Simple thread. In your educated opinions, are the new formats bound to succeed over standard DVD, are they set up for failure, or is it all up in the air? If you have an opinion one way or the other, tell us why. I know the majority of people are going to say that it's yet to be decided. I really want to hear from the people who are convinced that these formats will succeed, or convinced that they will fail...and I'd like to hear why they're so certain one way or the other. This stems from a debate I had with a buddy recently.

-JP

I think they are absolutely bound to succeed because although the amount of PQ improvement can be debated, it is still a PQ improvement. I also think the sound quality will be improved-- but probably not as much as the PQ will be. Although, with the increased disc capacity leading to uncompressed sound tracks I could be wrong... and this leads to the big reason I think it is bound to succeed: increased capacity.

Because of the increased disc capacity we get:

• Better PQ (due to less compression and higher stored resolution)
• Better sound (due to less compression and I assume a higher sampling rate?)
• More extra features
• More space for recordable media (i.e. computer backups)

I think the average person won't care that much about the first 3, although they'll will care about #1 the most because it's the most noticeable. The average person thinks Bose are the best speakers and doesn't care about extra features (I met someone the other day who didn't even realize the DVDs he was renting had special features).

But #4 will insure that lots of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray drives make it into PCs. I think this will cause the prices of players to come down to reasonable levels quickly. The first HD-DVD units starting at $500-$799 proves this. And with HD content rumored to retail between $5-$10 higher than SDVD, it will fall in line with current DVD prices quickly as well leading to automatic adoption.

So because of #4 and the format war helping to keep fierce price competition, we'll get #1-3 for free. The increased capacity makes it definite that it will succeed along with the fact that it will really just be perceived as a "DVD that holds more".

Blu-Ray has a huge advantage on storage space but HD-DVD has a huge advantage in price. Hopefully Blu-Ray can get their prices in line quickly or they may be in trouble. I lean toward Blu-Ray only because of the higher storage space. If HD-DVD is adopted, I fear that soon we will be upgrading to something with more space. I believe price has been a decisive factor in the past, hasn't it? At any rate, Blu-Ray will not succeed at 2-3 times the price of HD-DVD...just can't see it happening.

Sony in rethinking the price of their entry level BR player, after Toshiba undercutted everyone at CES with the $500 figure. At least both formats are driving prices down.

DL dvd recordable media isn't very popular, and is still expensive. Safe to say the same thing will happen with HD recordable media. SL BR at 25GBs or 15GB Hd-dvd. I'll take BR for the recordable factor.

If they can keep the prices of equipment and media out of the laserdisc range, it will be a success.

I agree. I think DVD took off because it was so reasonably priced, in addition to PQ & features. I know I never got into VHS or LD collecting - too expensive.

Anyway, I know all of this HD stuff is a new format, but mentally I'm thinking of it as an extension of DVD. I think if they can get people to look at it that way it will eventually supplant SD-DVD. When the prices drop I'd even get a player without necessarily having an HDTV. I'd still get to take advantage of new features & I'll get an HDTV eventually.

I will vote for bound to fail...

1. It just seems too soon for this kind of upgrade. VHS lasted 20 or so years, DVD hasn't even been around for 10, I just don't think that the average consumer is ready for a switch. I see it as similar to when Sega kept trying to push out a new and better system too quickly when people wern't ready to upgrade (not exactally the same situation, but similar).

2. HD penetration is still VERY low, and I don't see too many people who could be convinced to purchase HD/Blu when they will not really be able to see that big of a difference on their cheap TVs. Also, while HDTV is being pushed really hard, too many people that I know don't have a desire to upgrade because there is still a TINY amount of HD programming, and when you consider the monthy fees that are currently being charged for HD, it just isn't really worth it.

3. Consumers are too stuck on DVDs. My mother hardly uses her DVD player at home, but she still owns a portable DVD player that she loves. Similarly, while I mainly watch DVDs on my HDTV, I also watch a lot of DVDs in my bedroom on my cheaper TV. With HD/Blu, people can't use all of these different devices and different players, and this coupled with the fact that HD penetration is so low, I see the medium having a hard time catching on (this section is a smaller point to 1 & 2, but still a factor).

4. I don't think that people will be able to tell enough of a difference to justify the upgrade. You can show me all the resolution numbers you want saying how it is a bigger upgrade than VHS-DVD, but personally, I think that is all crap. Going from 32-bit game systems to 64 is a bigger upgrade than 16-32, but to me, the 16-32 was a more noticable upgrade.

5. It is all just too confusing for the average consumer. Between knowing what aspect ratio to put a TV on, knowing what signal is HD and what isn't, and hell even paying GOBS of money for certain cables, it is currently just too much for J6P (everyone on this site knows a story about the guy who thinks his HD looks great, until he realizes that he hasn't even been using HD).

6. Hell, even the niche market is too polarized. There was another thread about this in the main forum, and most of the people there aren't planning on adopting it or don't have faith in the system. If you can't convince a bunch of A/V geeks that it is worth it, then how are you going to convince anyone else?

Basically, you can argue all the numbers that you want to me, but I just don't see any way that the average consumer is going to be convinced that it is worth it. VHS to DVD was HUGE for SOOO many reasons beyond resolution (price and avalibility of movies for one). VHS to DVD was a neccessary upgrade for the market and the consumer. HD/Blu is cool, but it just doesn't offer enough for the average consumer. And by the time HD penetration is large enough to support the medium, HD/Blu will have failed, and there will be something MUCH better on the horizon.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind seeing it succeed, but I don't see ANYTHING that leads me to believe that the market is ready for the upgrade.

Just to respond to a few of your points.

1. Technology changes faster in a year than it did 20 years ago. While I agree that the 6 or so years that DVD has been out is a bit early for new technology push, blame that on the decreasing costs of HD tvs.

2. Think again. Predictions are that 42" plasmas will be down to about $1000 at the end of this year. Projections CRTs should be around $500.

the one thing I hope that doesn't happen right away is studios moving DVDs to fullscreen releases only in order to force all the widescreen advocates to purchase HD maybe before they want to. I'm not ready to toss DVDs completely out the window just yet.

It is definitly bound to succeed... The only question is when. It could replace dvds within 2 years or it could take 2 decades.. Its up in the air on that.

I agree with the top poster. It will not "succeed" overnight. People will buy, but not the masses initially. I'd say in 5+ years.

Thanks for the well thought out, differing opinion, Matthew.

I think for all the reasons you list that it is imperative for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray to keep prices to the point that the upgrade is essentially automatic. In other words, the prices on HD players that will also play SDVD need to become cheap enough so that "regular" DVD players will be phased out leading to automatic adoption.

For this reason, I was pleased to see the first prices on HD players hit the $500 mark. Has any new player ever been this low priced? It seems pretty low. I remember back to the days that VHS players were $800+. I remember my dad bought a used Beta player (when they were being phased out in favor of VHS) costing $200.

I don't know. People have to upgrade their televisions (which not everybody has done), and get a new player, and update their collections (many of which were only built up in the last few years)?

I don't see this one taking off as fast as DVD did.

I don't think there's any question about HD-DVD's or Blu-Ray's succeeding... one will succeed. It's a matter of WHICH one. And if anybody knew the answer to that right now, there would be no format war

Amazingly enough, it's actually been almost 10 years since the DVD specifications were finalized and the first retail models were released in Japan. Still not anywhere close to the age of VHS, but not as young as we often tend to think of it as being.

You don't need an HD sey to use the new players. To utilize the full power of the machine, yes you do , bu they will work with SD sets.

I agree that this won't take off as fast as DVD but slowly eventually it will supplant SDVD.

Im not so sure this will replace dvds...Yes I think dvds will be replaced eventually but I think it will be with the advent of storage and not an actual thing. People now want compact and less space with more power and greater capacity, and if they could store everything on a harddrive instead of having a disc for each thing, I think most of the public would choose that over anything. Thats why I think that the actual HD or BR discs wont do much, although the technology will eventually become standard. IMO, the next big thing will be the hd-specs on something other than disc, such as a hard drive or Ipod type machine.

You're correct, of course...but you do need an HD to see a difference in picture quality. I don't envision a lot of SD set owners getting into either format when they can just continue to buy regular DVDs.

Exactly! I admit, I was initially thinking along those lines myself (that one must have an HDTV first), 'til I realized, "duh!", Blu-ray/HD-DVD will still look terrific on my SDTV even if I can't see all of its resolution. I'll also be able to take advantage of any new special features, and I'll have a start on my HD/Blu-ray movie collection by the time I get an HDTV. My next player will hopefully be a Blu-ray one, and I may even get it by the end of this year. I'm still probably a couple of years away from an HDTV.

While you won't be able to see all of the difference in picture quality, I wouldn't be surprised if you can see some. That won't really be the point of upgrading the player before the monitor, however. The point will be taking advantage of extra features (for those of us who like that kind of stuff), and getting a start on one's collection in advance of an HDTV. I know I'll have an HDTV in the next few years, so if the price is right, why not start buying movies for it now, especially when I can also enjoy them now.

Kit Kat reinforces the point I was trying to make. As the prices of the players come down, they will supplant the models in that orice category. For example, right off the bat, anyone considering buying a $500 DVD player should obviously wait and get a HD player, even if they lack the ability to fully realize the potential. They would be somewhat futureproof, and when they finally do upgrade their display their collection is ready to go.

Eventually, when the prices of the systems hit each tier, the SDVD players at that tier will disappear. It will take a long time but I believe this is what will happen.

Yep, you can look at the entrance of progressive scan DVD players and now upconverting players to see a similar trend. Whichever high-rez format (BD in the lead with studio support) wins will simply supplant DVD at some point. And most probably won't notice it too much.

The shift from VHS to DVD is another example. You still see both on the shelves, but DVD is clearly ahead right now. But it took years for DVD to get more shelf space.

I think the format war will slow it down drastically, as well as how average people (not number crunchers) perceive the picture quality difference. But if the product gets down in price comparable to today's DVD players, I can see them eventually finding a place in peoples' homes since they're backward compatible with current DVD... and the fact that they'll work on standard TV sets (through composite or s-video) might help too. But it's a steep hill to climb, and the confusion over whether we'll get full resolution through component video, and even worse, the two formats fighting it out, makes me think it'll be later rather than sooner before you can declare either one a success.

IMHO it is up in the air and several years away from being viable and acceptable to the mainstream.

The thing is DVD is the arguably the fastest growing CE product in existence. The reasons for that are pretty numerous being, chiefly that it offered a substantial quality increase, took up substantially less shelf space, borrowed existing functionality with a product currently in widespread existence (CDs), and the kicker was that there hadn't been a new consumer video format in 20 years.

I remember reading about DVDs early in '96 and realizing that it was going to take off insanely fast. I don't get that same feeling with the HD formats. It will eventually succeed, it just won't be overnight. The companies have too much invested to let it die off, even if the consumer doesn't show a burning desire for the format initially.

I'm talking US release. I got my first DVD player back in either '98 or '99 before it was even released in my own market.

I think your time table is really, really off. DVD was first released in the U.S. in March 1997, and more than a million players had been sold by Fall 1998, according to the Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association. That number hit 2.2 million a year later, at which time it was already being touted as "the fastest growing home entertainment product in history".