backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by jadedeath.. on Apr 15 at 1:54 AM

Blu-ray says it will win against any format

Consumers wanting to take home this year’s best picture, be it Babel or The Departed, have the choice of DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc. According to Frank Simonis, European chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association, consumers three years from now will only look to Blu-ray.

Reuters quoted Simonis during the CeBIT technology trade show in Germany as saying, “Within three years it will just be Blu-ray.”

This isn’t the first bold statement made by members of the Blu-ray Association. During this year’s Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas, the Blu-ray Association announced itself as the winner of the HD format war, claiming that it had bested the competing format of HD DVD.

While analysts label the Blu-ray Association’s announcement at CES as premature, the Blu-ray Disc format has recently taken the HD movie market lead away from HD DVD. Blu-ray movie sales more than doubled those of HD DVD during early 2007, a trend that continued through February. Total sales of Blu-ray movies also recently surpassed HD DVD, although the HD-race still remains a close one.

Simonis’ statement could come from optimism for the upcoming European PlayStation 3 launch on March 23. Sony’s new console is given much credit to Blu-ray’s recent pull ahead against HD DVD, as the PlayStation 3, although a games machine at heart, is not only an excellent Blu-ray movie player, but also the cheapest one on the market.

Even if Blu-ray manages to emerge victorious in the high-definition war, it seems like wishful thinking of Simonis’ part to believe that DVD could be that quickly ousted. According to figures from analyst firm In-Stat, the worldwide DVD player installed base in 2005 consisted of 140.8 million machines. In comparison, there are less than 2 million Blu-ray players in homes today, with the vast majority of those machines being PlayStation 3 consoles.

Blu-ray gaining home entertainment majority in three years would also mean another thing: near full-market penetration of HDTV by 2010. Analysts at Leichtman Research Group Inc. and Kagan Research LLC, however, project that that only 55 percent of U.S. households will have at least one HD-capable set by 2010.

At this point, selling more than 140 million Blu-ray players, ridding the retail space of DVD movies and putting an HDTV in every home within three years sounds like an impossible feat.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'll wait three years then
By PAPutzback on 3/16/2007 9:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
I still don't have an HDTV because there is so little HD content out there. I hope to get one this fall because I think we will finally see decent quality for under 2 grand. Hopefully a 1080P Plasma. But I'll still stick with HD content from my Cable provider. Even on Blue-ray and HD-dvd the data is still compressed. Hopefully in 3 years the next gen holographic discs will be out and will become the standard.




RE: I'll wait three years then
By h0kiez on 3/16/2007 9:22:37 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I still don't have an HDTV because there is so little HD content out there.
I still don't have an HDTV because there is so little HD content out there.

People always say that, and it's really not very true anymore. There is one heck of a lot of content, and most importantly, the things that really need to be in HD are. National sports are almost entirely HD. March Madness is all HD. So is NFL, MLB, and NBA. Most if not all primtime programming on the major networks is in HD, and there's lots of interesting stuff to watch on Dicovery HD and National Geographic HD. Maybe the food network isn't available yet in HD, but who even cares that much?


RE: I'll wait three years then
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 10:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "There is one heck of a lot of [HD] content..."

True. And don't forget that even SD content looks significantly better, when played through a good upscaler onto an HDTV.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 1:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
I definitely agree on this one. Just bought a small 32-inch LCD HDTV for the bedroom because the old one had problems and didn't want to buy an new SD set. With a SD DVD player w/upscaling (set to 720P to match the TV's native resolution) and an HDMI connection to the set, regular DVDs can look REALLY good. Considering that regular DVD's are only $6~20 each I'm not so sure I'd want to pay a lot more for Blu-ray or HD formats. Maybe on the 50+ inch 1080P Plasma (or maybe laser, tbd) we'll get when they come down from the sky in prices there will be a significant difference. But on a small 32" I can't see the newer DVD formats are worth their expense, particularly on the discs themselves which is an ongoing expense.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Lakku on 3/16/2007 2:31:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, with BD and HD-DVD, you also get uncompressed audio, which on a good sound system, can make a real difference. Most people don't care though, but I enjoy BD for this reason, as many of their titles have an actual linear PCM audio track, as opposed to HD-DVDs, which usually just have DD+, even though they are capable of linear PCM.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 2:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
Sound improvement worth the cost differential between a regular DVD and a Blu-Ray disc?


RE: I'll wait three years then
By daftrok on 3/16/2007 3:00:10 PM , Rating: 5
If you have a Blu-ray player already? Then, yes, 1080p and uncompressed audio IS worth the whopping 8-10 extra dollars.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Samus on 3/17/2007 1:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
right, some of the simpsons episodes which are still broadcast in SD res on FOX HD still look great on an HDTV because its at least 480P instead of SD's 480i


RE: I'll wait three years then
By timmiser on 3/17/2007 12:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe the food network isn't available yet in HD, but who even cares that much?


It's funny that you should say that because the Food Network just started broadcasting in HD about 2 months ago!


RE: I'll wait three years then
By rmaharaj on 3/17/2007 7:33:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
there's lots of interesting stuff to watch on Dicovery HD and National Geographic HD.

Maybe for the first week. Ever notice that there is maybe 50-100 total hours of original programming on Discovery HD and NatGeo HD that they rerun over and over? How William Shatner Changed the World is on every single weekend, along with Ultimate SWAT Team, the same episode of Extreme Engineering, and so on. Discovery HD is a nice novelty when you first get HD cable, but it wears off.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By DirthNader on 3/19/2007 8:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is one heck of a lot of content, and most importantly, the things that really need to be in HD are.


I was honestly surprised at the percentage of HD content we watch after we moved up to an HDTV. We probably watch around 10 hours of TV a week, not counting sports (F1 is the only sport we watch religiously). Of that, only one show - Battlestar Galactica - is SD, and that's available in HD is were a little more patient and waited for the reruns on Universal HD.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By MarcLeFou on 3/16/2007 10:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I am wrong but is there even such a thing as a 1080P Plasma ? Most plasma I've seen are barely able to attain basic HDTV resolution (while a bunch are still EDTV!) so has there been a revolution in Plasma processes I've been unaware of ?


RE: I'll wait three years then
By bldckstark on 3/16/2007 11:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
I bought a 50" 1080i Plasma last year for only $200 more than an equivalent LCD. IN MY OPINION , a 1080i plasma looks better than a 1080p LCD or DLP.

I don't know why Worst Buy keeps advertising only EDTV and 720P plasmas, but if you look there are tons of them. I think there are some 1080p's also. They just started NOT advertising the 1080's just before Christmas.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: I'll wait three years then
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2007 11:38:53 AM , Rating: 1
Yes. All LCDs and Plasmas are progressive scan by nature. Any interlaced source will be scaled/converted by the TV to either 720p or, when available, 1080p.

I personally like DLP because it has the strengths of both LCD and Plasma for a much lower cost. The only benefits of LCDs and Plasmas is wall mountable displays. Something I don't care about and am not willing to pay a premium for.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Lakku on 3/16/2007 2:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
DLP isn't cheaper then LCD, at least if you go the front projector route. LCD front projectors offer as good of quality (read, black levels) as many DLPs now a days, and cost a LOT less. My Panasonic projector works great and cost nearly 2 or 3 times less, at the time of purchase, then the nearest DLP competitor that could offer similar performence.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: I'll wait three years then
By alifbaa on 3/16/2007 10:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say that's their ONLY advantage. Plasmas offer the best picture quality, but the worst refresh rate, which makes them less ideal for a person who will play a lot of video games. LCD's are a good mix of picture quality and refresh rate, but above 50" you'll see a "screen door" effect. DLP's have a softer image, but you can get a much bigger screen for the same upfront cost. I say upfront cost because you have to change projection screen bulbs every 2000 hours on a front projector or 6000 hours on a rear projection on average. If you watch 4 hours of TV a day, you'll be changing the $300-400 bulb every 4 years on a rear projector or every 1.3 years on a front. 4 years may be a long enough time to you to make it worth while, but I think you'll do yourself a service when you look at the cost/performance ratio over the long term and make the consideration from that standpoint. BTW, compare the service life of DLPs to the typical modern plasma which will last 30,000 hours. In other words, the electronics will likely fail or you will replace it before the screen reaches its half-life.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 12:25:13 PM , Rating: 1
Actually there is one interlaced plasma. I believe the resolution is 1024x1080 though, so not "true" 1080i which is 1920x1080.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 3:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there is one interlaced plasma. I believe the resolution is 1024x1080 though, so not "true" 1080i which is 1920x1080.


By therealnickdanger on 3/16/2007 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
The major plasma manufacturers (Pioneer, Samsung, Panasonic) currently have several 1080p (1920x1080) panels in production and available for sale. They have been out for a couple months now.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By acer905 on 3/16/2007 11:39:35 AM , Rating: 4
And in my opinion, my 10 year old 32" crt looks better than any tv i have found thats been made in the last 4 years. And, when watching it, standard DVDs give a better, crisper, clearer picture that any high def disc does on a plasma or lcd.


By isaacmacdonald on 3/16/2007 7:42:57 PM , Rating: 1
I have doubts about getting a sharper picture from an old crt than a new plasma or lcd. Along with blinding brightness, sharpness is really the most noteworthy attribute that the technologies share.

That said, my old phillips crt-hdtv produces a far richer and more nuanced picture than anything I've seen from Plasmas, LCDs, or DLPs. Its something you really notice when you run them side by side (I've done this with an LCD and a DLP but not plasma)--direct view crts are really up to the task when it comes to reproducing slight tonal/luminosity differences in shadows and highlights.

Its a trade off: geometry, sharpness, and brightness (this one is pretty useless IMO) versus color richness and ability to reproduce subtle parts of the picture. In the case of movies, I gladly sacrifice geometry and sharpness for the benefits of the CRT. Unfortunately my TV weighs approximately 8-tons, so when I move out I'll probably be forced to make the switch.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 1:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there are some 1080P (or "fullHD") Plasmas. IOW, having 1920 x 1080 native resolution. That's what I've been waiting for to replace our main TV set. They're here finally, but they're something like $4~5K. So they need a bit more time for the prices to come down. They had to redesign the cells for this density, I understand, so having that new design mature a bit may be a good thing anyway.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By ElJefe69 on 3/16/2007 2:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
there is a 1080p plasma.

panasonic has one but not circulating at the moment.

Pioneer, um, pioneered it. They have had a 1080p 50" plasma for about 4 months now solid. It is a part of their PRO line. very few if any dealers are allowed to carry them and so they are not advertised as it would kill the dealers who can only sell the pdp series models.

It is sick expensive though. I would rather get a 1080p 46" new series Samsung LCD.
LN-T4665F

That model is the newest series, not the LNS, but LNT. It has insane contrast ratio. It costs less than a 50" 1080p pioneer plasma, by a couple of thousand dollars.

still, wealthy people buy plasmas and so the pioneer is a much wanted item. I think they look a bit better in general, but really, they are terribly made. So many I have to take back that are damaged. They crush themselves in shipping, overheat, all sorts of shoddy crap. Panasonic, hitachi are the most common brands and both come into this country busted up.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 3:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there is at least one, 65" Panasonic, and it's $10,000.
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-cglSnPWeZ8S/cgi-bin/P...


RE: I'll wait three years then
By ElJefe69 on 3/16/2007 4:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
they are selling that shit 15% higher than you should be paying. at least.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By kleinwl on 3/16/2007 12:00:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I still don't have an HDTV because there is so little HD content out there


I'm with this guy. Why buy an HDTV when there is a 30% price drop (or more) every year, picture quality (contrast ratio, brightness, scaler performance) improves every year, and still 90% of all content is in SD?

I am considering HD when Directv gets D*10 up and running and all the new channels (CNN, etc) are broadcast. But even then... I may wait. Most "HD" broadcast on Directv are at 1280x1080... not exactly hd anyway.

Looking at Displaysearch and iSupply, the price war is not going to stop anytime soon... so I can just keep on waiting and keep on having the option for better features at much lower prices.

Really... if you care so much about HD... invest in a 5.1 system first... that make more of a difference to the sense of "being there" than any little screen with pictures.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 12:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why buy an HDTV when there is a 30% price drop (or more) every year"

Because life is short...and prices will continue to decline (and technology continue to improve) from now till the day you die.

> "Most "HD" broadcast on Directv are at 1280x1080... not exactly hd anyway."

Sure it is. That's over 4X the pixels of a SDTV broadcast. Its a substantial increase in picture detail and clarity.

> "if you care so much about HD... invest in a 5.1 system first... that make more of a difference to the sense of "being there"

I disagree. Based on extensive viewing on both my 60" FP DLP and the 103" RP screen in my dedicated media room, the screen size and picture quality are the most important factors for immersion. Second is a good subwoofer...at least for action movies. Coming in third is surround sound.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 1:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because life is short...and prices will continue to decline (and technology continue to improve) from now till the day you die.


The rate of declining prices and quality improvements is much higher when the technology is new rather than later when it matures. Things like processors don't have a "lid" on performance so it's open-ended -- so your comment is a good one for things like computers. However, HDTV is standards limited like NTSC was before it. Resolution stops increasing at 1920 x 1080 (the point just being reached now) and the more subtle things start being worked on more. An NTSC TV, for instance, is a "technology" product but SD tv's haven't changed in quality significantly in a very long time and those improvments that have happened, happened at a slow rate. The NTSC format itself limits it. HDTV's already have slowed down their improvement rates, although the price declinations have continued nicely. I personally am still waiting for the "fullHD" 50+ inch plasmas. They just arrived so within the next year or two, the time will have arrived for us at least.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 1:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
> "However, HDTV is standards limited like NTSC was before it. Resolution stops increasing at 1920 x 1080 (the point just being reached now)"

But higher resolutions are already being discussed...and resolution is-- despite the hype-- only one small component of overall image quality. In three years, resolution may not have increased past 1080p, but contrast, brightness, color rendition, compression artifact removal, and many other factors will have. And by then, the highest-end sets will likely be 2160p.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 2:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly my point. Resolution will stop improving, then there will be improvements that will be smaller and smaller in difference as time goes on.

Yes there has been hype about higher resolutions but it'll never happen. Not anytime soon anyway. HDTV is the first change in more than half a century and it STILL hasn't changed over. There may be the ability to have higher resolution, but that has been here for decades. What won't happen anytime soon is the change of the infrastructure. The production of the content will be 1080 (at best) for a long time -- as well as it's distribution over the air and other means. May not take another 60~70 years, but it won't change before the current change is "done" and it'll be a while before that happens (theoretically early 2009 for broadcast, but I bet that gets delayed a year or two longer, again).


RE: I'll wait three years then
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "HDTV is the first change in more than half a century."

No, not really. You have to remember that broadcast standards are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Excluding broadcasts, then in the last 20 years alone, we've gone from 240i (VHS) to 480i (original DVD) to 480p (DVD-p) and now to 1080p (HD-DVD/BD). And you can already buy displays above 1080p resolution, though finding any content above that is almost nonexistent.

But convergence is a reality, and government-mandated broadcast standards don't rule the roost any more. In five years time, I guarantee you'll see a few "super-HD" discs being sold, and within ten years, a successor video format intended for mass market consumption.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Oregonian2 on 3/16/2007 7:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Those other changes aren't changes in standards. All of those you show listed are either NTSC or HDTV standard formats (or subsets of them).

Yes, I take back what I said before. Resolutions can be easily changed if the resolution of the device is lower than the standard's maximum resolution. I assumed that changes would always be for the better and only that'd be talked about. I stand corrected. The resolution you show for VHS is a severely LOWER than that of the NTSC standard of half-century ago. And in any case is up-converted to full NTSC before exiting the player on it's way to the TV set (vertical resolution anyway, it's always 525 lines/frame going to the TV, horizontal is analog so it has no problem being low). 480P is an abberation of sorts and ONLY plays on digital TV's and is a part of this new digital TV standard (which has many more modes other than 1080 which is at the high end of the list).

quote:
though finding any content above that is almost nonexistent.


Yes, exactly my point. This has always been the point. Technology has been able to produce MUCH better video for a LONG time. Problem has been the insane cost to replace the infrastructure of content creation and move it to the higher resolution. That has happened ONLY by government mandate. If it weren't for that there would be no HDTV stuff at all. None. It's in a chicken-and-egg stalemate otherwise.

Despite what you may think, the broadcast channels (and their related networks) are very powerful and a significant part of the market either picked up directly or via cable/satellite channels. Their content will (eventually) be 1080 at best, and will not likely improve until the next government mandate. Too expensive. Local channels cut their staff to a bone as it is to maximize profits, they're not going to rebuy everything they own unless forced to.

Further, cable (and satellite) don't AFAIK, have enough bandwidth currently available to supply ALL channels HDTV, let alone even higher bandwidth needed for something with greater resolution.
The expense for upgrading the infrastructure is enormous and even the current upgrades I'm sure are expected to be amortized over a very long time. I've DirecTV now, and only a few of the zillion channels are available HDTV (and even then, I suspect it's only 720 resolution). They've two very expensive satellites going up, but even then I don't think they could have all of their channels HD (although they may have all those available in HD, HD). It'll take ten years just to get everything HD, and maybe longer before it's all 1080.

Mind you I'd love to see your scenario be true, but historically I seriously doubt it could happen. Economics of the infrastructure is the problem, as such.

Hopefully a niche can be economically made where some higher res can happen, even if it's disc-movies only on full Blu-ray discs using H.264. But it would be a hard sell for TV makers to be able to get the big dollars from customers for just that in a big enough way such that they can have the volume high enough to get costs down on TVs to handle it.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By goku on 3/21/2007 7:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong about the government mandate. The government mandate is not for everyone to have 1080p or 720p, all the mandate says is to have digital TV, thats it, nothing else. So at 525 lines on an SD TV, you can have either digital or analog signal, the government has opted for the broadcasters to have digital signal coming in.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By CorrND on 3/16/2007 12:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
In my opinion, 5.1 is grossly overrated. I had 5.1 for years and when I moved into my new place a year ago, I dropped it to 3.1 (LF, C, RF, Sub). The center channel is wonderful for enhancing dialog, and the sub is amazing for action movies, but there are incredibly few movies and TV sources that make good use of the rear speakers. And even when it does, it's mostly stuff like birds chirping in the background that adds very little to the experience. Plus, rear speakers frequently present placement and wiring issues. No more for me.

The jump to HDTV, on the other hand, is a FANTASTIC improvement in the experience of watching a movie...vivid, detailed, lifelike video. Improvements to video will always trump improvements to audio in my book.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By ElJefe69 on 3/16/2007 2:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
WOW!

someone who understands this! yes, 5.1+ is a waste. 2 speakers is optimal if you have the cash for the best, add in a center channel for conversation and its good for dvds who have the effects at retarded levels but the convos at mealy mouth mumbling levels. A sub always compliments for atmosphere and can be placed anywhere in the room.

yeah the two back speakers are trash. I wish they made more tech for 3.1. i am totally with you!


RE: I'll wait three years then
By themadmilkman on 3/16/2007 6:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps your speakers aren't set up right? There is a definite benefit to having speakers behind you.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By CorrND on 3/16/2007 8:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a definite benefit to having speakers behind you.
I told myself that for years and I really wanted to believe it. Then, like I said, I took out the rear speakers and I haven't looked back. Maybe there's more rear speaker content in games, as therealnickdanger said, but I don't play games much and wouldn't know. I just know that the rear speakers made very little difference for my DVDs and HDTV sources.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By timmiser on 3/17/2007 12:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe you guys! I'll sit and listen to any 5.1 broadcast and I still never cease to be amazed about the surround sound and it is the rear speakers that make it impressive.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By corduroygt on 3/16/2007 2:40:05 PM , Rating: 1
Dolby digital 5.1 is really not necessary in my opinion as well, however, movies, especially action movies encoded in DTS make a BIG difference. I wish all dvds offered a DTS soundtrack, sure it takes up almost 500 megs on the dvd but it's worth it. Only 10% of dvds I watched had DTS sound, and everytime it continued to amaze me. Usually I can't even tell the difference between dolby digital and 3.1 though.


By therealnickdanger on 3/16/2007 3:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
The lack of surround audio isn't the fault of the format, but the content. Audio production is difficult and costs money. In defense of those under-appreciated surround speakers, modern games are able to give them quite a workout. 5.1 is remarkable when properly applied.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By timmiser on 3/17/2007 12:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why buy an HDTV when there is a 30% price drop (or more) every year


So I take it you finally recently junked the old VCR and have moved on to those cool new DVDs now that DVD players have bottomed out at the $20 price point.

I wouldn't jump on a new standard def TV just yet. In a couple of years, they will practically be given away!

;)


RE: I'll wait three years then
By timmiser on 3/17/2007 12:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am considering HD when Directv gets D*10 up and running and all the new channels (CNN, etc) are broadcast. But even then... I may wait. Most "HD" broadcast on Directv are at 1280x1080... not exactly hd anyway.


The whole DirecTV HD promotion is a misrepresentation of facts. They present their commercials to make people believe that they'll have 100 hi-def channels in a year. They'll have the "capability" to show that but in reality, they are so far behind the DishTV network in HD content and will never catch up with them unless they create their own HD channels to broadcast.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By DerekWilson on 3/16/2007 4:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
HD content provided over calbe is lower resolution with more compression than BD. Cable providers aren't giving us uncompressed HD streams, as they have bandwidth concerns which limit the number of HD channels they provide. They see higher compression as enabling them to offer more content in HD.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By jtyson on 3/16/2007 5:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
Say what you want, but that "three years" statement actually makes a lot of sense. I don't think that in three years the DVD format will be phased out entirely, but I do think that Blu-Ray will have made HD-DVD obsolete, and be preferred by most over DVD. At the rate people are buying HD TVs (and buying Blu-Ray, for that matter), I think this statement has some validity.


RE: I'll wait three years then
By Schadenfroh on 3/16/2007 8:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, comcast does not offer much HDTV programming in my area and I will just wait untill my Sony Trinitron dies before buying a new TV, might be a while.


3 years?
By Mitch101 on 3/16/2007 9:03:40 AM , Rating: 5
Somehow I doubt in 3 years time we will see BlueRay set top units in Target for $40.00. Plus in 3 years time I dont see all the standard televisions winding up the trash being replaced by digital ones when most people are prefectly happy with DVD at 480i.

Im also probably going to skip the whole HD-DVD and BLUE-RAY war. Mainly because of DRM and my 65" HDTV is DVI not HDMI. The only way I can pay back the movie industry for this is to not buy DRM infected media.

I have Media Center with HD tuners and will proably pick up a HD-PVR from Direct TV for Movies. Maybe even do a XBOX 360 and have downloaded HD movie. Otherwise I am perfectly fine with 1080i with my $250.00 IODATA Linkplayer 2.

I am looking forward to a OTA HD-PVR with no subscription fees to replace my Media Center box if one comes along.




RE: 3 years?
By therealnickdanger on 3/16/2007 9:11:38 AM , Rating: 4
The one thing people currently don't seem to find all that relevant is the fact that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD aren't just squaring off against eachother, but DVD, popular On-Demand and Free-On-Demand services, as well as emerging online download services. As far as movie formats go, I honestly can't see discs being that relevant in three years. I'm sure there will be a market, but I don't think either disc format will ever have close to the same market penetration of DVD.


RE: 3 years?
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2007 9:34:25 AM , Rating: 1
I don't totally agree. A lot of people don't like the intangibleness of downloads. Even me being really into the latest tech, I prefer having a tangible copy of something. I would much rather buy a DVD and rip it to my computer, than pay to download a movie and have to make a backup copy. Downloads can be corrupted, backup copies of downloads can be corrupted. If ripping a DVD to my PC gets corrupted the first time, I just redo it without it costing me extra anything but time (and far less than having to re-download a whole movie).

Now granted, that average consumer doesn't know how to rip a DVD to their PC let alone hook up things to watch video on their TV from their computer.

But for me, by the end of this year 500GB drives will likely be in the $100 range. So then my only problem becomes having enough space in PC cases to put them in. :) Can't wait till I build a home. I plan to have a closet with a wall panel of network outlets that all plug into a Cisco switch. By the time this happens, 1TB hard drives will also be cheaper so I'll do an 8TB RAID 5 (7TB usable - formatting).


RE: 3 years?
By codeThug on 3/16/2007 9:53:52 AM , Rating: 3
massive agreement. If I pay $ for the content, I want a backed up copy of it on plastic. That goes for movies, games and software.


RE: 3 years?
By ZeeStorm on 3/16/2007 9:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
But then it'll end up costing you yearly, in your electric bill, the same if you just bought Blu-Ray and the appropriate BRD for each movie that you run on your computer, haha.


RE: 3 years?
By therealnickdanger on 3/16/2007 10:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
I am with you, I've got a RAID media server where I keep photos, movies, TV shows, music, etc. for access via other computers or Xbox360s in the house. It's the only way to go, but it's not simple (for laymen) and it took a lot of time to get it all at the point it is now. I'm excited for 1TB drives to come out so I can move away from disc-based backups completely.

I agree that a lot of customers want a physical product, which is why I suggested that there will still be a market - just not a large one, because I think that group of people will shrink as they embrace different products. In reality, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sales are both in the toilet compared to DVD, which is to be expected this early in the game, and the horizon is filled with many services that are already encroaching on tangible products.

Many of my friends (not technically savvy, very representative of mainstream consumers) have cable/sat and have expressed that they no longer have any need to buy DVDs. Between the supplied DVR and on-demand services supplied, they haven't bought any movies or TV shows in about a year. There are the occasional "must have" movie releases that aren't offered via cable/sat immediately, but how long before that changes?

At this point, I see the victory of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD as irrelevant - not because they suck or anything, but because when your average Joe Consumer weighs the cost of his cable/sat service every month (~$100 per month for everything) versus a $600 "next generation" disc player and a small collection of $25 movies that he doesn't want with formats he doesn't understand, his decision is pretty simple.

There are, of course, the early adopters (myself included), the theater-philes (myself included), and the folks that don't have or don't want access to cable/sat, but cable/sat adoption is ever-expanding, with IPTV coming up quickly as well. The BD/HD groups can claim victory in the disc-based market if they want, but in 3-5 years, it will be a shallow victory.


RE: 3 years?
By jadedeath on 4/15/2007 1:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
totally agree here, for all those folks who think downloading is the way of the future, how many of them know EVERYONE that they've had as friends for the last 5 years haven't had at least one of them have a problem with their computer {or other electrical storage device}?

I'm willing to bet not one person on the planet can make that claim.

So yeah BD is the way to go if you want something solid.

Logan


RE: 3 years?
By xuimod on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: 3 years?
By ZeeStorm on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: 3 years?
By therealnickdanger on 3/16/2007 10:11:00 AM , Rating: 1
^^^

Seriously, I want this guy to have a 5-rating. Rate him up, please! He owned me completely by not even touching on the subject of the article or responding to anything related to what I wrote. I now stand before you all, broken and pooned.


RE: 3 years?
By xuimod on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: 3 years?
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2007 1:52:56 PM , Rating: 1
"And that brings me to my next point kids. Don't smoke crack."


RE: 3 years?
By corduroygt on 3/16/2007 2:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
lol! I loved waterboy


RE: 3 years?
By outsider on 3/18/2007 5:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
And I suggest you go consummate yourself with yourself right where you are now.


RE: 3 years?
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2007 11:29:59 AM , Rating: 1
Congrats, you have just shown everyone how much of an idiot you are.

Nor can you even spell the name of a game you're bragging about and has nothing to do with the conversation.


RE: 3 years?
By TheDoc9 on 3/16/2007 10:07:40 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree completely. The quality of drm movies has never even come close to that of physical media. So the quality would have to greatly improve. On top of that, the price of DRM media is always the same or sometimes higher than physical media. So the price would need to come down a lot.

Then their's the fact that DRM media can't be transfered anywhere to other devices, causing you to have to re-re-re-re-re-buy the same media over and over and over again - just like some people are doing with old Nintendo games on the wii (and the marketers are loving it, getting pay raises, getting women/men, enjoying your complacency and your money).

If you like purchasing something you've already paid for, go ahead and do it, I'll pass. Then there's the fact of the drm company revoking or possibly loosing your 'license' to watch - as if it's a privilege. And to top all of that off, the psychological fact of not actually feeling ownership for intangible media.

Of course, the more people accept it, the more we will have drm down-loadable media and it become mainstream, simply because of the weakness of most people to accept and realize what they are loosing. No one should purchase any DRM product, only buy the physical media.


RE: 3 years?
By rdeegvainl on 3/16/2007 11:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
Good points, except for the Wii one. I don't personally have a Wii (no jokes please) but I believe they sell them for much cheaper than the original releases. also not having to keep the old system around is kind of nice too. I do have alot of old games that they remade onto the DS, well actually the GBA. I just got Final Fantasy 4 to complete my 1-6 collection FTW. So depending on how they go about doing it, it can be very affective. Now I shall go back to work. Good day to all, and to all a happy St. Patricks day, for many of you won't be able to pronounce HD-DVD tomorrow night!


RE: 3 years?
By therealnickdanger on 3/16/2007 2:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not quite understanding your point. Your first three paragraphs set up your argument as to why intangible, DRM products won't be successful, then your last paragraph unravels those points to support my argument.

So which is it? Do people avoid DRM movies because they want tangible products of high quality or will they embrace DRM movies because they don't care about quality and act as sheep? If the success of iTunes, cable/sat OnDemand, Xbox Live, and countless other "pay-for-intangible-DRMed-product" services are any indication, I believe the latter to be true, no matter how disappointing it may be. Ba-a-a-a-a!


RE: 3 years?
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 4:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
Blu-ray and HD-DVD both have "DRM"....

It's unlikely we will see full-1080p, full-bit rate movies for download any time soon.

Even stripping out all the "extra" features, alternate language tracks, etc... most Blu-ray movies tip the scales at over 20 GB. Even at cable speeds, most people don't want to wait 20 hours for a movie to download. God help those stuck on dialup/DSL..

The movies available on the Xbox service are 720p and extra-heavily compressed (ie less than 10 megabits/sec compared to 20-30 megabits for a full disc release).


RE: 3 years?
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 12:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well you're an idiot because Blu-ray (not BLUE ray..) works just fine with DVI. Hell it works just fine with Component (YPbPr) at least until Hollyweird decides to be dicks and turn on the ICT flag.


RE: 3 years?
By leexgx on 3/16/2007 6:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
the work around for that is Anydvd and rip the disk hmm,
Skip riping the disk anydvd would make it playable in the pc over HDMI/DVI/RGB or if your wanting it to play in the HD player just rip it burn it with all the stuff removed


RE: 3 years?
By ElJefe69 on 3/16/2007 2:19:46 PM , Rating: 2
Most people who are purchasing a dvd player for their main tv setup currently spend 119 dollars. Panasonic and sony dominate this sector pretty well in ny at this price. Lots of people are buying combo units as well which cost even more. Many are also buying hdmi upconverting dvd players that go for 149+.

people at target arent the be all and end all of consumer profits.


only 140 million?
By johnsonx on 3/16/2007 11:12:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
140.8 million machines


That's it, installed DVD players world wide is only 140 million? That seems rather low. If this number were quoted for just USA, I'd think it was higher than I imagined but not out of the question. But for the whole world?




RE: only 140 million?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 11:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
> "That's it, installed DVD players world wide is only 140 million?"

According to the DVD Forum, in 2006 alone, over 110 million standalone DVD players were shipped, and an additional 290 million DVD drives sold. The above figure admittedly does appear to be inaccurate.


RE: only 140 million?
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 1:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Total DVD players in the US = 121,649,142
(thedigitalbits.com)
More world-wide, of course.


RE: only 140 million?
By corduroygt on 3/16/2007 2:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget to add notebooks shipped with DVD drives, which is almost all of them. And I know millions of them are sold every year.


RE: only 140 million?
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 3:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that number includes computer-type DVD-ROM drives at all.


RE: only 140 million?
By therealnickdanger on 3/16/2007 3:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Probably doesn't include videogame consoles either. There's well over 100 million PS2s, PS3s, Xboxes, and Xbox360s out there.


RE: only 140 million?
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 4:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed:
quote:
*Sales to dealers since 3/97. DVD/VCR combination players included, but not DVD-ROM drives & game systems.


I'll make you a deal...
By BMFPitt on 3/16/2007 9:09:56 AM , Rating: 5
If you can find a home anywhere in America without a Blu-Ray player in 3 years, I'll give you $1200!




RE: I'll make you a deal...
By degziebob on 3/16/2007 9:16:19 AM , Rating: 2
LOL ...

HD-DVD for the WIN !!!


RE: I'll make you a deal...
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2007 1:54:48 PM , Rating: 1
You forgot to add "...thats been on the shelf for more than 5 minutes..."

:)


RE: I'll make you a deal...
By FITCamaro on 3/16/2007 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 1
Oops. I read your post wrong. DOH!


RE: I'll make you a deal...
By ddawg on 3/16/2007 11:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
Some hard data: there were 250k Blu-ray discs sold in the US in February, versus 125k HD DVD discs - player wise, both formats sold the same amount but that's not including the PS3. Now we can put that into perspective: when DVD was launched, 2.3 million discs were shipped in the first quarter. Compare that to the number of players sold - 77'000 in the same quarter. That should tell us two things: 1) the HD formats won't be adopted as fast as DVD was, and 2) considering the massive amount of Blu-ray capable devices already out there, the # discs sold per player ratio is not only low for both formats, it's outright abysmal for Blu-ray. That just goes to show how much a ratio means if you can't put it into perspective.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6422898.htm...
http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/CES010807...


Ummm not likely
By Trogdor on 3/16/2007 10:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
If you guys are going to report a 2 million Blu-Ray player userbase (including the PS3), then should you not also include PS2, Xbox, and Xbox 360 as DVD players as well for a proper comparison? The userbase of standalone Blu-Ray players is miniscule, as is HDDVD.

Seeing as there are over 100 million PS2's sold, 25 or so million Xbox's and 11 million Xbox 360's, your comparison is not being true or "fair" to DVD. By rough estimates, there are around 277 million DVD players out there if you combine the numbers. With that in mind you can truly see how insignificant Blu-Ray and HDDVD are in the overall picture.

Stating in 3 years Blu-Ray will be all that's left is quite an ignorant statement. Basically, it's pretty much not bloody likely. As well, with all of the different types of digital distribution competing with these next gen HD formats, I don't see Blu-Ray or HDDVD being the sole anything in 3 years, I see them both being obsolete.

They can state whatever they like, but I believe that DVD will outlast both of them until a true digital distribution service takes over completely. The vast majority of people out there (hundreds of millions) are quite happy with the DVD format and the sales show it, DVD sales haven't been dying down because of these HD formats at all.




RE: Ummm not likely
By Legolias24 on 3/16/2007 11:27:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well Trogdor (awesome name by the way: "Trogdor, the Burnanator! TROGDOOOOOOR!!!!!!"), the only problem with the first two paragraphs of your post (the rest of your post I agree with :P) is that you're assuming that of the 136 million people that own a PS2, Xbox or 360, none of them own a separate stand alone DVD player. I think you will find that a large chunk of the PS2/XBox/360 install base also owns a standalone DVD player effectively canceling any additions to the install base the game consoles would've added.

The bottom line is, the user base that is being looked at doesn't necessarily look at how many DVD players there are just how many homes have them. If you have a standalone unit, your house gets added to the total. If you have a console unit, your house gets added total. If you have both a console and a standalone unit, your house gets added but still is only added once despite you having multiple units.

- Legolias


RE: Ummm not likely
By Trogdor on 3/16/2007 1:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're quite right, that was definitely an oversight on my part. I do know quite a few people who only own a PS2 and use that as their DVD players. Anecdotal evidence sure, but does serve to prove a point. Would that already be factored into their 141 million?

Anyway, either way the difference in the userbase between DVD and Blu-Ray/HDDVD is so staggering that my previous point still stands. >;)


RE: Ummm not likely
By AlexWade on 3/16/2007 4:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sony's has already assumed they won the format war. Which is a bogus claim. HD DVD is down, but certainly not out. If HD DVD can deliver on sub $200 by Christmas, there is a distinct possibility that Blu-Ray won't even beat HD DVD, much less replace DVD.

And if true universal players become cheap, it will all be irrelevant. The LG player isn't a true universal player because it doesn't support HD DVD's advanced interactive features, such as picture-in-picture.


RE: Ummm not likely
By ddawg on 3/16/2007 11:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
Would Blu-ray even stand a chance without Sony's massive subsidization? Blu-ray has been available in Europe for a while, but two weeks before the PS3 launches, HD DVD currently makes up for 85% of the next generation format market in Europe. It almost makes me wish that Microsoft would step up their HD DVD commitment and start selling Xboxes with a built-in HD DVD drive, just to even the odds.

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20070308PD200.ht...


By danskmacabre on 3/16/2007 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
The whole HDDVD vs Bluray coupled with the wide range of various HD TVs out there is just oo much for me.

I have an old Tv with a VHS (the VHSS I hardly ever use).
I also have a DVD player which I use quite a bit.
It works fine for me ATM.

I'm just not interested enough in HD to try and figure what to get at this time.

When my old Tv eventually dies, I will probably get a HD Tv, but that could be years from now.

I suspect I probably won't bother with HDDVD or Bluray and hopefully on demand in HD will be available with appropriate download speeds.




By masher2 (blog) on 3/16/2007 11:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "When my old Tv eventually dies, I will probably get a HD Tv..."

When your old TV dies, you probably won't have a choice but to replace it with an HDTV. Standard-definition TVs are getting very hard to find....in a few years, they'll be gone entirely.


By danskmacabre on 3/16/2007 11:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
Which is fine for me really, as by the time my old Tv dies, HD tvs will be a price range I am willing to pay.


By marvdmartian on 3/18/2007 3:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that most places you go into now, the hdtv's far outnumber the sdtv's, you can still walk into places like Walmart, and find plenty of tube style tv's. Let's face it, as long as there's still rednecks, there'll still be a market for a 27" tv set for <$200!! ;)

Hey, if you want a quick way to replace your old tube style tv sets, have a natural gas explosion at your house! Happened to me, and blew my old JCPenney (RCA) 19" tv set right out the window! Don't believe me? Check out this:

http://img18.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=49376_10...
(the tv blown out the window)

And if you're wondering what the rest of the house looked like, after the blast:
http://img9.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=49388_100...
(front of the house)
http://img170.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=49398_1...
(back of the house, broken into 3 pieces, blown off the remainder of the house)

Needless to say, even without a fire, there was a LOT of loss! The insurance company is replacing that 19" tv set, and a 32" widescreen Aiwa tv I picked up a few years ago. I'm being smart, and replacing them with new technology! :)


By danskmacabre on 3/19/2007 6:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds interesting, I'll check those videos out when I get home.

I don't actually use the TV for TV stations anymore, I disconnected my Satellite service some time back.
I don't even receive Terrestrial Tv anymore.
Just use it for the occasional DVD.

We decided Tv was a waste of time most of TV these days is reality programmes anyway and not worth watching.
As a family, we get a lot more done and have more quality time together with no TV.

If I want to see a movie, I'll get a dvd and when (legal) internet on demand movies is commonplace (and the appropriate downloads speeds for downloading HD content are available) , I'll go that way.


Blue-ray
By Springtime on 3/16/2007 12:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think in three years Hi-Def movies will be distributed in a memory stick (flash memory). Both formats will die slowly.




RE: Blue-ray
By marvdmartian on 3/16/2007 2:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! I just lost a 200+ dvd collection, due to a natural gas explosion at the rental house I was living in (that's a no-shitter.....blew the back of the house off!!), and my insurance is paying out to the max.
When I replace my dvd collection, do they really think I'm going to buy a $500+ player, then spend upwards of $50 each on those 200 videos, in order to replace them? Especially when I can (and did) buy a $100 upconverting dvd player with hdmi, and pay $5 to $10 for most of those dvds to replace them? Let's do the math:

dvd player ($100) + 200dvd's @ $10 each ($2000, and I'm probably over-estimating that!) = $2100

blu-ray player ($599 @ Newegg, their cheapest set-top model) + 200blu-ray movies @ $25 each ($5000, and that's likely under-estimated!!) = $5500, or more than twice (nearly 3x) as much!!

Yeah, I think I'll stick with dvd, for now! Chances are, by the time a "winner" is chosen, between hd-dvd & blu-ray, that something newer, better, and ultimately, cheaper, will come along. And if it doesn't, in 3 years (hopefully!!) whichever format wins will finally have their prices down to a reasonable level, as dvd's are today!


RE: Blue-ray
By walk2k on 3/16/2007 3:18:47 PM , Rating: 1
Not.

If you seriously think 50-GB memory sticks will be a feasible mass-duplication media format in 3 years, pass the dutchie bro.


RE: Blue-ray
By ddawg on 3/16/2007 11:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
SanDisk Introduces 4-Gigabyte SanDisk Extreme III Cards
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?...

SanDisk today expanded its SanDisk Extreme III pro line with a 4-Gigabyte SDHC (SD High Capacity) Class 6 memory card and a 4-Gigabyte Memory Stick PRO Duo card.

As an added bonus, the SDHC card will be packaged with a SanDisk MicroMate USB 2.0 Reader - a $20 value - so that users have a one-stop solution for capturing, storing and transferring their images. A 4GB SanDisk Extreme III card can store more than 2,000 high-resolution pictures or up to 8 hours of MPEG 4 video.

"The SanDisk Extreme III line has become a best-of-class standard for professional photographers who demand speed, durability and reliability," said Tanya Chuang, SanDisk's director of retail product marketing, global imaging market. "Now we're raising the bar again with these new cards. And by including an SDHC-compatible reader with each SDHC card, we're enabling users to easily transfer images from their cameras to their computers."

The SanDisk Extreme III 4GB SDHC card has a sequential read/write speed of 20 megabytes per second, while the SanDisk Extreme III 4GB Memory Stick PRO Duo card has a sequential read/write speed of 18 MB per second. Both cards are designed for shooting in extreme temperatures (-13 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit or -25 to 85 degrees Celsius), high altitudes and other demanding situations.

Both cards have speed rating of Class 6, the highest available, meaning that they have a minimum continuous data transfer rate of 6MB/second.


By ddawg on 3/16/2007 10:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Nintendo Wii top-selling game console
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070316/tc_nm/videogam...

Consumers bought 335,000 Wii consoles and 127,000 of Sony Corp.'s (6758.T) PlayStation 3 consoles in February. Both systems debuted in November, and the Wii is priced at $250, compared with the $600 top-end version of the PS3.

Microsoft Corp.'s (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) Xbox 360, which came out in November 2005, sold 228,000 units , making it the second-biggest selling console in February.

Nintendo Wii Outsells Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20070316/tc_nf/50789;_y...
Every week or so those wacky guys over at Sony re-release the same delusional propaganda in the hopes the sheeple will buy into their fantasy -- there is more than a little resistance to Blue Ray to which Sony can thank it's draconian DRM for. Meanwhile HD DVD remains the choice for the majority,

Get informed: http://www.doom9.org




By ddawg on 3/16/2007 11:07:19 PM , Rating: 1
Sony said in January it expected losses in its game unit to exceed its previous estimate of 200 billion yen this business year, but would aim to break even on games in the year starting April 1.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/tc_nm/sony_ps3...

200 billion Yen = US 1,713,208.860000

And yet sony's sales are far behind schedule world wide. At the rate which Sony is losing cash one can not help but ponder if today's Sony Corp. will even exist in 3-5 years if they continue to bet on a losing horse (Blue Ray)

Is it any big surprise the PS2 outsold the PS3 in Japan during the Christmas 2006 season


By jadedeath on 4/15/2007 1:54:22 AM , Rating: 2
Are you intentionally that ignorant or did you get taught to be that way in school?

Sony owns MGM and Columbia-Tristar, which means that for those two companies any profit that Blu-Ray makes them {like in Casino Royale for example} goes straight into their pockets.

They're taking a hit on the hardware so they can get the name and consoles out there. People constantly try to separate that HD players are beating Blu-Ray players outside of PS3's, well guess what sunshine you can't do that because a PS3 *IS* a Blu-Ray player.

And I'm betting on the fact that you're a 360 fanboy so all I have to finish off this statement with is this, how well is the 360 doing in Japan? oh, wait, they've already been outsold in TOTALS by the PS3, nevermind.

Logan


It might be HD-DVD's fault
By theaerokid on 3/16/2007 9:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
The players might be significantly cheaper, but where is that big cost difference in the discs? It was supposed to give HD-DVD this market edge, but they both seem to be at roughly the same price point. That, and the Sony marketing machine might be the thing to put HD-DVD in the coffin.




RE: It might be HD-DVD's fault
By on 3/16/2007 12:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
HD-DVD was being priced cheaper than Blu-Ray.
Then they came out with that assinine HD-DVD/DVD combo-disk format, with both HD and regular DVD versions of the movie on one disc, and charging an even higher price for it. Most people don't understand the difference, but certainly notice the high price.

Result: Anyone interested in the regular DVD version will just buy the 'normal DVD' format at about half the price. Anyone looking at 'HD' discs will see the Blu-Ray titles about $5 or so cheaper, which suddenly makes Blu-Ray seem like the bargain HD format.

HD-DVD has lost its price advantage and is providing customer confusion. Not a good combination.


Casino Royale Blu-ray #7 on Amazon DVD list
By hstewarth on 3/16/2007 1:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Casino Royale Blu-ray got to #7 on Amazon DVD list and also currently probably because of Amazon sales Blu-ray is currently beating HD DVD 4:1.

Current top list can be found at

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/

Casino Royale is still a respectable #8 as this message.




By ddawg on 3/17/2007 12:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
Top Sellers in HD DVD
http://www.amazon.com/gp/amabot/?pf_rd_url=%2Fgp%2...

Children of Men (Combo HD DVD and Standard DVD)
$27.99
Happy Feet (Combo HD DVD and Standard DVD) [HD DVD]
$27.95
The Departed (Combo HD DVD and Standard DVD) [HD DVD]
$27.95
The World's Fastest Indian [HD DVD]
$14.99
Batman Begins [HD DVD]
$19.95
Nine Inch Nails Live - Beside You in Time [HD DVD]
$16.99
Planet Earth - The Complete BBC Series [HD DVD]
$69.95
Serenity [HD DVD]
$19.95
King Kong (HD-DVD)
$27.95
HDscape HD DVD Sampler
$4.85

Top Sellers in Blu-ray Discs
Updated hourly

http://www.amazon.com/gp/amabot/?pf_rd_url=%2Fgp%2...

Casino Royale [Blu-ray]
$26.99
Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray]
$14.49
The Departed [Blu-ray]
$23.95
X-Men 3 - The Last Stand [Blu-ray]
$19.97
Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray]
$19.97
Rocky Balboa [Blu-ray]
$27.29
The Prestige [Blu-ray]
$23.95
Happy Feet [Blu-ray]
$23.99
The Fifth Element [Blu-ray]
$14.49
Eragon [Blu-ray]
$27.95


I don't see DVD leaving anytime soon
By Tides on 3/18/2007 3:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
The reason DVD took over VHS wasn't because of quality alone. A lot of it was due to pricing. You can find DVD's for as cheap as a dollar and new movies coming out at 15 to 30 dollars. VHS tapes on the other hand were about 80 to 100 dollars and their quality degraded over time. Another reason DVD's did so well was because movies themselves, around this time, were flying out a lot quicker as the whole movie process from the big screen to the home was drastically hastened.

The only advantage bluray has (and depending who you talk to, it can be seen as a large advantage or unimportant to some) is the enhanced quality.

Personally (and i'm a huge tech geek), it isn't really a priority to upgrade to hddvd or bluray. Now, will I upgrade in 3 years? If my DVD player dies and I have to replace it? Sure. If the movie companies just decide to stop selling things on DVD and only on bluray? Sure. It can happen, but it would take some risk/early losses (could be huge losses) if they were to do so.




By rockyct on 3/18/2007 4:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
When DVDs came out, VHS tapes were being sold at a few dollars less than a DVD. There was never a price advantage to buying DVDs over VHS until VHS died as a format. The quality difference between DVD and VHS was huge for the price difference and you could see that difference on most TVs at the time.

The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is significant, but you have to buy a new TV to see it. Plus, the movie studios shot themselves in the foot by allowing DVDs to drop to $10 only a few months after they come out. People aren't going to buy a lot of high definition media at $30. When HD-DVDs and Blu-ray discs drop to $20, that's when the format will take off.


Don't think so...
By probedb on 3/16/2007 10:29:24 AM , Rating: 2
Somehow I think DVD will still be outselling HD-DVD and BR in 3 years time!




Food for thought
By SmokeRngs on 3/16/2007 11:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
“Within three years it will just be Blu-ray.”


I find this to be a very interesting statement. I guess DVD took over and wiped out VHS in three years? Wait, I can still buy VHS movies out there. There aren't as many as there were, but there are still some out there.

I just don't see Blu-ray being the only thing on the market in three years. I still see DVD being the leader in three years.

This has been stated many times but it's appropriate to repeat it. The majority of people are not going to junk their DVD players at this time or anytime soon just because there is a new format out. A lot of people have huge DVD collections and they aren't going to go out and replace them overnight with any other format even if they were able to find the movie on one of the newer formats.

The numbers of projected HDTV's in households in three years isn't even taken into account in my previous statements. If only 55% of households have HDTVs, then the adoption rate of an HD video format will be even lower.

Considering the rate of absurd statements coming out of Sony in recent months, does this guy work for Sony? It seems reality and history have no relevance for this guy.




Both.
By FeelLicks on 3/16/2007 12:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
Right now, it's more of a publicity/sales war. In terms of technical capabilities, both formats are great and have great potential. I slightly favor HDDVD atm because some BD movies are encoded in MPEG-2, but that's more dependent on a movie-by-movie basis.

Personally, I think that both formats will continue for a long time and I prefer it that way. Having two formats will create competition and that's always good for the consumer. The only problem is that Hybrid standalone players are still WAY up there in price.




Japan BS Hi, anyone?
By amdrock on 3/16/2007 2:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just wondering if it's possible to install the Japan BS Hi satellite and the tuner in U.S. and receive signals?
Anyone tried it before?




Price
By INeedCache on 3/16/2007 5:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
Price is going to be pretty much everything here. DVD players and recorders did not become mainstream until the price was affordable for the masses. I am going to assume that in 3 years time Bluray will be. But, if they drop prices slowly, they will struggle with sales no matter what is going on with HDTV and the like.




By ddawg on 3/17/2007 12:30:30 AM , Rating: 2
If everyone is waiting who exactly is buying all those Blue Ray players and BR movies?

I don't even know anyone who currently has either a Blue Ray or HD DVD. The only nearby store that carries set top DVD players (I live in a rural area) only have the PS3 and the Xbox360 (supposedly many PC users are purchasing the XBox360 external drive as a low cost alternative to watch Hi-Def movies) in stock.

Yet every week I read the same weekly fantastic Sony Corp. claims. Is Sony paying bloggers to spin their propaganda?




Toshiba rejects Blu-ray victory claim
By ddawg on 3/20/2007 4:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
Toshiba not so impressed by Blu-ray's victory cries
March 19th 2007
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/03/19/toshiba-not-s...

It really doesn't take a keen eye for news these days to spot the all-out PR blitz by team Blu-ray to convince the masses that the format war is over and Blu-ray has won. Now Toshiba is finally sticking up for itself, in specific response to Blu-ray's recent CeBIT press conference. Olivier Van Wynendaele, Deputy General manager of HD DVD at Toshiba, calls the Blu-ray claims "propaganda" and disputes the Blu-ray points. For instance, the new 3:1 sales figure being touted by the Blu-ray Disc Association in regards to Blu-ray to HD DVD sales is claimed by Wynendaele to be artificially inflated by free Blu-ray movie vouchers being redeemed by PlayStation 3 owners. He also notes that Toshiba has sold 200,000 HD DVD players in the US, in comparison to the 30,000 standalone Blu-ray players sold, and that it's not clear yet how many Blu-ray movies the two million PS3 owners are going to be watching. Olivier also promised that Toshiba will undercut Sony prices every step of the way, and made it clear that while HD players account for less than 1% of DVD player sales, it's way too early to call the war for either side.

Toshiba rejects Blu-ray victory claim: Moves to dispel anti-HD DVD 'propaganda'
http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertainment/high-defi...

Sony Exec's are rumored to be devastated and PR Department is no doubt in therapy with the shock that came from the realization that not everyone is mesmerized by the Sony Marketing\Propaganda blitz!




WHY?
By computergeek485 on 3/16/2007 1:42:21 PM , Rating: 1
If people want a multifunction monitor that they intend to watch movies and TV and game on why are people so adamant at getting a plasma. Ever heard of burn in? And with 1080p lcd's going for a less and offering a longer life with no chance of burn in why go plasma? Say u want pause your movie and forget to turn off your TV and go away for an hour or so and then shut it off there will be a faint after image of that. Do that 500 times and u have a serious problem. And I would never buy a plasma if I intended to ever hook a computer up to it.




But will it play Gears of War?
By xuimod on 3/16/07, Rating: -1
"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki