I see their has already been discussion about it. But you talk about it as though HD downloads is a future concept. Its available right now.
Their are some challenges that limit media downloads from over taking physical media. But those challenges will easily be over come. Bandwidth speeds will improve, codecs will deliver better quality at lower bitrates. These improvements have already made a difference as 720P downloading wasn't possible a few years ago.
Video downloading hasn't over come physical DVD's yet. Looking at how audio downloading has over come physical CD's. Video is more than likely to follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
You really need to go back over some of the previous posts on this subject in the other HDDVD vs BluRay thread. There are so many issues that will put a road block in the way of downloading as a purchase item of HD ( as opposed to rental or only being able to watch it on your computer ) that it can't compete. Downloading is great for rental or a service like Apple TV. If you really want to own the movie and have the flexability you have today with physical media ( portability etc. ) it comes up short. Then there's the Studios and how they feel about you downloading HD content and transfering it to another media like a burnable DVD or flash drive so you can have said portability. Then there's bandwidth issue as in limited.
But I've been over this many times and don't feel like doing it again for you.
Try some of the previous pages also and you'll see I have been over this quite a bit already. I think downloading content would be great but because of these issues we're just not there yet. If it was the main way people purchased HD content can you imagine the way the internet would be clogged by everyone wanting the newest big release on the day of release? Trust me these services you speak of don't do the volume that stores do selling just a DVD.
Ya know, I remember folks saying the same about DVD in comparison to LD.
They still do. Just need to lurk in the right forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Somehow I don't think that Jackson is going to allow a shoddy transfer on LOTR blu-ray do you? Over time the average DVD release became better. Same will happen to Blu-ray.
I have seen 1080i version of LOTR series. It's better than DVD, but I wouldn't consider the PQ being near HD demo material. I hope the BD release would come from a much better/improved master and transfer. There are much room for improvements.
Today, everyone who walks out of a store with a flatscreen television has invariably boughten themselves an HDTV, whether they intend to use it to it's fullest potential or just go home to hook it up to their SD satellite box with the composite cable they have left over from their dead VCR. This is because HDTV's reached a price point where manufacturers simply stopped producing SD-only televisions.
Likewise, eventually Blu-Ray players will be the only DVD player you can buy in a store (they are backwards compatible after all), and people will end up with the players in their home whether they intend to use them or not. Then, Blu-Ray discs can overtake regular DVDs on store shelves, and people will be able to buy and play them whether their television shows the improved picture or not.
For those who believe Blu-Ray need not exist because the era of HD streaming is upon us, let me remind you that the internet has been fast enough for digital-only distribution of music — a market that's thrived — for almost a decade, and yet I can still buy music on a real CD if I so choose. That means even after the internet and the studios are ready for honest-to-goodness digital HD sales, physical media will still have at least ten years of life in it. Since we're still 5-10 years away from honest-to-goodness digital HD media, Blu-Ray's going to be around for a long damn time.
I see their has already been discussion about it. But you talk about it as though HD downloads is a future concept. Its available right now.
Their are some challenges that limit media downloads from over taking physical media. But those challenges will easily be over come. Bandwidth speeds will improve, codecs will deliver better quality at lower bitrates. These improvements have already made a difference as 720P downloading wasn't possible a few years ago.
Video downloading hasn't over come physical DVD's yet. Looking at how audio downloading has over come physical CD's. Video is more than likely to follow.
Ok this is just one item about the current short comings of downloading.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay? Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay?
Unless you have a portable BR player we don't know about or an implementation of managed copy that no one else has you can't with BR either.
Quote:
Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
It's a question of price isn't it? If a HD rental is $4.99 then even for a bargin bin $15 BRD you need to watch the title 3 times to break even. So if say you watched Iron Man at home and wanted to watch it again at your buddy's house, then you're out $10...not $25.99 for the blu-ray disc.
Quote:
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
When does ownership make sense? Mostly kid titles. If I had to pay for each time my kids watched various Disney flicks I'd be flat broke.
Quote:
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
250GB. That's 10 movies at Blu-Ray bit rates. Not very much. On the other hand far more movies at cable bit rates. Here's the deal though...Fios and cable going to the local Verizon or Comcast server farms aren't as big a problem as aggregating all that traffic out. VOD to Comcast VOD services doesn't count against your caps. So you're back to the $5-$6 rental costs vs $20+ purchase costs.
Quote:
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
Yes. On the other hand some folks say upconverted DVD is good enough. So I would guess that low bitrate HD is good enough as well.
Quote:
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
Meh. I don't see HD-VOD/IPTV killing BR. I do see it taking more share than SD-VOD/PPV did from DVD and it wont take 10 years. FiOS/UVerse (FTTP/FTTN), DOCSIS 3.0 and Xhom/Clear are being deployed so the last mile is started to get covered. From there the backhauls are probably in okay shape unless AT&T, Verizon, Sprint/Clearwire, cablecos really screw the pooch.
I'm guessing, without knowing, that the place that most providers fall down at is the pipe to the internet itself. This will impact iTunes, Hulu and other 3rd party IPTV distributors more than VOD services from last mile owners.
Ok this is just one item about the current short comings of downloading.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay? Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
No, that isn't as easy, but it isn't impossible either. You can take a lap top containing the HD file and connect it to the friends TV.
Quote:
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
I don't have any hard numbers but that is difficult to believe. Video rental companies are doing pretty well, while several major media retailers have recently gone out of business.
Quote:
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
The point of the Comcast cap isn't to stop people from watching video, its to stop people from abusing the system. Competition will force them to improve their bandwidth.
AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint are moving into becoming ISP's across the country. As well as having their own wireless data services, which will eventually compete directly against traditional ISP's. Competition will take care of bandwidth and speed issues.
Quote:
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
I acknowledged earlier that the quality is not as good as BR, but that does not matter for the average consumer. It only has to be good enough.
Quote:
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
The movie/television studios are not that different from music labels. They are trying to hold on to their old business model the same way the music labels did. If they don't change and adapt to new technology they will go over the same exact cliff as the music labels. The movie/television studios have more time because video files are bigger than music files.
You say you've gone over this many times as though you are absolutely right and that's the end of it. You choose to ignore that video over IP is happening now.
Ok this is just one item about the current short comings of downloading.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay? Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
Some of what you're harping on is also currently a shortcoming of blu-ray. I can't take blu-ray netflix discs over to a friend's house to watch because none of my friends own a blu-ray player. When a new movie is released, sold out physical media can be as problematic as VOD bandwidth.
There are certainly shortcoming with VOD, but it can't be written off entirely. There is anything but a consensus on the issue. Having made your case previously doesn't make it more valid or beyond reproach. This is still a very debatable subject.
Well, after holding out for today's MacWorld keynote I finally ordered a Blu-ray player for my home. I ordered the Sony BDP-S550. It just might be here by the end of the week.
VOD is going to be a big bag of hurt for many years to come. We are not ready for VOD to become the mainstream way of getting HD movies to your house and we are unlikely to be ready within the next 5 years and even then it will take another 5 years for it to become widespread in use.
Physical Media will continue to be the majority choice for the next 10 years. Not necessarily Blu-Ray but a combination of Blu-Ray and Flash. During that time VOD sales will steadily increase starting with the early adopters currently dabbling and eventually will catch up in sales.
There are too many problems with HD VOD. Firstly the delivery system is expensive and is only going to get worse. ISP's run the show here and like we already see in many countries around the world they are keen not to let you use up all your bandwidth on paying 3rd parties for content. My ISP, like many others, caps my bandwidth usage to 60GB despite me paying $150 a month for it. I may have a 20MB connection but 60GB is my limit, fine for SD movies but real HD? I would not rent more than 3 movie a month. What my ISP does do however is any movies I buy from them do not count towards my download limit, unfortunately they do not support MAC's so that is not a way forward and they are years away from offering full HD downloads (like Apple).
This is the future of all big ISP's, they want you to buy their content, with their DRM and if you really want to use iTunes you are gonna be paying for it. What is likely to happen is that we will move back to a pay as you play model. You download a 15GB movie from iTunes (of course when iTunes actually do start a real HD service) you are gonna pay $15 to the ISP, plus the $5 you pay Apple for the rental and hey presto next thing you know you have spent $20 to rent a movie.
And don't think i am anti-VOD or anything, I am one of the early adopters. I have had some kind of computer connected to my TV for over 6 years now. The majority of movies I watch are purchased downloads or VOD and since iTunes started rentals I have been a big user.
But for HD? Blu-Ray will play a huge role in the future.
Example: Since my last Mac Mini died I have been using a hacked Apple TV as my media server, it does mean however I have lost my DVD player. Do I miss it? Not one bit, I no longer watch DVD's - they are all backed-up to my server anyway. But, I am buying a Blu-Ray player this weekend. I was waiting to see if there was any chance Apple will release a Mac Mini with Blu-Ray, not a chance so my money is going on a player instead.
All this talk of choice is probably redundant. While I agree that not everyone wants HD content or even feels any need for it they will be left with little choice. Blu-Ray players will replace DVD players before the end of the year. I guarantee that in 12 months there will not be any DVD players in the stores. Same as on the shelves Blu-Ray will replace DVD's, the price will be the same, they are backward compatible, even people who have no real need for it will end up buying it because it is there.
Does nobody here remember when DVD replaced Video? It will go exactly the same way.
Apple dragging their heels will not change anything, they will come round eventually, they have to.
Unless you have a portable BR player we don't know about or an implementation of managed copy that no one else has you can't with BR either.
It's a question of price isn't it? If a HD rental is $4.99 then even for a bargin bin $15 BRD you need to watch the title 3 times to break even. So if say you watched Iron Man at home and wanted to watch it again at your buddy's house, then you're out $10...not $25.99 for the blu-ray disc.
When does ownership make sense? Mostly kid titles. If I had to pay for each time my kids watched various Disney flicks I'd be flat broke.
250GB. That's 10 movies at Blu-Ray bit rates. Not very much. On the other hand far more movies at cable bit rates. Here's the deal though...Fios and cable going to the local Verizon or Comcast server farms aren't as big a problem as aggregating all that traffic out. VOD to Comcast VOD services doesn't count against your caps. So you're back to the $5-$6 rental costs vs $20+ purchase costs.
Yes. On the other hand some folks say upconverted DVD is good enough. So I would guess that low bitrate HD is good enough as well.
Meh. I don't see HD-VOD/IPTV killing BR. I do see it taking more share than SD-VOD/PPV did from DVD and it wont take 10 years. FiOS/UVerse (FTTP/FTTN), DOCSIS 3.0 and Xhom/Clear are being deployed so the last mile is started to get covered. From there the backhauls are probably in okay shape unless AT&T, Verizon, Sprint/Clearwire, cablecos really screw the pooch.
I'm guessing, without knowing, that the place that most providers fall down at is the pipe to the internet itself. This will impact iTunes, Hulu and other 3rd party IPTV distributors more than VOD services from last mile owners.
Quote:
When does ownership make sense? Mostly kid titles. If I had to pay for each time my kids watched various Disney flicks I'd be flat broke.
And yet sales dwarf the numbers coming from rentals. More people purchase than rent. Really look it up. I did in the last thread.
Bottom line sales do more volume than rentals. I've already proven that.
Standard definition will play a smaller role as time goes on as HD will become mainstream ( as it's well on it's way to doing now that's pretty clear with the sales numbers of HDTVs ).
Quote:
Unless you have a portable BR player we don't know about or an implementation of managed copy that no one else has you can't with BR either.
What? You simply carry the BluRay disc over to your friend's house! You can't do that legally with a download is the point.
Quote:
Yes. On the other hand some folks say upconverted DVD is good enough. So I would guess that low bitrate HD is good enough as well.
The same mistake was made with VHS. Everyone was slowing down their machines to get more on a tape. Then TVs got even better and they could see how crappy it looked.
Once again we're talking about HD sales as they represent the mainstream of video consumption. Not rental. And even rental if it really catches on will run into bandwidth problems.
If I'm not right about this why are the experts ( you know people who know more about this than you or I ) are saying the internet can't take widespread HD commerce in it's current state?
Some of what you're harping on is also currently a shortcoming of blu-ray. I can't take blu-ray netflix discs over to a friend's house to watch because none of my friends own a blu-ray player. When a new movie is released, sold out physical media can be as problematic as VOD bandwidth.
There are certainly shortcoming with VOD, but it can't be written off entirely. There is anything but a consensus on the issue. Having made your case previously doesn't make it more valid or beyond reproach. This is still a very debatable subject.
But the point is you could if they did have a BluRay player. Also you can currently do this easily with a DVD! More flexability!
As I've said before we're talking about the big money maker for this to really change things. That being sales not rental.
Quote:
Having made your case previously doesn't make it more valid or beyond reproach
No but it does become quite tiresome having to reexplain it over and over again until the other side must back down and see they don't really have a solid case.
There are some real solid facts in the way of downloading HD content for purchase becoming the mainstream. The movie studios who won't budge on this issue except in a limited way like renting or only wtaching it on your computer. Bandwidth. Do I really have to explain this again? Portability or ease of use. Trying to say we're going to replace what we've got already with something less flexible doesn't make sense.
No but it does become quite tiresome having to reexplain it over and over again until the other side must back down and see they don't really have a solid case.
From the number of rebutals your post generated, you'll need to continue making your case.
It isn't that your assertions are that outlandish, but rather that they're stated with certainty and with what appears to be contempt for those who disagree. There's only one thing that is certain here, that video distribution is a turbulent market and that its future isn't entirely clear... hence the attraction of debating the subject here.
And yet sales dwarf the numbers coming from rentals. More people purchase than rent. Really look it up. I did in the last thread.
Bottom line sales do more volume than rentals. I've already proven that.
Standard definition will play a smaller role as time goes on as HD will become mainstream ( as it's well on it's way to doing now that's pretty clear with the sales numbers of HDTVs ).
I couldn't find that post. Can you post that information again? Several retail stores that sell DVD's have gone out of business. The major and mom and pop rental stores are still doing pretty well.
Quote:
What? You simply carry the BluRay disc over to your friend's house! You can't do that legally with a download is the point.
Their are ways you can.
Quote:
The same mistake was made with VHS. Everyone was slowing down their machines to get more on a tape. Then TVs got even better and they could see how crappy it looked.
This isn't true. No one thought VHS looked great. Most everyone was excited about DVD and it was quickly adopted. BR has not had the same reception and excitement that DVD had in its first years of sales.
Quote:
Once again we're talking about HD sales as they represent the mainstream of video consumption. Not rental. And even rental if it really catches on will run into bandwidth problems.
Just anecdotally I only know of a couple of people who buy and collect movies. I know many more people who watch movies when they are broadcast on television or cable, watch video on demand, rent from Netflix, and to a growing degree watching online downloads.
Quote:
If I'm not right about this why are the experts ( you know people who know more about this than you or I ) are saying the internet can't take widespread HD commerce in it's current state?
Bt the point is you could if they did have a BluRay player. Also you can currently do this easily with a DVD! More flexability!
Its not more flexible if your friend doesn't have a BR player. Which most people don't.
Quote:
No but it does become quite tiresome having to reexplain it over and over again until the other side must back down and see they don't really have a solid case.
The solid case are all of the companies who are getting into video downloads. They are not doing this because they want to loose money.
The solid case is the fact that people 25 and under are more used to downloading media than they are to buying physical media. When those people become 30 and over they will want downloads they won't want to go to a video store.
Quote:
There are some real solid facts in the way of downloading HD content for purchase becoming the mainstream. The movie studios who won't budge on this issue except in a limited way like renting or only wtaching it on your computer. Bandwidth. Do I really have to explain this again? Portability or ease of use. Trying to say we're going to replace what we've got already with something less flexible doesn't make sense.
About 5 years ago I remember reading an article about a disc technology that will allow the storage of many more GB's of information on a disc. They accomplish this by squeezing the data into smaller packets and using a blue laser to read it. The problem at the time was getting it to work. Their was the risk of the blue laser getting to hot and starting a fire. eventually they figure it out and got it to work reliably.
You are explaining either old or current problems. The problems you explain will be over come in the near future.
VOD is going to be a big bag of hurt for many years to come. We are not ready for VOD to become the mainstream way of getting HD movies to your house and we are unlikely to be ready within the next 5 years and even then it will take another 5 years for it to become widespread in use.
Physical Media will continue to be the majority choice for the next 10 years. Not necessarily Blu-Ray but a combination of Blu-Ray and Flash. During that time VOD sales will steadily increase starting with the early adopters currently dabbling and eventually will catch up in sales.
There are too many problems with HD VOD. Firstly the delivery system is expensive and is only going to get worse. ISP's run the show here and like we already see in many countries around the world they are keen not to let you use up all your bandwidth on paying 3rd parties for content. My ISP, like many others, caps my bandwidth usage to 60GB despite me paying $150 a month for it. I may have a 20MB connection but 60GB is my limit, fine for SD movies but real HD? I would not rent more than 3 movie a month. What my ISP does do however is any movies I buy from them do not count towards my download limit, unfortunately they do not support MAC's so that is not a way forward and they are years away from offering full HD downloads (like Apple).
This is the future of all big ISP's, they want you to buy their content, with their DRM and if you really want to use iTunes you are gonna be paying for it. What is likely to happen is that we will move back to a pay as you play model. You download a 15GB movie from iTunes (of course when iTunes actually do start a real HD service) you are gonna pay $15 to the ISP, plus the $5 you pay Apple for the rental and hey presto next thing you know you have spent $20 to rent a movie.
And don't think i am anti-VOD or anything, I am one of the early adopters. I have had some kind of computer connected to my TV for over 6 years now. The majority of movies I watch are purchased downloads or VOD and since iTunes started rentals I have been a big user.
But for HD? Blu-Ray will play a huge role in the future.
Example: Since my last Mac Mini died I have been using a hacked Apple TV as my media server, it does mean however I have lost my DVD player. Do I miss it? Not one bit, I no longer watch DVD's - they are all backed-up to my server anyway. But, I am buying a Blu-Ray player this weekend. I was waiting to see if there was any chance Apple will release a Mac Mini with Blu-Ray, not a chance so my money is going on a player instead.
All this talk of choice is probably redundant. While I agree that not everyone wants HD content or even feels any need for it they will be left with little choice. Blu-Ray players will replace DVD players before the end of the year. I guarantee that in 12 months there will not be any DVD players in the stores. Same as on the shelves Blu-Ray will replace DVD's, the price will be the same, they are backward compatible, even people who have no real need for it will end up buying it because it is there.
Does nobody here remember when DVD replaced Video? It will go exactly the same way.
Apple dragging their heels will not change anything, they will come round eventually, they have to.
The Murphster gets it!
I agree too that HD downloads have a way to go before being a viable replacement or overcoming Blu-ray--given the infrastructure, ease of use, and quality issues aforementioned in everyone's posts.
Anyhow, I came across this article in regards to Blu-ray and DVD and wanted to share...
Whenever the market is in the midst of a format transition, everyone has a lot of questions and the doom and gloom typically runs rampant. But what if we simply compare the last transition to the current one?
DVD owns the market and completely erased VHS from the face of the earth (well, for the most part), as the digital era arrived and gained complete control. Now, the high-definition Blu-Ray format has eliminated its only competition in HD-DVD and seeks to supplant DVD, although some reports would have you believe it's not doing the job. Well, not so. According to statistics compiled by EngadgetHD and Pali Capital's Richard Greenfield, Blu-Ray is coming along at a much faster rate than DVD. After two years, about 1.2 million DVD players had been sold, and in that same time frame, an estimated 2.5 million Blu-Ray players have been sold...and that number certainly doesn't include PlayStation 3 sales. Furthermore, Blu-Ray sales appear to have been unaffected by the economic downturn over the holidays, as it has "doubled its market share of the top 20 titles in the past six months." Remember, it takes some time for an entire market - like home movie viewing - to completely switch formats, but Blu-Ray is actually ahead of schedule.
There's no doubt that Sony used the PS3 as a Trojan Horse for Blu-Ray, and quite clearly, that move seems to have worked. Of course, it would help if more movies like "The Dark Knight" hit store shelves; that thing pretty much exploded and became gigantic for Blu-Ray.
Also, I'd have to go back to see who had mentioned this before, but it appears Disney is releasing Blu-ray + DVD Combo packs for their movies which should also help in the adoption of the format...
Technical Audio Devices (TAD), a subsidiary of Pioneer Electronics, will be demonstrating a new audio-only Blu-ray format at their booth at CES this year. This format, which will provide uncompressed 24bit 192kHz stereo audio, has not been named, though it sounds like this may be the first Blu-ray Profile 3.0 (Audio Only) demonstration.
While most Blu-ray users are familiar with Profiles 1.0, 1.1 (BonusView), and 2.0 (BD-Live), very few are aware that Blu-ray has yet another profile which allows for an audio only experience. Basically, the same audio codecs can be used (PCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master Audio) to provide users with a lossless/uncompressed audio experience at the highest fidelity, but without any requirements for video interaction. Much like CDs or SACDs, the disc would only have to be inserted into the player before it would automatically begin playing. All current players would be capable of playing the disc, but the spec allows for other, audio only players to be released as well.
Once we receive more information about this format, we will let you know.
I've been interested for quite some time in replacing my CD collection with high quality audio and I have to say I'm excited to hear what this format will sound like, along with the proper audio equipment as well, of course. Can't wait to hear some 311, Linkin Park, The Exit, Jack Johnson, and Red on Blu-ray audio. Anyhow, thought this was some exciting news.
When DVD was introduced it was a clearly better format than its alternatives. It had far better picture and sound than VHS. It was a better storage solution than floppy disc.
Today their are many other alternatives to BR and DVD for content distribution and storage. BR is not in the same position as DVD nine years ago and does not offer as compelling an option as it would have been a few years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7
The Murphster gets it!
I agree too that HD downloads have a way to go before being a viable replacement or overcoming Blu-ray--given the infrastructure, ease of use, and quality issues aforementioned in everyone's posts.
Anyhow, I came across this article in regards to Blu-ray and DVD and wanted to share...
Physical music sales are headed down the tubes. I'm not sure why they would even bother with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7
I've been interested for quite some time in replacing my CD collection with high quality audio and I have to say I'm excited to hear what this format will sound like, along with the proper audio equipment as well, of course. Can't wait to hear some 311, Linkin Park, The Exit, Jack Johnson, and Red on Blu-ray audio. Anyhow, thought this was some exciting news.
Today their are many other alternatives to BR and DVD for content distribution and storage. BR is not in the same position as DVD nine years ago and does not offer as compelling an option as it would have been a few years ago.
Which would seem to make it even more impressive that Blu-ray is outdoing DVD at the same point in their respective lives.
Comments
Their are some challenges that limit media downloads from over taking physical media. But those challenges will easily be over come. Bandwidth speeds will improve, codecs will deliver better quality at lower bitrates. These improvements have already made a difference as 720P downloading wasn't possible a few years ago.
Video downloading hasn't over come physical DVD's yet. Looking at how audio downloading has over come physical CD's. Video is more than likely to follow.
You really need to go back over some of the previous posts on this subject in the other HDDVD vs BluRay thread. There are so many issues that will put a road block in the way of downloading as a purchase item of HD ( as opposed to rental or only being able to watch it on your computer ) that it can't compete. Downloading is great for rental or a service like Apple TV. If you really want to own the movie and have the flexability you have today with physical media ( portability etc. ) it comes up short. Then there's the Studios and how they feel about you downloading HD content and transfering it to another media like a burnable DVD or flash drive so you can have said portability. Then there's bandwidth issue as in limited.
But I've been over this many times and don't feel like doing it again for you.
Try some of the previous pages also and you'll see I have been over this quite a bit already. I think downloading content would be great but because of these issues we're just not there yet. If it was the main way people purchased HD content can you imagine the way the internet would be clogged by everyone wanting the newest big release on the day of release? Trust me these services you speak of don't do the volume that stores do selling just a DVD.
Ya know, I remember folks saying the same about DVD in comparison to LD.
They still do. Just need to lurk in the right forum.
Somehow I don't think that Jackson is going to allow a shoddy transfer on LOTR blu-ray do you? Over time the average DVD release became better. Same will happen to Blu-ray.
I have seen 1080i version of LOTR series. It's better than DVD, but I wouldn't consider the PQ being near HD demo material. I hope the BD release would come from a much better/improved master and transfer. There are much room for improvements.
Likewise, eventually Blu-Ray players will be the only DVD player you can buy in a store (they are backwards compatible after all), and people will end up with the players in their home whether they intend to use them or not. Then, Blu-Ray discs can overtake regular DVDs on store shelves, and people will be able to buy and play them whether their television shows the improved picture or not.
For those who believe Blu-Ray need not exist because the era of HD streaming is upon us, let me remind you that the internet has been fast enough for digital-only distribution of music — a market that's thrived — for almost a decade, and yet I can still buy music on a real CD if I so choose. That means even after the internet and the studios are ready for honest-to-goodness digital HD sales, physical media will still have at least ten years of life in it. Since we're still 5-10 years away from honest-to-goodness digital HD media, Blu-Ray's going to be around for a long damn time.
I see their has already been discussion about it. But you talk about it as though HD downloads is a future concept. Its available right now.
Their are some challenges that limit media downloads from over taking physical media. But those challenges will easily be over come. Bandwidth speeds will improve, codecs will deliver better quality at lower bitrates. These improvements have already made a difference as 720P downloading wasn't possible a few years ago.
Video downloading hasn't over come physical DVD's yet. Looking at how audio downloading has over come physical CD's. Video is more than likely to follow.
Ok this is just one item about the current short comings of downloading.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay? Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay?
Unless you have a portable BR player we don't know about or an implementation of managed copy that no one else has you can't with BR either.
Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
It's a question of price isn't it? If a HD rental is $4.99 then even for a bargin bin $15 BRD you need to watch the title 3 times to break even. So if say you watched Iron Man at home and wanted to watch it again at your buddy's house, then you're out $10...not $25.99 for the blu-ray disc.
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
When does ownership make sense? Mostly kid titles. If I had to pay for each time my kids watched various Disney flicks I'd be flat broke.
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
250GB. That's 10 movies at Blu-Ray bit rates. Not very much. On the other hand far more movies at cable bit rates. Here's the deal though...Fios and cable going to the local Verizon or Comcast server farms aren't as big a problem as aggregating all that traffic out. VOD to Comcast VOD services doesn't count against your caps. So you're back to the $5-$6 rental costs vs $20+ purchase costs.
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
Yes. On the other hand some folks say upconverted DVD is good enough. So I would guess that low bitrate HD is good enough as well.
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
Meh. I don't see HD-VOD/IPTV killing BR. I do see it taking more share than SD-VOD/PPV did from DVD and it wont take 10 years. FiOS/UVerse (FTTP/FTTN), DOCSIS 3.0 and Xhom/Clear are being deployed so the last mile is started to get covered. From there the backhauls are probably in okay shape unless AT&T, Verizon, Sprint/Clearwire, cablecos really screw the pooch.
I'm guessing, without knowing, that the place that most providers fall down at is the pipe to the internet itself. This will impact iTunes, Hulu and other 3rd party IPTV distributors more than VOD services from last mile owners.
Ok this is just one item about the current short comings of downloading.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay? Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
No, that isn't as easy, but it isn't impossible either. You can take a lap top containing the HD file and connect it to the friends TV.
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
I don't have any hard numbers but that is difficult to believe. Video rental companies are doing pretty well, while several major media retailers have recently gone out of business.
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
The point of the Comcast cap isn't to stop people from watching video, its to stop people from abusing the system. Competition will force them to improve their bandwidth.
AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint are moving into becoming ISP's across the country. As well as having their own wireless data services, which will eventually compete directly against traditional ISP's. Competition will take care of bandwidth and speed issues.
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
I acknowledged earlier that the quality is not as good as BR, but that does not matter for the average consumer. It only has to be good enough.
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
The movie/television studios are not that different from music labels. They are trying to hold on to their old business model the same way the music labels did. If they don't change and adapt to new technology they will go over the same exact cliff as the music labels. The movie/television studios have more time because video files are bigger than music files.
You say you've gone over this many times as though you are absolutely right and that's the end of it. You choose to ignore that video over IP is happening now.
Ok this is just one item about the current short comings of downloading.
Can you " right now " legally download an HD movie, transfer it to another media ( portable ) so you can watch it over at your friend's house on his brand new 80" flatscreen ( or even loan it to him/her ) like you could with a DVD or BluRay? Your friend would also need the same service ( assuming you've already figured out the unviability of the transfer issue but let's just say you get it over there somehow ) to watch it on said TV ( like Apple TV ). You talked about flexability. How do you think the movie studios would view said transfer so you could get the video over to your friend's house? Are they likely to change that position in the future? If so what concrete evidnce do you have?
It's good for a renting concept but what about owning the video? Sales of DVD/BluRay already dwarf renting in case you were wondering.
This is just one item. We haven't even talked about how ComCast is currently putting a cap on monthly downloads and it's way below what it would take for everyone doing HD commerce on the web like you're suggesting. The reason? The web is already getting full with the traffic it has now. More means alot more fiber optic laid. You do realize Broadband is still not availiable in all areas?
Also everytime they figure out a new codec they can pump more through the same pipe but then it get's compressed and yes I can tell the difference. If you undestand how that works there's only so much you can currently do before the quality suffers. I can really tell the difference between an HD movie delivered by ComCast and a BluRay disc. The same goes for something downloaded off of the web. Bigtime.
As I've tried to tell others music and video are completely different worlds when talking about downloading. Because of the size and because of the studios ( think alot more powerful and controlling than the RIAA ) that govern their nature.
I've gone over this with others before many times now.
Like I've said before think like maybe 10 years before it has a chance to take over in the way your suggesting.
Some of what you're harping on is also currently a shortcoming of blu-ray. I can't take blu-ray netflix discs over to a friend's house to watch because none of my friends own a blu-ray player. When a new movie is released, sold out physical media can be as problematic as VOD bandwidth.
There are certainly shortcoming with VOD, but it can't be written off entirely. There is anything but a consensus on the issue. Having made your case previously doesn't make it more valid or beyond reproach. This is still a very debatable subject.
Physical Media will continue to be the majority choice for the next 10 years. Not necessarily Blu-Ray but a combination of Blu-Ray and Flash. During that time VOD sales will steadily increase starting with the early adopters currently dabbling and eventually will catch up in sales.
There are too many problems with HD VOD. Firstly the delivery system is expensive and is only going to get worse. ISP's run the show here and like we already see in many countries around the world they are keen not to let you use up all your bandwidth on paying 3rd parties for content. My ISP, like many others, caps my bandwidth usage to 60GB despite me paying $150 a month for it. I may have a 20MB connection but 60GB is my limit, fine for SD movies but real HD? I would not rent more than 3 movie a month. What my ISP does do however is any movies I buy from them do not count towards my download limit, unfortunately they do not support MAC's so that is not a way forward and they are years away from offering full HD downloads (like Apple).
This is the future of all big ISP's, they want you to buy their content, with their DRM and if you really want to use iTunes you are gonna be paying for it. What is likely to happen is that we will move back to a pay as you play model. You download a 15GB movie from iTunes (of course when iTunes actually do start a real HD service) you are gonna pay $15 to the ISP, plus the $5 you pay Apple for the rental and hey presto next thing you know you have spent $20 to rent a movie.
And don't think i am anti-VOD or anything, I am one of the early adopters. I have had some kind of computer connected to my TV for over 6 years now. The majority of movies I watch are purchased downloads or VOD and since iTunes started rentals I have been a big user.
But for HD? Blu-Ray will play a huge role in the future.
Example: Since my last Mac Mini died I have been using a hacked Apple TV as my media server, it does mean however I have lost my DVD player. Do I miss it? Not one bit, I no longer watch DVD's - they are all backed-up to my server anyway. But, I am buying a Blu-Ray player this weekend. I was waiting to see if there was any chance Apple will release a Mac Mini with Blu-Ray, not a chance so my money is going on a player instead.
All this talk of choice is probably redundant. While I agree that not everyone wants HD content or even feels any need for it they will be left with little choice. Blu-Ray players will replace DVD players before the end of the year. I guarantee that in 12 months there will not be any DVD players in the stores. Same as on the shelves Blu-Ray will replace DVD's, the price will be the same, they are backward compatible, even people who have no real need for it will end up buying it because it is there.
Does nobody here remember when DVD replaced Video? It will go exactly the same way.
Apple dragging their heels will not change anything, they will come round eventually, they have to.
Unless you have a portable BR player we don't know about or an implementation of managed copy that no one else has you can't with BR either.
It's a question of price isn't it? If a HD rental is $4.99 then even for a bargin bin $15 BRD you need to watch the title 3 times to break even. So if say you watched Iron Man at home and wanted to watch it again at your buddy's house, then you're out $10...not $25.99 for the blu-ray disc.
When does ownership make sense? Mostly kid titles. If I had to pay for each time my kids watched various Disney flicks I'd be flat broke.
250GB. That's 10 movies at Blu-Ray bit rates. Not very much. On the other hand far more movies at cable bit rates. Here's the deal though...Fios and cable going to the local Verizon or Comcast server farms aren't as big a problem as aggregating all that traffic out. VOD to Comcast VOD services doesn't count against your caps. So you're back to the $5-$6 rental costs vs $20+ purchase costs.
Yes. On the other hand some folks say upconverted DVD is good enough. So I would guess that low bitrate HD is good enough as well.
Meh. I don't see HD-VOD/IPTV killing BR. I do see it taking more share than SD-VOD/PPV did from DVD and it wont take 10 years. FiOS/UVerse (FTTP/FTTN), DOCSIS 3.0 and Xhom/Clear are being deployed so the last mile is started to get covered. From there the backhauls are probably in okay shape unless AT&T, Verizon, Sprint/Clearwire, cablecos really screw the pooch.
I'm guessing, without knowing, that the place that most providers fall down at is the pipe to the internet itself. This will impact iTunes, Hulu and other 3rd party IPTV distributors more than VOD services from last mile owners.
When does ownership make sense? Mostly kid titles. If I had to pay for each time my kids watched various Disney flicks I'd be flat broke.
And yet sales dwarf the numbers coming from rentals. More people purchase than rent. Really look it up. I did in the last thread.
Bottom line sales do more volume than rentals. I've already proven that.
Standard definition will play a smaller role as time goes on as HD will become mainstream ( as it's well on it's way to doing now that's pretty clear with the sales numbers of HDTVs ).
Unless you have a portable BR player we don't know about or an implementation of managed copy that no one else has you can't with BR either.
What? You simply carry the BluRay disc over to your friend's house!
Yes. On the other hand some folks say upconverted DVD is good enough. So I would guess that low bitrate HD is good enough as well.
The same mistake was made with VHS. Everyone was slowing down their machines to get more on a tape. Then TVs got even better and they could see how crappy it looked.
Once again we're talking about HD sales as they represent the mainstream of video consumption. Not rental. And even rental if it really catches on will run into bandwidth problems.
If I'm not right about this why are the experts ( you know people who know more about this than you or I ) are saying the internet can't take widespread HD commerce in it's current state?
Some of what you're harping on is also currently a shortcoming of blu-ray. I can't take blu-ray netflix discs over to a friend's house to watch because none of my friends own a blu-ray player. When a new movie is released, sold out physical media can be as problematic as VOD bandwidth.
There are certainly shortcoming with VOD, but it can't be written off entirely. There is anything but a consensus on the issue. Having made your case previously doesn't make it more valid or beyond reproach. This is still a very debatable subject.
But the point is you could if they did have a BluRay player. Also you can currently do this easily with a DVD! More flexability!
As I've said before we're talking about the big money maker for this to really change things. That being sales not rental.
Having made your case previously doesn't make it more valid or beyond reproach
No but it does become quite tiresome having to reexplain it over and over again until the other side must back down and see they don't really have a solid case.
There are some real solid facts in the way of downloading HD content for purchase becoming the mainstream. The movie studios who won't budge on this issue except in a limited way like renting or only wtaching it on your computer. Bandwidth. Do I really have to explain this again? Portability or ease of use. Trying to say we're going to replace what we've got already with something less flexible doesn't make sense.
No but it does become quite tiresome having to reexplain it over and over again until the other side must back down and see they don't really have a solid case.
From the number of rebutals your post generated, you'll need to continue making your case.
It isn't that your assertions are that outlandish, but rather that they're stated with certainty and with what appears to be contempt for those who disagree. There's only one thing that is certain here, that video distribution is a turbulent market and that its future isn't entirely clear... hence the attraction of debating the subject here.
And yet sales dwarf the numbers coming from rentals. More people purchase than rent. Really look it up. I did in the last thread.
Bottom line sales do more volume than rentals. I've already proven that.
Standard definition will play a smaller role as time goes on as HD will become mainstream ( as it's well on it's way to doing now that's pretty clear with the sales numbers of HDTVs ).
I couldn't find that post. Can you post that information again? Several retail stores that sell DVD's have gone out of business. The major and mom and pop rental stores are still doing pretty well.
What? You simply carry the BluRay disc over to your friend's house!
Their are ways you can.
The same mistake was made with VHS. Everyone was slowing down their machines to get more on a tape. Then TVs got even better and they could see how crappy it looked.
This isn't true. No one thought VHS looked great. Most everyone was excited about DVD and it was quickly adopted. BR has not had the same reception and excitement that DVD had in its first years of sales.
Once again we're talking about HD sales as they represent the mainstream of video consumption. Not rental. And even rental if it really catches on will run into bandwidth problems.
Just anecdotally I only know of a couple of people who buy and collect movies. I know many more people who watch movies when they are broadcast on television or cable, watch video on demand, rent from Netflix, and to a growing degree watching online downloads.
If I'm not right about this why are the experts ( you know people who know more about this than you or I ) are saying the internet can't take widespread HD commerce in it's current state?
Widespread HD commerce is already happening.
Bt the point is you could if they did have a BluRay player. Also you can currently do this easily with a DVD! More flexability!
Its not more flexible if your friend doesn't have a BR player. Which most people don't.
No but it does become quite tiresome having to reexplain it over and over again until the other side must back down and see they don't really have a solid case.
The solid case are all of the companies who are getting into video downloads. They are not doing this because they want to loose money.
The solid case is the fact that people 25 and under are more used to downloading media than they are to buying physical media. When those people become 30 and over they will want downloads they won't want to go to a video store.
There are some real solid facts in the way of downloading HD content for purchase becoming the mainstream. The movie studios who won't budge on this issue except in a limited way like renting or only wtaching it on your computer. Bandwidth. Do I really have to explain this again? Portability or ease of use. Trying to say we're going to replace what we've got already with something less flexible doesn't make sense.
About 5 years ago I remember reading an article about a disc technology that will allow the storage of many more GB's of information on a disc. They accomplish this by squeezing the data into smaller packets and using a blue laser to read it. The problem at the time was getting it to work. Their was the risk of the blue laser getting to hot and starting a fire. eventually they figure it out and got it to work reliably.
You are explaining either old or current problems. The problems you explain will be over come in the near future.
VOD is going to be a big bag of hurt for many years to come. We are not ready for VOD to become the mainstream way of getting HD movies to your house and we are unlikely to be ready within the next 5 years and even then it will take another 5 years for it to become widespread in use.
Physical Media will continue to be the majority choice for the next 10 years. Not necessarily Blu-Ray but a combination of Blu-Ray and Flash. During that time VOD sales will steadily increase starting with the early adopters currently dabbling and eventually will catch up in sales.
There are too many problems with HD VOD. Firstly the delivery system is expensive and is only going to get worse. ISP's run the show here and like we already see in many countries around the world they are keen not to let you use up all your bandwidth on paying 3rd parties for content. My ISP, like many others, caps my bandwidth usage to 60GB despite me paying $150 a month for it. I may have a 20MB connection but 60GB is my limit, fine for SD movies but real HD? I would not rent more than 3 movie a month. What my ISP does do however is any movies I buy from them do not count towards my download limit, unfortunately they do not support MAC's so that is not a way forward and they are years away from offering full HD downloads (like Apple).
This is the future of all big ISP's, they want you to buy their content, with their DRM and if you really want to use iTunes you are gonna be paying for it. What is likely to happen is that we will move back to a pay as you play model. You download a 15GB movie from iTunes (of course when iTunes actually do start a real HD service) you are gonna pay $15 to the ISP, plus the $5 you pay Apple for the rental and hey presto next thing you know you have spent $20 to rent a movie.
And don't think i am anti-VOD or anything, I am one of the early adopters. I have had some kind of computer connected to my TV for over 6 years now. The majority of movies I watch are purchased downloads or VOD and since iTunes started rentals I have been a big user.
But for HD? Blu-Ray will play a huge role in the future.
Example: Since my last Mac Mini died I have been using a hacked Apple TV as my media server, it does mean however I have lost my DVD player. Do I miss it? Not one bit, I no longer watch DVD's - they are all backed-up to my server anyway. But, I am buying a Blu-Ray player this weekend. I was waiting to see if there was any chance Apple will release a Mac Mini with Blu-Ray, not a chance so my money is going on a player instead.
All this talk of choice is probably redundant. While I agree that not everyone wants HD content or even feels any need for it they will be left with little choice. Blu-Ray players will replace DVD players before the end of the year. I guarantee that in 12 months there will not be any DVD players in the stores. Same as on the shelves Blu-Ray will replace DVD's, the price will be the same, they are backward compatible, even people who have no real need for it will end up buying it because it is there.
Does nobody here remember when DVD replaced Video? It will go exactly the same way.
Apple dragging their heels will not change anything, they will come round eventually, they have to.
The Murphster gets it!
I agree too that HD downloads have a way to go before being a viable replacement or overcoming Blu-ray--given the infrastructure, ease of use, and quality issues aforementioned in everyone's posts.
Anyhow, I came across this article in regards to Blu-ray and DVD and wanted to share...
Blu-Ray's First Two Years Outstrip DVD
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4403.html
Whenever the market is in the midst of a format transition, everyone has a lot of questions and the doom and gloom typically runs rampant. But what if we simply compare the last transition to the current one?
DVD owns the market and completely erased VHS from the face of the earth (well, for the most part), as the digital era arrived and gained complete control. Now, the high-definition Blu-Ray format has eliminated its only competition in HD-DVD and seeks to supplant DVD, although some reports would have you believe it's not doing the job. Well, not so. According to statistics compiled by EngadgetHD and Pali Capital's Richard Greenfield, Blu-Ray is coming along at a much faster rate than DVD. After two years, about 1.2 million DVD players had been sold, and in that same time frame, an estimated 2.5 million Blu-Ray players have been sold...and that number certainly doesn't include PlayStation 3 sales. Furthermore, Blu-Ray sales appear to have been unaffected by the economic downturn over the holidays, as it has "doubled its market share of the top 20 titles in the past six months." Remember, it takes some time for an entire market - like home movie viewing - to completely switch formats, but Blu-Ray is actually ahead of schedule.
There's no doubt that Sony used the PS3 as a Trojan Horse for Blu-Ray, and quite clearly, that move seems to have worked. Of course, it would help if more movies like "The Dark Knight" hit store shelves; that thing pretty much exploded and became gigantic for Blu-Ray.
Engadget article: http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/06...outpaces-dvds/
Also, I'd have to go back to see who had mentioned this before, but it appears Disney is releasing Blu-ray + DVD Combo packs for their movies which should also help in the adoption of the format...
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/s...78&newsLang=en
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2245
Technical Audio Devices (TAD), a subsidiary of Pioneer Electronics, will be demonstrating a new audio-only Blu-ray format at their booth at CES this year. This format, which will provide uncompressed 24bit 192kHz stereo audio, has not been named, though it sounds like this may be the first Blu-ray Profile 3.0 (Audio Only) demonstration.
While most Blu-ray users are familiar with Profiles 1.0, 1.1 (BonusView), and 2.0 (BD-Live), very few are aware that Blu-ray has yet another profile which allows for an audio only experience. Basically, the same audio codecs can be used (PCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master Audio) to provide users with a lossless/uncompressed audio experience at the highest fidelity, but without any requirements for video interaction. Much like CDs or SACDs, the disc would only have to be inserted into the player before it would automatically begin playing. All current players would be capable of playing the disc, but the spec allows for other, audio only players to be released as well.
Once we receive more information about this format, we will let you know.
I've been interested for quite some time in replacing my CD collection with high quality audio and I have to say I'm excited to hear what this format will sound like, along with the proper audio equipment as well, of course. Can't wait to hear some 311, Linkin Park, The Exit, Jack Johnson, and Red on Blu-ray audio. Anyhow, thought this was some exciting news.
I've been interested for quite some time in replacing my CD collection with high quality audio...
Marz, before I get into why music on discs is so last millennium, have you actually bought a BR player yet?
Today their are many other alternatives to BR and DVD for content distribution and storage. BR is not in the same position as DVD nine years ago and does not offer as compelling an option as it would have been a few years ago.
The Murphster gets it!
I agree too that HD downloads have a way to go before being a viable replacement or overcoming Blu-ray--given the infrastructure, ease of use, and quality issues aforementioned in everyone's posts.
Anyhow, I came across this article in regards to Blu-ray and DVD and wanted to share...
Blu-Ray's First Two Years Outstrip DVD
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4403.html
I've been interested for quite some time in replacing my CD collection with high quality audio and I have to say I'm excited to hear what this format will sound like, along with the proper audio equipment as well, of course. Can't wait to hear some 311, Linkin Park, The Exit, Jack Johnson, and Red on Blu-ray audio. Anyhow, thought this was some exciting news.
Today their are many other alternatives to BR and DVD for content distribution and storage. BR is not in the same position as DVD nine years ago and does not offer as compelling an option as it would have been a few years ago.
Which would seem to make it even more impressive that Blu-ray is outdoing DVD at the same point in their respective lives.