the Blu-ray market, the Yomiuri said.
Hell has frozen ovah!!
Customers are looking for value in this economy, which means DVDs.
I bought Nightwatch and Daywatch together for £8. Four pounds a movie! For the blu-rays! Why would I buy an inferior product that costs pretty much the same, or in that case, more?
There are loads of blu-rays available at £10 or less, plenty of 3 for 2 offers as well.
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.
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.
For first run movies is this still true? Do you have a link? VOD for cable is still really small selection wise. The idea of watching a movie on a whim might be true for renting but if you like that movie, want your friends to see it ( and maybe they'll buy it also ) at no initial cost, or just want to see it again and again without paying again and again sales win out.
That's why I say VOD or internet delivered video is a threat to the local video store not to purchasing. Also do you have data to support your claim that collecting isn't that big? I know many who love ( not just like or out of necessity but love ) to collect. That's the ultimate watch on a whim and use it as you want because you own it. Also because the content is small ( VOD ) the movies that are available change. Now over time this may change and that's why I always go back to my original argument the idea that VOD or from the internet replacing physical media is at least 10 years away ( 8 1/2 now since we've been discussing it on this forum ). Now I can see that if all the hurdles are overcome you could download your purchase store it on something like a HD and be able to transfer it to another medium for portabilty ( loaning it to a friend like you would physical media so he/she could play it on whatever they want with the same quality ). But this would have to be worked out somehow with the movies companies so they would be satisfied no piracy was taking place.
That's why I've said 10 years. It will take that long to over come the hurdles of portability, quality, calming the movie studios so you can actually purchase the media like you would it's physical counter part, bandwidth issues ( anyone who doesn't acknowledge this is selling something. For instance can you imagine the first day Batman 14 is released for the public in 1080p HD and everyone wants a copy over the internet? )
Also the quality that you get with VOD from cable or the internet ( and deliver to your big screen without special equipment like Apple TV ) still isn't up to what a BD can deliver. If you love movies and want the best picture on your big screen ( and big screens show the most area of growth now ) BD is the way to see that.
For now.
PS. By the way a friend of mine at work just had a birthday. He and his wife aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination. They have a 46" Samsung flatscreen and guess what his wife bought him for a gift? He's not a videophile ( I had to advise him that he should purchase an HDMI cable that wasn't included ) he now is in love with the picture quality and " Would never go back ".
Another one down.
For first run movies is this still true? Do you have a link? VOD for cable is still really small selection wise.
The point I was making in the below quote was that far more money is spent on non-purchased video. In particular, I was refering to cable subscriptions, not VOD.
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.
In other words, while disc-sales is a larger market than renting (i think), this doesn't indicate that the general public prefers to own their movies. Comparing sales to rentals is only part of the equation when addressing the subject of whether people prefer to own.
A bit more rambling on the subject while I'm at it ...
This isn't meant to suggest that collectors don't exist or that ownership is bad. But rather, if just looking at dollar amounts, cable TV subscriptions should be figured in as well. People spend a lot of money to watch things just once... or even not at all. What they really prefer is convenience, being able to watch something they like without spending lots of time or money. For most people, historically the purpose for buying a movie was convenience and a low price for repeated viewings. Ownership, instead of a philosophical or principled stance, was just an intermediate goal, a means to an end.
With that said, I'm not anti-blu-ray. I can't wait to go home and enjoy my recent home theater upgrades. I finally splurged on a 1080p24 native projector and an HDMI equiped receiver with support for the better audio formats. Blu-ray looks even more spectacular at my house than it did before. But you know what... I still find myself watching streamed video simply because there are thousands of choices immediately available at the press of a button.
This isn't meant to suggest that collectors don't exist or that ownership is bad. But rather, if just looking at dollar amounts, cable TV subscriptions should be figured in as well. People spend a lot of money to watch things just once... or even not at all.
Good post!
The collectors market is significant. But small compared to the convenience market.
If movie buyers were offered a product that offered:
1) good-enough audio/visual quality.
2) immediate-play file-based video jukebox hardware.
3) sensible pricing for keep and rental.
4) very large catalog
The blu-ray collectors market would remain in existence. But it would dwindle to Laserdisk size.
C.
For me today, the text advertisement at the bottom of this forum page is:
"LG BD390 Blu Ray Player
Stream Movies Instantly To Your TV W/ LG's Blu Ray DVD Player!
Interesting... so the PS3 was used to leverage blu-ray players into the home market. Yet now non-PS3 blu-ray players are being used to leverage streaming-hardware into the home market. I'm sure there's irony in there somewhere.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=562
HD DVD returns and kicks Blu-ray to the gutter
Just when Blu-ray thought it had clear sailing, a tempest has risen in the East: China Blue Hi-definition Disk (CBHD). Toshiba has licensed its HD DVD to them and it will be the unit world leader in HD optical technology in just 12 months.
Why? The Times Online reports that the CBHD players are outselling Blu-ray in China by 3-1 and the CBHD disks cost a quarter of Blu-ray.
Blu-ray, we hardly knew ye
What happened to Blu-ray?s dominance? Blu-ray?s dominance.
Conceived by Sony at a time when few thought upscaling would succeed, the idea was that HDTVs would require HD content on optical media. Reliving the glory days of DVD adoption they forecast tens of billions in revenue from players and disks, enormous licensing fees and consumer-proof DRM.
Watching the CD business crater, studio thought that HD would drive their business to new heights while eliminating piracy. It was an optical gold rush - that has turned into a mirage.
The fundamental problem is that the slightly sharper HD picture isn?t worth the extra dollars. 10%-15% max.
Enter the dragon
China has good reasons to support a home-grown HD format. First, the exorbitant Blu-ray royalties hurts Chinese manufacturers ability to compete on price.
An equally important, but unspoken, issue is the econoclypse. The Chinese government has made a deal with the Chinese people: leave us in control and we?ll deliver rising living standards. The current slow down has hit China hard: millions have been laid off and economic growth is anemic.
CBHD is a double win for the Chinese government: billions saved in royalties; and a much cheaper, locally manufactured, luxury item for the restless masses. Blu-ray is simply collateral damage.
Studio knuckle-draggers no doubt are salivating at a tough new form of Region encoding: incompatible formats for the West and Asia. But will that really work?
English is the #2 language in Asia, so English-language CBHDs will be popular. Shanghai vendors will happily sell CBHD players and disks on Ebay. The economics are irresistible and, other than the studios, who will turn down HD content at DVD prices?
The Storage Bits take
Toshiba?s gambit is brilliant. Instead of taking a total loss on their billion-dollar HD DVD investment, they?ll get incremental revenue and, no doubt, valuable future consideration from the Chinese government.
It is a nice win for the Chinese government and manufacturers. Blu-ray?s high cost has slowed its acceptance to a crawl, so Chinese CBHD players will rapidly climb down the cost curve to prices lower than DVD-only players since they aren?t paying DVD royalties either.
The studios get a couple of years to make some money on Chinese CBHD releases, but will piracy disappear? Not anytime soon.
The big loser is the Blu-ray camp. Boo-hoo. They?ve consistently misjudged the market and Blu-ray?s appeal. Guys, I?m sorry you made a bad business decision, but it?s time to man up and take your write-offs.
CBHD vendors should not ignore the writable CBHD market. Many consumers would like something larger than DVDs for backup and much cheaper - and more compatible - than Blu-ray.
Here?s hoping the CBHD storage market is running wild by this time next year. CBHD will be the world?s #1 format in unit volume by next year.
Arstechnica reports on a study by Ipsos MediaCT:
On demand in command; 51% of young 'Net users view TV online
Over a six-month period, the percentage of young Internet users who watched streaming TV shows on the Internet nearly tripled, jumping from 18 percent to 51 percent. For the young, it's an on-demand world.
Interesting stats on the rapid growth of streaming:
Arstechnica reports on a study by Ipsos MediaCT:
On demand in command; 51% of young 'Net users view TV online
Over a six-month period, the percentage of young Internet users who watched streaming TV shows on the Internet nearly tripled, jumping from 18 percent to 51 percent. For the young, it's an on-demand world.
What's the relevance? Young people are streaming tv shows because it's free, they're poor and have opted to not have cable television due to cost. It has nothing to do with the adoption of paid Video on demand. Start charging for the streaming of television shows and those numbers would disappear overnight.
What's the relevance? Young people are streaming tv shows because it's free, they're poor and have opted to not have cable television due to cost. It has nothing to do with the adoption of paid Video on demand. Start charging for the streaming of television shows and those numbers would disappear overnight.
I have cable with DVR and prefer Hulu.
What's the relevance? Young people are streaming tv shows because it's free, they're poor and have opted to not have cable television due to cost. It has nothing to do with the adoption of paid Video on demand. Start charging for the streaming of television shows and those numbers would disappear overnight.
Is that a serious question? (I'm honestly baffled by it)
A commonly cited and quite reasonable criticism of streaming video is that the A/V quality is lower than available elsewhere. This can drive people away from streaming video no matter whether that video is free, purchased, or rented. What these statistics shed light on, among other things, is whether people are willing to watch streaming video despite the currently inferior quality level. (Note: Netflix HD streaming to a set top box is already subjectively better than DVD quality.)
If free streaming is to completely ignored, then so should broadcast TV from the major networks. After all, both hulu and broadcast TV are both funded by selling advertising slots during otherwise free programming.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-103...orsPicksArea.0
Kaleidescape loses; DVD copying falls again
For the second time in two days, Hollywood has racked up another major legal victory over DVD-copying devices the studios charge are illegal.
Just in case anyone thought that they were softening on this subject.
By the way I recently saw a BD player at Walmart for $98.00!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10312144-1.html
Sony on Tuesday finally took the wraps off the much-rumored PS3 Slim and gave it the more affordable $299 price tag consumers have been clamoring for.
Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Kaz Hirai performed the unveiling at a press conference in Cologne, Germany, preceding the opening of the Gamescom Expo. He took the stage and announced the PS3 was "getting a new model" and that indeed it was called the PS3 Slim.
The Slim is hitting stores September 1 in North America and will cost $299 (or for those who live in other regions, 299 euros or 29,980 yen). Hirai says the device has the same features and functions as the "old" PS3 but is 33 percent smaller, 36 percent lighter, and comes with a 120GB hard drive.
Sony says that to achieve the new form factor, the internal design architecture of the new PS3 system has been completely redesigned--"from the main semiconductors and power supply unit to the cooling mechanism."
The PS3 slim is powered by a new 45nm version of the Cell processor, which runs at the same speed as the 60nm processor in the "old" PS3 but is smaller and more energy efficient. According to company reps, power consumption for the Slim also been cut to two-thirds, "helping to reduce fan noise," which is important.
Kaz Hirai unveils the PS3 Slim in Cologne, Germany.
On the cosmetic front, this model has a textured surface finish that gives the PS3 a fresh, "casual" look that the company hopes will make it more appealing to a wider audience (read: casual gamers). As previously rumored, the PS3 logo has undergone a redesign and Sony's changing the PS3 brand name from "PLAYSTATION 3" to "PlayStation 3" (we've actually been calling it the PlayStation 3 for a while).
Like the 80GB and 160GB models, the 120GB PS3 Slim has built-in Wi-Fi and two USB ports (sorry, Sony didn't add IR). You can also upgrade/replace the hard drive without voiding the warranty, though Sony has moved the hard drive from the side of the unit to the front for "easier access." (To remove the hard drive, you simply unscrew the screws). The one feature missing from the Slim is the ability to install another operating system (i.e., Linux)--Sony is doing away with that feature.
With earlier PS3s, you could prop your unit up vertically or lay it down horizontally. Out of the box, the Slim is only designed to be used in a horizontal position, but Sony will sell a $24 stand that allows you to stand it up vertically.
In making the move to the PS3 Slim, Sony will be upgrading the firmware to 3.0 and phasing out its legacy 80GB and 160GB models, selling them for $299 and $399 respectively.
John Koller, director of hardware marketing for Sony Computer Entertainment America, says they've been able to run down inventory of older models, but he didn't have the best answer as to why someone would buy an old 80GB model over the new 120GB Slim. "Some people want a unit right away and they may like the look of the old unit," he said. "People will have their reasons for wanting one."
I think you'll see a definite uptick in Blu-ray sales this holiday season...especially with this guy selling at $299.
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.
And you sir are a petty thief. Sorry if that offends. But for guys like me who earn their living producing content for you fuck nuts and then to only have you guys steal it without paying for it simply because you refuse to press the stupid "skip forward" button is well .... thievery at best, larceny at worst.
It would be like me saying, "I don't like how much Apple charges for their iPhones so I'm going to break into their store and steal one. That'll teach 'em."
I also find it frackin' hilarious that you say "I've delcared war against those corporations and I am winning." Winning? Winning what, exactly? Winning at taking part in killing the motion picture business? You want to take down the studios so you can feel good about rampant advertising? You want to eradicate movies altogether because no one can earn an honest dollar anymore?
At least rent the damn movie, rip it and throw it onto your terabytes of other stolen intellectual property!!
With this type of group-think short-sighedness we're well on our way to seeing no quality movies or music anymore. We'll all be stuck with a bunch of skateboarding idiots and their stupid antics on YouTube and we'll pass that off as "entertainment."
Please don't drag this thread into the perpetual arguing about the morality of copyrights and copyright infringement.
Hey, you go out and hustle up half a million dollars, then bust your ass for two years for no pay to get the movie made, then hit the pavement selling it to distributors who don't want to give you any money anymore for it because of declining DVD sales and piracy! And then come in here and tolerate blanket statements of "i steal my movies" and not blow a gasket.
It's the little guys like us who don't have millions of dollars, who are trying to do it the right way, and then ultimately get shafted by these childish morons who think all music and movies should be free.