Some of us want the convenience of a buy/rent once play anywhere system that doesn't require hacking to move to different devices.
Some of us don't want to have to drive out to a store to look for videos.
Some of use want an instant gratification of a a digital download. (This is why i'll pay more for Cable TV movie rentals)
Some of are always traveling and don't wish to carry an additional player and discs in our luggage.
Some of us don't care about about 50Mbps A/V.
Some of use don't care about the extras* on optical media.
* Have you read that the next move for the studios is to remove extras from rented optical media. While this is a dick move, I would have done this from the get go. VHS didn't have it and it would seem natural to make it an added bonus to buy a movie you really liked to see the extras. Now it's just lame.
Haven't you ever heard of Amazon, mon? They are having an awesome Blu-Ray sale as we speak.
For instant gratification- get the iProd.
No seriously get a blu-ray - you have no idea what you're missing.
Haven't you ever heard of Amazon, mon? They are having an awesome Blu-Ray sale as we speak.
For instant gratification- get the iProd.
No seriously get a blu-ray - you have no idea what you're missing.
I still wouldn't want to spend money on yet another movie player and physical copies that will also be replaced by whatever new tech comes out after this. My old faves are upconverted beautifully on my Xbox 360 and anything else out there will be upconverted from regular dvd format too.
Also, I rarely watch a movie more than once. I have been renting HD movies off of Xbox Live and have been waiting for Apple to offer the same without Apple TV. I am one happy camper now having all the movie options from both of them!!
That depends how you define it. I'd say it's the same library, but that the iTunes app and the AppleTV have different access to the iTunes master purchase/rent library. Just like the iPhone OS has different access to the iTunes master library (ie: you can DL songs, but no video or audiobooks).
The AppleTV had access to HD video first so I'd guess that they are either having to add the iTunes app support manually to how the files are stored or that they have to ink ne deals with the content holders to allow them to be sold/rented in HD via the iTunes app on PCs.
Well, I meant "library" as in what movies are available. The iTunes application is clearly aware of all of the HD movies available in AppleTV. So is there some difference between the AppleTV version and the iTunes version? And they roll out HD movies in iTunes with 12 crap movies? I guess now we know where the guy who managed the MobileMe rollout got demoted to.
I mean, seriously, they couldn't wait to get a few more, or at least a few good, movies ready before rolling this out? I really, really hope this is just laying some groundwork for some whatever the big announcement that is coming on Tuesday.
I any event, this is good. A step in the right direction (for rentals, purchases are a rip off). But I really wish Apple would clearly communicate and manage expectations, specifically around what the DRM restrictions on various displays/TVs is.
Unless a movie was specifically filmed/recorded digitally in ultra high resolution, AND there is something particularly stunning that I have to see in ultimate definition, I've found that I really don't care that much.
The fact is that for any movie that's really absorbing my attention, I am absolutely unaware of the resolution after about 5 minutes, if then.
I'm the opposite. I'm more like to watch something which less redeeming content as long as it looks good. Conversely, I sometimes can't watch even mildly redeeming content in SD.
THanks. Went out and bought a DVI-to-HDMI cable and connected it to my Samsung LCD TV (HDCP compliant, I guess). itunes HD content playing fine. This whole HDCP thing is not very clear at all to the average user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
There's no problem with the Mac Mini and outputting HD video, as long as you have an HDCP compliant display. Your Mac told you this and yet you still think it's the Mini that's at fault?
You should only get that error message if your display is not HDCP compliant.
No, that's not correct. HDCP can work over DVI and DisplayPort as well as HDMI. Your Mac Mini is HDCP compliant but your monitor isn't so you can't play HD content on that monitor.
In my experience, many folks who claim Blu-Ray loyalty usually have PS3's. I have a PS3, but honestly only use it for gaming. ALL of the movies I watch/buy are from iTunes because it is so darn convenient. (My Mac is hooked up to my 40" HD Sony LCD) The quality really is pretty good, and not enough for my to really care about staying loyal to Blu-Ray. Sony is bleeding money with each PS3 sold so I'm not optimistic about the future of Blu-Ray, but iTunes is here to stay.
I am also a PS3 owner and as much as Blu-Ray technically is ahead, I still prefer DVD's in general. The PS3 upscales very well, and I am not a person who watches TV using a magnifier. The difference when viewing from the couch is not enough to warrant the extra £££. Also, with a DVD, I can rip it for my own use and make an iPhone version easily. Unless all Blu-Rays come with an H.264 smaller version on the disc, Blu-Ray is no-sale for me.
Take your own advice and hopefully you'll realise that it's the monitor's fault. How hard is this to understand? A message says that the monitor isn't HDCP compliant so won't play HD and you're confused as to what the problem is?
What is with you Apple fan boys? Just buy a Blu-ray and enjoy the best video and audio possible.
I don't know if you were talking to me, but if you read my posts earlier you'd know that I champion Bluray over iTunes movies. I was just stating the option for an iTunes movie Mac user.
Take your own advice and hopefully you'll realise that it's the monitor's fault. How hard is this to understand? A message says that the monitor isn't HDCP compliant so won't play HD and you're confused as to what the problem is?
It's *technically" the monitor's fault for not supporting HDCP. But for all practical considerations, the fact he had a problem at all is 100% Apple's/iTunes' fault for not clearly stating system requirements and for letting him purchase the movie in the first place.
Not all customers are going to know what combinations of Macs, cables, and displays will work; and Apple has done little or nothing to clarify. Will my early 2008 MBP with DVI output be able to display on my VGA external monitor (using the adaptor Apple include with the MBP)? Will my older mini with DVI be able to display HD movies on the monitor? Or do I need to purchase a new monitor to watch a $5 rental? If I connect either to my HDTV's HDMI inputs, will these older machines support the DRM as the new mini does?
This will get very messy if the only what to find out if your particular setup works is to purchase a movie and pray.
HD Movie rentals have been available on Apple TV for a while, but HD Movie purchase has not. This is the first time it's being offered on Apple TV or iTunes.
I still wouldn't want to spend money on yet another movie player and physical copies that will also be replaced by whatever new tech comes out after this. My old faves are upconverted beautifully on my Xbox 360 and anything else out there will be upconverted from regular dvd format too.
Also, I rarely watch a movie more than once. I have been renting HD movies off of Xbox Live and have been waiting for Apple to offer the same without Apple TV. I am one happy camper now having all the movie options from both of them!!
Blu-ray will not be replaced for a very, very, very long time and your post gives the reason why. You said, "My old faves are upconverted beautifully on my Xbox 360." Exactly. Studios have found that getting people to upgrade from DVD, especially upconverting DVD, to high def, be it Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, has been a major problem. That's because DVD upconverted is good enough for the average consumer. So if that's the case, good luck convincing those same consumers that they need something better than Blu-Ray.
I have a 720P XBR LCD that is so good that I really am quite happy to be using it for the next decade with little concern over what's coming next. I can see the difference between upconverted DVD and HD-DVD, which is pretty much the same as Blu-Ray. But I can also see that playing DVDs through my xbox 360 via HDMI or my HD-DVD player, also via HDMI, produces a very good picture, one that I can understand many people being happy with.
I have to say, though, that you really owe it to yourself to feed a proper HD signal to a properly calibrated TV (assuming you have a good, high quality set), even if only to treat yourself from time to time. It really is quite something to watch HD content without all the annoying flaws that are imposed on such a signal when it is compressed for broadcasting.
I have a decent library of HD-DVDs ? they were selling them for $5 a piece in Canada at Wal-Mart after the format war ended - so my motivation to go out and invest in Blu-Ray is very weak at this time. But down the road, I will add Blu-Ray to the mix.
On top of it providing a calibre of picture that is positively breathtaking, I don't share your fear that the studios are already planning another technology to take its place. Blu-Ray will be the gold standard for at least the next 10 years and maybe even beyond that.
When Apple does offer HD here in Canada, I'm going to try it out, just for fun but I don't see myself paying to watch movies that way unless the difference in quality between that and HD cable is such that it's worth the extra cost. I suspect, though, that there will be trade-offs that will cause me to not regard Apple's service as a proper substitute for physical media like Blu-Ray. Apple would have to bring in a subscription model competitive with cable to earn my business on a regular basis. Even if Apple wanted to charge a little more, I could live with that if it offered access to a significant library of titles.
By the way, I don't have Apple TV. I am using my XBR as a monitor for my Mac mini in addition to having cable, the xbox and HD-DVD player attached to it. So a subscription model working independent of Apple TV is something I could take advantage of. I can't be the only person in that position. Renting isn't viable for me, because the cost would be such that I could only rent about two movies a month for what my movie network subcription costs. If Apple doesn't offer a better deal than that, I'm not going to be turning to Apple as my main source of recent movie releases. Way too expensive compared to cable and right now HD isn't even an option.
I wonder what the bandwidth requirements would be for that one.
Well, you'd need two 1080p images instead of one, and apparently 3-D works best with higher framerates - at least 60 fps but preferably 120. That sounds onerous but there's plenty of redundancy, so with high-profile H.264 a standard blu-ray should be able to hold a movie no problem.
Well, you'd need two 1080p images instead of one, and apparently 3-D works best with higher framerates - at least 60 fps but preferably 120. That sounds onerous but there's plenty of redundancy, so with high-profile H.264 a standard blu-ray should be able to hold a movie no problem.
I would think that under current economic conditions the studios are definitely not thinking 3D for the forseeable future. They have only recently clued in that for Blu-Ray to survive, Blu-Ray discs need to be priced more or less the same as DVD. At DVD pricing levels, consumers likely would be buying Blu-Ray versions of their favourite movies. Seems to me the model Apple and others are pursuing is a bigger challenge to Blu-Ray than HD-DVD was.
In any case, I can't see 2D Blu-Ray being properly established in less than another decade. And even if a replacement was being touted before that, there is the problem of causing fatigue in consumers who are unlikely to be willing to renew their movie libraries every four or five years.
I think Blu-Ray and 720p downloads will be it for several years. The next big thing is, in my opinion closer to a decade away. It probably will be 3D but our current monitors will be lining landfill sites by the time it catches on.
It's 3-D next, baby! Although, they'll probably still be able to use blu-ray as the medium.
That is the only way I can foresee physical media persevering over the long run. But it still remains to be seen if that will appeal to the masses. The occasional 3D movie is cool, but I don't think I'd want that as the normal way I watch movies in my home or in the theater.
That is the only way I can foresee physical media persevering over the long run. But it still remains to be seen if that will appeal to the masses. The occasional 3D movie is cool, but I don't think I'd want that as the normal way I watch movies in my home or in the theater.
I disagree. I think that even without a great new feature like 3D there is room for both Blu-Ray and the download model. The difference is that unlike the preceding eras, we'll see a significant splintering of product distribution. Not everyone is going to want to download content and a segment of the buying public does care about quality enough to want the pristine quality that download technology is certainly not, at this time, capable of delivering.
The studios really aren't that concerned in that they get paid, regardless of which delivery method the customers selects.
We'll still see economies of scale in place because as population goes up, even such a splintering will not render the Blu-Ray format too fringe to survive. This isn't the same scenario as we saw with the poorly-received replacements for the CD, i.e. DVD audio and SACD. In that case SACD has barely survived in a niche market and DVD-A is pretty much toast. The thing is, though, that the vast majority of sound systems in people's homes are incapable or reproducing sound to a standard that would illustrate the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CD. And at that, a first-rate CD player (like the Arcam CD23 FMJ) will produce such quality sound that even some half-way decent sound systems would be challenged to clearly show the difference.
While the difference between Blu-Ray and upconverted DVD is not spectacular enough to wow the average consumer, most of today's newer high-def monitors, when properly calibrated, will clearly show that there is a difference. In time enough consumers will figure that out and as the installed base of Blu-Ray players reaches critical mass, if the studios are smart enough to price Blu-Ray discs about where DVDs have been, you'll see Blu-Ray essentially replace DVD.
In other words, the casualty of the splintering of the market will not be Blu-Ray but rather DVD. It's not going to happen in a couple of years but five, six, seven years from now I could easily imagine a point reached where DVDs will be regarded as a quaint, obsolete medium. People looking for convenience and not that concerned by quality will go the download route and those looking for the best possible picture and sound will go Blu-Ray. On the computer front, Blu-Ray's superior storage capacity will make it the obvious choice over DVD. We will, after all, be working with progressively more massive files as the HD Era kicks into high gear.
3D has long been with us but it doesn't strike me as being something that can be implemented in a practical manner using existing technology. Broadcasters can't even do 720p HD right so expecting them to deliver 3D content is unrealistic. Delivering it via a medium like Blu-Ray couldn't gain traction because you'd have to have an installed base of 3D-capable TVs and that's not likely to happen as long as broadcast TV can't go there. Maybe some game-changing technologies will emerge but unless they do, 3D will remain a novelty item.
3D has long been with us but it doesn't strike me as being something that can be implemented in a practical manner using existing technology.
It's true that 3D has been touted as "the next big thing" several times over, but this time around it seems likely that the predictions will be accurate.
You're correct that it requires new TVs, but that's actually one of the things that makes it likely to be the next thing. The technology industry will be looking for the next thing to encourage people to replace their existing sets once everyone's got on the HD train. As others have said, given the difficulty in persuading some people that blu-ray is better than up-scaled DVD, it's really extremely unlikely that it would be possible to persuade people to go to a higher resolution than 1080p (higher resolution being the only other obvious possibility for "the next big thing").
On the other hand, 3-D gives a tangible, obvious difference. Anyone can see it. It will take a long time, and success may hinge on the industry working out a standard rather than having yet another format war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Broadcasters can't even do 720p HD right so expecting them to deliver 3D content is unrealistic.
Hmmm, I don't know. I think there's a clear competitive advantage to the broadcaster who can provide sports coverage in 3-D. Manufacturers have demonstrated 3-D capable sets that are not that much more expensive than standard ones and I've seen a few market research reports indicating that consumers would be willing to pay a little extra to get that capability. There is a chicken-and-egg problem which will hinder the growth of the market, but given the clear benefits for consumer (more realistic image), broadcaster and device makers (premium products that can be sold at higher margin and/or provide competitive advantage), 3-D is likely to be the next big thing.
Comments
Some of us don't want to pay for another player
Some of us want the convenience of a buy/rent once play anywhere system that doesn't require hacking to move to different devices.
Some of us don't want to have to drive out to a store to look for videos.
Some of use want an instant gratification of a a digital download. (This is why i'll pay more for Cable TV movie rentals)
Some of are always traveling and don't wish to carry an additional player and discs in our luggage.
Some of us don't care about about 50Mbps A/V.
Some of use don't care about the extras* on optical media.
* Have you read that the next move for the studios is to remove extras from rented optical media. While this is a dick move, I would have done this from the get go. VHS didn't have it and it would seem natural to make it an added bonus to buy a movie you really liked to see the extras. Now it's just lame.
Haven't you ever heard of Amazon, mon? They are having an awesome Blu-Ray sale as we speak.
For instant gratification- get the iProd.
No seriously get a blu-ray - you have no idea what you're missing.
Haven't you ever heard of Amazon, mon? They are having an awesome Blu-Ray sale as we speak.
For instant gratification- get the iProd.
No seriously get a blu-ray - you have no idea what you're missing.
I still wouldn't want to spend money on yet another movie player and physical copies that will also be replaced by whatever new tech comes out after this. My old faves are upconverted beautifully on my Xbox 360 and anything else out there will be upconverted from regular dvd format too.
Also, I rarely watch a movie more than once. I have been renting HD movies off of Xbox Live and have been waiting for Apple to offer the same without Apple TV. I am one happy camper now having all the movie options from both of them!!
That depends how you define it. I'd say it's the same library, but that the iTunes app and the AppleTV have different access to the iTunes master purchase/rent library. Just like the iPhone OS has different access to the iTunes master library (ie: you can DL songs, but no video or audiobooks).
The AppleTV had access to HD video first so I'd guess that they are either having to add the iTunes app support manually to how the files are stored or that they have to ink ne deals with the content holders to allow them to be sold/rented in HD via the iTunes app on PCs.
Well, I meant "library" as in what movies are available. The iTunes application is clearly aware of all of the HD movies available in AppleTV. So is there some difference between the AppleTV version and the iTunes version? And they roll out HD movies in iTunes with 12 crap movies? I guess now we know where the guy who managed the MobileMe rollout got demoted to.
I mean, seriously, they couldn't wait to get a few more, or at least a few good, movies ready before rolling this out? I really, really hope this is just laying some groundwork for some whatever the big announcement that is coming on Tuesday.
I any event, this is good. A step in the right direction (for rentals, purchases are a rip off). But I really wish Apple would clearly communicate and manage expectations, specifically around what the DRM restrictions on various displays/TVs is.
Unless a movie was specifically filmed/recorded digitally in ultra high resolution, AND there is something particularly stunning that I have to see in ultimate definition, I've found that I really don't care that much.
The fact is that for any movie that's really absorbing my attention, I am absolutely unaware of the resolution after about 5 minutes, if then.
I'm the opposite. I'm more like to watch something which less redeeming content as long as it looks good. Conversely, I sometimes can't watch even mildly redeeming content in SD.
There's no problem with the Mac Mini and outputting HD video, as long as you have an HDCP compliant display. Your Mac told you this and yet you still think it's the Mini that's at fault?
You should only get that error message if your display is not HDCP compliant.
No, that's not correct. HDCP can work over DVI and DisplayPort as well as HDMI. Your Mac Mini is HDCP compliant but your monitor isn't so you can't play HD content on that monitor.
$20? I can get the BD in all its 1080p video/lossless audio glory for that!
Here here.
EDIT: Can't be bothered...
In my experience, many folks who claim Blu-Ray loyalty usually have PS3's. I have a PS3, but honestly only use it for gaming. ALL of the movies I watch/buy are from iTunes because it is so darn convenient. (My Mac is hooked up to my 40" HD Sony LCD) The quality really is pretty good, and not enough for my to really care about staying loyal to Blu-Ray. Sony is bleeding money with each PS3 sold so I'm not optimistic about the future of Blu-Ray, but iTunes is here to stay.
I am also a PS3 owner and as much as Blu-Ray technically is ahead, I still prefer DVD's in general. The PS3 upscales very well, and I am not a person who watches TV using a magnifier. The difference when viewing from the couch is not enough to warrant the extra £££. Also, with a DVD, I can rip it for my own use and make an iPhone version easily. Unless all Blu-Rays come with an H.264 smaller version on the disc, Blu-Ray is no-sale for me.
No- its the iTunes Store fault . READ.
What is with you Apple fan boys? Just buy a Blu-ray and enjoy the best video and audio possible.
I don't know if you were talking to me, but if you read my posts earlier you'd know that I champion Bluray over iTunes movies. I was just stating the option for an iTunes movie Mac user.
It's *technically" the monitor's fault for not supporting HDCP. But for all practical considerations, the fact he had a problem at all is 100% Apple's/iTunes' fault for not clearly stating system requirements and for letting him purchase the movie in the first place.
Not all customers are going to know what combinations of Macs, cables, and displays will work; and Apple has done little or nothing to clarify. Will my early 2008 MBP with DVI output be able to display on my VGA external monitor (using the adaptor Apple include with the MBP)? Will my older mini with DVI be able to display HD movies on the monitor? Or do I need to purchase a new monitor to watch a $5 rental? If I connect either to my HDTV's HDMI inputs, will these older machines support the DRM as the new mini does?
This will get very messy if the only what to find out if your particular setup works is to purchase a movie and pray.
Some of us don't want to pay for another player
This is a good reason why I don't have and won't get a appletv.
At least a Blu-ray player will play my old DVD's.
I still wouldn't want to spend money on yet another movie player and physical copies that will also be replaced by whatever new tech comes out after this. My old faves are upconverted beautifully on my Xbox 360 and anything else out there will be upconverted from regular dvd format too.
Also, I rarely watch a movie more than once. I have been renting HD movies off of Xbox Live and have been waiting for Apple to offer the same without Apple TV. I am one happy camper now having all the movie options from both of them!!
Blu-ray will not be replaced for a very, very, very long time and your post gives the reason why. You said, "My old faves are upconverted beautifully on my Xbox 360." Exactly. Studios have found that getting people to upgrade from DVD, especially upconverting DVD, to high def, be it Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, has been a major problem. That's because DVD upconverted is good enough for the average consumer. So if that's the case, good luck convincing those same consumers that they need something better than Blu-Ray.
I have a 720P XBR LCD that is so good that I really am quite happy to be using it for the next decade with little concern over what's coming next. I can see the difference between upconverted DVD and HD-DVD, which is pretty much the same as Blu-Ray. But I can also see that playing DVDs through my xbox 360 via HDMI or my HD-DVD player, also via HDMI, produces a very good picture, one that I can understand many people being happy with.
I have to say, though, that you really owe it to yourself to feed a proper HD signal to a properly calibrated TV (assuming you have a good, high quality set), even if only to treat yourself from time to time. It really is quite something to watch HD content without all the annoying flaws that are imposed on such a signal when it is compressed for broadcasting.
I have a decent library of HD-DVDs ? they were selling them for $5 a piece in Canada at Wal-Mart after the format war ended - so my motivation to go out and invest in Blu-Ray is very weak at this time. But down the road, I will add Blu-Ray to the mix.
On top of it providing a calibre of picture that is positively breathtaking, I don't share your fear that the studios are already planning another technology to take its place. Blu-Ray will be the gold standard for at least the next 10 years and maybe even beyond that.
When Apple does offer HD here in Canada, I'm going to try it out, just for fun but I don't see myself paying to watch movies that way unless the difference in quality between that and HD cable is such that it's worth the extra cost. I suspect, though, that there will be trade-offs that will cause me to not regard Apple's service as a proper substitute for physical media like Blu-Ray. Apple would have to bring in a subscription model competitive with cable to earn my business on a regular basis. Even if Apple wanted to charge a little more, I could live with that if it offered access to a significant library of titles.
By the way, I don't have Apple TV. I am using my XBR as a monitor for my Mac mini in addition to having cable, the xbox and HD-DVD player attached to it. So a subscription model working independent of Apple TV is something I could take advantage of. I can't be the only person in that position. Renting isn't viable for me, because the cost would be such that I could only rent about two movies a month for what my movie network subcription costs. If Apple doesn't offer a better deal than that, I'm not going to be turning to Apple as my main source of recent movie releases. Way too expensive compared to cable and right now HD isn't even an option.
I don't share your fear that the studios are already planning another technology to take its place.
It's 3-D next, baby! Although, they'll probably still be able to use blu-ray as the medium.
It's 3-D next, baby! Although, they'll probably still be able to use blu-ray as the medium.
I wonder what the bandwidth requirements would be for that one.
I wonder what the bandwidth requirements would be for that one.
Well, you'd need two 1080p images instead of one, and apparently 3-D works best with higher framerates - at least 60 fps but preferably 120. That sounds onerous but there's plenty of redundancy, so with high-profile H.264 a standard blu-ray should be able to hold a movie no problem.
Well, you'd need two 1080p images instead of one, and apparently 3-D works best with higher framerates - at least 60 fps but preferably 120. That sounds onerous but there's plenty of redundancy, so with high-profile H.264 a standard blu-ray should be able to hold a movie no problem.
I would think that under current economic conditions the studios are definitely not thinking 3D for the forseeable future. They have only recently clued in that for Blu-Ray to survive, Blu-Ray discs need to be priced more or less the same as DVD. At DVD pricing levels, consumers likely would be buying Blu-Ray versions of their favourite movies. Seems to me the model Apple and others are pursuing is a bigger challenge to Blu-Ray than HD-DVD was.
In any case, I can't see 2D Blu-Ray being properly established in less than another decade. And even if a replacement was being touted before that, there is the problem of causing fatigue in consumers who are unlikely to be willing to renew their movie libraries every four or five years.
I think Blu-Ray and 720p downloads will be it for several years. The next big thing is, in my opinion closer to a decade away. It probably will be 3D but our current monitors will be lining landfill sites by the time it catches on.
It's 3-D next, baby! Although, they'll probably still be able to use blu-ray as the medium.
That is the only way I can foresee physical media persevering over the long run. But it still remains to be seen if that will appeal to the masses. The occasional 3D movie is cool, but I don't think I'd want that as the normal way I watch movies in my home or in the theater.
That is the only way I can foresee physical media persevering over the long run. But it still remains to be seen if that will appeal to the masses. The occasional 3D movie is cool, but I don't think I'd want that as the normal way I watch movies in my home or in the theater.
I disagree. I think that even without a great new feature like 3D there is room for both Blu-Ray and the download model. The difference is that unlike the preceding eras, we'll see a significant splintering of product distribution. Not everyone is going to want to download content and a segment of the buying public does care about quality enough to want the pristine quality that download technology is certainly not, at this time, capable of delivering.
The studios really aren't that concerned in that they get paid, regardless of which delivery method the customers selects.
We'll still see economies of scale in place because as population goes up, even such a splintering will not render the Blu-Ray format too fringe to survive. This isn't the same scenario as we saw with the poorly-received replacements for the CD, i.e. DVD audio and SACD. In that case SACD has barely survived in a niche market and DVD-A is pretty much toast. The thing is, though, that the vast majority of sound systems in people's homes are incapable or reproducing sound to a standard that would illustrate the difference between SACD/DVD-A and CD. And at that, a first-rate CD player (like the Arcam CD23 FMJ) will produce such quality sound that even some half-way decent sound systems would be challenged to clearly show the difference.
While the difference between Blu-Ray and upconverted DVD is not spectacular enough to wow the average consumer, most of today's newer high-def monitors, when properly calibrated, will clearly show that there is a difference. In time enough consumers will figure that out and as the installed base of Blu-Ray players reaches critical mass, if the studios are smart enough to price Blu-Ray discs about where DVDs have been, you'll see Blu-Ray essentially replace DVD.
In other words, the casualty of the splintering of the market will not be Blu-Ray but rather DVD. It's not going to happen in a couple of years but five, six, seven years from now I could easily imagine a point reached where DVDs will be regarded as a quaint, obsolete medium. People looking for convenience and not that concerned by quality will go the download route and those looking for the best possible picture and sound will go Blu-Ray. On the computer front, Blu-Ray's superior storage capacity will make it the obvious choice over DVD. We will, after all, be working with progressively more massive files as the HD Era kicks into high gear.
3D has long been with us but it doesn't strike me as being something that can be implemented in a practical manner using existing technology. Broadcasters can't even do 720p HD right so expecting them to deliver 3D content is unrealistic. Delivering it via a medium like Blu-Ray couldn't gain traction because you'd have to have an installed base of 3D-capable TVs and that's not likely to happen as long as broadcast TV can't go there. Maybe some game-changing technologies will emerge but unless they do, 3D will remain a novelty item.
3D has long been with us but it doesn't strike me as being something that can be implemented in a practical manner using existing technology.
It's true that 3D has been touted as "the next big thing" several times over, but this time around it seems likely that the predictions will be accurate.
You're correct that it requires new TVs, but that's actually one of the things that makes it likely to be the next thing. The technology industry will be looking for the next thing to encourage people to replace their existing sets once everyone's got on the HD train. As others have said, given the difficulty in persuading some people that blu-ray is better than up-scaled DVD, it's really extremely unlikely that it would be possible to persuade people to go to a higher resolution than 1080p (higher resolution being the only other obvious possibility for "the next big thing").
On the other hand, 3-D gives a tangible, obvious difference. Anyone can see it. It will take a long time, and success may hinge on the industry working out a standard rather than having yet another format war.
Broadcasters can't even do 720p HD right so expecting them to deliver 3D content is unrealistic.
Hmmm, I don't know. I think there's a clear competitive advantage to the broadcaster who can provide sports coverage in 3-D. Manufacturers have demonstrated 3-D capable sets that are not that much more expensive than standard ones and I've seen a few market research reports indicating that consumers would be willing to pay a little extra to get that capability. There is a chicken-and-egg problem which will hinder the growth of the market, but given the clear benefits for consumer (more realistic image), broadcaster and device makers (premium products that can be sold at higher margin and/or provide competitive advantage), 3-D is likely to be the next big thing.