What makes Fox beholden to Blu-Ray? (1 Viewer)

[Joseph DeMartino]

"Practically no decoders"? Both Dolby Digital (originally marketed as "AC-3") and DTS had been home audio formats for sometime before DVD arrived, thanks to laser discs. And even people who couldn't take advantage of full-blown digital surround sound were still getting hiss-free, non-degrading cd-audio quality stereo or DPL sound from their movies - something vastly better than VHS.

So, again, anybody could enjoy some benefit from DVD from the day the format launched, without buying any new equipment beyond the player itself and some DVD movies. No one who doesn't own or buy an HDTV gets any benefit whatsoever from hi-def DVD. So the suggestion that the fact that SD DVD sold more players in 2 months than HD-DVD has sold in six still tells us what it told us several posts ago - nothing. Even if your 15% in 2005 is correct (and I don't believe that single study because it contradicts the 15 million worldwide figure for 2006 which I've found in multiple sources. I think the study you linked to is probably flawed and their estimate way too optimistic.) But even if the 15% number is real, that still doesn't approach the 90% of U.S. homes that were SD-DVD capable when that format launched.

No flames, just facts, history and logic. Oh, and first-hand knowledge of what the U.S. market was like in 1997 - when I bought my first DVD player about 6 months after the format launched.

Regards,

Joe

 

[ppltd]

Peter, you are right, of course. Just a little exasperated over the rollout discussion. Guess BD is taking a 'Mulligan' on their rollout.

Thomas Eisenmann

 

[Ryan-G]

If that is true, then could you please explain to me how studios make money on double dipping?

Following the logic of your statements to their conclusion, "People do not want to repurchase something they already own", then the vast majority of double dips are losses for the studios.

The majority of sales occur in the first few weeks, so by the logic of your statements, the majority of people who would buy a Double Dip already bought a copy and aren't willing to repurchase, so the studio loses money on remastering/remenuing/extra features.

Of course, this is just a rehash of what I posted in response to you making the exact same comment a month or two ago, that you never counter-pointed, so I'm sure I just wasted 5 minutes of my life.

 

[Cees Alons]

Of course they would lose on double dips alone. But the vast majority of the purchases are by people who didn't have the previous version.
We, on this forum, are biased in our view on these things, because we happen to be the demographic set that most probably did have the previous version already.

Even in our group most people often state to only buy a new version if it differs enough from the previous one, e.g. new cut, much better transfer, better sound, very interesting extras, etc.


Cees

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

What people seem to forget is that every day somebody is buying his or her very first DVD player, or getting out of the rental habit and starting to collect films for the first time. People who were 12 or 13 and living at home when the format debuted are now graduating college or already living on their own. Nothing is static. One reason for "double dipping" is precisely to have a "new release" of a previously popular title to capture sales from people who weren't buying DVDs the first time a film came out and who - with the dozens of new titles available - may never have thought to track down a given title or gone browsing the racks to see what "old" titles he or she might be interested in.

Regards,

Joe

 

[FrancisP]

I would point out the current state of the dvd market. Flat at best. Probably down excluding tv on dvd. Maybe double dipping is marginally successful for studios but it is not providing much growth in the dvd market.