More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge - Page 10

Re: More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge

Proof positive that Blu Ray will succeed (to mix sadness with the bizarre and the macabre):

I'm watching CNN live red carpet coverage of the BET awards tonight and they interview Joe Jackson, Michael's father, who in the midst of an answer to a question about his son's death, introduces some guy standing beside him and says [paraphrasing]: this is [so-n-so] and he's working on a Blu ray project, Blu ray is the next step, so be on the lookout...

Wow. Just wow.

Re: More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge

Dave;

I think that if you look at both the market share and the revenue, it is showing that blu-ray is growing. I think if it were fewer titles being sold at a higher price, only the revenue would be going up. Not the market share.

I hope my numbers and charts don't bore people. I take data for a living, so I have to see things in graphs for my brain to work right.

Re: More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge

My argument is a simple one given only the revenue chart I'm a professional metrologist so I look for the implicit assumptions behind the graphs. Like "revenue" = "market share". But I expect there's a rising market share graph out there.

Re: More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge

Perhaps, but how much of that is attributable to additional units versus effective price increases? Or are Blu-ray discs solely going down in price?

Re: More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge

In my opinion, the average price of a BD movie is either the same or slightly less.

And Dave, I did post a market share graph a little higher up in this thread.

Re: More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge

I think that is a fair premium, but the only problem is that single disc DVDs are now $20 each (appx); before Blu-ray came along, they were about $15 each.

Re: More Research Asserts that Blu Ray Adoption Isn't Apt to Surge

So typical. Please do provide from one of my posts where I called a group of people a name like "doom and gloom."

You use the word "complaining" as if I and others were complaining. Please point out the complaining - I certainly am not complaining.

You continually point out how Blu-Ray has surpassed Laserdisc - but you miss the point, and you obviously know you miss the point but you go on anyway. The laserdisc comparison isn't about money - it's about the perception of a product as a niche and not a mainstream product. Right now, Blu-Ray is very firmly a niche. And it will remain so, just as laserdisc remained a niche, unless the MSRPs come way down. You can keep tap dancing but the sound of your taps grow more hollow with each and every post.

Post #231

 Again, typical.  You can only quote the post where I am obviously aping what you did - you know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it.  If this is the only way you can debate a point, I'll leave you to do so all by your lonesome.

Boy is this board going to take some getting used to - really slow, very awkward to use and things moving and popping.  I'm sure it will get easier, but it's very odd to me at this point. 

I can only comment on my own situation, but I suspect that it applies to a great many others than myself.

A few years ago, I was buying DVDs hand over fist. I usually paid $20 or less and, more often than not, got a 2-disc set in the deal. I purchased some movies sight-unseen, based solely upon the recommendation of friends or reviewers whom I respected. Life was good.

Flash forward to the present: The cost of living has gone through the roof. Whereas the combined salary of my wife and myself had once allowed us to not think twice about going out to eat once a week or picking up a DVD on a whim, now it barely covers the necessities and trips to a restaurant or movie theater are rare treats. 2-disc DVD sets now set you back twice what they did just a few years ago. I have a BD player, but only because I got extremely lucky and my wife scrimped and saved and scored one at Christmas when the prices were at $150. In the past six months, I have been able to purchase four Blu-Ray films and then, only those with exceptional quality, such as SLEEPING BEAUTY and PINOCCHIO, or those of my favorite director that also happen to be available for $15, namely 2001 and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. I use Netflix for anything else I want to watch on BD or that is esoteric and the Public Library for mainstream DVD.

I love the Blu-Ray format. Aside from a few annoyances like long load times, HDCP, and the substantial lack of resume on all but a few titles, it pleases me in the same way that Laserdisc pleased me back in the day. When it's a well-produced disc, it's the best possible way to experience a film in the home. The picture and sound quality are head-and-shoulders above that of DVD. Will it replace DVD? Probably not. The average person who is not a film or tech buff don't particularly care about picture and sound quality. I had a person come into the Library yesterday to ask if we had BEN HUR on VHS because he couldn't stand watching the widescreen version on the DVD. I should also mention that he has a rather large set. He just hates black bars. Apparently, stretching the awful VHS P&S image to fill his HDTV is preferable to him. Also, there are a lot of folks who truly can't see enough difference between an upscaled DVD and a BD. All these people see is the price tag.

BD is selling really well for a niche item. The question isn't whether it can succeed as a format. It can. Those of us who care about quality will gladly buy them when we can. The question should be whether or not the studios will continue to support a format that is just "doing okay". They might not. As has been stated previously, movie studios would prefer that physical media become a thing of the past. Streaming or downloading DRM-ed content allows the studio to maintain total control over its product. There is no such thing as a "used download" store. However, if the studios do want Blu-Ray to succeed, they are going to have to knock the price down. A Blu-Ray that costs the same as a DVD or only a few dollars more would make those on the fence more likely to dive in. As it stands, if Bubba at the Wal-Mart sees the DVD of PREDATOR for $5 and the Blu-Ray for $20, which do you think he'll choose?

Finally, the world is in the depths of a recession. Nobody has as much money to spend on luxuries. If the studios want the format to survive, something will have to be done soon to make it both attractive and affordable to a greater number of people.

I don't have answers. I want the format to continue to grow because I love movies and want the opportunity to see them in HD. I just don't know if the state of the world will allow that to happen.

Boy I wish I lived in an area that had DVDs for $5.

The only Wally World $5 DVDs I have seen are all really crappy movies that didn't sell in the first place.
I have seen a few OK movies in a $14.50 bin at my wal-mart, but I can also find BD movies for $14 at Amazon.

Those who are OK with what they see in the $5 bin aren't the most discerning people. LOL

Very true.  But I also think a lot of people seem to be forgetting that they didn't always pay these prices for dvds.  For the first few years the standard prices were $19.99, $24.99 and $29.99 for dvds.  The way some people carry on, you'd think they never had to pay more than $6.00 to buy a dvd, even back in 1999. And most didn't have anything but the film usually.  Maybe a trailer and a vintage featurette at best.  It wasn't until a couple years later with the onslaught of "Special Editions" (and double and triple dipping) that we really started to get a lot of extras on dvds.  You're getting more bang for your buck right now with blu-ray (especially if you get them on sale) than you did at the comparable period with dvd. 

Now, now, there.  Quit yer tap dancin'. 

The "perfect storm" was around when DVD came along--economy riding high, a major shift in quality from VHS, lower production costs than VHS, the beginnings of widescreen TVs...but DVDs in the early days did NOT (despite the faulty memories of some wishful thinkers) offer a significantly different distribution of genres (classics, westerns, sci-fi, blockbusters, comedies, etc.) than today's BDs AND they were not, with inflation accounted for, a better deal (at best they were about the same, and in some cases more expensive).  My first player cost me 700$ (I could have gotten something cheaper, but I wanted something of quality) in 2001.  My PS3 cost me 400$ in 2007 (or about 300$ in 2001 dollars) and it gives me far more than my first DVD player did.  By any measure, it is a better machine.

Now, is BD poised to be as successful as DVD?  No.  It plays in a very different landscape.  With most TVs in the 42 inch or lower size range, the difference between BD and DVD is not as dramatic as it was between VHS and DVD.  The economy is not in the same shape, at all, as it was back in the same moment in the product cycle.  DVD did not have streaming and downloading as competitors (leaving aside the quality issue, convenience plays an important role for the average consumer).  Despite that, there are thousands of titles (more than I could hope to buy or want to buy), the selection is at least as diverse as it was in the same moment in the product cycle as DVD. Prices, adjusted for inflation, are equivalent to DVD, if not better in some cases--both for hardware and most software.  AND the quality is better--from a fair bit to a lot.  Studios gave laserdisc two decades of support as a niche product that was MUCH more narrowly distributed and known.  How many TV ads were there for releases that said "now on LASERDISC and VHS"?  Zero.  How many for "now on Blu-ray and DVD?"  Just about any new release.  Nice "niche".

My first DVD player was a $499 Toshiba from Sam's in 1998. I don't think it did DTS. My first disc purchases on the same day were Spartacus, Mary Poppins and Strangers on a Train, so I do believe classics were coming out then (at least as fast as Blu-ray). However, they were all at least $19.99. Coming from laserdisc, where those titles would have ranged from $29.99 to $39.99, it seemed like a good deal. Laserdiscs were almost always sold for MSRP.

My Panasonic BD60 Blu-ray player cost $249 from Best Buy a month ago. The other day, I was going through some old DVDs that have been upgraded to Blu-rays. I had bought some spare Blu-ray cases that would hold 2-discs. I wanted to use disc 2 of my 2-disc Master and Commander DVD as disc 2 with my Blu-ray (the Blu-ray is barebones). I still had the receipt from Target inside the case for 2-disc DVD of Master and Commander, and it was for $27.99 on the day of release.

Exactly.  We agree.  (Not sure I understand the tap dancing remark when we made the same point... )

This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but let me tell you how I have to look at it.

Many of the discs I play have closed captioning but not subtitles.  My wife is hearing impaired.  That means I cannot even use the component connections between by (SD) DVD player and my (HD) display.  So we're watching DVDs via an S-video connection (or maybe it is composite. A/V... I don't remember).  Y'know.  It looks pretty good.  I wouldn't, but I bet many of my colleagues at work would think it is HD.  So going from there to Blu-ray wouldn't feed them much.  And I probably still couldn't do it, because if the SD DVDs aren't subtitled then I bet the BDs aren't either, eh?  (Can someone please check for me?  The L Word Season 5, Dexter Season 2, Tudors Season 2, Weeds Season 4.)

Most US BDs, at least from the major studios, have EN SDH as a subtitle option on the disc. Many of the earlier Fox and MGM titles have Closed Captioning like DVDs, but that didn't make much sense due to not being able to display Closed Captioning over HDMI.

Sounds exactly like with DVDs, so basically, as a hearing impaired family, we're likely to be stuck watching BDs via composite video connections  as much as we're currently stuck watching DVDs that way. 

Things aren't looking good for my intended Sony BDV-E300 purchase (even if Sony ever does actually plan on releasing the product).

Sorry.  I thought you were the one who'd been told he'd been tap dancing (it was one post above one of yours).  I was making a facetious remark about "tap dancing".  We do agree.

Couldn't you do a dual hookup, and hook the player by both component and HDMI? I have my DISH receiver hooked up that way. It goes into my receiver via HDMI when I want to hear it in 5.1 sound. But my wife doesn't care about that stuff, and just wants to turn on the TV and DISH and start watching TV, so I also have it hooked into my TV via component with the RCA stereo cables going into the TV as well.

You could do the same thing with a Blu-ray player, unless you and your wife only watch movies together. There are films I like to watch that my wife does not care for (and vice versa) so this works for us.

Sound is not a problem... that goes direct to the 5.1 speaker system.  This is just a matter of video, and you cannot mix :) the HDMI (for the HD) and the composite video (for the CC)... although if my wife was willing, we could set up a second television for the CC..... heheheheheh

We do always watch everything together.  And when there are subtitles, we switch to the HDMI video connection.

Why would you be stuck watching BDs over composite when the EN SDH subtitles are an option on this disc just like any other subtitle? Again, only earlier Fox and MGM releases have Line 21 Closed Captioning.

Your reply didn't indicate any difference between BDs and DVDs in this regard.  "Most US BDs, at least from the major studios, have EN SDH as a subtitle option on the disc."  Same with DVDs.  "Many of the earlier Fox and MGM titles have Closed Captioning like DVDs, but that didn't make much sense due to not being able to display Closed Captioning over HDMI."  Same with DVDs.  Then I mentioned some recent DVDs that didn't have EN SDH, but rather only Closed Captions.  And I haven't seen anything, yet, that indicates that those titles, on BD, have EN SDH.  I hope I do, though.... that would be great if they do provide EN SDH on those titles.  (Though I would wonder why they aren't doing so on the DVD versions...)

Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

A quick jump around the internet re: the titles you mention reveals the following:

The L Word Season 5: Not released on BD
Dexter Season 2: EN SDH on discs
Tudors Season 2:Only released on BD in Canada, couldn't find subtitle info
Weeds Season 4: EN SDH on discs

Cool.  What resource do you use for that info?  I am stuck using Amazon.com, which is often inaccurate.  I would love to have a more reliable source for that kind of info for DVDs, at least, but also for BD if we go that way.

I used a combination of blu-ray.com and highdefdigest.com.

Thanks!  I'll bookmark them both!

You're welcome. :)

For the US releases at least, the major studios will be putting EN SDH on the disc going forward and ditching Closed Captioning. It's in their best interest to do so. I'm 99% sure that every Warner US BD disc has EN SDH subs, for example.

I just hope that the premium cable channels start doing that more consistently.