I think Bluray has plenty of life left in it. A lot of music is still distributed via CDs, by the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
No shit. But the 99% chance is that Blu-ray will deliver the expected ROI to its developers and promoters before it goes away. Plus, until there's a politically expedient way to distribute music online without crippling DRM and lossy encoding, there will always be CDs or similar.
CDs are *Definitely* on their way out. Blu Ray, not that bad yet.
Yes, and making it available GLOBALLY, like how game downloads are now so easy and great to purchase wherever you live (eg. Steam distribution and legal downloads/purchase network).
We're all still waiting for Hollywood to "get it"... while they continue to churn out mostly rubbish nowadays and expect us to pay for watching it just once at the cinema.
There's an issue here though, the message from a lot of the people that download is "it's rubbish but I download it anyway". To me, that's a little confusing, because I don't understand why it's still worth the time watching rubbish, or even worth clogging the pipe.
I love a good high-def movie, and Blu-ray players are sweet. Only they're so feature rich, the discs themselves are an afterthought—DOA or relegated to a niche format reserved for the finest films.
Oh, come on—you can't tell me you don't see where this is going. Every Blu-ray player we choose to review has an abundance of features that have nothing to do with Blu-ray. In fact, they all have to do with delivering movies in a different way, with more instant gratification.
The joke is, when we were pushing for Blu-ray 2.0 with BD-Live a year ago, we didn't realize that the ethernet port was really not about enhanced Blu-ray at all, but about video on demand. I own a few Blu-rays, like Wall-E, that have BD-Live components. Never even bothered with them. No point. But you'd be a 'tard to buy a Blu-ray player without an ethernet port, and you'd be a 'tard to buy a Blu-ray player without Netflix on demand, and at this point, another service for new-release movies, like Amazon VOD or CinemaNow.
Netflix gives me back seasons of 30 Rock and The Office in high-def. Pop quiz: Will I ever buy them on Blu-ray, or even DVD? No. I can even get stuff I'd have previously hunted down on disc, like The IT Crowd. I can get lots of the movies I previously owned on DVD instantly on demand for no cost other than the $10 monthly subscription. People don't even bitch about DRM with Netflix, because it's instant and always there, so even the copyright owners should be happy. Time Warner's boss even said he's thinking about offering a Netflix-like VOD distribution channel for HBO—nothing like all-you-can-eat Rome, Wire and Band of Brothers to kill DVD sales, and HBO still gets their mad money.
You want to talk video quality? Fine. I own The Dark Knight on Blu-ray. That movie is freakin' awesome, and I am happy to watch it on a Blu-ray player, while I sit exactly 47 inches from a 50-inch 1080p plasma television. But what about Billy Madison? I love that movie too, but I first owned it on a VHS playing in 4:3 at what you might call 240i, and I can verify that the high-def version is no funnier. In fact, instead of fishing out the HD DVD of it I have, and hooking up the HD DVD drive to my Xbox, I'd probably sooner try to find it on Netflix, in whatever video quality they're offering.
Besides, most people—most Giz readers, I'd wager—are watching "high def" movies on LCD TVs they bought at Costco for $899, so you can't tell me that they can see a difference between so-called VOD high-def and real bonafide Blu-ray high-def, even though there definitely is one.
The Criterion Collection belongs on Blu-ray. But six films by Wes Anderson, Terry Gilliam and Akira Kurosawa do not an industry make. Like our discussion of audiophiles, there's a need to preserve (and even appreciate) video at very high quality, but that need doesn't trickle down to the masses, and especially doesn't matter for every single film, or even the vast majority of middle-of-the-road movies and TV. DVDs were a hit because they were the smartest way to deliver most video in the years 1999 to 2007. Now, the smartest way to deliver most video is over broadband, not on high-density shiny discs.
Don't get me wrong. You'll buy a "Blu-ray player." Stats show many of you already are. You may even buy some Blu-ray discs, or pay the extra $2 or $3 for Netflix Blu-ray rental. But the amount of time you'll spend watching Blu-ray on it will continue to dwindle, until, maybe one day, the disc tray just refuses to open from lack of use.
Well now it looks like you just told us why blu-ray will always be a backwater media player. And if you add to what you have just stated, the great hi def playback in HULU,from ABC-TV and other free or near free media content providers.
WHY bother at all with BLU-RAY. And now with FIOS out there giving us incredible high quality video.
My Netflix Roku player reaches 720p playback . and for free instant watching that is incredible.
My point is Blu-ray has to compete not only against HD-DVD AND REG DVD, It also has to compete against all media content providers.
So in the end the market place will ask you only one question dude.
How does HD DVD picture quality stack up against the Blu-ray picture quality?
And is the difference worth it?
If you want to compare which offers the best playback in the highest def. with the sharpest lines. Then watch BLADE RUNNER directors cut.
You will need to buy 3 copies of it, and the rejected one's make great gifts.
Don't forget Blu-Ray is an important GLOBAL high-definition format. That's its advantage. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, etc. are very US-centric and change over time.
Once proper global HD downloads are available, not arbitrarily restricted to certain countries, then we can start talking about the death of Blu-Ray.
Are you saying that if i am from CHAD or France, and i log onto hulu. Someone or something will restrict my use of hulu?
Are you saying that if i am from CHAD or France, and i log onto hulu. Someone or something will restrict my use of hulu?
As far as I remember, yes. Some of it is pretty legitimate, because they don't have an advertising sales systems in other countries, and it's that advertising is what pays for the service. There are ways around the restrictions, but they are probably required by contract to make a good faith effort to shut those loopholes down.
As for sales though, I think there should be a global licensing system so someone like iTunes can legally sell to anyone without having to deal with the local branches and sublicensees of every studio in every country. It's the legal right of a studio to break up the rights like that, but it is such an impediment to getting sales that I think it hurts them in the long run. A company like Amazon has no such restrictions that I've heard, I've ordered physical media from overseas through them with no issue.
As far as I remember, yes. Some of it is pretty legitimate, because they don't have an advertising sales systems in other countries, and it's that advertising is what pays for the service.
Yes that figures. The ad dollars allow us to watch hulu.
Are you saying that if i am from CHAD or France, and i log onto hulu. Someone or something will restrict my use of hulu?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
Yes that figures. The ad dollars allow us to watch hulu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
As far as I remember, yes. Some of it is pretty legitimate, because they don't have an advertising sales systems in other countries, and it's that advertising is what pays for the service. There are ways around the restrictions, but they are probably required by contract to make a good faith effort to shut those loopholes down.
Yeah, AFAIK Hulu is not accessible outside of the US. You can get around it, eg. using Hotspot Shield, but it just creates more hoops to jump through to access content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
As for sales though, I think there should be a global licensing system so someone like iTunes can legally sell to anyone without having to deal with the local branches and sublicensees of every studio in every country. It's the legal right of a studio to break up the rights like that, but it is such an impediment to getting sales that I think it hurts them in the long run. A company like Amazon has no such restrictions that I've heard, I've ordered media from overseas through them with no issue.
PRECISELY. The game companies get it. Why restrict distribution of games to certain "Regions" and "Countries", "Sublicensees" and so on? Doesn't make sense. Digital download, Boom! Legal, fun, fast, good to go. Movies and CDs, I mean music particularly, why the hell does it have to be restricted by country? Their system may have worked 10 to 25 years ago, but since the start of this decade it has clearly become inherently and severely flawed.
I don't mind having to watch ads if I can get programs in high-def and on-demand. The simplest, most bloody obvious system for a global Hulu is simply the way Google does it... Geography-aware ads. Or, global companies can run global ads. Simple, solved, done.
Valve's Steam distribution network and Apple's iTunes have clearly established a workable, profitable path that makes sense and fights piracy at the same time. iTunes has made some amazing strides in the content it provides. Now a wide range of 720p and 1080p at more affordable prices and global availability of all content... that would be awesome.
Another thing. Look at the App Store. Available globally. Wide, insanely astounding success. What more proof do Movie and Music companies need?
BTW on Amazon, I'm in Malaysia right now and a lot of people buy Blu-Ray discs through Amazon.com because it has a great, wide selection, and costs 20% to 30% less, including shipping, than local retailers who have a limited range of titles.
There's an issue here though, the message from a lot of the people that download is "it's rubbish but I download it anyway". To me, that's a little confusing, because I don't understand why it's still worth the time watching rubbish, or even worth clogging the pipe.
Well, sometimes people want to judge for themselves how good the movie was. I think with film being very different this decade from say the 1980s to 2000... And attention span being less, having to pay, queue up at the cinema, sit through something that you may be disappointed with, I suppose downloaders justify their piracy by saying, "Why bother? Just download for free and if it's crap at least I only wasted my time, nothing else". \
I'm no saint, but I generally don't pirate games or movies nowadays. I'm kind of tired of Torrenting all day. Seems unproductive. I run Folding@Home as an when I like if I feel the need to keep my PC chugging for several hours when not gaming. Torrenting on my Mac takes too much time because I use it at work as well so no Torrenting there. Hence things would take forever to download if I only download at home.
TV shows, now that's a very grey area for me... Probably a whole 'nother thread. $1.99 US for A SINGLE EPISODE? That's really a bit rough. TV shows are *massively* "pirated"/downloaded ~ but said TV shows are also available free on network sites, with ads, sometimes no ads?, and these TV shows are on your TV/ Satellite/ Cable anyway? But with ads, I suppose?
Comments
Yes, but it will, over time, die out.
I think Bluray has plenty of life left in it. A lot of music is still distributed via CDs, by the way.
No shit. But the 99% chance is that Blu-ray will deliver the expected ROI to its developers and promoters before it goes away. Plus, until there's a politically expedient way to distribute music online without crippling DRM and lossy encoding, there will always be CDs or similar.
CDs are *Definitely* on their way out. Blu Ray, not that bad yet.
Yes, and making it available GLOBALLY, like how game downloads are now so easy and great to purchase wherever you live (eg. Steam distribution and legal downloads/purchase network).
We're all still waiting for Hollywood to "get it"... while they continue to churn out mostly rubbish nowadays and expect us to pay for watching it just once at the cinema.
There's an issue here though, the message from a lot of the people that download is "it's rubbish but I download it anyway". To me, that's a little confusing, because I don't understand why it's still worth the time watching rubbish, or even worth clogging the pipe.
I love a good high-def movie, and Blu-ray players are sweet. Only they're so feature rich, the discs themselves are an afterthought—DOA or relegated to a niche format reserved for the finest films.
Oh, come on—you can't tell me you don't see where this is going. Every Blu-ray player we choose to review has an abundance of features that have nothing to do with Blu-ray. In fact, they all have to do with delivering movies in a different way, with more instant gratification.
The joke is, when we were pushing for Blu-ray 2.0 with BD-Live a year ago, we didn't realize that the ethernet port was really not about enhanced Blu-ray at all, but about video on demand. I own a few Blu-rays, like Wall-E, that have BD-Live components. Never even bothered with them. No point. But you'd be a 'tard to buy a Blu-ray player without an ethernet port, and you'd be a 'tard to buy a Blu-ray player without Netflix on demand, and at this point, another service for new-release movies, like Amazon VOD or CinemaNow.
Netflix gives me back seasons of 30 Rock and The Office in high-def. Pop quiz: Will I ever buy them on Blu-ray, or even DVD? No. I can even get stuff I'd have previously hunted down on disc, like The IT Crowd. I can get lots of the movies I previously owned on DVD instantly on demand for no cost other than the $10 monthly subscription. People don't even bitch about DRM with Netflix, because it's instant and always there, so even the copyright owners should be happy. Time Warner's boss even said he's thinking about offering a Netflix-like VOD distribution channel for HBO—nothing like all-you-can-eat Rome, Wire and Band of Brothers to kill DVD sales, and HBO still gets their mad money.
You want to talk video quality? Fine. I own The Dark Knight on Blu-ray. That movie is freakin' awesome, and I am happy to watch it on a Blu-ray player, while I sit exactly 47 inches from a 50-inch 1080p plasma television. But what about Billy Madison? I love that movie too, but I first owned it on a VHS playing in 4:3 at what you might call 240i, and I can verify that the high-def version is no funnier. In fact, instead of fishing out the HD DVD of it I have, and hooking up the HD DVD drive to my Xbox, I'd probably sooner try to find it on Netflix, in whatever video quality they're offering.
Besides, most people—most Giz readers, I'd wager—are watching "high def" movies on LCD TVs they bought at Costco for $899, so you can't tell me that they can see a difference between so-called VOD high-def and real bonafide Blu-ray high-def, even though there definitely is one.
The Criterion Collection belongs on Blu-ray. But six films by Wes Anderson, Terry Gilliam and Akira Kurosawa do not an industry make. Like our discussion of audiophiles, there's a need to preserve (and even appreciate) video at very high quality, but that need doesn't trickle down to the masses, and especially doesn't matter for every single film, or even the vast majority of middle-of-the-road movies and TV. DVDs were a hit because they were the smartest way to deliver most video in the years 1999 to 2007. Now, the smartest way to deliver most video is over broadband, not on high-density shiny discs.
Don't get me wrong. You'll buy a "Blu-ray player." Stats show many of you already are. You may even buy some Blu-ray discs, or pay the extra $2 or $3 for Netflix Blu-ray rental. But the amount of time you'll spend watching Blu-ray on it will continue to dwindle, until, maybe one day, the disc tray just refuses to open from lack of use.
Well now it looks like you just told us why blu-ray will always be a backwater media player. And if you add to what you have just stated, the great hi def playback in HULU,from ABC-TV and other free or near free media content providers.
WHY bother at all with BLU-RAY. And now with FIOS out there giving us incredible high quality video.
My Netflix Roku player reaches 720p playback . and for free instant watching that is incredible.
My point is Blu-ray has to compete not only against HD-DVD AND REG DVD, It also has to compete against all media content providers.
So in the end the market place will ask you only one question dude.
How does HD DVD picture quality stack up against the Blu-ray picture quality?
And is the difference worth it?
If you want to compare which offers the best playback in the highest def. with the sharpest lines. Then watch BLADE RUNNER directors cut.
You will need to buy 3 copies of it, and the rejected one's make great gifts.
just saying
Don't forget Blu-Ray is an important GLOBAL high-definition format. That's its advantage. Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, etc. are very US-centric and change over time.
Once proper global HD downloads are available, not arbitrarily restricted to certain countries, then we can start talking about the death of Blu-Ray.
Are you saying that if i am from CHAD or France, and i log onto hulu. Someone or something will restrict my use of hulu?
Are you saying that if i am from CHAD or France, and i log onto hulu. Someone or something will restrict my use of hulu?
As far as I remember, yes. Some of it is pretty legitimate, because they don't have an advertising sales systems in other countries, and it's that advertising is what pays for the service. There are ways around the restrictions, but they are probably required by contract to make a good faith effort to shut those loopholes down.
As for sales though, I think there should be a global licensing system so someone like iTunes can legally sell to anyone without having to deal with the local branches and sublicensees of every studio in every country. It's the legal right of a studio to break up the rights like that, but it is such an impediment to getting sales that I think it hurts them in the long run. A company like Amazon has no such restrictions that I've heard, I've ordered physical media from overseas through them with no issue.
As far as I remember, yes. Some of it is pretty legitimate, because they don't have an advertising sales systems in other countries, and it's that advertising is what pays for the service.
Yes that figures. The ad dollars allow us to watch hulu.
Are you saying that if i am from CHAD or France, and i log onto hulu. Someone or something will restrict my use of hulu?
Yes that figures. The ad dollars allow us to watch hulu.
As far as I remember, yes. Some of it is pretty legitimate, because they don't have an advertising sales systems in other countries, and it's that advertising is what pays for the service. There are ways around the restrictions, but they are probably required by contract to make a good faith effort to shut those loopholes down.
Yeah, AFAIK Hulu is not accessible outside of the US. You can get around it, eg. using Hotspot Shield, but it just creates more hoops to jump through to access content.
As for sales though, I think there should be a global licensing system so someone like iTunes can legally sell to anyone without having to deal with the local branches and sublicensees of every studio in every country. It's the legal right of a studio to break up the rights like that, but it is such an impediment to getting sales that I think it hurts them in the long run. A company like Amazon has no such restrictions that I've heard, I've ordered media from overseas through them with no issue.
PRECISELY. The game companies get it. Why restrict distribution of games to certain "Regions" and "Countries", "Sublicensees" and so on? Doesn't make sense. Digital download, Boom! Legal, fun, fast, good to go. Movies and CDs, I mean music particularly, why the hell does it have to be restricted by country? Their system may have worked 10 to 25 years ago, but since the start of this decade it has clearly become inherently and severely flawed.
I don't mind having to watch ads if I can get programs in high-def and on-demand. The simplest, most bloody obvious system for a global Hulu is simply the way Google does it... Geography-aware ads. Or, global companies can run global ads. Simple, solved, done.
Valve's Steam distribution network and Apple's iTunes have clearly established a workable, profitable path that makes sense and fights piracy at the same time. iTunes has made some amazing strides in the content it provides. Now a wide range of 720p and 1080p at more affordable prices and global availability of all content... that would be awesome.
Another thing. Look at the App Store. Available globally. Wide, insanely astounding success. What more proof do Movie and Music companies need?
BTW on Amazon, I'm in Malaysia right now and a lot of people buy Blu-Ray discs through Amazon.com because it has a great, wide selection, and costs 20% to 30% less, including shipping, than local retailers who have a limited range of titles.
There's an issue here though, the message from a lot of the people that download is "it's rubbish but I download it anyway". To me, that's a little confusing, because I don't understand why it's still worth the time watching rubbish, or even worth clogging the pipe.
Well, sometimes people want to judge for themselves how good the movie was. I think with film being very different this decade from say the 1980s to 2000... And attention span being less, having to pay, queue up at the cinema, sit through something that you may be disappointed with, I suppose downloaders justify their piracy by saying, "Why bother? Just download for free and if it's crap at least I only wasted my time, nothing else".
I'm no saint, but I generally don't pirate games or movies nowadays. I'm kind of tired of Torrenting all day. Seems unproductive.
TV shows, now that's a very grey area for me... Probably a whole 'nother thread. $1.99 US for A SINGLE EPISODE? That's really a bit rough. TV shows are *massively* "pirated"/downloaded ~ but said TV shows are also available free on network sites, with ads, sometimes no ads?, and these TV shows are on your TV/ Satellite/ Cable anyway? But with ads, I suppose?