Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net - Page 2

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Oh, is that what we're doing now -- boiling everything down and reducing it to its most simplistic terms? Because, if so, I can boil down and reduce nearly all of your posts to the phrase "Blu-ray too expensive", and you can spare us further repetitions.

In fact, though, you can't reduce it that way. (Well, I suppose you can if it makes you happy, but it's intellectually dishonest and conceptually invalid.) There are too many critical differences that just can't be boiled away. For example, when LD was as old as Blu-ray,

• There was no such thing as a mature market for home video; people hadn't yet developed the habit of buying movies to watch at home, and movie theaters were still the principal venue for watching films; a 26" 4:3 TV screen was still considered large, and NTSC resolution from an analog source was as good as one could expect.
• The home video divisions that just hosted HTF in L.A. didn't exist yet, and the entire business model of the film industry operated differently.
• As MarkHastings has so aptly noted above, you didn't have the internet as a common force uniting hobbyists in discussions of home theater technology. Indeed, the very notion of HT, as we understand it today, probably wouldn't exist without the internet.

Now, I'm not and never have been one of those Blu-ray cheerleaders who believe that "victory" is inevitable. I personally expect Blu-ray and DVD to coexist for a very long time. As with Mark Twain, the reports of Blu-ray's death have been greatly exaggerated, and folks who think they can sum up the situation with a simple slogan like "It's the new laserdisc!" are sounding more and more like people trying to convince themselves.

They certainly aren't convincing anyone else.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

I'm sorry if you disagree but Blu-ray IS just too expensive for most CE consumers to consider buying at this time. If repetition helps in driving this point home to the powers that be - so be it!
You raise some very interesting points each worthy of their own discussion but such points IMO take a back seat to the essential truth that BR and LD share the same common deficiency - high software prices and I don't see much effort on the part of the studios to change this. In fact, after the holidays, I wouldn't be surprised if they raised software prices.
We agree. I don't see "death" in BR future either. But, I do see BR on life support for the next few years as more efficient and cheaper HD media delivery systems take the forefront.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Not necessary for me to take part of the whole discussion here, but this is a point I strongly disagree with.

Currently, I own over 200 HD DVDs and over 60 BDs. It's true that some are priced not too generously (Fox, anyone?), but if I compare the ones I double-dipped on with a previous DVD, I payed less for the High-Def version than for the DVD in almost all cases.

(On Amazon, I payed less for the new Godfather BD set than most people who bought the DVD set. And this was one of my mostly anticipated set of films.)

Indeed, the prices should (IMHO) still come down, and especially the BD-hardware, to gain full market exceptance, but the difference is not anywhere near the situation with LD. No comparison there.


Cees

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

No, we don't. I don't think the points I've raised "take a back seat". And I don't think repetition "helps in driving [a] point home". I think it just makes you sound desperate to win an argument.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

All the "BD is as expensive as LD was", besides being, well, wrong, is wrong by an order of magnitude--anyone ever hear of "adjusted for inflation"?

Even in this economic crunch, BD represents (both in players and software) a smaller percentage of anyone's disposable income, by a fair margin, than did LD. Now, if individuals believe that current prices are still too expensive for them--that's a different story. Everyone is free to determine the value of any discretionary spending and behave accordingly. But a lot of the griping, particularly as 20$ BDs and 200$ players are increasingly common (not all titles and not the best players, of course, but that's hardly any different than with SD DVD), seems like "sour grapes". "It's too expensive for me, so it'll never make it as a format" or "It's too expensive for me, so I'll assert it's only marginally better than SD DVD" or "you need a 70"+ screen to even notice the difference", etc. Whereas, the reality is, "it's too expensive for me, I'll have to wait until I can afford it (the thinking that most people have--and the one I had for SD DVD when it appeared), but (as some people can't stop with the first part) I'm jealous that others are enjoying something I can't have so I'll find any excuse to rationalize why I don't need it anyway" (sadly, the implied, if not stated, attitude of too many complainers).

Complain about specific things like a 700$ player that has half as many features and doesn't work as well as a 300$ player (recently read a professional review of just that). Complain about some companies charging 20-30% more for the equivalent product (player or software) that another company is charging. Those are legitimate cost gripes. Complain that some BD titles are sloppily made and so are not, individually, much of an improvement over the SD version (there are some of those discs out there). But let's please not invent things that are not true (the LD thing) or blanketly condemn the entire format for a minority of issues. That is the definition of "sour grapes".

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Let's see....$100 LD disc in early 1990 (as compared to a $20 VHS) and a $30 BD disc in 2008 (as compared to a $20 DVD)

Yeah, you're right, they are both very similar in price!


Again, one of the biggest drives (for the average consumer) into BD is going to be the larger HD TV's. With prices coming down, consumers are going to be purchasing larger and larger TV's. The one thing I've noticed is that when the average consumer buys an increasingly larger TV (then what they had before), the first thing they notice is how crappy regular TV looks. This alone is what drove many of the people I know into purchasing Blu-ray players.

The biggest drawback with LD was the fact that most consumers were happy with their little old TV's. There was no "drive" to get a high end video player.

Now a days, there's so much 'buzz' about HD and Blu-ray that it's very entising to people. Sure, a lot of them still can't afford it, but that's the BIG difference between BD and LD. With BD, people want to buy into it when they have the money. With LD, if people had the money, they still wouldn't want to buy into it.

I think BD is just waiting for the economic bubble to burst. Once prices come down (which they will) and once people start having more disposable income, BD will take off even more so than it already has.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Hey Cees, how does Blu-ray do where you are in the world? Is it the same as the U.S. and Canada reports or better or worse?

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

You are still missing part of the point. One of those "particulars" is that BD hasn't been given time to do anything else realistic than be a higher margin alternative over DVD. LD had its time, and the industry didn't do much w/ it -- and that's besides all the other variables.

We don't know w/ any certainty yet which way the industry will go w/ BD over the long haul (yet). At this point, it seems like the industry is more likely to take BD down the DVD path (more or less) than the LD path. Not saying that means BD will become as successful as DVD, but so far, it certainly looks like the industry is planning things that way. Also, don't forget there's VOD/downloads to factor in -- I think BD will end up replacing DVD for the good margin end of that market while VOD/downloads will replace DVD for the bargain bin and rentals end of the market (assuming VOD/download does not turn into a big bust of course ).

BTW, re: real, average folks and prices, this is anecdotal, but just the other day, I saw one average-to-low-income lady decide to just buy 1 BD (for her hubby), instead of 2, because of the price ($20 vs $15 for a new release title from the street vendor) -- and plan to come back to buy the other one later. Many folks will just adjust their purchasing behavior to accommodate the higher prices, but that doesn't mean they will stay away completely. I do the same myself...

_Man_

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

According to recent figures, Blu-ray stand-alone players are in only 1.7% of US households while a whopping 26% of US households have HD programming through sat/cable providers. Based on these figures, it's hard to make an argument that Blu is anything but a niche product.
I would suspect that one of the reasons for this disparity is the public's perception that Blu is just too pricey (big leap ). Of course it doesn't help when millions of Wal-mart shoppers keel over from sticker shock when they see some mundane Blu-ray titles titles priced at $29.95 next to those $5 DVD bargain bins.
Cees. I see you own quite a bit more HD DVD titles. Is that due to the recent bargain pricing?

High-Def Options Vie With Blu-ray - WSJ.com

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Frank, I see you're beginning your latest series of replies. While you're posting away, here's a series of simple factual questions you should be able to answer off the top of your head. I'm curious about your qualifications to compare LD and Blu-ray:

1. In what year did you acquire your first laserdisc player?
2. What was the largest number of LD titles you ever owned? (Rounded to the nearest 50 or 100 will be sufficient.)
3. In what year did you acquire your first HD DVD player?
4. What was the largest number of HD DVD titles you ever owned? (Rounded to the nearest 10, 50 or 100 will be sufficient.)
5. In what year did you acquire your first Blu-ray player?
6. How many Blu-ray titles do you currently own? (Rounded to the nearest 10, 50 or 100 will be sufficient.)

And now the big, non-factual question: Why is this so damn important to you?

Personally, I don't care what kind of product Blu-ray is, as long as it's available. But you seem deeply invested in convincing everyone that it's a niche. How come? Do you win a contest or something?

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

You're not making fair comparisons anywhere in this thread.

How are $5 DVD's supposed to keep people from purchasing BD's? You keep twisting the details in your examples. While you so cleverly branded the BD's (at Wal-Mart) as "mundane", you did not once mention the fact that the $5 bin is hardly what I (or most others) would consider "Exciting" movie watching material. And I would also argue as to what you consider "mundane" because my local Wal-Mart carries a decent array of great movies on BD.

The key fact in your example that disproves your analysis is, BD is IN Wal-Mart! Wal-Mart only carries what it knows it can sell to the majority of people who shop there and it knows it can sell BD to the average consumer. If BD was a "niche" product it wouldn't be in Wal-Mart. I mean, have you ever seen products at Wal-Mart that only appeal to people who don't shop there? Hardly.

Also, sales numbers aren't the main factor in determining whether something is a niche product or not. The key factor is whether the product only appeals to a particular segment of consumers. If only enthusiasts were purchasing them, then I'd agree, but they're not. So what if sales aren't the same as DVD. As has been stated, that's no reason to declare it "anything but a niche product."

What I'm sensing is that you can't afford to buy into Blu-ray and are unhappy, so you're taking your frustrations out on the BD market and trying to believe that it won't take off. You say "Millions are keeling over from sticker shock"?? Really? What data do you have? Or are you just assuming that because you're outraged, that everyone else mus be?

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

I alluded to this attitude earlier (as a broader comment) but this is a classic example.

And to Michael Reuben's questions, I would like to add the following:

When did ANYONE see a laserdisc (player or software) for sale at Wal-Mart (or Target, or for my fellow Canadians, in Zellers etc.)?

Don't worry--naysayers simply move the goal posts when their "argument" falls apart.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

This Robin Harris doesn't seem to be the only one disappointed in Blu-ray:

Is Blu-ray the new Laserdisc? : Christopher Null : Yahoo! Tech

Blu-ray still waiting for sunny days - Entertainment News, Weekly, Media - Variety

The Bad Economy Blu's - Media Wonk - Blog on ContentAgenda.com - 1500000150

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Christopher Null has a photo of a grave stone with "Here lies blu-ray 2006-2009".

Is he serious? What qualifications does it take to be a "Yahoo Tech"??

Actually, if you read, he quoted Robin Harris's article which proves that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He sounds like a lot of those so-called "Techs" out there who cobble their expertise from bits and pieces of info they hear in the news.

I mean read this quote: And this guy is allowed to call himself a "tech"?? He sounds like the people I work with who don't know how to use their computers, yet blame all of their problems ON the computer.

Give me a freakin' break!!

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Mark you may be right about Null or maybe he's just trying to be an average joe.

Taken more seriously though, should be the above articles in Variety and Paul Sweeting in Content Agenda

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Yeah, the Variety article was more credible, but it was saying what we were all saying - the slumping economy isn't helping BD sales. The article was also quite positive though...while it said BD isn't where they had hoped it would be, it's still doing pretty well and they are optimistic. Just take a read at this quote: and as for the Content Agenda article, that too speaks of the declining sales in regular DVD's, which (as they compare) aren't good news for BD...but again, that's not to say that BD is "dead". Also, I'm not sure if I agree with this quote: Again, the economy will definitely have an impact of BD, but I still think it's unfair for anyone to call it a niche product or that it's dead yet.

Weren't people saying that Digital Downloads would kill DVD too?

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Sorry for the delay but I'm typing between plays while watching college football.
Lets see. I bought my LD player in the early '90s for $400 and during the next 10 years bought 9 LD titles. I learned the hard way that before you buy the hardware, check the price of the software first.
I bought my A2 for $99 w/5 free titles in 11/07. I've since added 6 more titles.
Bought my Sammy 1400 about 4 months ago from my brother only after he gave me the 7 free titles it came with. I've since bought 4 other titles.
You didn't ask but I own 360 DVDs and have about 65 HD titles recorded off Dish on an external hard drive.
Obviously, my only qualification to compare formats is based on purchases (or lack thereof) and my own estimation of what constitutes value.
...you mean beyond providing mere statistical information from a different perspective in line with the topic of this thread? This thread deals with subjective impressions by Robin Harris. It's easy to discredit impressions, much harder to discredit numbers. Anyway, I found the information contained in this article simply quite amazing and wanted to share it.
Certainly people can decide for themselves if it's important (niche or not) and structure their buying habits accordingly.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

You didn't answer the question.

If that's your only interest, you're done here.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

That is some bit of nasty speculation on your part.
Actually, I thought many of the reasons you cited were probibly legitimate reasons for some people not buying into the format.
In my case, my spending decisions where Blu is concerned is colored more by frugality and not affordability.
That's an excellent idea. Why don't you start a thread on these gripes.
Not inventing anything. I'm just saying that, on the whole, Blu software prices are too high for most consumers just as LD titles were priced too high as well.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Well, in my household, I'm afraid, the size of my FR HDTV was pretty much pre-ordained by my wife's sense of decorum.
Actually, I think most people would say price was the most obvious stumbling block.
I hope your right.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

No more so than some of your choicer quotes. Like this one:

For someone who claims to be interested in "numbers", not "impressions", you're very free with the latter. And very selective in ignoring those things that don't fit your preconceived theory (e.g., as was noted above, the very fact that Blu-ray is at Wal-mart at all is indicative of mass acceptance far beyond what LD ever achieved).

Now you're just trolling. As I suggested above, it's time for you to leave this thread. It's now more than a suggestion.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

LD lasted almost 20 years, and thats not to bad for a niche format, that you all say was a failure. I could say that VHS is equally dead, and therefore must also be a failure. No, VHS, and LD didnt fail, time moved on. If Blu-ray (and DVD) lasts 20 years i will be happy.

I see that your one of those folks who like to download your HD content. Glad that works for you, but dont dismiss Blu-ray. Downloading off TV is like taping off of HBO back in the day. It didnt work for me, i wanted the higher PQ that LD offered, and i loved widescreen. Shoot, store bought tapes had better PQ than off the air taping. Just like Blu-ray has better PQ, and audio, than recording off your DVR, or downloads. You can tell me its expensive, and i agree, but it fills a need that downloads, and DVD dont offer. For right now, it fills a niche, but i think that niche will be a big one. Its already bigger than LD, and getting stronger each day.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Save your breath/fingers, Rick. He's made it clear that he's not here for a serious discussion.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

Troy,

Although I hardly buy Blu-ray over here (I had to decide which region would be my main source - and finally I chose to have a region A player), it's doing well.

Still an obvious niche market, but on the other end, the TV sets, "Full HD" or "HD Ready" offered are the majority by far.


Cees

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

As far as VOD and DD being any real threat to BD, I disagree. The variety article spoke of 3 main groups that will give BD it's success:
1) Adult Males (like most of us here who want physical media)
2) Movie Buffs (who also want the 'best' possible solution, which isn't in the form of a download)
and
3) Families (who need versatility and don't want to be bothered with trying to get their downloads burned to a disc so they can show it to junior in the living room, bedroom, or mini-van)

DD's and VOD's are an attractive solution for teens (who watch movies on their i-pods) and people who can't afford it. And no, that does not mean your average consumer. I am talking about the ones who watch movies on their computers because they can't afford HT systems. The average consumer may not have a ton of money, but they always find ways of purchasing stuff.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

I saw a recent Sony model Blu-ray player on sale for £99 (about $160 at current rates) in my local Waitrose (high-end supermarket) last week. Even the prices of newer models were far below what I'd have paid for a DVD player 10 years ago, and that's before adjusting for inflation.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

I fail to understand why people continue to insist on comparing Blu-Ray to Laser Discs. Blu-Ray in it's little over two year existence has already overtaken what Laser Discs achieved by the end of it's approx 20 yr life span. Do you remember any title that even came close to almost a 20% share of the particular title's sales on home video. Blu-Ray has already had two such titles, namely Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Laser Disc would have been more than happy with even a 5% share, which by the way it never achieved. Blu-Ray consistently averages approx 10% sales of all new titles released. I don't think Laser Disc averaged even 2%. Laser Discs were only available for sale in major towns & cities and there too only in very select stores. Whereas, Blu-Ray is available in every single town in the US. Laser Disc rentals was an option for only people living in maybe the biggest of cities and there too the avaialbility was minimal at best. On the other hand Blu-Ray rental is available for every single person in every single town in the US. If Blu-Ray survives for even half of the 20 yrs that Laser Disc did, you can bet that it will control the majority share of any media based home video format.

Personally, I could give a rats ass if the majority chooses to stay away from Blu-Ray. For, all I care for, is that the titles that I want, keep being released on Blu-Ray, which I am a 100% sure will continue to happen. The numbers for BD are already where no studio can afford to ignore them.

As for these so called 'experts' that keep putting out these articles predicting the premature death of Blu-Ray, I'd be surprised if they understood even a little bit about marketing and the home video industry. I personally have not come accross a single article that I found even reasonably convincing in their arguments.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

As with so many things, a lot of it results from the difficulty of leaving aside one's personal point of view and engaging in dispassionate analysis.

Take frankie108. Although he's now left the thread, I don't feel bad using him as an example, because I'm offering a benign interpretation. If you look at his history of hardware and software purchases listed above, it's obvious that he refuses to buy software until it becomes very inexpensive ("frugality", as he called it). From that point of view, LD and Blu-ray aren't much different, but it's a personal point of view, not a market analysis.

While it's possible to cherry-pick statistics and pronouncements to buttress that personal viewpoint into something that kinda, sorta resembles a market analysis, you can do so only by ignoring a lot of contrary evidence and a large number of logical inconsistencies.

(The same excesses can be seen among hardcore Blu-ray proponents, BTW. To our great detriment, it's a style of rhetoric that has come to dominate much of public discourse today. But I digress.)

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

I also think a lot of people feel that the strength of SD-DVD is what will cause the death of BD.

While I agree that SD-DVD's strength is helping to keep some people away from BD, I also believe that it's not fair to consider BD a failure if it doesn't do as well as SD-DVD.

The HD market place is still pretty young and I predict that BD will take some time to gain it's momentum. One of the strengths that SD-DVD had was that you didn't need a new TV to hook up a player. All you needed was a composite input (which most TV's had). Hell, wasn't there even an adapter for those old RF/Antenna TV's??

And as far as considering BD a "niche" product, I think people are confused with how the time line of new technology works - At the beginning of the year, we were still in the "Early Adopter" period and if it had stayed that way, then I think you could consider it a Niche product, but I think we got over that hurdle and are headed towards mass appeal. Once you break out of the "Early Adopter" phase and head into the mass market, you've ceased to be a Niche product.

Once people start adopting larger HDTV's and once the players start falling in price (which they will), mass adoption will become VERY attractive.

Re: Blu-Ray Article on ZD-Net

I think there's a superficial parallel between the two in that they both appeal to higher end consumers who want the 'best'. It's a different world than it was in the 1980's or mid-1990's so beyond that one thing, I don't think the two really compare.