atari2600, thats a great idea.

i know

Putting aside all of the William Gibson inspired, cyperpunk fantasies of "direct brain uploads", virtual reality, and the like, it seems unlikely to me that any kind of video-on-demand paradigm will entirely replace physical media in my lifetime (projecting that I will live another 50+ years or so, anyway). Our generation has become accustomed (and in fact, "conditioned" by the large media conglomerates) to actually buying and having physical possession of the entertainment media we desire. Those conglomerates are not going to simply give up on the large profits to be made from selling CD's, DVD's and/or whatever next generation form of physical media may replace them. And the inherent unreliability (and consumer distrust) of broadband media delivery will require a generation or two to even gain widespread consumer acceptance.

If on-demand was really the entertainment medium the consumer desired, PPV and premium cable channels would have already significantly dented sales of major release DVD's, and probably would have crushed VHS rentals and sales years ago. So there is certainly no historical evidence that guarantees the future success of on-demand media. And while the media conglomerates will certainly have an incentive to investigate the new revenue streams that could be produced by a new paradigm, they certainly don't have any disincentive to continue encouraging and supplying whole ownership of entertainment media by consumers, as that has already proven immensely profitable.

Why do people find $0.20 a download/viewing so unbelievable? Rhapsody offers unlimited listening of music for $9.95/month. I could easily imagine a montly plan or cheap pay per view in the near future.

I would have no problem with this as long as the technology was able to provide a viewing experience comparable to dvds.

Here is an interesting article with a couple quotes on this subject from none other than our very own Geoff Kleinman.

The physical cost of a DVD is under $1, so whether it comes into your home via the USPS or downloaded, I don't see the cost differing that much. The main cost is going to be intellectual property. I can see watching from a server rather than putting the disc in a machine, just like I now listen to music from my computer instead of putting a CD in the stereo, but how it gets into the computer, downloaded or from a disc, isn't really going to matter.

Total agreement here... I invested enough as it is... NEVER had a VHS collection like I do a DVD collection, and don't want to have to repurchase everything again...

I used to think that way before I bought a HDTV set and subscribed to HD on cable a couple of months back. IMO, DVD is extremely inferior in comparison with HD. Now, I check the HD channels first when I sit down to relax and watch some TV or movies. If nothing interesting is on, I will go into my DVD collection. I have 369 DVDs now. However, I have slow down a lot lately and getting only 1 or 2 new releases a week. I think about trimming down my DVD collection everyday as I know that in a not so distant future I will probably have to rebuy most of my favorite movies in HD-DVD.

Trust me, once you have HDTV at home, you won't be able to resist the urge.

good news is...DVD will be $2 dollars

I am so NOT rebuying all my DVD's as HD-DVD...and DVD's are good enough for me...Oh Im sure I'll get an HD-DVD player...when I get an HDTV...but as of right now...no...HD-DVD will be like Laserdisc to VHS ya know...its more or less just for the rich people who need to see every little minute detail...

What if instead of paying a one time fee for every viewing, you paid a monthly fee for unlimited viewings and had access to an incredibly huge library to pick from? Like Netflix without the wait. I'd be all over that and would probably never buy another hard copy of a film again as long as the sound/video quality was there and that monthly fee was reasonable.

For me, that would be an adequate replacement to premium cable channels (a la HBO, etc.) but not DVD.

You would still buy DVD's if you had instant access to pretty much every movie ever made for a monthly fee? In HD quality? Think of the shelf space you could save.

I have HDTV, and I will be able to resist the urge...IMO the comparison is not enough to replace what I already own. But everyone will have their own opinion on it.

There is something new and experimental right now, its a fiber optic cable thats surgicly implanted into your ceribral cortex and also behind your eyes, therefore you will be inside a movie, just layback close your eyes and YOUR the Terminator baby!!!

Haha

Kidding

DVD content in its current form and that of HDTV is not highly bandwidth intensive (on a stream by stream basis). HDTV transported over IP is a good possibility in the near future (5-10 years).


Being a networking geek myself, I really hope for a quick move to online distribution of content (not only that of DVD but of TV content as well). My job requires shift work, the fact that I can only watch TV content at the time of choosing of the content provder is a crock (my PVR has freed me).


For those that love to see the pretty boxes on their shelves, why not add a 50cent charge to those that want to print their own box to the online price.

I also think that eventually we'll have on-demand access to movies. For instance, you'll buy a subscription to the Turner/Warner film library and be able to dial up and watch any film in the library whenever you like. You won't necessarily own a permanengt copy of the film, however.

This is far-flung, future-state, massive-broadband stuff but I think it will come to pass eventually. Not soon, because companies are making too much money off our DVD addictions. But once it happens, it will eventually bury DVD and all other "private ownership" formats. The popularity of devices like TiVo (although not quite the same thing) already indicate the public is receptive to this kind of control-over-media-input concept.

Problem is you will probably have to pay that $9.95 a month fee for unlimited access to every studio you want to watch movies from. Paying that every month to Warner, Universal, Paramount, etc to have unlimited access to their libraries could get expensive. I'm sure they will also have the option to pay $2 or $3 per movie and that would be a good option instead of going to Blockbuster, but wouldn't replace my need to buy the movies I want to watch over and over. The 20 cent a movie thing would be very cool, but I honestly can't see the studios charging that little per movie.

HD signals not only make a difference in details but also in sharpness. I watched Resident Evil on HBOHD last night and the HD picture was so sharp on my RPTV. Way sharper than my Superbit version. However, if I do not already own a RPTV, I don't think that I will be looking forward to replace my collection as the differences are not easily discernable on smaller screens.

If you own an RPTV your wasting your money IMO...I hate those TV's...

HD makes a difference just not enough for the average joe to buy a HD-DVD player and HDTV...

RPTV's just need good calibrating. They're actually capable of a better picture than DLP and LCD (maybe not quite as sharp but sharpness isn't the only thing that defines a great picture). Accurate color reproduction and strong black levels for example are done most easily on CRT systems. There are ISF calibrators out there for people that don't want to do it themselves.

As for the second part, the average joe will by an HDTV eventually because that's the new standard. Non-HDTV's will no longer be made in the coming years.

Yeah...in about 10 years or so maybe at the very earliest...

They don't make a tube TV at the size I want and plasma is way too expensive. Therefore, I bought an LCD RPTV. Except for black level and screen door effect, I think that LCD RPTV are as goog as tube. Tube tv at 50" would weigh 300+ lbs while mine is only about 80 lbs. Some manufactures have already annouced that they are phasing out production of tube tvs. LCD, DLP, LCOS, and plasma are the future right now and tube tv will quickly become a thing of the past.

I agree. If average Joe sticks to his 32" screen, he wouldn't see that much of a difference.

And most people have 32' and below...I'd say about 80% of people own Tube TV's...