Downloading will probably take over TenoBell's mom and pop video store ( which is a shame end of an era and all that ) but as far as sales go physical media is here to stay for about another decade at least. Downloading will be for renting.
From my link that I posted for you which you obviously didn't read the article :
That's 41 % for sales of physical media, 29% for rentals, and .05 % for downloaded material.
Big among the issues is bandwidth among other things. Sorry it just ain't there yet. That's why Comcast is putting a cap on their downloads. No one will offer a better solution as Vinea says because without more pipeline there isn't one. I know some people don't want to believe this but that's the way it is. Look it up.
You would think that if there's more bandwidth why would they do this. Hmmm?
It's just that downloading will be good for renting. Period. For many reasons that you still haven't produced a good counter argument addressing these issues.
Posts some links that offer solutions to these issues and I'll believe you. Show me where " huge corporations " plan to sell HD video that you can transfer to another medium for portability. Until then just repeating your wishful thinking isn't going to make it real.
Read the links from people in the know! Sticking your head in the sand won't make it happen either.
I've read your posts and linked articles... but simply disagree with some of what they assert. There is no read to present your case in a condescending manner.
Key word above is some. You're all over the place in that post, demanding that I support assertions that i've never made. So let's start afresh.
Blu-ray is competing against a myriad of alternatives. This includes broadcast TV, cable, satellite,FiOS, PPV and VOD from various sources, and of course DVD to name a few. On top of this, video can be rented, ad-supported, pirated, purchased or free. It competes against SD, HD, and every range of video fidelity. While the alternatives aren't completely interchangeable, each is an equivalent to blu-ray to at least some consumers.
Hopefully so far we're on the same page.
While blu-ray is currently outselling on-line purchases, it isn't clear yet if the masses will invest in blu-ray libraries quicker than they turn to other alternatives. Those alternatives won't necessarily be HD nor will they necessarily be constitute viewing licensing or ownership in the traditional sense.
Proponents of blu-ray, or any delivery medium/method for that matter, frequently narrow the scope of their analysis to only one option vs another. Purchase vs purchase, rent vs rent, or HD vs HD, etc. To me, that narrowing of scope obscures the merit and likelyhood of possible future scenarios.
In my opinion, the future is a mixture of video sources not tied to a single monolithic and static physically distributed format. I also believe that the most enlightened assertion is that the future of this market is unknowable. Markets can be predictable but I don't consider the video distribution market to be such. Perhaps in a few years but not yet.
Long term, internet delivered video is the future. What I'm not sure about is the immediate future and how quickly the masses will turn to online sources like they have the iTS.
Apple are being extremely foolish by not having Blu-Ray support yet. Regardless of their plans for iTunes, regardless of some users not being interested in it. Blu-Ray is becoming more and more mainstream and more PC manufacturers all offer the choice (and it is even becoming standard). I can imagine that there are already people in the market for a new computer who will not be buying a Mac because of the lack of Blu-Ray.
Having a DVD player on notebooks has been great, you can watch your own movies wherever you want. People are now starting to build Blu-Ray collections, surely it makes sense for their next notebook purchase to have a Blu-Ray player so they can watch them too.
I do not fully understand Steve Jobs real reasons here, but I feel like he is making a mistake.
I've read your posts and linked articles... but simply disagree with some of what they assert. There is no read to present your case in a condescending manner.
Key word above is some. You're all over the place in that post, demanding that I support assertions that i've never made. So let's start afresh.
Blu-ray is competing against a myriad of alternatives. This includes broadcast TV, cable, satellite,FiOS, PPV and VOD from various sources, and of course DVD to name a few. On top of this, video can be rented, ad-supported, pirated, purchased or free. It competes against SD, HD, and every range of video fidelity. While the alternatives aren't completely interchangeable, each is an equivalent to blu-ray to at least some consumers.
Hopefully so far we're on the same page.
While blu-ray is currently outselling on-line purchases, it isn't clear yet if the masses will invest in blu-ray libraries quicker than they turn to other alternatives. Those alternatives won't necessarily be HD nor will they necessarily be constitute viewing licensing or ownership in the traditional sense.
Proponents of blu-ray, or any delivery medium/method for that matter, frequently narrow the scope of their analysis to only one option vs another. Purchase vs purchase, rent vs rent, or HD vs HD, etc. To me, that narrowing of scope obscures the merit and likelyhood of possible future scenarios.
In my opinion, the future is a mixture of video sources not tied to a single monolithic and static physically distributed format. I also believe that the most enlightened assertion is that the future of this market is unknowable. Markets can be predictable but I don't consider the video distribution market to be such. Perhaps in a few years but not yet.
Long term, internet delivered video is the future. What I'm not sure about is the immediate future and how quickly the masses will turn to online sources like they have the iTS.
You still haven't addressed the issues I've talked about.
Quote:
but simply disagree with some of what they assert
That's fine but as the author Harlan Ellison says " People are entitiled to their informed opinion ".
In a debate on a forum like this you need substance to back up your claims. Now I've supplied that on my side. Where's yours?
Quote:
Proponents of blu-ray, or any delivery medium/method for that matter, frequently narrow the scope of their analysis to only one option vs another. Purchase vs purchase, rent vs rent, or HD vs HD, etc. To me, that narrowing of scope obscures the merit and likelyhood of possible future scenarios.
I've given you reasons why if downloading is one of you alternatives it can't fully compete for quite a few years yet. Notice I didn't say " never ".
Sorry if I sound condesending but under the circumstances I feel that I have a fair amount of knowledge in this area gleaned fom years of personal experience in the workplace. Plus as I've said it's been my hobby for quite awhile now ( you would not believe how much I've spent on equipment over the years but I love this stuff ). But that aside this is a forum where people debate ideas. They have to be backed up by some facts otherwise they're just personal opinion. Even personal opinion has to have facts to have any credibility.
I submitted my opinion backed up by the opinion of people in the know. I just haven't seen anything of substance here to counter it.
Apple are being extremely foolish by not having Blu-Ray support yet. Regardless of their plans for iTunes, regardless of some users not being interested in it. Blu-Ray is becoming more and more mainstream and more PC manufacturers all offer the choice (and it is even becoming standard). I can imagine that there are already people in the market for a new computer who will not be buying a Mac because of the lack of Blu-Ray.
Having a DVD player on notebooks has been great, you can watch your own movies wherever you want. People are now starting to build Blu-Ray collections, surely it makes sense for their next notebook purchase to have a Blu-Ray player so they can watch them too.
I do not fully understand Steve Jobs real reasons here, but I feel like he is making a mistake.
Much as I love Apple it wouldn't be the first. When I bought my first G4 tower in 2000 it didn't have a CD burner. A month later guess what? SJ said " Well we're late to the party... " I feel Apple really wants to push their iTunes service that sells HD titles so you can play them on your computer or TV ( if you have Apple TV ). They'll go BD eventually.
People are now starting to build Blu-Ray collections, surely it makes sense for their next notebook purchase to have a Blu-Ray player so they can watch them too.
I do not fully understand Steve Jobs real reasons here, but I feel like he is making a mistake.
Because maybe that's not all you'll play it on? I mean you wouldn't want to buy multiple copys and many computers have much larger screens. So if you own a notebook and a desktop as many do.....
Because maybe that's not all you'll play it on? I mean you wouldn't want to buy multiple copys and many computers have much larger screens. So if you own a notebook and a desktop as many do.....
That's fine but if I buy a Blu-ray disc I really want to see it on a monitor that does HD justice. Thus I see no reason why Apple should offer Blu-ray in a laptop until a recorder is affordable. BD-ROM playback only is silly.
Though you could use a Mini-DisplayPort output to a HDMI TV but with Blu-ray players being so cheap now that's not really an ideal solution IMO.
That's fine but if I buy a Blu-ray disc I really want to see it on a monitor that does HD justice. Thus I see no reason why Apple should offer Blu-ray in a laptop until a recorder is affordable. BD-ROM playback only is silly.
Though you could use a Mini-DisplayPort output to a HDMI TV but with Blu-ray players being so cheap now that's not really an ideal solution IMO.
Still they have plenty of computers with larger screens.
That's fine but if I buy a Blu-ray disc I really want to see it on a monitor that does HD justice. Thus I see no reason why Apple should offer Blu-ray in a laptop until a recorder is affordable. BD-ROM playback only is silly.
Though you could use a Mini-DisplayPort output to a HDMI TV but with Blu-ray players being so cheap now that's not really an ideal solution IMO.
I thought I had explained that in my post, I will explain again..
Let us say for instance you have a DVD collection. Like many, many people you may also like to play your DVD's on your computer or notebook. When traveling, when away from home, in bed, even tucked away in some corner of your house because your wife is watching Ugly Betty.
I hope you would agree that many people use a notebook to watch their movies sometimes, not as a primary source of viewing but as a secondary?
Right, let us now assume that you, like many others, have stopped buying DVD's are are now building a Blu-Ray collection. Would it not make perfect sense that you also would like to watch these Blu-Ray's on your computer or notebook on occasions. And does it not make sense that when you go out to buy a new notebook you would put Blu-Ray at the top of your list of requirements?
Or do you suggest that people that by Blu-Rays should also have to buy the DVD as watching Blu-Rays on a computer is stupid?
In the upcoming spec, HDMI will address key industry trends, which will include five innovative features, such as 3D capability, Ethernet connections, and increased resolution performance.
Networking
Consolidation of HD video, HD audio and now high speed data with the addition on Ethernet in the HDMI cable.
Audio Return Channel
Elimination of a S/PDIF cable by allowing for a TV to send audio streams upstream to an A/V receiver for processing and playback over the HDMI cable.
Performance
4K x 2K and 3D are high performance features to be met by increasing the upper limit of the HDMI link.
HD In Your Car
New connector specification for the auto industry as the world's largest auto makers move to digital HD video and audio for 21st century cars with HDMI.
As long as there will be HDMI 2.0 to HDMI 3.0 cables available this sounds like interesting news. I wonder how many of these features could be accessed via firmware upgrades?
People go on about blu-ray movies being impractical compared to HD downloads, and what's the point of watching HD movies on a small screen or whatever. But the main reason for putting BR in machines is back-up. A dual layer DVD-R saves just over 7 gig, a dual layer Blu-ray saves over 50gig, with the potential to do more in the future.
With 1TB drives being almost standard, and 2TB drives on the way why on Earth are we stuck with recordable DVD??? It's late 20th century technology when we're almost in the second decade of the 21st!
People go on about blu-ray movies being impractical compared to HD downloads, and what's the point of watching HD movies on a small screen or whatever. But the main reason for putting BR in machines is back-up. A dual layer DVD-R saves just over 7 gig, a dual layer Blu-ray saves over 50gig, with the potential to do more in the future.
With 1TB drives being almost standard, and 2TB drives on the way why on Earth are we stuck with recordable DVD??? It's late 20th century technology when we're almost in the second decade of the 21st!
I totally understand where you're coming from. Removable media standards tend to stick around until they're painfully outdated.
But saying that 1TB drives are "almost standard" is probably overstating the case. Floppy drives are still more "standard" than 1TB drives. Painful but true. The standard new-machine config for my users is a 80GB hardrive, DVD-ROM... and a floppy drive.
At home though, I'd love to have the capability of backing up to blu-ray on the cheap. For me the technology is there but not yet at the right price.
I totally understand where you're coming from. Removable media standards tend to stick around until they're painfully outdated.
But saying that 1TB drives are "almost standard" is probably overstating the case. Floppy drives are still more "standard" than 1TB drives. Painful but true. The standard new-machine config for my users is a 80GB hardrive, DVD-ROM... and a floppy drive.
At home though, I'd love to have the capability of backing up to blu-ray on the cheap. For me the technology is there but not yet at the right price.
At least the last three revisions of the HP Compaq workstations we purchase for our company have come floppy drive free and that is standard for them. No one in my company uses floppy (except for one or two using old software that needs a floppy for security purposes, even they can be done on thumb drives now).
Blu-Ray is great for back up media but isn't necessary as you pointed out. I have a 750GB external hooked up and on all the time. I just do drag and drop back ups every once and a while.
It would be cool if the larger capacity discs were used for housing full tv seasons on one disc.
TenoBell get a grip. We're talking about how the Video market works regardless of the format. My reference was just an example. The same rules still apply.
Its not clear what your example about the VHS in the 80's has to do with DVD or BR today.
Quote:
Did you read my post from Bill Hunt? He knows alot more about this than either of us. Look I didn't say downloading wasn't in the future it's just going to take a bit longer than you think with all the issues.
Yes I read what you posted. I don't know who Bill Hunt is or exactly what makes him an expert. Since we are discussing the future. Bill Hunt cannot foresee what will happen in the future any better than anyone else. I can only take this as his opinion and prediction. Many things can happen over the next few years.
Where I most agree with Bill Hunt is that the movie/television studios are pushing BR because they cannot sell digital downloads for $30. That will be the very reason why many people are in no rush to adopt BR and will look to other options for content.
Quote:
Still haven't heard a good counter argument.
To honestly tell you. It doesn't matter whether you or I believe the argument or not. The future is going to go the way its going to go.
You should have read my post. I do not play down VOD, for 6 years I have had a computer connected to my TV and was a very early adopter of VOD and downloads. I have been beta testing VOD sites since they first began. I am actually a big fan of VOD.
OK fair enough.
Quote:
But I am a realist and I know how the industry works. The infrastructure is not in place that will allow Hi-Def downloads to replace physical media and will not be in place for at least the next 5 years. And even then it will take many more years for sales to overtake that of physical media. For those of use lucky enough to be in areas where high speed net access is possible we will still be charged through the nose that renting a BR is cheaper anyway.
Alright we can look at it in a different way. Today people are largely still watching content mostly in some flavor of SD not HD. Currently no HD media format dominates any category.
Their are numerous options for people to adopt HD media content. Broadcast TV/cable, DVR, VOD, digital downloads, digital streaming, and BR disk. My over all point is that as the population moves from viewing SD into viewing HD, with all of these options its just not possible that BR will hold the dominant position that DVD has held. BR simply is not in the same situation that DVD was in during its introduction.
Quote:
You are right in the respect that it will happen, of course it will. I doubt anybody doubts that fact. But for the next 10 years physical media will outsell downloads by 10-1. In 2 years time more movies will be bought and rented on Blu-Ray than any other format. We might well see SSD come to the fore in a couple of years with SSD player hitting the market in 2011/12 but even then they will not replace Blu-Ray only compliment it.
I never talked about BR being totally replaced. My point is that BR is one option among many and that BR will not be the dominate content media equal to DVD. I agree that BR will be around for a long time.
Quote:
You have to think outside the box on this and look at the biggger picture. Just because something is possible it does not make it viable. There are too many companies with a vested interest in making Blu_Ray work.
Those same companies were vested in continuing to make the CD work, but that has not worked out so well.
You still haven't addressed the issues I've talked about.
The over all point you don't want to acknowledge, is that these issues will be figured out. We don't know exactly how they will be figured out because we cannot see the future. Imaginative people fueled with R&D money will figure it out the way they always figure things out.
Quote:
In a debate on a forum like this you need substance to back up your claims. Now I've supplied that on my side. Where's yours?
I've given you reasons why if downloading is one of you alternatives it can't fully compete for quite a few years yet. Notice I didn't say " never ".
You've given us other people's opinions and predictions of the future. I don't see their predictions of the future as being any more valid than ours.
Did anyone watch Howard Stringer's keynote at CES?
After he showed BluRay - he went on to explain how all their products will be networked and direct downloaded content will be important to their business.
The implication is that Sony sees a place for both. Stringer cited how many downloads are made through their network -and is clearly aiming to increase revenue though an iTunes-like online content store. For games / videos etc.
Even *he* does not see the future as a single solution.
And when Sony can make more money from a $4 download then a $25 BRD - it is clear why.
Comments
So you're more of an expert than Bill Hunt?
Did you not read the article??????
Downloading will probably take over TenoBell's mom and pop video store ( which is a shame end of an era and all that ) but as far as sales go physical media is here to stay for about another decade at least. Downloading will be for renting.
From my link that I posted for you which you obviously didn't read the article :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10042979-93.html
That's 41 % for sales of physical media, 29% for rentals, and .05 % for downloaded material.
Big among the issues is bandwidth among other things. Sorry it just ain't there yet. That's why Comcast is putting a cap on their downloads. No one will offer a better solution as Vinea says because without more pipeline there isn't one. I know some people don't want to believe this but that's the way it is. Look it up.
You would think that if there's more bandwidth why would they do this. Hmmm?
It's just that downloading will be good for renting. Period. For many reasons that you still haven't produced a good counter argument addressing these issues.
Posts some links that offer solutions to these issues and I'll believe you. Show me where " huge corporations " plan to sell HD video that you can transfer to another medium for portability. Until then just repeating your wishful thinking isn't going to make it real.
Read the links from people in the know! Sticking your head in the sand won't make it happen either.
Here's some more food for thought.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...ar_much_lo.php
http://gizmodo.com/5048025/giz-expla...-very-high-def
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...th-crunch.html
I've read your posts and linked articles... but simply disagree with some of what they assert. There is no read to present your case in a condescending manner.
Key word above is some. You're all over the place in that post, demanding that I support assertions that i've never made. So let's start afresh.
Blu-ray is competing against a myriad of alternatives. This includes broadcast TV, cable, satellite,FiOS, PPV and VOD from various sources, and of course DVD to name a few. On top of this, video can be rented, ad-supported, pirated, purchased or free. It competes against SD, HD, and every range of video fidelity. While the alternatives aren't completely interchangeable, each is an equivalent to blu-ray to at least some consumers.
Hopefully so far we're on the same page.
While blu-ray is currently outselling on-line purchases, it isn't clear yet if the masses will invest in blu-ray libraries quicker than they turn to other alternatives. Those alternatives won't necessarily be HD nor will they necessarily be constitute viewing licensing or ownership in the traditional sense.
Proponents of blu-ray, or any delivery medium/method for that matter, frequently narrow the scope of their analysis to only one option vs another. Purchase vs purchase, rent vs rent, or HD vs HD, etc. To me, that narrowing of scope obscures the merit and likelyhood of possible future scenarios.
In my opinion, the future is a mixture of video sources not tied to a single monolithic and static physically distributed format. I also believe that the most enlightened assertion is that the future of this market is unknowable. Markets can be predictable but I don't consider the video distribution market to be such. Perhaps in a few years but not yet.
Long term, internet delivered video is the future. What I'm not sure about is the immediate future and how quickly the masses will turn to online sources like they have the iTS.
Apple are being extremely foolish by not having Blu-Ray support yet. Regardless of their plans for iTunes, regardless of some users not being interested in it. Blu-Ray is becoming more and more mainstream and more PC manufacturers all offer the choice (and it is even becoming standard). I can imagine that there are already people in the market for a new computer who will not be buying a Mac because of the lack of Blu-Ray.
Having a DVD player on notebooks has been great, you can watch your own movies wherever you want. People are now starting to build Blu-Ray collections, surely it makes sense for their next notebook purchase to have a Blu-Ray player so they can watch them too.
I do not fully understand Steve Jobs real reasons here, but I feel like he is making a mistake.
I've read your posts and linked articles... but simply disagree with some of what they assert. There is no read to present your case in a condescending manner.
Key word above is some. You're all over the place in that post, demanding that I support assertions that i've never made. So let's start afresh.
Blu-ray is competing against a myriad of alternatives. This includes broadcast TV, cable, satellite,FiOS, PPV and VOD from various sources, and of course DVD to name a few. On top of this, video can be rented, ad-supported, pirated, purchased or free. It competes against SD, HD, and every range of video fidelity. While the alternatives aren't completely interchangeable, each is an equivalent to blu-ray to at least some consumers.
Hopefully so far we're on the same page.
While blu-ray is currently outselling on-line purchases, it isn't clear yet if the masses will invest in blu-ray libraries quicker than they turn to other alternatives. Those alternatives won't necessarily be HD nor will they necessarily be constitute viewing licensing or ownership in the traditional sense.
Proponents of blu-ray, or any delivery medium/method for that matter, frequently narrow the scope of their analysis to only one option vs another. Purchase vs purchase, rent vs rent, or HD vs HD, etc. To me, that narrowing of scope obscures the merit and likelyhood of possible future scenarios.
In my opinion, the future is a mixture of video sources not tied to a single monolithic and static physically distributed format. I also believe that the most enlightened assertion is that the future of this market is unknowable. Markets can be predictable but I don't consider the video distribution market to be such. Perhaps in a few years but not yet.
Long term, internet delivered video is the future. What I'm not sure about is the immediate future and how quickly the masses will turn to online sources like they have the iTS.
You still haven't addressed the issues I've talked about.
but simply disagree with some of what they assert
That's fine but as the author Harlan Ellison says " People are entitiled to their informed opinion ".
In a debate on a forum like this you need substance to back up your claims. Now I've supplied that on my side. Where's yours?
Proponents of blu-ray, or any delivery medium/method for that matter, frequently narrow the scope of their analysis to only one option vs another. Purchase vs purchase, rent vs rent, or HD vs HD, etc. To me, that narrowing of scope obscures the merit and likelyhood of possible future scenarios.
I've given you reasons why if downloading is one of you alternatives it can't fully compete for quite a few years yet. Notice I didn't say " never ".
Sorry if I sound condesending but under the circumstances I feel that I have a fair amount of knowledge in this area gleaned fom years of personal experience in the workplace. Plus as I've said it's been my hobby for quite awhile now ( you would not believe how much I've spent on equipment over the years but I love this stuff ). But that aside this is a forum where people debate ideas. They have to be backed up by some facts otherwise they're just personal opinion. Even personal opinion has to have facts to have any credibility.
I submitted my opinion backed up by the opinion of people in the know. I just haven't seen anything of substance here to counter it.
So the moral of the story is...
Apple are being extremely foolish by not having Blu-Ray support yet. Regardless of their plans for iTunes, regardless of some users not being interested in it. Blu-Ray is becoming more and more mainstream and more PC manufacturers all offer the choice (and it is even becoming standard). I can imagine that there are already people in the market for a new computer who will not be buying a Mac because of the lack of Blu-Ray.
Having a DVD player on notebooks has been great, you can watch your own movies wherever you want. People are now starting to build Blu-Ray collections, surely it makes sense for their next notebook purchase to have a Blu-Ray player so they can watch them too.
I do not fully understand Steve Jobs real reasons here, but I feel like he is making a mistake.
Much as I love Apple it wouldn't be the first. When I bought my first G4 tower in 2000 it didn't have a CD burner. A month later guess what? SJ said " Well we're late to the party... " I feel Apple really wants to push their iTunes service that sells HD titles so you can play them on your computer or TV ( if you have Apple TV ). They'll go BD eventually.
People are now starting to build Blu-Ray collections, surely it makes sense for their next notebook purchase to have a Blu-Ray player so they can watch them too.
I do not fully understand Steve Jobs real reasons here, but I feel like he is making a mistake.
Blu-ray on a 17" max screen? What's the point?
Blu-ray on a 17" max screen? What's the point?
Because maybe that's not all you'll play it on? I mean you wouldn't want to buy multiple copys and many computers have much larger screens. So if you own a notebook and a desktop as many do.....
Because maybe that's not all you'll play it on? I mean you wouldn't want to buy multiple copys and many computers have much larger screens. So if you own a notebook and a desktop as many do.....
That's fine but if I buy a Blu-ray disc I really want to see it on a monitor that does HD justice. Thus I see no reason why Apple should offer Blu-ray in a laptop until a recorder is affordable. BD-ROM playback only is silly.
Though you could use a Mini-DisplayPort output to a HDMI TV but with Blu-ray players being so cheap now that's not really an ideal solution IMO.
That's fine but if I buy a Blu-ray disc I really want to see it on a monitor that does HD justice. Thus I see no reason why Apple should offer Blu-ray in a laptop until a recorder is affordable. BD-ROM playback only is silly.
Though you could use a Mini-DisplayPort output to a HDMI TV but with Blu-ray players being so cheap now that's not really an ideal solution IMO.
Still they have plenty of computers with larger screens.
That's fine but if I buy a Blu-ray disc I really want to see it on a monitor that does HD justice. Thus I see no reason why Apple should offer Blu-ray in a laptop until a recorder is affordable. BD-ROM playback only is silly.
Though you could use a Mini-DisplayPort output to a HDMI TV but with Blu-ray players being so cheap now that's not really an ideal solution IMO.
I thought I had explained that in my post, I will explain again..
Let us say for instance you have a DVD collection. Like many, many people you may also like to play your DVD's on your computer or notebook. When traveling, when away from home, in bed, even tucked away in some corner of your house because your wife is watching Ugly Betty.
I hope you would agree that many people use a notebook to watch their movies sometimes, not as a primary source of viewing but as a secondary?
Right, let us now assume that you, like many others, have stopped buying DVD's are are now building a Blu-Ray collection. Would it not make perfect sense that you also would like to watch these Blu-Ray's on your computer or notebook on occasions. And does it not make sense that when you go out to buy a new notebook you would put Blu-Ray at the top of your list of requirements?
Or do you suggest that people that by Blu-Rays should also have to buy the DVD as watching Blu-Rays on a computer is stupid?
In the upcoming spec, HDMI will address key industry trends, which will include five innovative features, such as 3D capability, Ethernet connections, and increased resolution performance.
Networking
Consolidation of HD video, HD audio and now high speed data with the addition on Ethernet in the HDMI cable.
Audio Return Channel
Elimination of a S/PDIF cable by allowing for a TV to send audio streams upstream to an A/V receiver for processing and playback over the HDMI cable.
Performance
4K x 2K and 3D are high performance features to be met by increasing the upper limit of the HDMI link.
HD In Your Car
New connector specification for the auto industry as the world's largest auto makers move to digital HD video and audio for 21st century cars with HDMI.
Smaller connector
New, smaller 19-pin connector
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2257
As long as there will be HDMI 2.0 to HDMI 3.0 cables available this sounds like interesting news. I wonder how many of these features could be accessed via firmware upgrades?
Blu-ray on a 17" max screen? What's the point?
Gotta take advantage of the new 17" laptop with 1900 X 1200 resolution baby!
BTW, glad you posted the HDMI news. Maybe I should wait before buying some new 1.3a cables. Hmmm?
With 1TB drives being almost standard, and 2TB drives on the way why on Earth are we stuck with recordable DVD??? It's late 20th century technology when we're almost in the second decade of the 21st!
People go on about blu-ray movies being impractical compared to HD downloads, and what's the point of watching HD movies on a small screen or whatever. But the main reason for putting BR in machines is back-up. A dual layer DVD-R saves just over 7 gig, a dual layer Blu-ray saves over 50gig, with the potential to do more in the future.
With 1TB drives being almost standard, and 2TB drives on the way why on Earth are we stuck with recordable DVD??? It's late 20th century technology when we're almost in the second decade of the 21st!
I totally understand where you're coming from. Removable media standards tend to stick around until they're painfully outdated.
But saying that 1TB drives are "almost standard" is probably overstating the case. Floppy drives are still more "standard" than 1TB drives. Painful but true. The standard new-machine config for my users is a 80GB hardrive, DVD-ROM... and a floppy drive.
At home though, I'd love to have the capability of backing up to blu-ray on the cheap. For me the technology is there but not yet at the right price.
I totally understand where you're coming from. Removable media standards tend to stick around until they're painfully outdated.
But saying that 1TB drives are "almost standard" is probably overstating the case. Floppy drives are still more "standard" than 1TB drives. Painful but true. The standard new-machine config for my users is a 80GB hardrive, DVD-ROM... and a floppy drive.
At home though, I'd love to have the capability of backing up to blu-ray on the cheap. For me the technology is there but not yet at the right price.
At least the last three revisions of the HP Compaq workstations we purchase for our company have come floppy drive free and that is standard for them. No one in my company uses floppy (except for one or two using old software that needs a floppy for security purposes, even they can be done on thumb drives now).
Blu-Ray is great for back up media but isn't necessary as you pointed out. I have a 750GB external hooked up and on all the time. I just do drag and drop back ups every once and a while.
It would be cool if the larger capacity discs were used for housing full tv seasons on one disc.
Hell I'm trying to get the cheapskates all on Dropbox so that I can zip files to'em with
alacrity.
Blu-ray is cool but let's be honest on the computer it is most beneficial as a recording medium.
There certainly is a need for 25-50GB WORM and re-writable storage.
TenoBell get a grip. We're talking about how the Video market works regardless of the format. My reference was just an example. The same rules still apply.
Its not clear what your example about the VHS in the 80's has to do with DVD or BR today.
Did you read my post from Bill Hunt? He knows alot more about this than either of us. Look I didn't say downloading wasn't in the future it's just going to take a bit longer than you think with all the issues.
Yes I read what you posted. I don't know who Bill Hunt is or exactly what makes him an expert. Since we are discussing the future. Bill Hunt cannot foresee what will happen in the future any better than anyone else. I can only take this as his opinion and prediction. Many things can happen over the next few years.
Where I most agree with Bill Hunt is that the movie/television studios are pushing BR because they cannot sell digital downloads for $30. That will be the very reason why many people are in no rush to adopt BR and will look to other options for content.
Still haven't heard a good counter argument.
To honestly tell you. It doesn't matter whether you or I believe the argument or not. The future is going to go the way its going to go.
You should have read my post. I do not play down VOD, for 6 years I have had a computer connected to my TV and was a very early adopter of VOD and downloads. I have been beta testing VOD sites since they first began. I am actually a big fan of VOD.
OK fair enough.
But I am a realist and I know how the industry works. The infrastructure is not in place that will allow Hi-Def downloads to replace physical media and will not be in place for at least the next 5 years. And even then it will take many more years for sales to overtake that of physical media. For those of use lucky enough to be in areas where high speed net access is possible we will still be charged through the nose that renting a BR is cheaper anyway.
Alright we can look at it in a different way. Today people are largely still watching content mostly in some flavor of SD not HD. Currently no HD media format dominates any category.
Their are numerous options for people to adopt HD media content. Broadcast TV/cable, DVR, VOD, digital downloads, digital streaming, and BR disk. My over all point is that as the population moves from viewing SD into viewing HD, with all of these options its just not possible that BR will hold the dominant position that DVD has held. BR simply is not in the same situation that DVD was in during its introduction.
You are right in the respect that it will happen, of course it will. I doubt anybody doubts that fact. But for the next 10 years physical media will outsell downloads by 10-1. In 2 years time more movies will be bought and rented on Blu-Ray than any other format. We might well see SSD come to the fore in a couple of years with SSD player hitting the market in 2011/12 but even then they will not replace Blu-Ray only compliment it.
I never talked about BR being totally replaced. My point is that BR is one option among many and that BR will not be the dominate content media equal to DVD. I agree that BR will be around for a long time.
You have to think outside the box on this and look at the biggger picture. Just because something is possible it does not make it viable. There are too many companies with a vested interest in making Blu_Ray work.
Those same companies were vested in continuing to make the CD work, but that has not worked out so well.
You still haven't addressed the issues I've talked about.
The over all point you don't want to acknowledge, is that these issues will be figured out. We don't know exactly how they will be figured out because we cannot see the future. Imaginative people fueled with R&D money will figure it out the way they always figure things out.
In a debate on a forum like this you need substance to back up your claims. Now I've supplied that on my side. Where's yours?
I've given you reasons why if downloading is one of you alternatives it can't fully compete for quite a few years yet. Notice I didn't say " never ".
You've given us other people's opinions and predictions of the future. I don't see their predictions of the future as being any more valid than ours.
After he showed BluRay - he went on to explain how all their products will be networked and direct downloaded content will be important to their business.
The implication is that Sony sees a place for both. Stringer cited how many downloads are made through their network -and is clearly aiming to increase revenue though an iTunes-like online content store. For games / videos etc.
Even *he* does not see the future as a single solution.
And when Sony can make more money from a $4 download then a $25 BRD - it is clear why.
C.