backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by Snuffalufagus.. on Dec 24 at 6:12 PM


  (Source: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=24560)

  (Source: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=24560)
Blu-ray players and Blu-ray content showing signs of increased sales.

Despite the end of the high definition disc war with HD DVD Blu-ray has not turned in to the runaway success Sony would like it to be. Recently though there have been signs Blu-ray is finally seeing signs of quantifiable success.

In Britain Futuresource reports consumers bought 462,500 Blu-ray discs in November, an increase of 165% from October. In France, Blu-ray's share of the optical disc market is expected to double next year to 6%. In Europe, overall Blu-ray player sales are expected to reach 2.5 million units in 2009 without including the PlayStation 3.

In Japan, research firm GFK Retail and Technology reports Blu-ray disc recorders have surpassed 50% market share a significant increase from October 2007 when Blu-ray disc recorders accounted for only 10% of the market. GFK also reports Blu-ray is replacing DVD 1.5 times faster than DVD replaced VHS.

For content, the Blu-ray version of the “The Dark Knight” sold 600,000 copies in one day according to TVPredictions breaking records for high definition disc sales. Of the 3 million combined copies of “The Dark Knight” sold, Blu-ray accounted for roughly 20%.

Finally, CDR Info reports that Pony/Canon will release the first movie title on a hybrid Blu-ray/DVD disc in Japan in February. The significance of this technology is the hybrid BD/DVD disc is compatible with current DVD and Blu-ray players. Also the DVD and Blu-ray layers can be accessed without needing to flip the disc.

The hybrid disc is intended to speed the transition to Blu-ray technology and was introduced nearly four years ago. The disc conforms to specifications released by the Blu-ray Disc Association for the "Blu-ray Disc, Hybrid Format".  Infiniti storage media claims that it achieves a compatibility of 99% according to tests made on 64 Blu-ray and DVD players.



Comments     Threshold


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

I've said it before...
By chmilz on 12/22/2008 6:13:22 PM , Rating: 5
This isn't the "must have" technology that DVD was. Unless the players hit the $100 mark and movies drop to $20 soon, Blu-Ray is doomed to becoming a niche market product as digital streaming technology is built into everything and made easy-as-pie to use.




RE: I've said it before...
By poundsmack on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: I've said it before...
By bplewis24 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: I've said it before...
By ThePooBurner on 12/22/2008 7:58:50 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see why you are saying that about his comment. He is right: It isn't a must have. At all. Or anywhere near it. Most people can't afford the players, let alone the TVs to drive the players, and then the movies are more expensive on top of that. The cost to benefit ratio is horrible. The improvement is not worth the cash to people like the upgrade from VHS to DVD was. To some it is worth it, however they are a very small portion of the market, hence why BD has a small market share. As the person you were remarking on said: Until the costs come down to a level that the lay-man feels that the cost:benefit ratio is much better it is going to stay in the niche market for those who are well to do and have money to spend on something that isn't actually anywhere near worth the price it cost them.


RE: I've said it before...
By Carl B on 12/22/2008 8:04:34 PM , Rating: 4
Considering that the crux of the issue lies on whether BD is "must have" relative to DVD as DVD was to VHS, I think it is thus noteworthy to note that the article itself alludes to an actual higher rate of transition from DVD than from VHS back in the day.

Obviously the points are clear as to why DVD was more fundamental a shift away from the preceding medium, but at the same time I think society as a whole has shifted increasingly towards a state of being where there is indeed a strong gravity associated with everything 'high def,' speeding adoption even when that high-def aspect is really the only real differentiating feature between the new and the old.


RE: I've said it before...
By Snuffalufagus on 12/22/2008 8:11:03 PM , Rating: 1
I hope it never actually hits the low price point it needs to become 'mainstream', a lot of people will be much happier if it dies out first. The most annoying prospect is that in the future, if it doesn't die out soon, there could be titles that get released exclusively on BR.


RE: I've said it before...
By Gzus666 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: I've said it before...
By 9nails on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: I've said it before...
By DrKlahn on 12/23/2008 12:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly not true. We've watched Blu Ray on our small 32" 720p LCD and the difference is readily apparent vs standard DVD. Is it as nice as watching it on the 8ft screen with lossless 5.1 audio downstairs? No, but you certainly can enjoy Blu Ray on a $600 set with just the internal speakers. We've been watching Heroes Season 2 Blu Ray on it lately and it looks better than even the off air HD feeds.


RE: I've said it before...
By ummduh on 12/23/2008 7:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by 9nails on December 23, 2008 at 12:49 AM Nice manors. But it's not polite to neglect all the other items that one must buy in order to watch the more expensive version of the same movie. First, you need this imaginary $100 player. But even then, you're only getting a portion the benefit since it wont be compatible with BD Live. You also need an HDMI cable to connect to your TV. And the TV is worthless if you don't have a set capable of 1080p and 120Hz. (Why buy obsolete equipment?) So figure spending $1,200 more on the TV set. And the built-in speakers sound like crap; surround sound is the new way to listen. So figure another $300 for an 8 channel LPCM speaker system. Ok, so now that we're all set and ready to watch Blu-Ray, the movies are going to look amazing for the $1,700 that we just spent. But wait, why don't movies look $1,700 better? You mean that we have to buy a larger TV to see the smaller pixels and appreciate the improvements or move the couch closer to the set? So now we've moved the couch, the movies we watch once or twice a week look fantastic, but now all my TV programs look like crap since we didn't upgrade our TV service - and the channels I watch aren't in HD anyways. What a waste of money. Thanks for the lousy recommendation. We should have just saved the difference and enjoyed the same movie on the lower costing DVD disk, and put the $1,700 into a stock that is at a record low...


That right there is why I don't own BR, or an HDTV.

Well, I bought an HDTV but I took it back. (a small 22" Vizio 1080P I planned on using as double duty TV/ comp monitor) I spend too much of my hard earned money to watch a friggen TV already. Then they want another 10-20$/month to make it look better?
NOT worth it.
Yea fine, it looks amazing. YAY. Still not worth the monetary outlay that it takes to get there! The day I drop over a grand on a "decent" TV is the day.. Well, I don't know. I never will. I love technology, and am only 27, but it's just not going to happen.

And I doubt I'm the only person out there that sees it this way too.


RE: I've said it before...
By JosefTor on 12/23/2008 4:06:56 AM , Rating: 4
Depends who you are talking to about being desirable. I for one think it is unneeded and will easily/quickly be replaced by digital downloads before full adoption. Up to $39 for a movie? I will barely pay $15 which I still think is overpriced. This is a format being pushed on consumers ahead of its time. I personally can barely tell the difference in performance quality and I still record shows on tv in standard definition vice HD because the size versus quality just doesn't make sense on my HDTV.


RE: I've said it before...
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 9:17:54 AM , Rating: 1
In his scenario, he says that he hopes it won't drop in price cause then movies will eventually only be released in Bluray. If it gets to that point, then things will be cheaper. Don't pretend like you don't get that. You won't pay $15 for Bluray? DVDs are that much. Seriously, who hopes something won't get cheaper?

If you can't tell the difference, you have a junk TV or bad eyes, cause the numbers don't lie. That is like saying your 15" 1280X1024 is fine cause you can't see the difference between it and a 24" 1900X1200 resolution monitor.

When you can start downloading Bluray quality movies all the time, let me know how many you get a year. Meanwhile normal people will be renting or buying Bluray movies and actually enjoying the movie rather than trying to download it. Most of you people who want digital downloads want them so you can pirate them anyway.


RE: I've said it before...
By Maharajamd on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: I've said it before...
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 11:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, that makes sense. Jerks are never right. You have to be cordial and respectful of stupidity to be correct in something.


RE: I've said it before...
By Snuffalufagus on 12/24/2008 6:12:55 PM , Rating: 1
It's great how you can absolutely only see it from your point of view. You made an assumption that everyone finds Blue-ray to be desirable. I feel it is a hindrance on the advancement of technology and wish it had never made it as far as it has, in the long run we would all be better off without it. I take no offense to the moron comment, we all know it is impossible for you to see through the hair and balls.


RE: I've said it before...
By cgadragon on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: I've said it before...
By Sunrise089 on 12/22/2008 8:32:08 PM , Rating: 3
Streaming sucks. Every form of HD content that isn't BluRay gets compressed to hell and looks only passable. A BluRay disk on a 1080p set looks amazing in comparison.

Remember guys, DVD players weren't snapped up quickly at first either. Nor were progressive scan DVD players when that innovation emerged. They are now dirt cheap.

The comparison I like even better are portable GPS systems. They used to be a high-end luxury item, and now they're tremendously popular holiday gifts because they can be had under $100. That in spite of the fact that as the price has dropped internet mapping utilities have gotten better than remained free.


RE: I've said it before...
By retrospooty on 12/22/2008 10:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, streaming sucks and BR looks great, but it better get cheap and get cheap FAST, or it will be replaced by faster cheaper flash media in a few years. If the price drops and 100's of millions of households have them, they will secure a spot for the next decade at least. If they dont drop the price to saturate the market, it may fade into oblivion before they really take off...


RE: I've said it before...
By BansheeX on 12/23/2008 12:14:37 AM , Rating: 4
Yep, and you don't own a stream. You can't watch it as many times as you want free of charge. You can't watch it without internet access, take it to a friend's house, use it in a classroom. You can't resell it. You can't give it to people as gifts on holidays. And if you're looking for an actual upgrade over DVD, a highly compressed 720p stream with no extras isn't it. Pay-per-view is an interesting rental scheme, but it poses zero threat to DVD or BD.


RE: I've said it before...
By theapparition on 12/23/2008 11:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yep, and you don't own a stream. You can't watch it as many times as you want free of charge. You can't watch it without internet access, take it to a friend's house, use it in a classroom.

While I understand your point, and happen to agree with you.....technically you're wrong.

The BD license "allows" the viewing of the content on the disc, but you don't own it. Legally, you are not allowed to take it to a "friends" house, nor are you allowed to bring it into a classroom, which would constitute a "public exhibition". Luckily, HD-DVD forced BD to include mandatory managed copy, otherwise, BD would be a lot more restrictive than it even is now.

Legal technicalities aside, I prefer to own a disc any day.


RE: I've said it before...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 12:31:51 PM , Rating: 1
FYI, a friend's house doesn't meet the legal definition of "public" (unless your friend opens his house to one and all), and a public classroom would normally fall under educational fair use exclusions.


RE: I've said it before...
By theapparition on 12/23/2008 2:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
Under the BD license, it specifically only gives rights to view in one's own home, unless you consider your friend's house your own.


RE: I've said it before...
By mcnabney on 12/23/2008 12:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
All those same things can be said about the print media (books, magazines, newspapers). And digital media is pounding their ass.

And here is another benefit of downloadable media. it can't be stolen. With a media service like Steam (for games) your computer can catch fire or be stolen, but the content you already purchased can just be downloaded again for free.

And also, how many of us have unwrapped DVD/BD media that have sat on the shelf for months or years? The current model isn't that cost effective. If a BluRay movie costs $30 and a 1080p one/two day download costs $5, how many films will you really watch six times over the lifetime of the technology? 4K is coming, which will make all those shiny BDs obsolete as well...


RE: I've said it before...
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 2:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All those same things can be said about the print media (books, magazines, newspapers). And digital media is pounding their ass.


quote:
And here is another benefit of downloadable media. it can't be stolen. With a media service like Steam (for games) your computer can catch fire or be stolen, but the content you already purchased can just be downloaded again for free.


Except those things don't really reduce in quality by downloading instead of having a physical format.

quote:
And also, how many of us have unwrapped DVD/BD media that have sat on the shelf for months or years? The current model isn't that cost effective. If a BluRay movie costs $30 and a 1080p one/two day download costs $5, how many films will you really watch six times over the lifetime of the technology? 4K is coming, which will make all those shiny BDs obsolete as well...


It is called renting, people do it all the time. Netflix does it last I checked, being that I get Bluray movies from them all the time.

Also, 4K isn't coming, shut up. Do you know long it will take to get everyone to move to that high of a resolution set? You complain about slow adoption now, imagine when it gets to where you need a movie projector 100" screen just to see the difference.


RE: I've said it before...
By SoylentG on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: I've said it before...
By masher2 (blog) on 12/22/2008 11:29:32 PM , Rating: 5
BD over DVD is a large boost in audio and video.

DVD over VHS, though, was as large a boost -- plus media that was much smaller, many times more durable, and (quite possibly most compelling of all) didn't need to be rewound.

In BD's favor, you have the fact that players are backwards-compatible with DVDs. If discs become backwards compatible as well (ala these new hybrid discs) then that will be a major spur towards adoption, and could easily result in BD surpassing DVD as early as 2010.

Personally I've owned BD for quite some time now (and HD-DVD even longer). But its not "flaming" to be realistic about the technology.


RE: I've said it before...
By SoylentG on 12/22/2008 11:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, did you think I was talking about the article? I was referring to the first post, who said bd was going to be niche if it didn't have $100 players and $20 movies. Sorry for not being specific.


RE: I've said it before...
By wempa on 12/23/2008 12:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
It isn't completely idiotic to think that BR could die out. When DVD came out, there weren't really any other alternatives besides VHS. Now, there are so many promising technologies out there that could make any optical disc based solution seem dated. Just look at CDs. We went from 8-tracks to records and cassettes to CDs. Then the optical format hit a dead end. The same could very well happen with video.


RE: I've said it before...
By BansheeX on 12/23/2008 12:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This isn't the "must have" technology that DVD was.


I disagree. 1080p mpeg4 makes 480i mpeg2 look like a joke.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=10...

The disc format that will fail is the one after BD. Source material and human perception of detail still had a ways to go with DVD, and the only people who try to deny it are the ones who spent thousands on a DVD collection.


RE: I've said it before...
By DCstewieG on 12/23/2008 10:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
The vast majority of movies on DVD are 480p, not 480i (minor quibble). But the point still stands...1080p blows it away. But threads like this rarely talk about the other upgrade: the audio.

quote:
The disc format that will fail is the one after BD. Source material and human perception of detail still had a ways to go with DVD, and the only people who try to deny it are the ones who spent thousands on a DVD collection.

I don't know if I'd put money on it, but I think there's a good chance for the next format to support 3D. If so, I would think that falls between the transition from VHS to DVD and DVD to HD as far as people caring/noticing a difference.

Some DLP TVs already support it: http://www.dlp.com/hdtv/3-d_dlp_hdtv.aspx

And there are other ones coming that don't even require glasses: http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/04/mitsubishi-show...


RE: I've said it before...
By DrKlahn on 12/23/2008 12:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The vast majority of movies on DVD are 480p


Not to nitpick but all video on a commercial DVD is stored interlaced. Almost all players today have the necessary hardware to pickup the 3:2 cadence in movies and properly reconstruct the frame to 480p. The first DVD players to support this didn't show up until a couple years into the formats life.


RE: I've said it before...
By luv2liv on 12/23/2008 1:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
streaming or downloading is convenient and nice but Comcast terminated my service when i downloaded too much, about 200Gb per month. that was a year ago. not sure what the policy is now, but the infrastructure isnt there yet.


RE: I've said it before...
By plonk420 on 12/23/2008 1:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
uhm, i may have agreed with that a year ago (even tho i have and was rooting for Blue), but yes, as someone else said, this is retarded. i think it grabbed 14% of movie sales sans the week before TDK was counted...


RE: I've said it before...
By probedb on 12/23/2008 4:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand this sort of comment, people somehow forget how much DVD players/software cost when they came out yet you're not moaning about how expensive that used to be? Blu-Ray has only been around unchallenged by another HD format for less than a year yet with a title like The Dark Knight it accounts for 20% of sales...sure it's doing really badly....

Everyone expects new technology to cost nothing when it's released...how can it?


RE: I've said it before...
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 9:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
They don't, most of it is just lots of people here hate Sony, so they blast anything they back. Since Bluray was somewhat theirs, they blast it. Clearly it is doing better at being adopted than DVD did even with a competitor for a short period.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot











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