backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 106 comment(s) - last by johnsonx.. on Apr 30 at 2:01 PM
Blu-ray Disc sales growing, but home video revenues are still down

The future of home video is thought to be set now with Blu-ray Disc emerging as the victor in the high-definition format war, but things aren’t quite so rosy in the present market.

Blu-ray Disc sales have jumped considerably in 2008, particularly following Toshiba’s surrender of the HD DVD format. In December 2007, 63 percent of high-definition movies were sold on Blu-ray Disc, and in March 2008, that number moved up to 81 percent, reported one analyst firm.

According to Reuters, 4.9 million high-def movies were sold, 3.8 million of which were Blu-ray – already well ahead of the pace in 2007, which saw total sales of 9.8 million.

Strong sales of Blu-ray Disc are not enough to make up for sagging sales of standard DVDs, which have been declining over the last two years. In 2006, movie studios generated $25 billion in revenue for home video releases. That number fell to $23.1 billion in 2007, with a further fall to $21.4 billion expected for this year, figured Citigroup analyst Jason Bazinet.

Unlike the changeover from VHS to DVD, analysts appear less optimistic about consumers upgrading their machines and libraries to higher resolutions.

Analyst Michael Nathanson at Bernstein Research believes that uptake of Blu-ray Disc movies are behind the adoption curve set by DVD during its introduction to the market. At the end of last year, 3.5 million Blu-ray Disc players were on the market, though the majority of them were PlayStation 3 consoles. Some may have purchased the console for the purpose of playing games rather than movies.

Furthermore, consumers may not immediately see the benefits of upgrading to Blu-ray Disc, which mainly provides increased quality of picture and sound. Features such as chapter skip, multiple language tracks and lack of rewinding tape are already present on DVD.

Nathanson also points to price as a significant barrier, with the price of Blu-ray Disc players sitting at just below $400. It’s not until the $200 mark that Americans will begin to adopt the new technology, experts believe. Sony Electronics CEO Stan Glasgow said in March that such a price point won’t be possible until 2009 at the soonest.

“I don't think $200 is going to happen this year. Next year $200 could happen,” said Glasgow. “We'll be at a $300 rate this year. $299 will happen this year.”

Although movie studios are looking towards the higher prices of Blu-ray Discs, which hover around $10 to $15 premium over the standard DVD to help return revenue levels back to the heyday of DVD.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
the guy is right
By anoitos on 4/24/2008 8:51:15 PM , Rating: 5
Actually I think the first guy IS RIGHT, the companies complain about piracy but do not lower the prices, for some reason all of us have accepted that 20-30 bucks to watch a movie is ok, but in reality it isn't if you adopt this stance, then in a few years when you see lolly pops been sold for $20 a piece you'll feel ok... the bottom line is everything is unreasonably expensive ... way too much ...




RE: the guy is right
By pomaikai on 4/24/2008 9:04:09 PM , Rating: 4
Actually if most people thought it was ok to spend $20-30 than sales would be better. They have already dug there grave and are slowly crawlinjg into it.


RE: the guy is right
By ET on 4/24/2008 10:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I gravitated more and more towards buying mainly DVD's which are on sale or have a low price to begin with. It's possible to buy most movies at sub-$10 prices. The high prices are for new releases or special editions, i.e., for enthusiasts.


RE: the guy is right
By jimbojimbo on 4/25/2008 12:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
I still buy movies as well but wait until they're on sale. Usually less than a year after a movie comes out on DVD you can find it on sale for $10 every now and then. There is also no way I'd pay $30 for a movie unless I know for sure it's good enough to watch over and over.


RE: the guy is right
By Salisme on 4/25/2008 10:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree about you agreeing!!

Seriously though, I have no intentions of upgrading from my CRT TV and cheapo DVD player. Why? Because I watch maybe 10 movies a year. I only have the basic channels from TW, I upgrade to the next tier for Hockey. And even with hockey, I have to mute the sound and tune into the local radio ( and deal with possible delay) because network announcers suck.

I cannot justify investing $3000-4000 on a home entertainment system when I watch a movie maybe once a month. To rent a movie is $4, that is ~$40 a year I spend on movies. Owning movies? No way, I watch a movie two or three times and I'm bored. It is just is not a sound investment for us run of the mill folks. And there isn't exactly quality movies coming out, there hasn't been a movie in years that made me say: "Oh I gotta see that!".


RE: the guy is right
By gospastic on 4/25/2008 11:22:41 AM , Rating: 3
How did you come to the conclusion that you represent the majority?

DVD's growth didn't come from consumers like you, and neither will Blu-ray's.


RE: the guy is right
By Pjotr on 4/28/2008 4:20:47 AM , Rating: 3
I didn't see any such conclusion from him? All I saw was a lot of "I" in his post...


RE: the guy is right
By adiposity on 4/25/2008 11:27:06 AM , Rating: 5
I'm still using my walkman for all of my media needs! I mean who needs ipod players that cost $300 a pop when you can get a walkman for practically free at the flea market? And cassettes are dirt cheap and can record from any analog output! I'm talking free music FTW, man! I mean I maybe listen to 7 songs a year (and forget about video--the picture show is so overrated!) so no WAY can I justify spending a few thousand dollars on audio/video equipment when the stuff clearly doesn't even interest me! I mean, that would be asinine! It's amazing I even bother to comment on a market which clearly doesn't even have me as a potential target consumer. I mean, who cares, am I right!?

-Dan


RE: the guy is right
By LyCannon on 4/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: the guy is right
By wallijonn on 4/25/2008 3:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no intentions of upgrading from my CRT TV and cheapo DVD player. Why? Because I watch maybe 10 movies a year. I only have the basic channels from TW


I 'Hollywood Video' rent about 10 movies a week. Rabbit ears for my plasma. PS3 & HD-DVD owner.

Now that I know what HDM looks like I don't buy newer DVD releases. But I also refuse to pay $30 a movie. I've already spent $20 to watch the blockbuster in the theatre. So I'll buy DVDs for the stuff that doesn't come out on BD. But the stuff that I wished was out on BD I won't buy either. Which usually means that I won't pay more than $9.99 for a new release. But I also don't want to pay more than $19.99 for BD. That is my sweet spot. ymmv.

The studios "lost" millions by selling their BDs for $10 each (BOGO sales). While that is in unrealised sales, the plain fact is that the actual costs of BD pressings were minimal (as opposed to Toshiba taking a loss on actual hardware and making HD-DVD owners pay what BD is now charging ($30 to $40 a movie.))

But when some BD releases are barely better than up-converted movies, (and some plainly inferior to SD) why bother? BDs have been recalled for a reason - usually an inferior product.

Then there is the "problem" of extras (unrated, extended, director's cuts, alternate endings, commentaries, artwork, bloopers, deleted scenes, music videos, etc.) only being available in SD, making BD feel like unwanted orphans.

If the studios throw in WS and FS versions on the same disc, then the SD quality suffers, perhaps to the point that no one would want to buy it.

BD won the war because of the BOGOs. But the people want $100 players. And they want the old prices.

But the reality is that people would rather put $30 towards a tankful of gas than a disc.


RE: the guy is right
By loosescrews on 4/26/2008 2:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
You are quite correct regarding the piracy issue.
Here in India, a company by the name of Moser-baer has started selling original Hindi movie DVDs for Rs. 49 (That is about $1.23) without region locking too. I feel that is the best way to beat piracy. I just need to wait a month or so for the new movies to be available on DVD.
Hollywood studios need to to learn a thing or two from Indian companies to battle piracy. When Indian film companies can reduce their rates of movies to such a level, why can't Hollywood studios do the same
Other companies in India are following gradually by lowering their prices from Rs.400 to Rs. 69 ($1 = Rs.40)
I would rather spend my money on cheap original DVDs rather than pirated stuff.

Please don't flame me because I'm a newbie at posting. :)


4.6 million discs
By Elementalism on 4/24/2008 9:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
While considerly up compared to last year is a drop of water in a lake compared to DVD. DVD moved 1.6 billion discs in 2006. I am curious what effect services like netflix and online content is cutting into dvd\blu-ray right now. There was an article about 2 weeks ago that talked about online movie delivery is expected to be a 5 billion a year industry by the end of 09. I dont know what Blu-Ray will be but in 07 it and HD-DVD combined for about 270 million in sales.




RE: 4.6 million discs
By OPR8R on 4/25/2008 12:12:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am curious what effect services like netflix and online content is cutting into dvd\blu-ray right now.


My guess is lots. How many of Netflix's 8.2 million subscribers also buy DVD's regularly? I only buy them when they're part of a boxed-set I want, and that's rare. Even when I have a Netflix DVD I love, I just keep it until I'm done. For me, and I'm guessing lotsa others, there's almost no reason to buy DVD's...


RE: 4.6 million discs
By MScrip on 4/25/2008 3:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I remember buying DVDs back in the late 90s. Then, video stores started filling their stores with DVDs. Then Netflix came... end of story.

There's very little I need to "own" anymore. I can wait a few days for Netflix to ship it to me. And it's been months since I sat on a couch and watched a full movie anyway.


RE: 4.6 million discs
By LyCannon on 4/25/2008 1:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's very little I need to "own" anymore. I can wait a few days for Netflix to ship it to me. And it's been months since I sat on a couch and watched a full movie anyway.


Especially when 'on-demand' is becoming more popular. It has a way to go yet in terms of selection (speaking of Netflix only), but in perhaps a year or two, it could replace rentals completely.


RE: 4.6 million discs
By Spuke on 4/25/2008 1:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And it's been months since I sat on a couch and watched a full movie anyway.
I remember sitting on the couch and watching movies on Friday evenings. Now, if I want to watch a movie, my wife and I either go to the theater or watch it in the morning on a weekend while eating breakfast.


RE: 4.6 million discs
By Gyres01 on 4/25/2008 3:50:30 PM , Rating: 3
I stopped buying movies a year to two ago. I was the guy who was a Target every Tuesday to get the new releases for 15 bucks.......I have about 200 dvd's and realize I don't even watch half of them......so no more.....Netflix for me and am totally happy !!


ok
By anoitos on 4/25/2008 8:09:49 AM , Rating: 4
Everything has started going wrong since we applied science to everything.. A bunch of Economists begun running corporations based on business models that only they understand and that they predict that to get that kind of profit increase you must do this and that.. utter nonsense....
They are based on the completely wrong assumption that profits must go up every year... and I ask why ??? How many stuff can the consumer buy...
their model does not take into account the very basic reality that there are not infinite consumers and the finite set of consumers has a very finite set of needs....
that is why every thing is so expensive these days...




RE: ok
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: ok
By Procurion on 4/25/2008 12:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
Lice are crunchier than popcorn and much better for you!


RE: ok
By 1prophet on 4/25/2008 12:56:18 PM , Rating: 3
Actually the science they apply is that developed by a man called Edward Bernays nephew of Sigmund Freud. He showed corporations how to use peoples own desires to brainwash them into wanting things just for the sake of having them and constantly wanting the next best thing or fad just because.

Google "Century of Self" and watch the 4 one hour videos which show you how it was all done.


RE: ok
By BansheeX on 4/28/2008 3:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
You're... almost right. But it isn't the corporations that are the root cause of prices rising faster than incomes. The economic philosophy that we follow in this country is Keynesian, which arose from an utter misunderstanding of what caused the great depression. And what caused the great depression? The Federal Reserve, instituted in 1913 (on a day when important legislation wasn't supposed to be voted on, no less).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=O7pnjzCuSv8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE


RE: ok
By Ananke on 4/30/2008 12:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
I am economist. Sadly, the truth is that capital profits are based on corporate stocks' price, i.e. that price increase when profit margin /!!! not just the profit/ increases. It means, the company has to accelerate its profit, not just keep them at some good level. Of course, that increase cannot happen forever, and eventually one day we all have recession, i.e. stock market slumps. Btw Karl Marx was an economist, and was one of the first describing this paricularity of the capital markets.
So, inevitably the movie studios will keep increasing the prices of their products, until some of them collapse, and the rest take additional market share. Increase of market share means diluted expenses, i.e. THEN the company can afford to lower prices and increase margins simuptaneously.
That's how todays monopoly in telecomunications happen. And then prices start increase again.
The point is, at some moment your government needs to get involved and create market competition /like making ATT apart 50 years ago/. Or technical advance will allow new players to enter the market.
I believe that HD content inevitably will move towards the pay-on-demand or rent media model. Whichever is cheaper, just because of price. And yes, pricing , and not the punishment, is a reason for pirated content to exist. example, you cannot find pirated Procter&Gamble detergent in USA, since its price is commodity type and fakes would pretty much cost the same. However, detergents are seriously pirated in Asian markets. Don't be fool by the difference in products. Marketing is the same science for both detergents and movies.


????
By Goatjoe on 4/24/2008 10:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At the end of last year, 3.5 million Blu-ray Disc players were on the market, though the majority of them were PlayStation 3 consoles. Some may have purchased the console for the purpose of playing games rather than movies.


Not one who picks apart stories here on Dailytech - But, is it just me, or is this a captain obvious statement??




RE: ????
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2008 7:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I especially like the second sentence. Made me laugh. Just goes to show the PS3 was a way to push Blu-ray first and a games console second.

Yes Blu-ray offers a better picture and sound than DVD. But no the majority of people are not going to go buy versions of movies on Blu-ray that they already have on DVD. I will for a few select titles. But for the majority of my movies, DVD is fine.

And I'm sure that the MPAA will say their revenues are down because of piracy. Not because gas prices have nearly doubled since last year and food prices are up a lot too.


RE: ????
By johnsonx on 4/30/2008 1:50:05 PM , Rating: 2
I think it was meant to be funny. I certainly chuckled when I read that line.


RE: ????
By johnsonx on 4/30/2008 2:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
crap, i did it again... followed a 'most popular articles' link, got into a six day old article I hadn't read, and posted a comment no one will see or care about.

Then again, usually no one cares about my comments on new articles!


Different spins?
By EglsFly on 4/24/2008 8:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
This dailytech story title seems to put a different "SPIN" on the market compared to this tgdaily article:
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37039/113/
quote:
Los Angeles (CA) - The first quarter of 2008 was a huge success for Blu-ray, as sales grew by 351 percent over the same period last year, reports trade publication Home Media Magazine.

According to Home Media, increased attention to Blu-ray was a boon the the home entertainment market in general. For the first time in two years, spending on home video was up.

In 2006 and 2007, the home video market was in decline. Thanks to a surge in Blu-ray sales, though, the first part of 2008 saw a 1% increase in all home video, which includes HD DVD and DVD as well.




RE: Different spins?
By Alexstarfire on 4/24/2008 8:24:23 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, it really doesn't. In this article they just say the analysts predict that the home video market is going to continue it's downward trend. The article you refer to shows what is actually happening. Not to mention that a 1% increase over 3 months isn't out of the ordinary. It doesn't even fall outside of the margin of error.


RE: Different spins?
By tmouse on 4/25/2008 9:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
I agree 1% is just mouse milking


Who am I?
By Procurion on 4/25/2008 10:04:30 AM , Rating: 3
I make just enough to satisfy my family's needs. Big ticket items like $400 BluRay players are MAYBE bought at Christmas. Bigger ticket items like HDTV's are only bought when the previous tv in the living room is dead.

To spend $30 on a movie that will be watched once with high interest and after that only when I am bored is stupid-not smart, stupid. I read that somewhere along the way, movie production companies decided that to increase their flagging sales they increase prices for everything they sell. Then they create new content that requires a HUGE, beyond-my-means investment in equipement that is only useful if were to give a damn.

Who am I? I am 90% of the world.




RE: Who am I?
By crystal clear on 4/25/2008 10:30:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who am I? I am 90% of the world.


Yes you are the mainstream buyer/consumer who provides more than 90% of the revenues to any tech company in the consumer field.

They want your money......


Content might help
By djc208 on 4/24/2008 10:46:55 PM , Rating: 4
If the studios want more people to buy the disks then it might help to have more content people want to buy. The total number of BD movies is still tiny, and many are of limited popularity anyway.

Re-releasing BD versions is only going to help so much. Of the DVD movies I have only a few do I love and watch enough to want to spend the $30 or so to replace it with an HD version vice living with the upconverted SD version. Add in the pathetic run of movies in the last year or two and it's no wonder BD sales are down.

You have a limited library for a limited format that can only be used by a certain percentage of TV owners (those with HDTVs). On top of that you still have people like me that won't move on a BD player until I can get a decent profile 2.0 version, which are just now starting to hit the market. And no I don't want a PS3, I just want a simple, IR controlled, low power BD player. Idealy it will be less than the PS3.

The other thing I think hurting all this is Netflix/Blockbuster. With any movie a click away any time (BD included) people have even less incentive to buy a movie thet can jsut re-rent (or rent the SD version and copy it as seems popular).

Bottom line is that like MS with Vista, it's always difficult to move people from a known, established, stable platform to a new, unproven, buggy one without a lot of incentive, which neither Vista or BD has. The format war only hurt BD by putting a sour taste in most peoples mouths over the whole thing.




Movies...
By 306maxi on 4/25/2008 3:11:17 AM , Rating: 4
Making some decent movies might help. The movie industry complains about piracy and falling sales. But people always copied stuff on VHS. Movies today just aren't that great and people don't see the point in splashing out and buying them on DVD or BR until they're in the bargain bin.

This all reminds me of the music industry. Rather than get off their butts and give people great music like we've had in the past they churn out bland new artists by the truckload and complain when no one other than hysterical teens buys any of their crappy music.




The problems...
By Targon on 4/25/2008 10:19:49 AM , Rating: 2
The problem that they are seeing relates to how quickly people are buying HD screens/TVs. If you don't have a HD screen, then there isn't much of a point to Blu-Ray. If you have HD, then the issue comes down to the cost of the player, people waiting for more movies to become available on the new format, and because of the economy here in the USA, concern about money.

When the cost of living is going up at more than twice the rate that incomes are increasing, the sales of luxury items WILL decrease. Am I going to spend $1000 or more on an HD screen, or $350 for a Blu-Ray player when I may need that money just to help cover the rent if something happens?

DVD sales will be going down because people don't want to buy a regular DVD movie if they are planning to buy HD in several months as well. It is like the people who debate buying an AGP video card for their old computer, or just waiting until they buy a new computer that has a PCI-Express slot in it. People don't want to waste their money on something they feel will be obsolete.




RE: The problems...
By Wickwire on 4/25/2008 1:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
Your AGP comment hit true with me because Im in that boat. I would love to upgrade my PC a bit but buying an AGP card seemless pointless when its a dying tech. Spend 500 on a complete upgrade or 150 on just a card. Its a no brainer- Im not upgrading yet.

For the average user a Blu Ray player is useless. I think its a fair assumption to say the most common size HDTV is 37-46in. At this size range a person won't even see the benifits of a the only 1080p source- Blu Ray. They can achieve basically the same quality increase by using a good upconverting DVD, an SD DVD and their current HDTV. Blu Ray is only an enthusist niche product and I can't ever see it expanding ouf of that market.


By DarthKaos on 4/25/2008 8:54:40 AM , Rating: 3
One major point this article is missing is that to get the true benefits of Blu-ray you have to update your TV as well as your DVD player. Even when Blu-ray players hit the magic $200 price point there will still be an HDTV price issue. It will take much longer for Blu-ray to be the standard than it did for DVD.




By GoatMonkey on 4/25/2008 10:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
It looks to me like Blu-ray is going to be the last physical media. After this round, we will be at the point where movies can go the way music has: download or streaming. Obviously we need more bandwidth and/or more storage, but that's not far away.

I don't see a reason to make a big investment in blu-ray discs to replace my DVD collection. Maybe a few favorites, but that's about it. Not to mention that most of the DVDs I own are not even available on blu-ray.




By Reclaimer77 on 4/25/2008 2:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
1. Your forced into buying a PS3 instead of a nice set top player that SUPPORTS IR remotes. Why ? Because they keep screwing with the Blu Ray format, and only the PS3 can download firmware updates. What if one day my Blu Ray version 2.0 set top player can't play Blu Ray version 4.0 or whatever disks ? No thank you. There is just WAY to much uncertainty about the format for the average consumer to drop big money on it.

2. Quality not assured. You can buy ANY standard DVD and be assured that the resolution is what it says on the box. To feel safe about a Blu Ray purchase, first you have to go to a website like http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=85... to make sure this THIRTY DOLLAR movie even looks good ! Hell remember the first Fifth Element Blu Ray release ? It looked so horrible they had pull it off the shelves and re-release it. There is simply no quality control at all in place to make sure your $30 purchase is actually going to LOOK GOOD unless you research it before hand. Thats garbage folks.

3. This is actually a two parter, but price and sales. The hardware and disks themselves are too expensive. Honestly right now I can't think of many new movies I would pay $30 to watch. I don't care how many hours of high def boring bonus features you throw on the disk.

And sales. Lets face it, these numbers ain't that good. Theres just no guarantee this format is going to survive. People took the leap and invested in Toshiba's HD DVD and got burned. Just because Blu Ray won, thats no guarantee that can't happen to them too.

So you can flame all us prudent consumers and say we're " holding you back " all you want. Give us a good product at a good price point without 50 strings attached, and we'll invest in it. Its just that simple.




Prices must go down.
By daftrok on 4/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Prices must go down.
By MrSmurf on 4/24/2008 8:07:56 PM , Rating: 5
3) Gas should be $1/gallon.

Hey, might as well if we're living in LaLa Land.


RE: Prices must go down.
By Alexstarfire on 4/24/2008 8:21:23 PM , Rating: 1
If we're living in La La Land then why bother having money at all. Hell, why bother having transportation at all. Might as well just zap myself to where ever I want to go, and be able to watch any movie I want in my head at the highest possible resolution ever, real life.

The OP is simply pointing out that the industry is going the wrong way to make more money. They shouldn't be increasing prices, but should be decreasing production costs, at all levels. Most movies are going the way of games and becoming all graphics, CGI and special effects mainly. Sure, they can enhance the movie, but they aren't always needed and they certainly can't fix a broken story.

I think he's pretty close to the way it should be, cept babies should be free in theaters since they obviously can't understand anything. The prices may be a little off, but it's still better than what we got now. I can understand why movie prices vary based on what time it is, but since the movies are rarely sold out anymore it's not a very good solution.


RE: Prices must go down.
By daftrok on 4/24/2008 8:35:44 PM , Rating: 5
NO! If you're going to bring a baby into the theater you SHOULD pay because you're annoying the hell out of everyone!


RE: Prices must go down.
By 9nails on 4/24/2008 8:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
LOL~ Yeah... Theaters would be smart to have a $5.00 daycare room where you can drop off the lil' rug rats. Let the adults see a film in peace and the lil' ones catch-up on a few episodes of Barney.

For a while now, little girls have been the most evil thing portrayed in media so nobody trusts little girls any more! I can't even find a babysitter in my neighborhood any ways, and I'm sure that their parents would object to allowing their daughters in my home as much as I would object to leaving my children in theirs. These are stupid times we live in.


RE: Prices must go down.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/24/2008 11:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "Theaters would be smart to have a $5.00 daycare room where you can drop off the lil' rug rats"

They might...except for the huge liability issues that would be associated with such a service.


RE: Prices must go down.
By danrien on 4/25/2008 1:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Such liability issues would be easily taken care of by having trained individuals running the daycare room.


RE: Prices must go down.
By SiN on 4/25/2008 3:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Such liability issues would be easily taken care of by having trained individuals running the daycare room.


For which the movie theatre companies would be liable should anything happen. As was originally mentioned.


RE: Prices must go down.
By JAB on 4/25/2008 4:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
Another LaLa land answer. When people sue you because they patented the color white or music playback in a game there is no escape from lawsuits even when you do everything perfectly. The worst thing is you never know when some hair brained jury will give out a multi million dollar settlement for emotional distress even though there is nothing to back any claim.


RE: Prices must go down.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2008 11:19:01 AM , Rating: 2
> "there is no escape from lawsuits "

There's no escaping from death, but that's no escuse to go looking for it either.

Smart companies don't go looking for trouble...and caring for other people's small children is a magnet for frivolous lawsuits.


RE: Prices must go down.
By theapparition on 4/25/2008 6:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
Most movie theaters offer daytime "mommy movies". That is, they show a current movie where mothers with infants can go. It is reserved specifically for families like that. My wife has gone to several and it's not that bad to watch the movies, and I think it's a great idea especially if it gets the infants out of the late night showings.


RE: Prices must go down.
By tastyratz on 4/25/2008 8:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
what about the liability of letting mom bring the kid in the theater and me wanting to go over there grab their arms and give them a really hard shake... the mother that is.
Movie theaters and concerts are way too loud for a babies sensitive hearing and its no place for babies. Consequently Babies are way too loud for my sensitive hearing in a theater.

I don't care if the baby makes it hard for you to "get away" and see a movie, nothing should get you away from making responsible decisions as a parent.


RE: Prices must go down.
By feraltoad on 4/25/2008 6:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
Forget day care, "One small popcorn, extra chloroform please..."

Besides, who wants to subsidize childcare with their movie ticket which would suddenly have to be $20 a ticket.


RE: Prices must go down.
By Golgatha on 4/25/2008 9:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, my 24hour Fitness center charges $2.00 per child per hour of care. If they can make a profit on this service, I imagine a movie theatre could too with a blanket $5.00 charge per child, since most movies are less than 2.5 hours long.


RE: Prices must go down.
By Spuke on 4/25/2008 1:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh, my 24hour Fitness center charges $2.00 per child per hour of care.
But Joe Average Dipsh!t doesn't go to 24 Hr Fitness so there's a lesser chance of frivolous lawsuits there.


RE: Prices must go down.
By AlmostExAMD on 4/24/2008 11:14:19 PM , Rating: 3
Totally agree with u there, People bringing babies into theatre should pay the highest price possible or better still baby only theatre, Amount of times my friends and I have had movie experience ruined from these disrespectful morons is beyond a joke.
Of all the places u could take your child why the hell do they bring them there, Where others have payed and trying to escape reality for a bit and enjoy the film!


RE: Prices must go down.
By rcsinfo on 4/25/2008 12:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
Best movie theater I have ever been to: Alamo Drafthouse in Austin. Take a look at their FAQ page. http://www.drafthouse.com/main/about.php

Most showings are 18 and over, but they have special "baby shows" during the first Tuesday of a new released movie where babies are allowed(and free). Also they serve great food and beer.


RE: Prices must go down.
By danrien on 4/25/2008 1:33:05 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. When I visited Austin it was one of the most amazing things to experience. Makes even terrible movies good (you can always order more beer... hehe). The waiters are so sneaky too.


RE: Prices must go down.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2008 12:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
> "They shouldn't be increasing prices, but should be decreasing production costs, at all levels..."

Even today, studios spend considerably more on marketing and distribution than they actually do on actual production costs.


RE: Prices must go down.
By Sungpooz on 4/25/2008 1:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
be able to watch any movie I want in my head at the highest possible resolution ever, real life.


We have drugs for that.


RE: Prices must go down.
By Googer on 4/24/2008 11:35:11 PM , Rating: 3
No, in LaLa land you woul have the ultimate in HD Gaming and could sit next to a window with a dual shock in hand and control the neighbors movement.. Super Smash Brothers anyone?


RE: Prices must go down.
By Inkjammer on 4/24/2008 10:28:26 PM , Rating: 4
And it's only a matter of time before the MPAA tries to subsidize the sales of microwave popcorn as a contributing loss towards the allure of the movie going audience. In any other reality I'd say it's a stupid notion, but this is the same organization that blamed Halo 3 for denting the movie business, so why not.

It's not file-sharing that's causing loss of sales. It's Orville Redenbacher.


RE: Prices must go down.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/24/2008 11:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "but this is the same organization that blamed Halo 3 for denting the movie business, so why not."

I know that, right after the Halo release, my own son missed a couple of his regular Friday sessions to stay in and play, so I don't see this as being all that far-fetched.


RE: Prices must go down.
By Inkjammer on 4/25/2008 1:38:21 AM , Rating: 2
True, but at the same time there was nothing really impressive in the theaters last September, especially movies which targeted Halo 3's demographics. Good Luck Chuck and Resident Evil: Extinction were pretty much it, and neither one were really blockbusters.


RE: Prices must go down.
By SiN on 4/25/2008 4:08:23 AM , Rating: 2
Resident Evil: Extinction was supposed to be a really good flick. Better than the first which i really liked, and a revival from the crap second movie.

I didn't even know it was in the cinema, in fact, i didn't know anything about it till i saw the Coal Chamber - Row Boat video on You Tube to the images of the movie. My first impression was "god, these are really high production values for a music video." Here's a link to the video if you was to see how i came to that impression.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=P1pZEj56vm4

P.S. I was playing Halo that week.


RE: Prices must go down.
By just4U on 4/25/2008 7:16:27 AM , Rating: 2
<grin> for all you Halo3 fans and things you missed because of the game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkF0McZKIw

James at war Rocks! :)


RE: Prices must go down.
By amanojaku on 4/24/2008 10:50:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think we've reached a point where 7-8 dollars to watch a movie in a theater, 20 dollars for a DVD, and 30 dollars for a BD is just a rip off.


7-8 USD? Where the heck do you live, and is there any room for me? :-) Here in NYC we're about to hit $12 for tickets, and $6 for drinks, popcorn, or candy. Yes, "or", not "and." That's || ! && for you techies.

quote:
What needs to be done to make the transition to BD and to make theater going worth it:

etc...


WRONG. Movies aren't cheap to make, and theaters aren't cheap to run. Someone has to pay, unfortunately. What we need are movies that are worth watching. I would think twice about seeing a good movie at these prices. A great movie would be worth it. A bad movie, like most of the drivel that's produced these days, isn't worth the time you've lost. The money is inconsequential at that point. I coulda been gettin' some!


RE: Prices must go down.
By Goatjoe on 4/24/2008 11:00:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The money is inconsequential at that point. I coulda been gettin' some!


Mabye the people who produce these movies rely on the people who have to take the lil' lady (or "lil' gentleman" - to be politically correct) out for dinner and a movie to "get some"... I know if I take my wife out for a movie, even if its a horrible movie (*cough* Unbreakable *cough*) - Its in the bag!!!


RE: Prices must go down.
By sprockkets on 4/25/2008 2:30:37 AM , Rating: 3
And what, I get paid to watch 10 freaking movie previews of movies coming in 6 months, product commericals and local classified ads? Bull sht.


RE: Prices must go down.
By masher2 (blog) on 4/24/2008 11:51:30 PM , Rating: 3
> "Movie tickets should have one price for EVERYBODY NO MATTER WHAT TIME IT IS"

Matinee prices are lower in order to "spread out" the demand throughout the day. Even with the lower prices, though, most people still prefer the evening shows. If prices were equal, filling afternoon seats would be next to impossible.

> "1) DVDs should have a maximum price of $10 and BD should have a maximum price of $20"

If you can convince the entire buying public of this, prices will quickly drop to these levels.

People who say prices "should" be a certain level neglect the basic economics of supply and demand. When I sell a house or a used car, I don't care what the price "should" be -- I get the best price I can. Movie studios operate on the same principle.


RE: Prices must go down.
By mindless1 on 4/25/2008 12:54:01 AM , Rating: 3
Not a supply and demand situation, read the article especially the portion about slumping sales. Movie studios clearly don't operate on the same principle.

It is correct to say prices should be a certain level because it can be said in the context of being a potential consumer who, as any other consumer would do, determines the value of the product to them.


RE: Prices must go down.
By danrien on 4/25/2008 1:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed - it seems more as if the studios have this wishful dream that blu-ray will up the demand so that they will be able to justify selling blu-rays for 25-30 bucks a piece 2 or 3 years down the road and see the massive increase in profit that they saw from DVD... the only thing being that blu-ray doesn't have quite the appeal now (or ever will, in my opinion), that dvd did when it first started to become popular (i still remember when my dad and i drove down to wal mart to get our first dvd player).


RE: Prices must go down.
By SiN on 4/25/2008 4:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
While i'd like to agree with both of you and blame the corporation, the end customer is still buying the movies above and well above $10 mark.

If end customers pay for it why would the corp lower the price.

For your wallet!?! I said corporation.

Blu Ray "will" sell for $25-30 like you say, thats because it provides added value over the equivelant DVD. Which the corps. know will shift copies at that rate. They could do it at higher prices if they wanted to but adoption of Blu Ray would stagnate. An i guess there is the Blu Ray Disk Accosiation and its members. http://www.blu-raydisc.com/index.htm

Thats the supply, thats the demand.


RE: Prices must go down.
By mindless1 on 4/25/2008 3:14:08 PM , Rating: 2
Pay more attention to detail. In this case the detail would be that sales are slumping which pretty much makes your general concept of the way things could work, irrelevant compared to how things are actually playing out.


RE: Prices must go down.
By Aloonatic on 4/25/2008 4:07:01 AM , Rating: 4
Wow, and you're complaining?

Try living in the UK.

It's £7 for a ticket and then everything else is just a rip off but I think that is true of every cinema anywhere in the world.

Truth is, most cinemas don't make anything or at best very little from the ticket price and have to make their money from concessions tho.

The Mega stars demanding £XX Million (a large % of the entire budget) for a few months work are one of the main reasons these things cost so much of course but whilst muppets (general Heat magazine buying public) celebrate the fact that they are so stupendously wealthy for having the ability to in effect simply read out aloud without giggling and standing in a certain place, this will carry on forever.

Oh and they were trying to sell DVDs for The Simpsons Movie (how disappointing was that?) for £15 in some places over here around Christmas so think yourselves luck on DVD prices too.

Personally, I have a simple solution. Go to the cinema very rarely and buy DVDs for only the films you really love, rent the rest. How many times do you watch those DVDs in your display rack?

Also, I'm aware that we have higher sales tax that is incorporated in the price, and I don't live in London by the way, that place is just stupid as far as prices go, probably nearer £15 for a cinema ticket!

Oh, and the cost of "gas" to get me to and from the cinema has reached £1.10 a litre here too, by the way!


RE: Prices must go down.
By jimbojimbo on 4/25/2008 1:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the annoyance of theose people in the theater that think they own the place. Almost every time I go there's some jerk talking away or a cell phone going off multiple times. If I pay $12, or anything for that matter, I expect NONE of these annoyances. That money is really only for the privelege of seeing the movie now instead of waiting 4months or so for it to come out on DVD. At that time I can just rent it and sit at home watching it on my widescreen LCD with surround sound with nobody to annoy me while eating my cheap popcorn.


RE: Prices must go down.
By tmouse on 4/25/2008 9:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is the distributers take most of the box receipts. The theaters make the majority of their money on the overpriced food. I think when the last "Star Wars" film came out it required 100% of the box for the first month and a minimum screen time of 2 months or something like that just for the "privilege" of being able to screen it.


BD only wow factor over dvd?
By AlmostExAMD on 4/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: BD only wow factor over dvd?
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2008 7:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not everyone has $2500+ for a 60" 1080p television and $1500 for a good surround sound system supporting the latest HD codecs.


RE: BD only wow factor over dvd?
By Targon on 4/25/2008 10:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
You can get a 42 inch 1080p panel for around $1100 now, less when they are on sale. You don't need your surround sound amp/pre-amp to do HDMI, you can get away with just running HDMI to the panel and going with a normal AC-3/fiber connection to your surround sound amp/pre-amp.

There is a decent improvement in quality from normal DVDs when you upgrade your TV to a HD TV or panel. Most TVs only handle 200 lines of resolution, so even going to 400 lines would be a decent jump.

There are up-converting DVD players(not HD) that will take a conventional movie and enhance it for those with a HD display. This may be the most cost effective solution for many people at this point.

Then you can go with a true Blu-Ray player, and then buy/rent the movies to get the "best" experience.

Note that with a digital connection between the player and even a cheap surround sound amp will provide surround sound if you set up 5 speakers. Better quality will give better sound, but it isn't necessary.


RE: BD only wow factor over dvd?
By Wickwire on 4/25/2008 1:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
49 inch 1080p TVs and less won't fully utilize that high of resolution unless you sit super close. Theres no point to have a 1080p tv or Blu Ray if your TV is 49 in or lower.


RE: BD only wow factor over dvd?
By Spuke on 4/25/2008 2:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can get a 42 inch 1080p panel for around $1100 now, less when they are on sale.
I'll repeat it for you FIT. Not everyone can afford a $1100 42 in TV and the accompanying $1000 surround sound system to go with it.

Sort of off-topic, but a cheap, good sounding, surround sound system can be had for $262 bucks from Newegg. I bought the Logitech Z-5500's a few years ago because I had bought a HDTV but could not afford surround sound system I really wanted to get. I still am using it and it works great! I even have the front and rear speakers mounted on the wall. I am currently putting together a replacement system but haven't decided on everything I want to get plus the priority is my whole house audio.


By Alexstarfire on 4/25/2008 9:05:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, they've been saying that about HDTV for years now, yet they are still expensive as hell. I don't care if they drop in price every month. If it only goes down $1 a month it's still going to be expensive.


Waste of money right now
By pomaikai on 4/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money right now
By HeelyJoe on 4/24/2008 9:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
Color movies are nothing more than wow factor.

Also, I am unaware of a DVD player that works on multiple TVs in different rooms of the house.


RE: Waste of money right now
By mcnabney on 4/24/2008 9:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point is that households that splurge and buy a BD player do not buy several. I have two TVs with DVD players attached, a portable DVD player, and a laptop with a DVD player in it. I watch movies and all 4 screens. If I bought a BD player I would have to pick one location to install it and any movie I bought on BD I would only be able to play on that player. That means it can't be watched by the kids in the car and it can't be watched by me when I travel with my laptop.


RE: Waste of money right now
By Wickwire on 4/25/2008 1:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
True, but I doubt you bought all those players within a year or so of DVD inception.


RE: Waste of money right now
By Mitch101 on 4/25/2008 10:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
Moxie was a company that was supposed to do this but failed to execute. They were one the first to openly speak of a single device in the home that served up video through your house. No matter the device you could view it from any TV in the home.

I cant even find them on the web any more.

Actually when I think about it the X-Box 1 can see other X-box 1's. So it should be possible.


RE: Waste of money right now
By djc208 on 4/25/2008 6:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
Try Sage TV http://www.sageTV.com. Especially with their new HD-100 extender. A set-top box that can stream anything you record,download,rip to any TV/home theater system from the Sage server which can be a WHS PC.

Only problem right now is they can't keep them in stock.

Add in the clients to allow other computers to access the server data, and the placeshifter for remote access over the internet and with the right setup there's just about nowhere you can't get your media.


RE: Waste of money right now
By therealnickdanger on 4/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Waste of money right now
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2008 12:00:06 AM , Rating: 3
> "So how long did it take you to switch from VHS to DVD? BD (and HD-DVD) are so exceptionally better than DVD that it makes your comments laughable"

The difference between DVD and VHS was far larger, however. And not just on image quality-- DVDs were smaller, far more durable and (most important of all) you didn't have to rewind them.

The actual IQ differential is debatable too. I am continually annoyed by the large number of people who can't see *any* difference between upscaled DVDs and BD/HD-DVDs on my 720p 103" projector screen.

It's just a fact of life...most people are not afficionados. On the 1080p family-room TV, people can see the difference...but even there, they don't consider it "huge", no matter how hard I claw my hair and roll my eyes.


RE: Waste of money right now
By theflux on 4/25/2008 2:49:53 AM , Rating: 2
May 4th 2008 approacheth, masher.


RE: Waste of money right now
By xsilver on 4/25/2008 3:02:21 AM , Rating: 2
TV stations also need to update their broadcasts/camera equipment to HD.

Here in OZ its just beginning... watching a 70's movie or low res sports broadcast on a HD screen almost makes your eyes bleed.


By therealnickdanger on 4/25/2008 9:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
I would argue that it doesn't matter if many people can't see the difference. Take an equally devoted transfer from DVD and BD and the technical aspects alone side heavily with BD. For example, I've got "Cars" on both formats, arguably one of the best transfers that you can find on either format. Cars DVD is about the best that DVD can offer, but COMPARED to the BD version, it looks flat and sounds dull.

The perceived lack of improvement is just that, a perception. People who do perceive the difference at least have facts to back it up. I can think of many instances where people allow their perceptions to twist the facts...


RE: Waste of money right now
By mmntech on 4/25/2008 10:26:04 AM , Rating: 2
Also, DVDs provided 5.1 sound for the first time, better resolution, a distortion free image, and special features. What does BD really offer beyond that? BD Live where I can download ringtones? That really makes me want to pay $10 more for a movie. Of course I know image definition is far superior but it's really not that much of a selling point. You really need a TV bigger than 32'' to get the full effect. Most people don't even have HDTVs let alone ones that big enough to enjoy 1080p.

Another truth is that the US economy is currently entering recession and people are not going to be spending as much as they were on entertainment. A slump in DVD sales is to be expected when the economy goes down. The entertainment industry will blame it on piracy though.


RE: Waste of money right now
By sc3252 on 4/27/2008 9:13:11 PM , Rating: 1
I cant tell the difference between HD and SD tv at around 7 feet away. Of course when I put my glasses on I can tell right away that the image is grainy, stretched, and just looks like shit. I have a feeling thats why many people say they cant tell a difference, theirs eyes have weakened like mine, and they cant see the difference without corrective lenses.


RE: Waste of money right now
By Inkjammer on 4/24/2008 10:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BD is nothing more than wow factor.

If I can further elaborate: BD is nothing more than wow factor... that requires a $2,000 HDTV and accompanying $500 surround sound system to enjoy.

If people aren't buying movies, renting them... it's because the change from CRT to the LCD TV have doubled or tripled in the past few years. Making the jump up to high definition is disgustingly expensive. A higher end 32" CRT TV cost about $300 to 400 a year ago while a low end 32" HDTV (720p) was still about $800.


RE: Waste of money right now
By amanojaku on 4/24/2008 11:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I can further elaborate: BD is nothing more than wow factor... that requires a $2,000 HDTV and accompanying $500 surround sound system to enjoy.


I think you have it backwards. A decent 720p TV can be had for less than $800. The sound system is what will set you back. Stereo sound alone will run you $2,000. Of course, the video and audiophile will tell you that's nothing... Get a Meridian set for $500K USD. A display can easily set you back $100,000 (screen, projector, and scaler.) Blu-ray will wow you on all that. Hell, VHS and 8-track will wow you.


RE: Waste of money right now
By danrien on 4/25/2008 1:35:55 AM , Rating: 2
But 720p isn't taking full advantage of Blu-Ray, thus upsetting the whole equation...


RE: Waste of money right now
By Pudro on 4/25/2008 5:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
How about 1080i? Because a 30" TV with that only set me back $440. Granted it was on sale, but the original price was only $550.

And before you try and tell me that 1080i not being as good as 1080p is still "upsetting the whole equation", tell me this: How many people watch their DVDs in 480p?


RE: Waste of money right now
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2008 7:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
Unless you have an older large rear projection style or CRT HDTV, any 1080i HDTV merely accepts a 1080i signal. The actual picture is 720p. DLPs, LCDs, and Plasmas come either in 720p or 1080p flavors. One that taunts 1080i is just saying it can accept a 1080i signal.

Look at the resolution of your TV. If its a DLP, LCD, or Plasma, its resolution will be 1280x720 or 1366x720.


RE: Waste of money right now
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2008 11:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
Eh? There are plenty of 1080p DLPs and LCDs now...there are even some 1080p plasmas.

And there are even 1080i TVs that *do* display in native 1920x1080 resolution. The lack of a 1080p input was originally due to their being no standard for the signal.


RE: Waste of money right now
By Wickwire on 4/25/2008 2:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
The whole resolution arguement is moot unless the person has a TV 50' or larger.


RE: Waste of money right now
By masher2 (blog) on 4/25/2008 3:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not really. The size of the TV isn't the overriding factor; the viewing angle subtended is what controls it. Sit very close to even a 24" TV and 1080p can make a difference. Conversely, a 100" screen from very far away can appear the same whether its 480p or 1080p.


RE: Waste of money right now
By Inkjammer on 4/25/2008 8:50:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think you have it backwards. A decent 720p TV can be had for less than $800.

Yep, which is why I said in my original post that the prices were from about a year ago (e.g. movie sales won't be strong now there's not been an established base of HD-installed homes). Prices for 32" 720p TVs have fallen, and are now about about $600 to $700 for mid-range. Still significantly higher than their tubey counterparts, but getting far more reasonable.

Note: I'm basing my prices off of Best Buy's website given that's where the average consumer would probably be shopping.


RE: Waste of money right now
By Ananke on 4/30/2008 12:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
BluRay is media format, i.e. the disc and blue laser technology behind it. Before this format becomes standart we certainly will see memory chip cards hitting 20-50 GB size at the cost of the BD disc itself. And the cards will not require expensive capital investment in printing disc equipment. And the cards obviously don't require the expensive blue lasers. So, in my opinion, BD will die in two, three years. Investment of $30 per disc is very very shortsighted.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki