Thanks for the link. The data looked good for a second, but when you look closely, the data by Nielson is misleading as usual. Even if the presented data is absolutely accurate, the pie percentage shown from the link is by $ amount spent, but not comparing the number of discs sold. I would guess that average movie disc price would easily cost 2X to 4X more for the Blu-ray discs which means that number of discs sold is still less than or equal to about 5-7% of the overall market. Yes, it is still interesting market size.
That's good to know. I did not realize the neilson numbers were dollars and not units sold; however, Blu-Ray disc are at the very most less than double their barebones DVD counterparts, and usually just 1/3 more than their "two disc special edition DVD" counterparts.
That's good to know. I did not realize the neilson numbers were dollars and not units sold; however, Blu-Ray disc are at the very most less than double their barebones DVD counterparts, and usually just 1/3 more than their "two disc special edition DVD" counterparts.
That is true for the newly released titles. I would also think that many less than $10 or even $5 or less DVD titles are also included in the total $ of optical disc sales. As you are aware, even older BD titles are still selling at higher price than the most of the newly released dvd's on the release week. At Best Buy, new release DVD's do come at promo price around $15 on the release week(day?).
Regardless, even 5% of optical market is pretty significant for a niche product considering the current economy.
That's good to know. I did not realize the neilson numbers were dollars and not units sold;
And you're buying that? Good grief, man. Look at the chart again. Notice where it says "Top 20 unit volume." Don't believe everything bitemymac tries to feed you. Even his guesses about pricing are wrong. If you look at say, Iron Man, the two-disc Blu-ray edition retails for $39.99. The two-disc DVD retails for... $39.99. Wow, what a difference, eh? Even at full Amazon discount, there's only a $3 difference. Likewise, the 3-disc edition of Wall-E on Blu-ray has a retail price $1 more than the 3-disc DVD edition. So much for "2X to 4X more for the Blu-ray discs."
Also, check the math. The dollar figures don't jibe. If they were going by those dollar figures, Blu-ray would have over 14%, not 12% as the pie chart says.
We?ve gotten another update from our [Paramount] studio and industry sources on great titles that are in the planning or production stages (or both) for release on Blu-ray Disc in 2009. You can reasonably expect to see most of the Star Trek feature films on the format, as well as Chinatown, Deep Impact, The Ten Commandments, Sunset Boulevard, Apocalypse Now, Breakfast at Tiffany?s, Saturday Night Fever, Flashdance and The Elephant Man. According to our sources, there?s also an outside chance that you MIGHT see Titanic on Blu-ray before the end of 2009. Keep your fingers crossed..
thought someone might like to know.
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so sorry if its already been posted
It's rough economy that is for sure. Blu Ray player sales will be just as poor as everything else this holiday season. If we still had that Regan/Bush - Bush/Quale escalating economy in place, Blu Ray would probably be in 70% more homes than it is, but we don't. You can thank Bill Clinton for surfing that Tsunami tidal wave of good fortune all way into shore. He wanted Change. That's what we got, that's all we got in our pockets. You shouldn't try and change anything that isn't fundamentally broken. That clown pulled the bottom out from under the strongest economy America had ever seen. I saw it coming, and watched it dissipate. It was so clear. I can not believe some people then wanted to elect his wife. They f****d it up once, that was enough for me.
It's rough economy that is for sure. Blu Ray player sales will be just as poor as everything else this holiday season. If we still had that Regan/Bush - Bush/Quale escalating economy in place, Blu Ray would probably be in 70% more homes than it is, but we don't. You can thank Bill Clinton for surfing that Tsunami tidal wave of good fortune all way into shore. He wanted Change. That's what we got, that's all we got in our pockets. You shouldn't try and change anything that isn't fundamentally broken. That clown pulled the bottom out from under the strongest economy America had ever seen. I saw it coming, and watched it dissipate. It was so clear. I can not believe some people then wanted to elect his wife. They f****d it up once, that was enough for me.
onlooker, were you feeling a little "blue" yesterday? I can imagine how you must feel today!
Your revisionist history is highly amusing. It's almost like reading a delusional fantasy.
Back on topic, it's being widely reported that BD players will drop into <$200 category this Christmas. Hopefully that should give sales a boost.
Back on topic, it's being widely reported that BD players will drop into <$200 category this Christmas. Hopefully that should give sales a boost.
The biggest hurdle for Blu-Ray is that even when it's a $200. buy, its really a $2000. buy.
You have to buy the player, a new widescreen hdtv, good AV cables and upgrade your cable subscription.
The actual player price isn't really the problem anymore. Headed into a recession, the problem is that enough people won't buy the player if they can't afford the add-ons. There are already stories about people having the proper setup and yet still buying DVDs because they're cheaper.
It's rough economy that is for sure. Blu Ray player sales will be just as poor as everything else this holiday season. If we still had that Regan/Bush - Bush/Quale escalating economy in place, Blu Ray would probably be in 70% more homes than it is, but we don't. You can thank Bill Clinton for surfing that Tsunami tidal wave of good fortune all way into shore. He wanted Change. That's what we got, that's all we got in our pockets. You shouldn't try and change anything that isn't fundamentally broken. That clown pulled the bottom out from under the strongest economy America had ever seen. I saw it coming, and watched it dissipate. It was so clear. I can not believe some people then wanted to elect his wife. They f****d it up once, that was enough for me.
Unbelievable that you would actually TYPE that, thinking it is crazy enough..
..Still, it is THIS thread, crazyier crap has been posted.. see Frank above
The biggest hurdle for Blu-Ray is that even when it's a $200. buy, its really a $2000. buy.
You have to buy the player, a new widescreen hdtv, good AV cables and upgrade your cable subscription.
What, someone put a gun to your head and told you to buy all that?
NA already has 36% HDTV penetration, and the TV is by far the largest expense. AV cables cost nothing. Your cable subscription, game consoles, optical disks can all be upgraded individually as you see fit. Or left as is. It's not like having a better TV makes your SD cable or Wii worthless.
Quote:
There are already stories about people having the proper setup and yet still buying DVDs because they're cheaper.
And what would be the problem with that? Some movies are not available in hi-def, and some gain too little from it to be worth the difference currently.
Your revisionist history is highly amusing. It's almost like reading a delusional fantasy.
Quite. It seems Onlooker is reporting from an alternate reality, where Bill Clinton has been president for the past eight years, and the eight years before that never happened.
I'm simply saying that those 'extra' costs factor into the decision to purchase a BR player. That's all.
You've got it backwards. The only thing BR is dependent on to be worth it vs. DVD is that you must have a HDTV. That causes an obstacle for slightly over 60% of North Americans, who do not already have one.
It can be argued that HD cable subscriptions and HD game consoles being available indirectly *lower* that obstacle for the 60%, since they are additional *possibilities* which open up when you own a HDTV. Thereby the HDTV purchase that stands in the way of BR consumption becomes better value and easier to stomach.
I don't have any cable, let alone upgraded cable. (Nor do I have satellite) Somehow my Blu-ray player still works despite the apparent necessity of cable. I must have hacked it somehow in my sleep.
The biggest hurdle for Blu-Ray is that even when it's a $200. buy, its really a $2000. buy.
You have to buy the player, a new widescreen hdtv, good AV cables and upgrade your cable subscription.
The actual player price isn't really the problem anymore. Headed into a recession, the problem is that enough people won't buy the player if they can't afford the add-ons. There are already stories about people having the proper setup and yet still buying DVDs because they're cheaper.
Frank you have this exactly backwards, a BD player is really an add on to the TV, not the other way around. HD sets are selling and even if that pace drops they're still in homes, so if BD players' price does drop to <$200, I've seen $150 mentioned, it becomes more of an attractive add-on.
well.. it really doesn't matter. For those who were serious about HDM in 2006 probably already owns a unit to play them . The market expansion has to happen with newer group of consumers or the J6P. The PS3 charm isn't enough anymore. There has to be enough incentive for Mr. John Doe to start buying more expensive bd movies over the cheaper dvd's. Only incentive would be buying them cheaper at the same price as the dvd version or even cheaper. However, during time like this with everyone tightening their belts, even the existing dvd market is shrinking. (Is rental/download/streaming market increasing?) The HDM market is not an exception, when it comes to shrinking market. There may be enough enthusiasts to keep the interest, but the interest level may remain in the niche for awhile.
Yeah, yeah. You've been saying that exact same thing since 2006. Meanwhile, despite less than 10 million Blu-ray players worldwide (including PS3), Blu-ray movies comprise 1/8th of the unit sales of the top 20 titles, according to Nielsen. And don't bring up the "what about the rest?" The drop-off is already significant within the top 20, the other titles are a small percentage. How many DVD players exist worldwide? How does 10 million compare to that? I doubt it's 1/8th. And projections as recently as last month were that Blu-ray standalone player sales this year will be triple that all HD players from last year, when the format war was still raging. You backed the wrong horse last year and now you're just trying to hobble the winner.
You must have noticed that when it comes to human behavior, people just do whatever they want, and the law is just an irritant. Anti drug policies seem to have zero impact.
The record industry wasted years trying to prevent something that had already happened. The genie was out of the box. Adding ever more padlocks to that box was just a waste of money. DRM infected CDs drove even more people away!
The movie people are doing the same thing; comically trying to hang-on to a business model from the previous century. But I agree they'll take some time to reconsider. After a few years, curiosity gets the better of them. They peek inside the box and realise that it's empty.
What the industry does won't change how people chose to use media or technology. They don't have that power.
But the industry *can* attempt to monetize what people are doing.
Alternatively they can just sit there and watch their business model slowly evaporate.
C.
A little food for thought from people in the know.
Also today, do you recall that rant I posted a couple weeks back about how the talk of Blu-ray's demise was absurd? Our friend Ben Drawbaugh weighed in on the subject over at Engadget as well, and he's clearly of the same mind. Ben and I were e-mailing back and forth recently, and he made a few additional points about Blu-ray and the notion of downloading that I thought were interesting. First, he noted that while Apple was recently thrilled to announce program-to-date high-def TV series sales of $5 million via iTunes download, Blu-ray sold $17 million worth of titles that same week alone. Ben also sent the following, which made me smile...
"Top ten reasons that prove Hollywood is only playing in the downloads world while focusing its real efforts on Blu-ray.
10 - Movie commercials say "now available on Blu-ray and DVD" never mentions downloads.
9 - You can't rent TV shows from any download service, but you can buy them on disc.
8 - 24 hour rental window.
7 - 30 day rental limit.
6 - Extras only available on discs
5 - Can't rent HD movies on the PC (only on boxes like the 360, Vudu etc).
4 - Pulls previously available movies from the selection.
3 - About a 30 day window between when a title is released on disc and on download services.
2 - Digital copies are now included with many discs.
1 - Can't buy HD movies from any service."
Those are good points all. To them, I'll add the fact that according to VideoScan, Blu-ray now regularly hits as much as 10% of total sales of new release titles. In addition, there are now over 1,000 Blu-ray Disc titles released or scheduled for release according to the DVD Release Report (1,057 to be exact). That's a significant milestone after just two full years of format availability. Let's go further... as Blu-ray player pricing drops below $200 and even $150 this holiday season and into 2009, buying a Blu-ray player will become a no-brainer. Just a couple days ago, I was at the dentist and the hygienist was talking about how her DVD player had just died and she needed to get a new one. She asked about "this Blu-ray thing," and when I told her that she could get a BD player for under $200 and that it would play all her DVDs too, she was sold on the spot. That story is going to be repeated millions of times next year. ANYONE who walks into a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart looking to replace a broken cheap DVD player is going to learn about cheap Blu-ray/DVD players and think, "Why the hell not?" Have I mentioned the fact that Hollywood is being relentless in getting the word about Blu-ray Disc out? You're not going to see that with downloading. Why, you ask? You want the real clincher? The REAL reason why Blu-ray is going to be around a long time, and downloading isn't going to take over for a very long time? It's not just bandwidth, folks, though that's a problem too and will be for a while. No, the real roadblock is profit. Hollywood studios will NEVER be able to sell you a downloaded movie for $29.99 or $39.99. It'll NEVER happen. That would be like telling hardcore gamers that they can't buy games on physical discs anymore, but they still have to pay $60 for the latest, greatest titles. What this means is that downloading - best case - is going to take over the movie rental market, not sales. Any movie fans who want extras beyond just the movie itself, and want to actually own the content rather than continually rent it again and again, are going to stick with physical media. And that means Blu-ray. Anyone who tells you otherwise A) doesn't understand the home video industry or the movie enthusiast market, is a downloading advocate, or C) preferred HD-DVD and still feels sour grapes. That's not to say everyone who watches DVDs will make the switch to Blu, but this whole idea that Blu-ray isn't here to stay or is going to remain a super-über-high-end niche product is a load of malarkey. I'm just saying. Ben too. (Thanks again, Ben - great talking with you!)
I think the Digital Bits is a great site, but somewhat invested in the idea behind physical media.
The facts he cites are true, but you can interpret the facts in two ways.
Download is irrelevant, because the industry is ignoring it.
The industry is irrelevant because it is ignoring download.
Most films and television shows are already available in HD for free - via illegal downloads.
The consumer demand is there, but the studios are not providing content in ways people want to buy.
Apple and Netflix's offerings are massively compromised by what the industry allow them to do, so you can't evaluate how successful they are. Even Carl Lewis does no't run so great in manacles.
This entire thing happened before. With Music.
They tried to sell us SACD. "It's better quality" was the mantra.
But what happened instead was MP3, Napster, iPod and iTunes. It's all over bar the shouting.
Convenience will win over a marginal quality gain every time. Unless of course, you are a hardcore enthusiast. In which case SACD and BluRay are awesome.
Comments
Thanks for the link. The data looked good for a second, but when you look closely, the data by Nielson is misleading as usual. Even if the presented data is absolutely accurate, the pie percentage shown from the link is by $ amount spent, but not comparing the number of discs sold. I would guess that average movie disc price would easily cost 2X to 4X more for the Blu-ray discs which means that number of discs sold is still less than or equal to about 5-7% of the overall market. Yes, it is still interesting market size.
That's good to know. I did not realize the neilson numbers were dollars and not units sold; however, Blu-Ray disc are at the very most less than double their barebones DVD counterparts, and usually just 1/3 more than their "two disc special edition DVD" counterparts.
That's good to know. I did not realize the neilson numbers were dollars and not units sold; however, Blu-Ray disc are at the very most less than double their barebones DVD counterparts, and usually just 1/3 more than their "two disc special edition DVD" counterparts.
That is true for the newly released titles. I would also think that many less than $10 or even $5 or less DVD titles are also included in the total $ of optical disc sales. As you are aware, even older BD titles are still selling at higher price than the most of the newly released dvd's on the release week. At Best Buy, new release DVD's do come at promo price around $15 on the release week(day?).
Regardless, even 5% of optical market is pretty significant for a niche product considering the current economy.
That's good to know. I did not realize the neilson numbers were dollars and not units sold;
And you're buying that? Good grief, man. Look at the chart again. Notice where it says "Top 20 unit volume." Don't believe everything bitemymac tries to feed you. Even his guesses about pricing are wrong. If you look at say, Iron Man, the two-disc Blu-ray edition retails for $39.99. The two-disc DVD retails for... $39.99. Wow, what a difference, eh? Even at full Amazon discount, there's only a $3 difference. Likewise, the 3-disc edition of Wall-E on Blu-ray has a retail price $1 more than the 3-disc DVD edition. So much for "2X to 4X more for the Blu-ray discs."
Also, check the math. The dollar figures don't jibe. If they were going by those dollar figures, Blu-ray would have over 14%, not 12% as the pie chart says.
We?ve gotten another update from our [Paramount] studio and industry sources on great titles that are in the planning or production stages (or both) for release on Blu-ray Disc in 2009. You can reasonably expect to see most of the Star Trek feature films on the format, as well as Chinatown, Deep Impact, The Ten Commandments, Sunset Boulevard, Apocalypse Now, Breakfast at Tiffany?s, Saturday Night Fever, Flashdance and The Elephant Man. According to our sources, there?s also an outside chance that you MIGHT see Titanic on Blu-ray before the end of 2009. Keep your fingers crossed..
thought someone might like to know.
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so sorry if its already been posted
It's rough economy that is for sure. Blu Ray player sales will be just as poor as everything else this holiday season. If we still had that Regan/Bush - Bush/Quale escalating economy in place, Blu Ray would probably be in 70% more homes than it is, but we don't. You can thank Bill Clinton for surfing that Tsunami tidal wave of good fortune all way into shore. He wanted Change. That's what we got, that's all we got in our pockets. You shouldn't try and change anything that isn't fundamentally broken. That clown pulled the bottom out from under the strongest economy America had ever seen. I saw it coming, and watched it dissipate. It was so clear. I can not believe some people then wanted to elect his wife. They f****d it up once, that was enough for me.
onlooker, were you feeling a little "blue" yesterday? I can imagine how you must feel today!
Your revisionist history is highly amusing. It's almost like reading a delusional fantasy.
Back on topic, it's being widely reported that BD players will drop into <$200 category this Christmas. Hopefully that should give sales a boost.
Back on topic, it's being widely reported that BD players will drop into <$200 category this Christmas. Hopefully that should give sales a boost.
The biggest hurdle for Blu-Ray is that even when it's a $200. buy, its really a $2000. buy.
You have to buy the player, a new widescreen hdtv, good AV cables and upgrade your cable subscription.
The actual player price isn't really the problem anymore. Headed into a recession, the problem is that enough people won't buy the player if they can't afford the add-ons. There are already stories about people having the proper setup and yet still buying DVDs because they're cheaper.
It's rough economy that is for sure. Blu Ray player sales will be just as poor as everything else this holiday season. If we still had that Regan/Bush - Bush/Quale escalating economy in place, Blu Ray would probably be in 70% more homes than it is, but we don't. You can thank Bill Clinton for surfing that Tsunami tidal wave of good fortune all way into shore. He wanted Change. That's what we got, that's all we got in our pockets. You shouldn't try and change anything that isn't fundamentally broken. That clown pulled the bottom out from under the strongest economy America had ever seen. I saw it coming, and watched it dissipate. It was so clear. I can not believe some people then wanted to elect his wife. They f****d it up once, that was enough for me.
Unbelievable that you would actually TYPE that, thinking it is crazy enough..
..Still, it is THIS thread, crazyier crap has been posted.. see Frank above
..Still, it is THIS thread, crazyier crap has been posted.. see Frank above
What's crazy about my comment? HD media has always had that problem.
The whole world has caught a financial flu, with the American market particularly hard hit.
I was watching a show yesterday that said 1 in every 9 houses in areas of Cleveland (I think) has been foreclosed.
The biggest hurdle for Blu-Ray is that even when it's a $200. buy, its really a $2000. buy.
You have to buy the player, a new widescreen hdtv, good AV cables and upgrade your cable subscription.
What, someone put a gun to your head and told you to buy all that?
NA already has 36% HDTV penetration, and the TV is by far the largest expense. AV cables cost nothing. Your cable subscription, game consoles, optical disks can all be upgraded individually as you see fit. Or left as is. It's not like having a better TV makes your SD cable or Wii worthless.
There are already stories about people having the proper setup and yet still buying DVDs because they're cheaper.
And what would be the problem with that? Some movies are not available in hi-def, and some gain too little from it to be worth the difference currently.
Your revisionist history is highly amusing. It's almost like reading a delusional fantasy.
Quite. It seems Onlooker is reporting from an alternate reality, where Bill Clinton has been president for the past eight years, and the eight years before that never happened.
I'm simply saying that those 'extra' costs factor into the decision to purchase a BR player. That's all.
You've got it backwards. The only thing BR is dependent on to be worth it vs. DVD is that you must have a HDTV. That causes an obstacle for slightly over 60% of North Americans, who do not already have one.
It can be argued that HD cable subscriptions and HD game consoles being available indirectly *lower* that obstacle for the 60%, since they are additional *possibilities* which open up when you own a HDTV. Thereby the HDTV purchase that stands in the way of BR consumption becomes better value and easier to stomach.
The biggest hurdle for Blu-Ray is that even when it's a $200. buy, its really a $2000. buy.
You have to buy the player, a new widescreen hdtv, good AV cables and upgrade your cable subscription.
The actual player price isn't really the problem anymore. Headed into a recession, the problem is that enough people won't buy the player if they can't afford the add-ons. There are already stories about people having the proper setup and yet still buying DVDs because they're cheaper.
Frank you have this exactly backwards, a BD player is really an add on to the TV, not the other way around. HD sets are selling and even if that pace drops they're still in homes, so if BD players' price does drop to <$200, I've seen $150 mentioned, it becomes more of an attractive add-on.
You must have noticed that when it comes to human behavior, people just do whatever they want, and the law is just an irritant. Anti drug policies seem to have zero impact.
The record industry wasted years trying to prevent something that had already happened. The genie was out of the box. Adding ever more padlocks to that box was just a waste of money. DRM infected CDs drove even more people away!
The movie people are doing the same thing; comically trying to hang-on to a business model from the previous century. But I agree they'll take some time to reconsider. After a few years, curiosity gets the better of them. They peek inside the box and realise that it's empty.
What the industry does won't change how people chose to use media or technology. They don't have that power.
But the industry *can* attempt to monetize what people are doing.
Alternatively they can just sit there and watch their business model slowly evaporate.
C.
A little food for thought from people in the know.
The Digital Bits recently posted this :
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
Also today, do you recall that rant I posted a couple weeks back about how the talk of Blu-ray's demise was absurd? Our friend Ben Drawbaugh weighed in on the subject over at Engadget as well, and he's clearly of the same mind. Ben and I were e-mailing back and forth recently, and he made a few additional points about Blu-ray and the notion of downloading that I thought were interesting. First, he noted that while Apple was recently thrilled to announce program-to-date high-def TV series sales of $5 million via iTunes download, Blu-ray sold $17 million worth of titles that same week alone. Ben also sent the following, which made me smile...
"Top ten reasons that prove Hollywood is only playing in the downloads world while focusing its real efforts on Blu-ray.
10 - Movie commercials say "now available on Blu-ray and DVD" never mentions downloads.
9 - You can't rent TV shows from any download service, but you can buy them on disc.
8 - 24 hour rental window.
7 - 30 day rental limit.
6 - Extras only available on discs
5 - Can't rent HD movies on the PC (only on boxes like the 360, Vudu etc).
4 - Pulls previously available movies from the selection.
3 - About a 30 day window between when a title is released on disc and on download services.
2 - Digital copies are now included with many discs.
1 - Can't buy HD movies from any service."
Those are good points all. To them, I'll add the fact that according to VideoScan, Blu-ray now regularly hits as much as 10% of total sales of new release titles. In addition, there are now over 1,000 Blu-ray Disc titles released or scheduled for release according to the DVD Release Report (1,057 to be exact). That's a significant milestone after just two full years of format availability. Let's go further... as Blu-ray player pricing drops below $200 and even $150 this holiday season and into 2009, buying a Blu-ray player will become a no-brainer. Just a couple days ago, I was at the dentist and the hygienist was talking about how her DVD player had just died and she needed to get a new one. She asked about "this Blu-ray thing," and when I told her that she could get a BD player for under $200 and that it would play all her DVDs too, she was sold on the spot. That story is going to be repeated millions of times next year. ANYONE who walks into a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart looking to replace a broken cheap DVD player is going to learn about cheap Blu-ray/DVD players and think, "Why the hell not?" Have I mentioned the fact that Hollywood is being relentless in getting the word about Blu-ray Disc out? You're not going to see that with downloading. Why, you ask? You want the real clincher? The REAL reason why Blu-ray is going to be around a long time, and downloading isn't going to take over for a very long time? It's not just bandwidth, folks, though that's a problem too and will be for a while. No, the real roadblock is profit. Hollywood studios will NEVER be able to sell you a downloaded movie for $29.99 or $39.99. It'll NEVER happen. That would be like telling hardcore gamers that they can't buy games on physical discs anymore, but they still have to pay $60 for the latest, greatest titles. What this means is that downloading - best case - is going to take over the movie rental market, not sales. Any movie fans who want extras beyond just the movie itself, and want to actually own the content rather than continually rent it again and again, are going to stick with physical media. And that means Blu-ray. Anyone who tells you otherwise A) doesn't understand the home video industry or the movie enthusiast market,
What's crazy about my comment? HD media has always had that problem.
The whole world has caught a financial flu, with the American market particularly hard hit.
I was watching a show yesterday that said 1 in every 9 houses in areas of Cleveland (I think) has been foreclosed.
Frank do you really want to know how many ( middle class ) personal friends I know that HDTV's already?
A little food for thought from people in the know.
The Digital Bits recently posted this :
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents
I think the Digital Bits is a great site, but somewhat invested in the idea behind physical media.
The facts he cites are true, but you can interpret the facts in two ways.
Download is irrelevant, because the industry is ignoring it.
The industry is irrelevant because it is ignoring download.
Most films and television shows are already available in HD for free - via illegal downloads.
The consumer demand is there, but the studios are not providing content in ways people want to buy.
Apple and Netflix's offerings are massively compromised by what the industry allow them to do, so you can't evaluate how successful they are. Even Carl Lewis does no't run so great in manacles.
This entire thing happened before. With Music.
They tried to sell us SACD. "It's better quality" was the mantra.
But what happened instead was MP3, Napster, iPod and iTunes. It's all over bar the shouting.
Convenience will win over a marginal quality gain every time. Unless of course, you are a hardcore enthusiast. In which case SACD and BluRay are awesome.
C.