"He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Yeah, DVD is only dead to a good chunk of people on HT boards like this. And I say that as someone who buys Blu-ray discs and has generally limited my DVD purchases to TV shows or smaller catalog titles.

Quite honestly, I'm surprised that Blu-ray is already at 10% of the market. I know that the doomsayers will say things like "Blu-ray needs to get 95% of the entire market by December and lower its prices to $2 a disc or they're done for!" but the market is growing. It just won't grow as fast as DVD did.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Nothing will grow as fast as DVD did. I also dont think this Christmas will make, or break Blu-ray. I think it will do fine this Christmas. I also dont think Sony will go tits up anytime soon. I know many Sony haters hope they will! I never understood the hate for Sony. Its like i dont own a GM car now, but its not cause i hate GM, and hope they fail. They just dont make as good a car as they should/could. You may feel the same about Sony, but IMO they DO make damn fine LCDs, and CRT TVs!

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

This is just what happens when the upgrade doesn't require you to upgrade all your stuff. Even if you buy a Blu-ray player, you don't have to chuck out your DVDs like the transition from VHS to DVD. I know plenty of folks who don't mind watching their old DVDs on their new HDTV. DVD offered the ability to see a film in its proper aspect ratio and with greater detail than VHS. Cinephiles went nuts with all the amazing bonus features. Blu-Ray offers better picture, but at a higher price. People are going to be choosey as to what they buy on the format. They'll buy the stuff they really like and not make impulse purchases. It's like deciding if you'd rather have lunch at a hamburger joint (DVD) or a high price steakhouse.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

The take over wont be for a very long, long time. The difference between the two is negligable at best, the price is WAY too expensive (yeah, lets go back to laser disc pricing - thats a GOOD idea) and DVD has too much of a stranglehold on the market.

It would be like dislodging the CD. SUre there are better formats out there, but it's just way too dug in at this point.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Well I'm glad you asked ...

They push proprietary products down our throat (UMD, memory sticks, ...)
They place malware on yourr computer without informing me (the CD copy protection).
Average quality, high price.

So, just to be clear, I'm not a BD hater, just a Sony despiser in general.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

People might not care about the difference but there is a clear difference between the two.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

The difference it not negligable, but it's not great (for most people) either.

As long as Blu-ray movies are 50%-100% more expensive than the DVD version you won't see the sales market share increase very much, IMO. The rental market may be another story though, but I haven't seen any figures on that.

---------------

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

I currently have a 4 year old Hitachi 46F500 TV (46" 1080i/720p CRT RPTV) along with a Panasonic DVD player connected via component video. The picture quality of DVD to me looks great on this set but I was always curious about what an HD source would look like. Back in January when Toshiba slashed the prices on HD-DVD players in half, I picked up an HD-D3 at Costco for $129. To me, there is a slight improvement in picture quality going from DVD to HD-DVD but it isn't light years ahead as it was going from VHS to DVD. I also notice a slight improvement in Dolby Digital audio quality as well through my old Onkyo TX-DS777 receiver.

Now, assuming that Blu-Ray is on par with HD-DVD, I really can't justify buying a Blu-Ray player at the prices they are currently charging for a slight improvement in audio and video quality. I am 99.9% positive that I will buy a Blu-Ray player one of these days but I want at least a profile 1.1 unit and I don't really want to pay more than $200 for it. I may be waiting awhile for that to happen but I did see the Panasonic profile 1.1 player for $329 at Circuit City over the weekend so perhaps I may see my price around the holidays... maybe.

I would imagine that if I were to upgrade my TV and receiver I'd notice a bigger improvement in A/V quality but that may not happen for awhile. In the meantime, I am perfectly content with watching DVDs (and the occasional HD-DVD) on my 4 year old Hitachi, and listening to them through my almost 9 year old Onkyo.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

This is what I have been saying about HD/BR since they came out. Is the picture better, certainly. How much better? Well that is very subjective. To some, it is a great deal better. To others, myself included, it is only marginally better. But is the cost worth the extra investment? With just these samples, (and this is HTF'ers), it seems the majority of consumers do not feel it is worth the extra. And yes, you can mix your movies, SD & BR, but that involves buying an additional player and connecting it into your system as well as your current SD player. For many, they opt to keep it simple and stay with SD.

I still feel that BR will remain a niche market, like Laserdisc did. It may become predominant one day, but that day is very far off and something better may come along before then. Again, just like what happened with Laserdisc. It was pricey, only stayed a niche market and the majority stayed with VHS until finally SD-DVD came along and took off, then most people went from VHS to DVD, never buying into Laserdisc.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Well I for one am perfectly content with SD-DVD. I've seen BD on display and to me, the picture quality is marginally better at best. Hardly worth spending big bucks on, especially when a standard DVD on an upconverted player looks pretty damn nice in and of itself. The switch from VHS to DVD was inevitable. The two formats were worlds apart. But this time around we have a disc versus a slightly better looking disc. No big leap there, at least not for the average J6P.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

It all depends on the quality of the source material. Old film elements that are one or two generations removed from the negative generally don't benefit that much from Blu-Ray. On the other hand, a recent Hollywood blockbuster filmed on HD-video can look significantly better on Blu-Ray. All this makes it likely that DVD will remain the home video medium for older movies, while Blu-Ray will be limited to new releases and a few best-selling classics.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

All Blu players are perfectly capable of playing SD DVD's. There's no need to keep an SD player around.

I've found when discs are priced at $30 there are very few that I want to buy at that price point. $15 vs $30 is the difference between an impulse buy and a well thought out purchase.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

And when 1.1 players drop below $200, we'll see a spike in sales, as some will feel the desire to "future-proof" themselves.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Well... I can think of one reason to keep a standard DVD player around. The HD-DVD player that I have seems to take up to a couple of minutes to "boot up" before it is ready to accept a disc. I hear that Blu-Ray players have a similar start up time. DVD players are ready to go as soon as they are turned on so that may be a consideration for some people.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Not an issue with my newest Blu-ray player. It turns on quickly, and standard DVDs start fast. As a matter of fact, my Blu-rays start pretty quick, as long as they are not full of JAVA.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Ummm, how exactly would this future-proof anybody? I must be missing something here.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

The price point doesn't matter now that the Blu-ray players are $300. People have already sprung a grand plus for their HD-Widescreens. The player is chump change at this point. Even among my friends who have sprung for the HDTV, the only ones who go Bluray are the ones who bought PS3s. And they are really choosey about what titles they'd upgrade or pay extra. Others seem happy with the DVD player that upconverts.

The DVD that seems to be pegged for the mega-break through in sales is Dark Knight.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Wasn't quite chump change then but it was pretty easy to convince my wife we NEEDED an upconverting player a couple years back after spending almost two grand on the HDTV. I fall in with the crowd that is very happy with the display I have now; I loved Dark Knight but it will be on DVD when it joins the collection.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

First of all, the "laserdisc-like prices" nonsense needs to stop. I remember laserdiscs being 45$ and UP, not 40$ and LOWER (like BDs are now). Moreover, this is 2008 (almost 2009). A 45$ laserdisc from 1989 is the equivalent of about 75$ in 2008--and I've yet to see ANY single title (non-uber collector set) BD for anything close to that.

I have no qualms with people deciding that the improvement in BD (or HD DVD, for that matter) over SD--everyone is free to decide whether something represents a "value" purchase (cost vs benefit), but I DO have issues with baseless exaggeration as a premise upon which one makes a decision. And this "laserdisc-like pricing" is just that, baseless exaggeration.

In the end, NO ONE knows whether BD will be a niche product (like laserdisc) or if it will displace SD DVD or (what I think more likely, but it's only my guess) if it will co-exist with SD DVD as cassettes did with LPs and then CDs for quite some time.

just my 2 cents

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

I find that my favorite HD discs are of older movies (Grand Prix, Searchers, Casablanca, Black Narcissus, etc.). Granted these films have been treated with loving care, but I'm generally underwhelmed with the recent releases on BD. I generally don't see a significant upgrade in the BD versions of these films versus their S-DVD counterparts upconverted on my Oppo 983. I do agree with your last sentence though, since the "Wow"-factor proponents generally go with the latest CGI blockbusters. I'm hoping that the sales of The Godfather Trilogy will be strong enough to encourage more older films to be released on BD.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Good post Paul. I agree with everything you said. I also think that if Blu-ray becomes a niche, its already a bigger one than LD. In 20 plus years only a million and a half LD players were in US homes. BD passed that the first 6 months.
And if you count the world BD market, i would call it a MUCH larger niche. Even at this point, and it will get bigger.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Posted by PaulDA: First of all, the "laserdisc-like prices" nonsense needs to stop. I remember laserdiscs being 45$ and UP, not 40$ and LOWER (like BDs are now). Moreover, this is 2008 (almost 2009). A 45$ laserdisc from 1989 is the equivalent of about 75$ in 2008--and I've yet to see ANY single title (non-uber collector set) BD for anything close to that.

I was a laserdisc collector from 1984 to 1997-ish. Sure, some special edition LDs were in the price range you quote, but most were not. A standard 1-disc laserdisc from a major studio was usually $29.95 to $34.95. 2-disc titles were usually $39.95. Your figure of $45 and up is not indicative of most titles. Criterions were insanely overpriced (prices like $89.99 were not unusual). The Fox special editions like Patton and Cleopatra were pretty high, and included lots of special features.

Also, most laserdisc titles did not have the special content of today's DVDs. Only those expensive titles did. You'd sometimes get a trailer, but most laserdiscs were movie only. I bought them for the video/audio upgrade over VHS. That and the ability to jump to any point on the disc via chapter search (though some discs were very light on chapters).

DVDs really have a lot more to offer than LDs, hence the satisfaction most have with the format. I upgraded to HD DVD when the bottom fell out of that market, and have amassed a pretty good collection at bargain prices. Some titles look great, some look like my SD DVDs upconverted. I'll likely get a Blu player sometime, but right now, I am more put off by the disc prices than those of the players.

Also, some of today's TVs apparently do enough upconverting that people may not feel the need for an upgrade their player if they cannot see the difference. I was in Fry's one day, and they were showing the SD DVD Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and it looked like a Blu-ray to me. Another time, they were showing the Blu-ray of Transfomers, and it looked so scrubbed-clean that it looked like it was shot on video rather than film. At first, I thought it was a "special feature" shot on video, but it was the actual movie. My Mitsubishi 1080i is a few years old, and does not make content look like that. If the TV has that much control over the picture, the player format seems incidental.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

The thing is, if BR takes a long time to even begin to displace SD, then overall it may stay as a niche, because something totally new may come along. This is basically what happened to LD. It hung around and got some acceptance but before the masses ever bought into, along came DVD. With lower priced players and media, as well as more features, DVD grew very quickly and killed off VHS.

Heck, before BR really takes off to the same extent that SD-DVD did, they may have data crystals you just plug into a port and play the movie or special features, (or some other equally totally new technology).

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Some LDs were in that range and some weren't but even if all LDs were $30, they're still more expensive than Blu-ray discs when you figure that $30 in 1990's isn't the same as $30 today. Not to mention that you get a much better product with Blu-ray or that no one pays the retail price anymore- I think I've paid $25 once for a movie on Blu-ray.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

From today's Best Buy flyer available Tuesday, Baby Mama BR $29.99 and right next to it, the SD edition will be $16.99.

Now, you can shop all over the web and certainly beat that price but for the average guy, this is the reason why sales will remain flat.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Just wait until Sony and all the others stop making dedicated-DVD players, and start making only blu-ray/DVD players. That will be a huge incentive for consumers to start buying more blu-ray discs.

Personally, I'm waiting for a blu-ray/DVD recorder.

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

30$ in 1990 is 47$ in 2007. And in Canada, 45$ laserdiscs were bargains (I will grant that US prices were a fair bit lower). So my larger point remains--BD is, in real dollar terms, cheaper than laserdisc AND, as you yourself have noted, it offers more content than laserdisc (as the vast majority offer at least what SD DVD offers in terms of bonuses).

Again, I have no quarrel with the idea that the cost of going "blu" right now may not be warranted for some, based on a number of criteria. I just don't think we should be exaggerating the cost of BD media, in real dollars, to justify our decisions (in either direction).

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

Posted by PaulDA:
That is quite true. But back in the laserdisc days, the competition was with VHS, which was crap. Even a good tape was prone to dropouts and breakage after many plays, and some tapes would not track well on different machines, etc. Eventually, laserdisc was the way to get a movie in OAR, while OAR VHS was rare.

Blu-ray competes with a much cooler and more advanced system than VHS; one which already has many of the same features as Blu-ray. I hope the prices of Blu-Ray machines and media do come down. I believe the "vast majority" of consumers do not care about the differences and cannot see the improvement. I do care, and am certain I would appreciate Blu-Ray. I'm waiting for prices to drop. I know some of my early DVD SE purchases were in the $20 and up range, so I hope Blu-Ray prices drop in a similar fashion to DVD.

I was an early adopter of laserdisc when there was nothing even close to it in terms of features and quality. However, SDVD is still pretty good for now (for me).

Re: "He's not dead yet, Jim" S-DVD sales seem to be holding their own

You're exactly right, Sony and the other manufacturers are going to use changes in hardware standards to try and force people to repurchase their DVD collections on Blu-Ray. They've already started this process in fact by discontinuing large screen tube TVs, which were the best displays for DVD.