orangerunner

This is true, but if your plan is to dump your CRTV and get a 1080p capability HDTV, you're pretty much signed up for the full ride or why bother?

A lot of older people I know were talked into buying a HDTV 1080p, they took it home and plugged their regular cable into it along with their VHS machine and discovered the picture looked terrible compared to their old CRTV.

Solution: Blu-Ray (or up-convert DVD), HD Digital box, HD subscription (or digital HD Satellite service), HDMI cord!

I know, they have to get out of the stone ages but I'm trying to show that it's tough to go half-way once you buy an HDTV.

If your cable provider is anything like mine, they aren't going to give you anything for free. At best they'll work the cost into a bundle.

mzupeman2

Well, people aren't always buying HDTV necessarily for HDTV. Joe six packs, will buy an HDTV because 98% of the time, that's what it's going to be for a big screen TV, HDTV. And they hear the hype about HD, yet they have no idea what 'HD' really means, how it's going to effect their stuff at home if they don't have the proper connection cables, and how SD content is going to look.

Gizmo

Most people buy HDTVs because that's all they can buy. Big tubes are simply not available anymore.

pro-bassoonist

Where? Current sales for Blu-ray hardware/software are generated in two ways: in-store and online. Your assumption that the hardware manufacturers might be artificially undersupplying those two parties to encourage growth (?), hence citing "robust demand", makes little sense if at all. Unless you have some hard data to show us that such trend is indeed in existence I feel much more comfortable believing what the interested parties have actually cited (Panasonic) than assuming that you may be correct.

Pro-B

pro-bassoonist

This specific paragraph tells me that you are unfamiliar with how DVD became affordable and when. Well into its 3 year of existence Fox, Paramount, and quite a few independent labels were charging well over 30$ for a bare-bones disc. Paramount were notorious for their high prices well into the second half of 2000. So, your affordable comment is off by a mile (and a quick search at the Columbia House threads will easily prove so).

What source are you citing? In Europe starting August 1 the biggest distributor, Studio Canal, set an entry price for their catalog/new releases at 19.99 Euro. In the US Warner are set to experiment with a similar model on a catalog product this Fall and depending on performance will be targeting 19.99$ as an entry price next year (they already tried with selected new releases - I am Legend). No such entry-point of 30$ has been discussed. Again, do you have a source, or is this another feeling?



This much I figured. Yet, why did they fail? Not only as an HD platform, why did combos fail to entice the consumer?



And the book business has been a few more years ahead of both of those models. They still sell in bookstores. So, is there a point that you are trying to make here?

Do you have a source to show us that MP3s have dominated the music market? There is a very interesting graph on this forum about the two. Do a search, take a look at it, come back here and let's talk about how this is going to affect BR.

Strange. Most people did not want to pay 99$ for Toshiba's players either. They failed. Rewind - most people were also happy with VHS, they did not want widescreen DVDs. Some still don't. Fastforward - the studios determined that DVD was the more lucrative option for them and phased VHS. Rewind - all those most people followed up. Fastforward - I'll let you think about it.

That is great, and you probably have a good argument here. But, again, you build your theory on most people. See above, most people were forced into what they could not justify spending money on in the first place. Do you have a theory why this would not happen again if the studios decide to phase out DVD as they did VHS? I hope the theory does not revolve around most people.

And I feel that you are missing the biggest of them players - Panasonic. As to Toshiba it was obvious from the very beginning that they will fail. Maybe not around here where talks about payoffs are flying high but as I noted so many times during the war one third-grade manufacturer against all of the top manufacturers (Panasonic, SHARP, SONY, Phillips) was not a good strategy to bet on.

Probably is a relative term. As is success.

Pro-B

tylergfoster

My point is it's not so much that the complaint itself is BS, but just hearing people call it into action. It's the way it's always presented, as if the people who make a lot of money have something to be ashamed of. No, "I can't afford it" is just a fact. Nobody is responsible, nobody is at fault. It's just black and white truth, not something where you have to call someone else out for having money to blow on stuff.

I am an average person, and I want Blu-Ray technology. So, I save, until I can afford it. Just because someone I met has a projection screen and 9.1 DTS doesn't mean I have any right to complain about them, or their opinions.Well, you're the one who was praising the inclusion of an SD-DVD option, and again, HD-DVD functionality was apparently bad (because they couldn't get the layer of glue between the two sides thin enough, and the result was defective discs).

If you wanted this technology (I wouldn't care either way), I'd say a second platter with the SD-DVD is a better option. And for the record, this is happening anyway. I just bought two Blus (Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay and Dark City) and both came with SD-DVDs, with the digital copies. I think you can fit more than just a digital copy on the disc, if you're going to include it, why not put the movie on there regular as well?

orangerunner

I agree $30 for a new release wasn't cheap, but compared with standard $89.95 srp for the same new release VHS indicated that the studios were interested in selling consumers new release titles rather than pricing them for the rental market like VHS.

By 2002, new releases on DVD were almost a standard $24.95 and select library discs by Warner were as low as $9.95.
I still remember paying $21.95 for the Platoon Special Edition in 2001.

I suppose "affordable" is relative. But DVD was such a huge improvement overthe VHS, it justified the price. In 1988 I bought my used VHS copy of Platoon for $18. So $21.95 for the DVD seemed affordable.

These were the prices in Western Canada.




I am looking at a "Best Buy" ad from March 11/08 and it shows "The Hitman" for example being $32.99 for Blu-Ray and $24.99 for DVD or "Ice Age 2" for $32.99 BD or $14.99 DVD. Maybe we're getting burned up in Canada?




My guess is as good as yours. I'm sure the folks at Toshiba are still scratching their heads as well.

Playstation played Blu-Ray discs?

Blu-Ray sounded cooler than HD-DVD and was marketed better?

The price of the combo disc didn't appeal to people who just wanted the regular DVD for $8-$10 less?

A format war gave everyone cold feet?



The book industry is apples and oranges to consumer electronics. They tested a few books directly over the internet but the reality of either reading a 300 page book from a computer screen or printing off 300 pages on your printer didn't fly. That's why we still have books and bookstores.

The point is if you can hold 100 albums (CD's) worth of music in a handheld device, holding 100 movies on that same device a few years from now is more enticing than loading up on a new format of spinning discs.



Do I have a source that says MP3's are dominating the market? Ask any CD retailer or record label whether MP3's are cutting into their sales. Ask them fast because "Virgin Records", "Sam the Record Man" & "Music World" are three major chains that have already gone bankrupt in Canada in the last few years.

Blockbuster has already announced they are testing kiosks where you can down-load a movie.



If you're refering to Toshiba's $99 HD-DVD players, they already raised the white flag to Blu-Ray at that point. It was a clear-out of soon-to-be-obsolete machines, priced accordingly.

After twenty years of VHS, people embraced the advantages of DVD. Five years after it was released it outsold VHS and never looked back.

It was a win-win. DVD was more lucrative because they decided to sell people new release titles rather than pricing them for people to rent. They gave the consumer a superior product to VHS.


Consumers decided they liked what they saw in DVD, the price was within reason for what they got and it eventually replaced VHS. Did anyone feel forced to buy an inferior product or an equal product to VHS? I remember Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was released in S-VHS as a test for that product. Yes, it was better than VHS, but it wasn't enough for people to switch.

Will Blu-Ray replace DVD? If the price is right and the consumer feels they are getting a more superior product, then yes, Blu-Ray is welcome to replace DVD.

I may very well eat my words, time will tell. People will ultimately vote with their wallets.



Honestly, I don't pledge an allegiance to any of the electronics corporations.

Burnt Thru

the call of some hd dvd fans for combos to be priced the same as dvds never made sense to me. under what circumstances would movie studios decide to just give away their highdef content for free?

Adam Tyner

I don't think that originated with the fans -- I believe it was something Amir claimed that the studios were mulling over...the idea being that if people wound up with a stockpile of HD DVDs just by buying their normal, everyday discs, they'd be more likely to buy the hardware. What motivation that would actually be for the studios, I have no idea. Maybe it's a bait-and-switch sort of thing? Give away the high definition versions for a little while then transition towards separate releases...?

...but the digital copy can only be used if you plug in a code. That gives the studios at least a little protection; you can't give away a 'free' DVD-quality movie to a friend and keep the high-def version for yourself.

mcnabb

I can only give you my perspective with my friends & family, and I don't know one person who has upgraded to BluRay. In saying that, I knew many people who were early adopters to DVD before it became mainstream.

My best friend and myself bought DVD players in March 1998, as we were really ahead of the game as it was such an upgrade over VHS, it was a no brainer. Most of my friends and family had a DVD player by the Christmas of 1999, and then everyone I knew had a DVD player by Christmas 2000.

The problem that BluRay faces is that many people including myself went crazy buying EVERY DVD when the format took off. We bought movies we would watch once, just because of the great quality, and realized that our collection was way too big of movies that we would never watch again, so we started downsizing.

I think when many people jump into the BluRay format, they will be more selective of their movie purchases, and not just buying every title to show off their sound system. I personally once had about 500-600 DVD's, and I made a list for BluRay movies I would buy, and I have it about 50-60.

Adam Tyner

I only know one (excluding people I "know" online, of course), and that's just because some inattentive contractors torched part of his house. His insurance company forked over some money to replace his electronics, and he went ahead and dove into Blu-ray since someone else was picking up the tab.

To be fair, though, Blu-ray hasn't amassed that massive a library yet. Two years into DVD, I wouldn't have been able to find 500-600 titles I'd want either. It's pretty rare for a week or two to go by without something I want coming out on Blu-ray, and that's good enough for me, especially since starting next month, it seems like there'll be at least 5 titles I want-slash-need every week.

mcnabb

Thats cool, and like I said, all of us can only speak for our situations. I am not a BluRay basher, as I think the format will continue to thrive in the future, as I dont worry about the downloading debate. In saying that, I have noticed from my friends and family that they are not as quick to go out and buy a BluRay player the same way they jumped into the DVD market, and I honestly think cause DVD was such a leap from VHS (quality, no rewinding, extras, and it will last longer). What I see from my friends, including myself, is they will buy BluRay players once it becomes mainstream, rather then alot of them bought DVD before it became mainstream.

Every friend I talk to talks about limiting their purchases, as we all went crazy buying DVD's. Alot of it was really just to buy these great looking/sounding movies to show our systems off, cause the prices were so cheap. I know movies like AirForceOne, and early Columbia title on DVD, was my movie to show off the quality of DVD's and the quality of my Surround Sound. I could go through hundreds of movies I bought from DVD that are sitting in a box now because they are what I call 'one view movies' that I enjoyed, but don't have any replay value. Now I course movies like Star Wars, Jaws, Godfather I will always buy for any format cause they have the ultimate replay value.

flyboy

Stupid thread...

Gizmo

Really? I remember Wal-Mart selling close to 100,000k Toshiba A2's in one single day in November 2007. So obviously people DID want them. Samsung, Panasonic, Pioneer, Phillips, Sharp could only dream about selling that many BD players in one day. Hell, I'd be shocked if any of those guys sold that many BD players for the entire year.

Unless of course you're talking about after Warner jumped and Toshiba slashed prices to move inventory. Even then, they still sold better than Blu-ray players for a while. Of course, we stopped get weekly "numbers" (since BD finally started outselling HD DVD on SA players weeks before) after that... what a shock.

Burnt Thru

bd decks seem to have outsold hd dvd decks through the 4th quarter of 2007 according to everything published.

to adam, i can understand amir holding out that fragile branch of hope to hd dvd's most hardcore supporters, but just can't understand why anyone would treat it seriously. studios aren't run as a charity and the risk for a return on their investment of giving away their highdef content (initially) would seem to have been astromomically high. i'm not aware of any industry that behaves in this manner, unless they have a parasitical product that they also wish to sell (razors for instance) that will make up the shortfall.

naitram

Where was the part in the OP that explains how BR is outpacing DVD sales at the same point in its respective stages? Not being a smart-ass, just curious to see the numbers.

Who really cares if Blu takes off like DVD anyway...there's obviously already been enough acceptance to get some of the titles we have and are coming anyway. It'll never hit the kind of numbers in content of DVD, but if it's at least comparable to laserdisc in that regard, I'll be happy.

orangerunner

Well, nobody wants to give away their content for free but the cost for the studio to produce a DVD on a large scale is probably about 60 cents a piece. I'm sure this would still leave a healthy profit margin selling a HD-DVD/DVD combo at the DVD price.

I don't know, if I amassed several "free" HD-DVD's that came along with my DVD purchases, I may want to purchase a HD-DVD player.

It would have been a gamble and who knows if it would have changed the outcome.

Burnt Thru

the problem with that is that the studios do not (with the exception of sony) produce players, so they would not profit from any purchase. again, where is the payback for them? btw the combo discs were more expensive to produce than bd25, and, i believe bd50..

pro-bassoonist

Thus, let me ask you the same question you already avoided: What source do you cite when you predict that there is an upcoming trend of raising the prices to a standard entry point of 30$? The only obvious trend thus far is to have a regressive pricing and it is initiated by Warner.

I am unsure whether or not this is accurate but let's assume it is. 2002 marks a little over 4 years of market presence for DVD. Here we are in year 3 for Blu-ray and we already have upcoming releases marked down at 13.99$ for catalog product (The Proposition) and as I noted earlier new releases being introduced at 18.99 (I am Legend). I'd say we are moving towards standard much faster with BR than we did with SDVD. And given that BR has actually been on its own for less than a year, though many online critics conveniently forget to take this into consideration, somehow I feel much more comfortable believing that indeed the studios will be looking for a mass market pricing scheme.

For many, this poster included, BR is a huge improvement over SDVD. So, we are back at point A.

1. Well, I am unsure about Toshiba's strategists and at this point it hardly matters what they thought would be a successful campaign to offset the PS3. What I do know is that even if you were not familiar with the HD market there were some pretty obvious trends that we witnessed with prior formats that Toshiba simply avoided. "Flippers" were a major disaster with SDVD yet the HDDVD camp was betting on enticing the consumer with combos? Their content vs. pricing philosophy was another mishap.

2. On this we agree.

3. The price tag was one of the reasons why combos failed. The other one, the major one, was that we had combos to begin with. See: flippers. 10 years ago.

It is anything but apples and oranges. The rights limitations are much better streamlined with online book business. And that is where the major hurdle lies with the film/music market restructuring.


Unfortunately, asking isn't good enough. As I noted earlier there is a great paragraph on this site Grubert posted. Do a search, take a look at it, and let's talk reality.

Yes, and...does this signal the end of physical media or the failure of BR? What is the point you are trying to make? If you are only looking to convince us that downloading will be part of the renting scheme/market in the near future maybe you have a specific poster in mind that disagreed with you? I did not, and to be honest I don't think anyone has on this forum. What I disagree with is that discs will be gone and replaced by downloads/streaming in the next few years as one of the posters here predicted.

1. On this forum, and elsewhere, firesale was a moot point to argue.
2. Fine. Many posters in this very thread have made it clear that success for BR does not have to equate outselling DVD. Replacing it? Let's see.
3. You keep producing arguments that are centered around what SDVD became, not how it became. Which is all that matters at this point as you have not been able to tell us what makes you believe that BR isn't targeted by the studios as an own-format.


Much to the disappointment of many I don't either.

Have a good weekend,

Pro-B

Draven

Wrong. Flippers were for people that thought widescreen meant there was something wrong with their TV.

Combos were perfect for me. I have one HD DVD player (well, two if you count the 360 add-on), but I have three DVD players and 3 DVD-ROM drives in the house. I use those drives to rip movies for my iPod and we can watch movies in our bedroom, family room and the car on the players. So I could buy one disc and have it work on every player in my house. When I get a PS3, I'll be back to buying one movie that only works in one player on one display. And that sucks.

pro-bassoonist

HDDVD combos not SDVD combos. That is what the first portion of the statement refers to.

Pro-B

Travis McClain

Okay. I get what you're saying now, and I personally agree. Friends of ours just bought a house (and a damn nice one, at that); my wife and I are not in a position to do that right now. I did not, have not, will not begrudge my friends for being able to make the move. Still, for me to say that my wife and I can't afford a house right now is not a whiny excuse; like you said, it's a fact of life.

PopcornTreeCt

I've had a Blu-ray player for almost a year now and I'm underwhelmed. For one, I'm not re-buying all DVDs on Blu-ray. 2) I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. There are a number of titles I'm looking forward to next month (LA Confidential, Kill Bill, The Godfather, Iron Man). However, it seems like the focus this year was to get previous HDDVD titles out on Blu-ray with the expense of other great films. Where are this year's equivalent of the Kubrick set? Casablanca or Adventures of Robin Hood? Any classic films other than The Godfather Trilogy or Cool Hand Luke?

The war made it exciting now it's just zzzzz....

Mr. Cinema

Did you honestly think Universal would release nothing but brand new catalog titles as opposed to ones they already had HD masters of from their HD DVD days? Anyone following the previous format war should have guessed their first titles would have been ones already on HD DVD.

flyboy

The Adventures of Robin Hood is coming out what next week? Also they are saying that The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca and Gone with the Wind will all be released in 09. Jeez people, there are still movies that have not made it to regular DVD (Under the Rainbow) for one, its going to take time to get all these films we want cranked out. Now back on to the topic the reason Blu Rays are not selling better right now is because it require a HD Television....duh! Do you think average ma and pa Walmart kettle have an HD TV yet? Jeez......stop this thread right now.