backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Jul 22 at 8:46 AM

Toshiba joins Blu-ray market

The HD format wars raged for quite some time with both Blu-ray and HD DVD supporters looking to knock out the other. In late 2007, Toshiba was dealt a blow when Warner announced it would only support the Blu-ray format.

Shortly after the Warner announcement, Toshiba pulled its HD DVD format from the market. Toshiba president Atsutoshi Nishida said at the time HD DVD left the market, "We took a little time before reaching a final decision, so we could give people a chance to voice their opinions and we could consider all the ramifications and consequences of pulling out, such as how it would affect consumers and us. I didn't think we stood a chance after Warner left us because it meant HD DVD would have just 20% to 30% of software market share."

Since the defeat of HD DVD Toshiba has been busy developing other components that could be used to drive HD video in electronic devices. The firm was traditionally very strong in the movie player market for DVD players, being number two behind Sony. Lacking a Blu-ray player meant that Toshiba was ceding the HD movie player market to rivals and leaving money on the table.

It comes as no surprise to learn that Toshiba is now ready to jump into the Blu-ray market. PC World reports that Toshiba has confirmed that it will have a Blu-ray player on the market by the end of the year. Toshiba offered no details on the player, but it’s a good time for the company to get into the Blu-ray market with the players and movies entering what many call the mass market phase with players now readily available for under $200 in stores.

Toshiba is very heavily into the home theater market with TVs and home theater systems and lacking a Blu-ray player meant that the company had a significant hole in its line. Toshiba would also need a player to be able to integrate Blu-ray into its line of HDTVs, which is becoming more common.

According to the Blu-ray Disc Association, Blu-ray has achieved over 50% market share in Japan.



Comments     Threshold


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

better than expected
By melgross on 7/20/2009 12:29:19 PM , Rating: 5
While it's popular on forums to say that Blu-Ray isn't going anywhere, as Chase has already posted, sales are moving very well.

Once you account for this deep recession, it's doing very well to be where it is.

As prices for players continue to drop, we'll see it take over from DVD. With all the HD Tv's being sold, more people can see the difference.

This disk has still got years of life in it.




RE: better than expected
By jstall on 7/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: better than expected
By corduroygt on 7/20/2009 12:49:57 PM , Rating: 3
It's doing better than HD digital downloads which are practically nonexistent, unless you count the illegal torrents. HD digital is losing against Blu-ray an SD digital is losing against DVD, so downloads aren't going anywhere either. I will buy blu-rays once they realize that not many people are willing to part with $20+ to own a movie.


RE: better than expected
By Totally on 7/20/2009 2:08:50 PM , Rating: 5
You're not buying a movie, you are buying a copy of a movie, to be exact you are buying the right to watch that said copy, and the definition of 'right' is open to subjective interpretation.


RE: better than expected
By Samus on 7/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: better than expected
By SunAngel on 7/20/2009 11:32:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
... and the definition of 'right' is open to subjective interpretation.


this maybe true if your from China or another country that enjoys rights infringement, but to DMCA-abridged countries the term 'right' is clearly understood by its' people.


RE: better than expected
By phantom505 on 7/20/2009 11:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
To add to your point.... I love is how everyone seems to forget that a significant part of the US has no broadband access still. My house in Indiana didn't have it, nor did a house withing 15 miles.

You seriously think they don't want high def? Hah.


RE: better than expected
By CZroe on 7/21/2009 1:40:28 AM , Rating: 3
Read up on "First Sale Doctrine."

For all intents and purposes, that physical copy is YOURS to do with as you please (non-commercially)... except that the DMCA had to come and eff things up. You know that little line about getting copyright holder permissions for rentals? Bullcrap. It's how Netflix and others were able to rent Weinstein Company movies despite the exclusivity agreement they had with Blockbuster Video... as long as it was an off-the-shelf copy, they could do so (no special pricing as a distributor or rental agreement). It meant paying a little more, but BBV's exclusivity deal was functionally worthless.


RE: better than expected
By headbox on 7/20/2009 12:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
considering HD + DVR is really cheap from satellite providers (only $40 from Dish), and Netflix streaming is getting better everyday, I don't see blu-ray ever taking off. Popping an expensive DVD into an expensive DVD player is more of a hassle than what I can get online or pay per view. Sure, eventually all computers and players might become blu-ray standard and cost $30, but until then I won't actively shop for one.


RE: better than expected
By zinfamous on 7/20/2009 6:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
The pure HD market is more concerned with actual quality than perceived quality, so there will always be an interest in real HD (BD) vs download or cable/satellite provider.

Sure, plenty will likely be content with what they get over the tube, or via streaming, but the simple fact is these sources can't match the quality you get with BD. I, for one, will not be downloading any "HD" content in the foreseeable future.


RE: better than expected
By mattclary on 7/20/2009 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
According to the Digital Entertainment Group’s midyear report, Blu-ray sales are up a whopping 91percent to $407 million. And in accordance, retailers are getting more and more Blu-Ray, about 50 percent more than the previous year. Digitally distributed content shot up another 21percent as well, to $968 million, which includes around $200 million for electronic sellthrough. ADVERTISEMENT On the other hand, the industry as a whole, which consists of DVD, Blu-ray Disc, and digital distribution, slipped by 3.9 percent to a total of $9.73 billion. DVD sales are clearly slipping, with Blu-ray and digitally distributed content helping to fill the void.


Not sure where this quote came from, but WHAT A SPIN!! They manipulate the words to make it really hard to see that DVD is still kicking butt and taking names.


RE: better than expected
By ani4ani on 7/20/2009 1:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
It may well be selling the most, but it is a fact that year-on-year sales of DVD are now in their third year of decline. Whilst Blu-ray will unlikely ever achieve the levels once seen by DVD, it nevertheless is one of the few areas that the studios are seeing demand growing.


RE: better than expected
By omnicronx on 7/20/2009 1:20:32 PM , Rating: 1
At least someone has half a brain. There is a reason you only seen percentages in stats like these, BD sales are still dwarfed in comparison to its competitors. To make matters worse, the adoption rate is now chugging on slower than DVD, which at this point was around 30 million (first quarter at the beginning of its 3rd year) which places BD about 10 million behind. This is not very good when you consider how much more prevalent home theater systems are these days. To keep things in perspective, by the time the next quarter came along, DVD sales had more than doubled to 70 million. I would be surprised if BD reached half of that by next year, especially in this economy.


RE: better than expected
By segerstein on 7/20/2009 6:10:55 PM , Rating: 3
omnicronx:
quote:
To make matters worse, the adoption rate is now chugging on slower than DVD

DVD >>> VHS
BluRay > DVD


DVD was much much better that VHS. For one thing, you didn't have to rewind. Quality didn't decrease with the number of times the disk was played - important for rentals. DVD was also much easier and cheaper to make than a VHS cassette. Then there was multichannel sound.

BluRay on the other hand offers just improved picture quality. And audio quality, if you have a high-end audio system to notice it.

One really cannot expect BluRay to replace DVD the same way as DVD replaced VHS, since the advantages it offers compared to the previous mainstream technology just aren't that significant.

But I think that
VOD >> BluRay

Just wait less than a decade for fiberoptics to widespread in urban areas and Ka satellites to be deployed (for less dense areas).

Both technologies offer plenty of bandwidth, with Ka satellites still needing to implement quasi-VOD PPV: you order a movie/show, then all those subscribers that ordered it listen in. Then you can watch it in matter of hours. Still more convenient than a physical shop or rental.


RE: better than expected
By rdeegvainl on 7/21/2009 9:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To make matters worse, the adoption rate is now chugging on slower than DVD, which at this point was around 30 million (first quarter at the beginning of its 3rd year) which places BD about 10 million behind.

You are sounding biased. Can you cite your numbers? http://www.vgchartz.com/ shows PS3 at 22 million by itself. That would mean, no other blu-ray players could be sold. Unless you are ignoring ps3 sales completely.


RE: better than expected
By cubby1223 on 7/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: better than expected
By jstall on 7/20/2009 2:57:22 PM , Rating: 2

The report comes from the Digital Entertainment Group (an industry group consisting of all the players in the HD market, software and hardware (including Sony).

So, according to the 'Industry that sells the products' Blu-Ray has about 4% of the market, and according to 'you' (obviously someone with more insight than the hardware, software and film makers combined) the number is 15%, well, I know which one I am going with...

Despite the efforts of fanboys like you the simple fact is Blu Ray is a non event.


RE: better than expected
By omnicronx on 7/20/2009 3:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
He means sales for new movies, which does hover at around 15%, although I think that's being a bit optimistic. Total movie sales which includes the old and the new is still around 4%. New movies is a better gauge though, as for older title it does not really make sense as the older the title, the smaller the gap in terms of video/audio quality. Many old BD movies are also just normal Dolby audio tracks.


RE: better than expected
By TomZ on 7/20/2009 3:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sounds to me you just hate Blu-ray for no other reason than it has the name Sony attached to it.
That's a good enough reason for me. Plus the DRM. Plus the Java. All negatives for me.


RE: better than expected
By omnicronx on 7/20/2009 3:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
So what exactly is your point here? (as you seem to essentially agree with the jstall) For what reason do you think it will not overtake DVD as I do not agree. It surely will at some point, but the fact remains its growth is slower than that of DVD whom after a little over 2 years was selling over 30% more product. The OP said BD is doing really well, when in reality it is really not. It remains a niche product and while it will definitely overtake DVD at some point, it is taking forever to do so. For reference DVD skyrocketed to 70 million copies sold per quarter after their 3rd year, I really doubt we will see anything like that with BD.

I like BD, and I own many movies, but I only buy certain movies for a reason, and thats because most of the time upconverted DVD is more than enough. Studios will continue to push DVD and it will become the next standard, but it has not been successful as DVD because most people can't tell the difference, and the price. I even have a setup with TrueHD/DTS-MA/LPCM but with many movies it is also hard to tell the difference.


RE: better than expected
By DEVGRU on 7/20/2009 4:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought the fanboy crap would have ended by now.


Me too. Whats your excuse?

Call me a pragmatic realist, but Bluray won a battle over HD-DVD to be awarded second or third best.

While I won't go so far as to say Bluray is a failure, it is certainly not the success Sony and Co. so desperately wanted it to be.

Sony can scream "What the hell is wrong with you people! We have the PS3 and Bluray! We're a success dammit! We have people skills!" all they want - congratulations, they're selling more than ZERO PS3's/Bluray players.

Meanwhile, I see Sony getting their asses handed to them using the basic math the rest of the world uses. Congrats on selling that drop to the rest of the bucket though. :P


RE: better than expected
By T2k on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: better than expected
By PurdueRy on 7/20/2009 7:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
You bought HD-DVDs because the format died. Before the end, it was priced just about the same as blu-ray releases with DVD/HD-DVD releases being slightly more expensive.

I really love the complaint about load times as well. I own a Toshiba HD-A3, maybe you have conveniently forgotten but the load times to start a movie are quiet long...and this was a third generation player! Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't call blu-ray "fast". But playing a movie on my PS3 is loads quicker than it is on my HD-A3.


RE: better than expected
By PurdueRy on 7/20/2009 7:30:55 PM , Rating: 2
Correction:

*You bought HD-DVDs for $4 because the format died*


RE: better than expected
By Belard on 7/20/2009 5:21:34 PM , Rating: 1
BluRay market share is increasing faster than DVD did. The players have gone down in price, faster than DVD did.

Yeah... for many people, a $3~5 rental download is fine. And then they may go and spend $12~25 to buy the movie if they like it. Many of us have Digital ON-Demand on our cable boxes. Since I have HBO & Shotime, my on-demand is included for free. But latest titles are about $5... or I walk across the street and rent a DVD for a buck.

Compressed cable still looks like crap compared to a blu-Ray image. And many HD channels are in 720 to save on compression.

If you have a 50~70" TV... cable-compressed video is even worse. Oh... with ANY digital downloads (OnDemand or from Amazon, etc) where are the extras? Subtitles? Deleted scenes? Different language? Making of? Alt. Endings?

Oh yeah... the $5 downloads and $20 "keepers" are just the movie. And not just that, but usually 720 and heavily DRMed with limited storage copies. Usually 1~3! What happens when your HD dies, upgrade your PC... how transportable is YOUR DOWNLOAD?

Digital downloads are fine for rental. And thats why there is money in it. There is nothing to manufacture or ship out.

BluRay hasn't failed. HD-DVD failed.

*Note: Many many HD-DVD owners (fanboys) totally flipped to "BluRay is going to die! Digital downloads are the future!" - gee, if that were so... why did they buy HD-DVDs? And comparing Blu to DVD is kind of stupid since DVDs have been on the market for over 10 years. My first DVD player was $400 in 2000.

If us Amiga users can live with MS-Windows... you guys will easily survive a movie storage medium.

PS: Yeah, Blu will not live forever... then neither does ANYTHING else. LPs, Cassettes, VHS, stage wagons, steam engines, etc.

The replacement of Blu will be a Flash-drive (non writable) of some sort. The hardware tech is there, today.(CPU+decoder+AV output) - but only thing is needed is for the manufacturing to get cheaper. Once 32GB of storage reaches $1-2 costs... bye bye blue. That'll be in about 4~5 years.

Also, that'll be the end of noisy slow players. No moving parts, no motors to fail. (The connector can wear out) And with using todays hardware, the player should cost $100 or so since no development is actually needed. Think I'm wrong? As of today, 32GB thumdrives are hitting $50. 4 years ago, I spent $70 for a 256mb drive, while today 1GB drives go for $3~5, 4GB are $9~20.

We need bluRay today for HD-Video playback. But in 2015 I think we'll be done with circular rotating storage mediums (It'll take a few years for blu to wind down).

Your PC will have a SSD for your main storage (we have that now - just too $$$ for mainstream) and memory slots for video and digital camera as well as movies. Like the media players in the future... the PC will be even smaller.


RE: better than expected
By Anonymous Freak on 7/21/2009 10:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a little torn on the issue. Blu-ray hasn't picked up as fast as the developers wanted, but it is moving. (The fact that a recent study claimed that at present, there are more HD DVD players than Blu-ray players, and more sold HD DVD movies than Blu-ray movies shows that Blu-ray isn't seeing an uptick quite as fast as they would have liked.)

I own an HD DVD player, but not really by choice. I had been planning on waiting to see wether Blu-ray, HD DVD, or digital downloads would "win"; but my DVD player was on the fritz, and a family member got me one of the $99 HD DVD players for Christmas. (Yes, three months before the war was lost.)

I even waited to send in my UPC and coupon for 5 free movies until the last possible day (90 days from date of purchase, I'm sure you can see where this is going...)

Yup. The very day after my envelope went out with the postman, Warner doomed HD DVD. Two weeks later, Toshiba declared themselves the loser, and killed HD DVD for good.

I have benefitted from the early death, though. I got an Xbox 360 HD DVD drive (to plug in to my computer,) for $20 because of the 'perfect storm' of HD DVD dying combined with the CompUSA going out of business sale. That got me one plus five more free movies; so for $20, I had two players, and thirteen movies. (The component player came with two in the box, the Xbox drive came with one in the box; and both came with mail-in coupons for 5 by mail.)

Since then, I have picked up a computer Blu-ray recorder that can also play HD DVD (cheaper than the exact same model without HD DVD! Mostly bought for burning data BD-R discs.) And I have also picked up a dozen more movies, all for $15 or less. (And the only ones I paid more than $10 for were 'combo' DVD / HD DVD discs.)

Now, Warner is offering their "Red2Blu" promotion, and I'll be able to cross-grade my $2-$15 HD DVDs into Blu-ray for very little. (I will now own "2001: A Space Odyssey" on five formats... VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray.)

Although, ironically, I probably *WON'T* buy a Blu-ray player for some time.

I must say, I *REALLY* hope Toshiba makes dual Blu-ray/HD DVD players. LG and Samsung made some, but none were Blu-ray 2.0/"DualView"; thus, obsolete on the Blu-ray side.


RE: better than expected
By Belard on 7/22/2009 8:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
This may help you: http://www.blu-raystats.com

The data about HD-DVD vs BluRay is incorrect.
HD-DVD died with a bit over 1million units (including Xbox Add-ons which is was about 200,000)

Remember, they were fire-selling HD-DVD players for $100, Toshiba was losing money on every unit sold... it wasn't really cheaper than Blu-Ray.

I've seen the article you're talking about... it makes little sense. Saying "10million" Blu-Ray players on the market as of spring 2009 "including consoles"?! The PS3 is the only console with Blu-Ray... and they were over 20million when that article came out! See the problem?

So, theres over 10million BluRay players. The avg price for a low-end player is about $150... some even at $100.

Market share compared to DVD is at 13%. At Costco, when people buy an optical player (DVD or Blu) - 24% are blu-ray. Since the end of the HD media war, there is almost twice as many HD-TVs on the market. Blu/HD players are useless on SD TVs.

A older combo player is about $350~500... Don't be looking for Toshiba to make a combo player. It'll add to the costs. YOu'll need to attach your HD-DVD player to your TV as well... or use it in another room as a DVD player.

Funny thing about Warner. Their choice to go Blu broke the camels back (a good thing - it was back & forth and blue was winning anyways - just not as fast)... but Warner supported HD-DVD longer than anyone other studio... THEY kept their schedules, while the others stop quickly - some even before. Remember the mess Paramount did? Coming out with Transformers created a LOT of HD-DVD sales. Pissed off Michael Bay (who cares?) - it was the last big boost to HD-DVD... and even months before WB announced their choice, Paramount was coming out with 2-3 titles to WB's dozens.

HD-DVD sales are still "high" because of their $2~3 selling price. I see them all the time, everywhere. It even perked me a little bit... $30 for Royal Space Force and MS-HD-DVD player (which can work on PC) and some other titles... then I kept on walking. Sooner or later, HD-DVD players will fail and die with no hope for repair or replacement of a new model.

I've seen post by HD-DVD fanboys buying 3-5 $80~100 HD-DVD players to "stock up". Silly... but understandable. As an owner of losing tech, I know the feelings (Odyssey 2, Amiga)


RE: better than expected
By Belard on 7/22/2009 8:46:01 AM , Rating: 2
This may help you: http://www.blu-raystats.com

The data about HD-DVD vs BluRay is incorrect.
HD-DVD died with a bit over 1million units (including Xbox Add-ons which is was about 200,000)

Remember, they were fire-selling HD-DVD players for $100, Toshiba was losing money on every unit sold... it wasn't really cheaper than Blu-Ray.

I've seen the article you're talking about... it makes little sense. Saying "10million" Blu-Ray players on the market as of spring 2009 "including consoles"?! The PS3 is the only console with Blu-Ray... and they were over 20million when that article came out! See the problem?

So, theres over 10million BluRay players. The avg price for a low-end player is about $150... some even at $100.

Market share compared to DVD is at 13%. At Costco, when people buy an optical player (DVD or Blu) - 24% are blu-ray. Since the end of the HD media war, there is almost twice as many HD-TVs on the market. Blu/HD players are useless on SD TVs.

A older combo player is about $350~500... Don't be looking for Toshiba to make a combo player. It'll add to the costs. YOu'll need to attach your HD-DVD player to your TV as well... or use it in another room as a DVD player.

Funny thing about Warner. Their choice to go Blu broke the camels back (a good thing - it was back & forth and blue was winning anyways - just not as fast)... but Warner supported HD-DVD longer than anyone other studio... THEY kept their schedules, while the others stop quickly - some even before. Remember the mess Paramount did? Coming out with Transformers created a LOT of HD-DVD sales. Pissed off Michael Bay (who cares?) - it was the last big boost to HD-DVD... and even months before WB announced their choice, Paramount was coming out with 2-3 titles to WB's dozens.

HD-DVD sales are still "high" because of their $2~3 selling price. I see them all the time, everywhere. It even perked me a little bit... $30 for Royal Space Force and MS-HD-DVD player (which can work on PC) and some other titles... then I kept on walking. Sooner or later, HD-DVD players will fail and die with no hope for repair or replacement of a new model.

I've seen post by HD-DVD fanboys buying 3-5 $80~100 HD-DVD players to "stock up". Silly... but understandable. As an owner of losing tech, I know the feelings (Odyssey 2, Amiga)


RE: better than expected
By Motoman on 7/20/2009 12:48:47 PM , Rating: 5
Prices for movies have to drop too. I'm not going to pay any more money for a BD than I would for a DVD. The cost of the player is important, but it's a one-time deal. Cut out the BD tax and the market will move.


RE: better than expected
By killerroach on 7/20/2009 1:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Only partially. I don't ever see Blu-Ray discs being cheaper to manufacture than DVDs, and some back-catalog DVDs sell for practically nothing.

That being said, I remember when DVDs were starting to come into the market ten years ago, and people thought they would never catch on because "nobody was going to pay $30-40 for a DVD when they could get the same movie on VHS for $15-20". A few years later, DVD prices fell, and VHS hit the dustbin of tech history.

Overall, considering the current place on the cost curve that Blu-Ray is in relative to DVD's history, it's doing rather well. That being said, it needs to have those continued technology and scale improvements translate into lower costs somewhere down the line as well. It doesn't necessarily have to compete dollar-for-dollar with DVD, but it will have a lot easier sell if the differences are closer than they are today.


RE: better than expected
By Motoman on 7/20/2009 1:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
...I don't ever see BD costing any more than DVD. Maybe a quarter per disk, I guess.

If in the future BD costs fall to parity with DVD, then the market will go with it. The market will not do so as long as there is an appreciable price premium to BD over DVD.

You have to remember also that the issue with DVDs over VHS also had a lot to do with how quickly VHS tapes wore out...and the fact that they were kind of fragile anyway, and your VCR could easily eat them.

The difference between DVD and BD, from a consumer standpoint, is much less that what there was between VHS and DVD. BD is *supposed* to look better. OK. DVDs look pretty freaking awesome on my setup, so I'm not sure I care about that. BD has more room per disk, so you can put more *extra features* on each disk. OK. I can count the number of times I even looked at any extras on one hand. And can predict the number of times I'm likely to do so in the forseeable future on no hands.


RE: better than expected
By TomZ on 7/20/2009 1:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If in the future BD costs fall to parity with DVD...
That won't happen simply because it wouldn't make sense to stock the same movie in both formats at the same price point because Blu-ray is more valuable - it has better sound and video quality. Blu-ray discs are also manufactured in lower volumes and with presumably more expensive equipment. These factors also help keep up pressure on the cost side.

In reality, DVD and BD movie prices will both slowly slide, until DVDs start to become obsolete. When/if the latter happens, their prices will start to fall quickly as production decreases and inventory gets sold out. This is probably 5-10 years in the future, if you ask me.

Another possibility is that downloads continue to rapidly grow and take over in place of DVDs instead. And to me, whether or not that happens depends on how the content and distribution industries play their cards. If they can make it convenient, be reasonable about DRM and pricing, they can probably kill off BD entirely.


RE: better than expected
By Motoman on 7/20/2009 1:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the point I'm making is that the BD format isn't going to take marketshare from DVD so long as there is an appreciable price difference. And as long as people are buying DVDs instead of BDs, DVD will never become "obsolete."

So what's an acceptable price premium? I don't know...maybe it's $1, maybe it's $3. It sure as hell isn't $10 or $15.


RE: better than expected
By nilepez on 7/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: better than expected
By Motoman on 7/20/2009 3:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
...Epic BS.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8483...

Pirates of the Caribbean: $35 on BD at BBY (on sale from $36)

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8483...

Same movie, $10 on DVD at BBY (on sale from $20)

Apples and apples, not "baragin version" vs. "deluxe version." I have not ever seen a BD movie within $5 of the DVD version.

On top of that, I don't give a flying #@$% about "extra features" anyway. They are just as worthless to me on BD as they are on DVD. If any producer attempts to justify any extra cost of BD over DVD on the basis of having even more "extra features" they get an automatic fail. There is no value at all in "extra features."


RE: better than expected
By Motoman on 7/20/2009 3:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
hmmm...not sure what happened but both links go to the $10 DVD version. So I guess look it up for yourself. $35 vs. $10. Hmmm...which is the better value?


RE: better than expected
By omnicronx on 7/20/2009 3:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
When DVD tipped the scales over VHS, it was still more costly. Especially with new releases as the price differential did approach the 5-10 dollar mark. So your theory has a few holes.


RE: better than expected
By Motoman on 7/20/2009 5:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
As previously noted, I pointed out that there were other issues pushing people from VHS to DVD, like the longevity and durability of the medium itself. Those issues don't exist between BD and DVD. As previously noted.


RE: better than expected
By ExarKun333 on 7/20/2009 2:09:48 PM , Rating: 2
That argument is flawed; the consumer already pays more for a BED player than a DVD player. The cost per disc is pretty negligable between DVD and BD. So because the studio has to scale down the picture for DVD, it means they should charge less than a non-scaled down version for BD? Wrong. There is no reason to charge more than $1-3 more for a BD, if they trully want wide-spread adoption.


RE: better than expected
By Silver2k7 on 7/21/2009 2:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
only older titles that has to be remastered should cost more.. new titles should pretty much cost the same to make a BD or a DVD disc.


RE: better than expected
By mattclary on 7/20/2009 1:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe my memory is faulty, but my recollection is (most) DVDs started out at less than $20. I seem to remember $19.99 a lot


RE: better than expected
By ani4ani on 7/20/2009 1:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I still have my very first DVD and it still has the price sticker on it. It is Godzilla and it has the "sale price" of £29.99, down from £39.99. GB£'s I know, but the most I have ever spent on a Blu-ray is £15.99, some 11 years later. In real terms, Blu-ray [players and discs] are much cheaper than DVD was at the outset. For information, my first DVD player [an LG] cost me £499. I am on my third BD player, and I haven't spent any more than £250 on any of them.


RE: better than expected
By killerroach on 7/20/2009 2:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
I remember when I got my DVD player back in 1999 paying $30 for pretty much anything, with some films (Disney's offerings being the worst offenders) going for $35-45.


RE: better than expected
By omnicronx on 7/20/2009 1:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Well no offense but that's your personally choice. As VHS vs DVD showed us, price is not the only driver of adoption (DVD's were never cheaper than VHS). It is more expensive to produce a BD thus you should be paying more, the problem is 25-30 dollars (BD's are damn expensive in Canada) for a new release is just not worth it when you can get the DVD for under 15. I agree that pricing needs to be lowered, perhaps to within 10-15% of the price, but a 50%+ markups we are seeing are just plain ridiculous. Older movies are even worse, as BD's seem to have a floor in price, regardless of how old the movie is.

Right now I only buy action fast paced or action movies, as the price does not justify the picture and sound when you are not watching a movie that takes advantage of it.


RE: better than expected
By cubby1223 on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: better than expected
By TomZ on 7/20/2009 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
An informal survey of my non-tech friends and family would tell me that Blu-ray has not caught on so far. I only know one family with a Bly-ray player, and so far all I've heard from them are complaints about the sound from movies on Blu-ray.

I don't own a player either, mainly because I don't think that it's worth the cost to upgrade my player and to pay the premium for movies on BD.


RE: better than expected
By wempa on 7/20/2009 2:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see it catching on yet, either. I happen to have a PS3 and 3 BR movies only because the movies were gifts and my wife won the PS3 in a poker tournament. What it boils down to is that the majority just don't see the value of upgrading right now. You can spit out all the fancy stats and terms you like (1080p, Dolby Digital, HDMI, etc.) and it still means nothing to the average person. DVDs still work fine and look great. In fact, I have a 47" LCD and I really don't notice that big of a difference between DVD and BR. Sure, it's there, but I definitely don't feel it's worth paying the extra premium for. I also laugh at the comments about BR doing the same as DVD was at this point in its lifetime. Well, there is a BIG difference between those 2 points in time. Back when DVD was starting to gain traction, it had very little to compete with other than VHS. Broadband internet and digital cable were both still very scarce. HTPCs weren't quite as powerful nor did they have anywhere near the storage capacity they do now. Movie streaming services like Netflix and Xbox Live didn't exist. While the consumer almost had no choice but to adopt DVD, that really isn't going to be the case with BR. Consumers have a lot more options now and the number of options will most likely increase.


RE: better than expected
By Silver2k7 on 7/21/2009 2:45:19 AM , Rating: 3
If you experience a few movies in a good 5.1 setup you know its better. Maybe its something wrong with their setup, or some settings on their reciever.

"An informal survey of my non-tech friends and family would tell me that Blu-ray has not caught on so far. I only know one family with a Bly-ray player, and so far all I've heard from them are complaints about the sound from movies on Blu-ray."


Was there any doubt?
By tophat on 7/20/2009 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's just business. There wasn't any doubt that Toshiba (and eventually the rest of the HD-DVD camp if not already) would jump onto BluRay - it was only a matter of time. If they didn't, that would've been surprising.




RE: Was there any doubt?
By cubby1223 on 7/20/2009 1:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
There always was doubt. The plan was Chinese manufacturers were going to pick up where Toshiba left off. Then the studios, all of them, were not going to just abandon all the HD DVD owners out there. Then there was Toshiba's Super-Upconversion which was going to blow away Blu-ray in every possible way. And finally, as you see in the thread, fanboys who invested too much into either their love of cheap HD DVD, or their hatred of Sony, just can't let go.

Blu-ray is a product. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it.


RE: Was there any doubt?
By bupkus on 7/20/2009 4:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Ahhh, yes. The "either do this or do that" argument, "just shut up." Me tired of it although I need to read it and get pissy.


RE: Was there any doubt?
By T2k on 7/20/2009 5:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And finally, as you see in the thread, fanboys who invested too much into either their love of cheap HD DVD, or their hatred of Sony, just can't let go.


We have our rational arguments why we wanted to see the other one win and regardless of the outcame these arguments are still ALL VALID.[/b]

Of course, one cannot expect simple people with idiotic cliches like
quote:
Blu-ray is a product. If you like it, buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it.


to grasp the concept of rational, fact-based decision-making - it's just too difficult for them, bots.


Sony paid off Toshiba...
By Acanthus on 7/20/2009 1:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sony sold over 800m in profitable assets to Toshiba mysteriously, immediately following Toshiba exiting the format war.




RE: Sony paid off Toshiba...
By TomZ on 7/20/2009 3:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
Got links to back up that conspiracy theory?


RE: Sony paid off Toshiba...
By Belard on 7/20/2009 4:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
How can SONY "pay" off Toshiba by making $$$ selling them something?

Sony sold their CELL chip production facilities to Toshiba for $850m. Not a secret.


And why wouldn't they?
By Chaser on 7/20/2009 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blu-ray Disc Sales Are Up More than 100 Percent

According to figures compiled by the DEG with input from content providers and retailers, Blu-ray Disc sales were hugely popular at retail with sales up some 105 percent. According to figures compiled by Swicker & Associates on behalf of the DEG, nearly 20 million Blu-ray discs shipped to retail in the first quarter of the year – a growth of 108 percent over the same period last year. Sales of all Blu-ray compatible devices, including set-top players, PC drives and PlayStation 3 consoles are now in more than 10.5 million U.S. homes.




RE: And why wouldn't they?
By headbox on 7/20/2009 12:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
If I sold one cup of lemonade at my lemonade stand yesterday, then sold two today, should I run around saying it was a success and sales are up 100%?


RE: And why wouldn't they?
By Mitch101 on 7/20/2009 1:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes if your a Real Estate agent.


By T2k on 7/20/2009 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously: how is it that only LG and Samsung took care of us?

C'mon, Toshiba, include your HD DVD, it does not cost any royalty for you - I would pay an extra $100-120 on top of that $200 if it would be a BD 2.0 - HD DVD combo player...




Unconfirmed
By crystal clear on 7/20/2009 9:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
There is NO official announcement from Toshiba on this,rather a Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun is reporting this ......based on unconfirmed reports/sources.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/

Instead of jumping to conclusions rather have the wait & see attitude to this.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Related Articles
Toshiba Chief Speaks on HD DVD Defeat
March 5, 2008, 9:13 AM
Update: Toshiba to Abandon HD DVD
February 15, 2008, 5:20 PM













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