Yes, but it's like this:

DVD >>>>>> VHS
Blu-ray > DVD

I don't think Blu-ray is even close to dying but the studios can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want blu-ray to truly succeed then they should stop manufacturing DVDs.

Funny, my Toshiba upconverting DVD player makes my want to pull me hair out ehile waiting for the tray to open. Can I make the same generic statement about DVD players, also?

That seems to be a Toshiba problem. Most of their players take a long time to boot and do simple things like open the disc tray.

That's like telling world car manufacturers to stop making gasoline cars, and only make Ethanol vehicles.

If you want to integrate a new product, to eventually replace a previously successful product, you have to do it slow and consistent.

Blu-ray movies are coming out slow...and consistent.

Don't give me flak about buying HD-DVDs over Blu-rays because I supported both during the HD wars. Nowadays, you just don't see Blu-ray deals anymore. Not like back when we were in the midst of the HD wars when $10 Blu-rays can be had. Even though HD-DVD is supposedly dead and gone, there has been some pretty good deals on $5 and $6 titles. I've had to do some severe belt-tightening given the bad economy, but I haven't been able to pass on these deals. Blu-ray is simply too expensive right now. They really need to lower their prices.

But this is pretty much what happened with VHS and DVD. There needs to be some kind of good integration like the Sleepy Beauty Blu-ray.

If most players are that slow sure, but the majority of DVD players are not slow starting up. Nice to know that Toshiba carried over their super slow booting technology from HD DVD to standard DVD.

I remember the transition being a gradual process, with VHS co-existing with DVD for several years. It wasn't until 2005 that new VHS releases stopped.

iTunes is pretty damn popular. I don't think it outsells CD's yet. Imagine an HD movie version of iTunes. Blu-ray would be in big trouble IMO.

It is indeed the case and the number of Full Screen releases you are seeing is minuscule to say the least. If you happen to disagree please feel free to bring a source/study/analysis of some sort that credibly proves otherwise. As far as I am concerned DVD effectively set the stage for OAR to become the norm. Whatever small percentage of PAN/SCAN releases you are seeing per year is clearly the exception, not the norm, and this is what matters here.

I agree with you. But what is your point? There are people who also complain about double dips on this site all the time. Yet, double-dipping is the backbone of this entire business. Again, your point?

I agree with the first portion of your statement. And disagree with the second. I am unsure what are these by the pound numbers that you are talking about. The overwhelming percentage of DVD releases, here and abroad, are in OAR. We should not even disagree on this one. And widescreen TVS were not the reason why OAR became the norm.

On this one we also disagree. Not because I don't share your urgent thoughts but because I simply believe that when you control content you also control the market. I've mentioned this before: when the market is ready for a switch the studios will initiate the proper changes. They did it with VHS-DVD they will do it with DVD-HD.
It is a blog-piece lacking any basic understanding of the market and its players.

Pro-B

Most people is a convenient to harbor philosophy whenever there isn't a solid basis for your claims but unfortunately not good enough in this scenario. Blu-ray adoption, sales, and revenue, since HDDVD was eliminated, have been increasing steadily while DVD numbers, while still important for the industry, have been decreasing. I see a trend. Do you?

Sure the economy is an issue. Claiming otherwise would be asinine. But your only argument here is once again based on most people. And most people this Christmas will be looking at Blu-ray, not exotic cruises, not luxury automobiles, and not Vegas trips. As Bill mentions in his article there would be at least two million $ sellers (Iron Man and The Dark Knight) after the end of the year. I see such a performance from Blu-ray in less than a year of being on its own as a tremendous success. Do you disagree?


You have been asked on this forum before what would have been a revolutionary way which Blu-ray could have offered? (I believe RoboDad asked you) I assume you still don't have an adequate answer. Or, am I wrong?

Perhaps it is a shame to you. I believe that it is simply a technical issue which as the market expands and the technology matures will be taken care of adequately. SDVD also underwent similar issues and I personally believe, as I have stated before, that the progression route BD follows is very similar, if not identical, to that of SDVD from approximately 10 years ago.

See the above bit.

It is difficult not to bring HDDVD in the mix as it was the token according to which progress was measured by the opposite camp. In many respects it still is, particularly when the majority of the criticism that Blu-ray is exposed to daily is from those who supported the defunct format. I personally find that to be a healthy comparison-mode as it keeps the winner on the edge. Of course, I don't find the loaded and disingenuous criticism we also see daily, desiring other than improvement results, to be healthy.


I appreciate the disclaimer but I disagree with your support in principle (by the way, you win the award!). The price advantage you speak of was the last reason why I would have backed HDDVD if I had to. Furthermore, given the fact that only months after HDDVD was eliminated it has become increasingly obvious that price was never that big of a factor to begin with I am rather perplexed that you still cannot grasp it.


Which is one of the main reasons why I was always firmly in the Blu-camp. The idea was to have a united family of distribs serving on format guaranteeing as diverse of a slate of releases as possible. Couple that with the superior technical portfolio Blu-ray boasts as well the expansive hardware support it secured and the better, or best if you will, format was obvious. To me!

If it is reached naturally no one will scream "firesale" (fine, let's be honest, there are a few exceptions that I could think of, even on this very forum). And thus far the market is expanding and lowering prices accordingly. Perhaps a bit too fast for a few inflexible hardware parties.

You are wrong! I consider myself an enthusiast and, as mentioned earlier, look forward to a mass status. Which would guarantee a richer crop of films! This is the primary reason why I opposed the flawed theory that neutrality is the only way, which some introduced on this site and elsewhere. Not only it was not the only way but...it is arguably the worst way for those who consider themselves film enthusiasts. Of course, those who bet on the failed format, or the duality approach, saw such a stance as fanboysim, cheerleading, etc. :) And effectively dismissed everyone else who did not share their “enthusiastic” views. Come to think of it, in many ways, some of the neutrality proponents were much more dismissive and fanboyish than those who sided exclusively with one of the two camps. At this point and with this outcome of the HD war it probably does not make any difference.


And, once again, this is the reason I never embraced neutrality. It is ironic that we did not see your point of view expressed more often during the war. It would have put in perspective quite a few things.

The cost of paying at least 150$ for the John Cassavetes boxset and a DVD player, believe me, is probably not that appealing to many. Yet, DVD is a mass format.

Happy Halloween!

Pro-B

Are you crazy??? $15?!?!?

Even standard DVD new releases are still around $15 and up.

Christ...I will never understand how certain A/V enthusiasts can be so ignorant about how long it takes for a format to kick off.

First, I really miss SACD and DVD Audio.

I feel that HD DVD's ungloriously biting of the bullet actually hurt Blu, at least in the past year. It made it clear that formats can die and fast. It's a real investment for collectors to jump into HD and more so for the average joe and to see how such an investment can come crumbling down is disconcerting. (Yes, I know we can still watch our discs but a dead format still means it's over and it doesn't feel good to know I can't buy any new releases for it.) I know there were folks sitting on the sidelines waiting for the dust to fall (I was one until Walmart's $99 toshiba sale) but there was something brutal in HD's death. It left a bad stench over HD in general. Time heals all wounds but it will be awhile.
I'd like to jump in again and go blu but I've lost faith and don't want to get burned again and I'm sure I'm not alone.

DVD sales were declining before Blu-Ray even hit the market - so the increase in Blu-Ray sales may have little to do with the decrease in DVD sales. I remember this claim was made when CD sales were decreasing and SACD sales were increasing. We know how that went, don't we?

And sure, we get some decent sales from day and date releases of big Hollywood films, but when you look down the top selling Blu-Ray discs of the month - you can see many titles in the bottom of the list selling in extremely low numbers.

Also, one can't compare the adoption rate of DVD with Blu-Ray. Most people didn't purchase VHS movies and when DVD came onto the scene, a slow change in attitude of purchasing movies took place. It took a while for people to adpot that attitude. When Blu-Ray was released, people were already comfortable with the idea of purchasing movies.
Although one big factor that will affect future Blu-Ray sales is people got drunk on their DVD shopping binges and are now hung-over as the novelty wore off and they are now being more selective. That selectiveness carries over onto Blu-Ray as many aren't going to make the same mistake of buying every title released. We see that in this forum - a forum in which people like to discuss movies and movie formats. If they're being more selective, the average joe most certainly will be.

Blu-Ray is a niche product and will grow into a larger niche. Most people simply don't care enough about the improvements to invest the extra money to take advantage of the format (new players replacing every player in order to have their BD movies be playable everywhere, HDTV and the premium price that comes with BD over DVD movies). I know people who work at Futureshop and Bestbuy and they've stated that when HDTVs are purchased, they're usually sold with DVD players - not Blu-Ray players. People are more interested in DVD players that play DivX.

I'll give Blu-Ray another year before the studios decide to reduce their commitment to the format.

You can talk about percentage increases all you want, but the overall numbers - about 4% of market share - prove that most people just don't care at this point. Enough marketing dollars have been thrown at Blu Ray where you can't complain that people don't know about it. So yeah, I will stand by general assumption.

Its easy to sit and poke holes in people's Internet postings, but until you can present evidence (and not just information that you can "confirm") that mass of consumers out there really see a big enough difference in Blu Ray to justify junking their DVD players or upconverting DVD players they were sold 2 years ago by the same CE's that now want to sell them a Blu Ray player, I think it takes a lot of chutzpah to sit around and claim that there isn't truth to the first part of my statment.

Umm, I really don't know what your reference to Robodad's question was about how "Blu Ray could be revolutionary" and so I will answer your question - there is no way that Blu Ray could be as revolutionary as DVD, and thats part of the problem. Simply put DVD made watching a movie a hell of a lot easier than watching a VHS.

It's been a while since I've looked at a weekly sales chart for SD DVD titles, but for as long as studios have same day released a widescreen and a pan-and-scan version of the same film, they have consistently sold in similar numbers. If it weren't for the continued sales of "full screen" DVDs, we would not still be seeing them -- and we are, much more often than you seem to realize. They're sold in online stores like Amazon and Deep Discount; they're in B&M stores like Wal Mart, Circuit City, Target and Best Buy; they're frequently the only option in rental outlets such as Blockbuster and Hollywood Video; and they are, of course, mentioned in press releases.

I don't know how you can agree while you're missing the point. The point is that there are still an overwhelming number of people who consider widescreen to be a "bad thing". DVD hasn't changed their minds -- the studios have simply caved into their ignorance and massacred their own films in order to placate a bunch of mouth-breathers.


Again -- sales charts. Also, the next time you're in a B&M store like Wal Mart or Best Buy, just do a quick scan of the racks and you're bound to see scores of "full screen" DVDs sitting next to their widescreen brothers.

As for widescreen TVs -- the part that they've played in this should not be underestimated. Widescreen TVs have been a way of "bringing in" the above mentioned "mouth-breathers". The only way we're going to see "full screen" phased out is when all of the people for whom black bars are an issue stop buying them. If these folks all buy widescreen TVs, that would be a step in the right direction, as they'd no doubt start griping about how they now have grey bars on the sides of all their movies (of course then they'd probably just stretch everything horizontally, but still . . .). The studios are going to keep producing "full screen" discs for as long as said discs turn a profit; artistic intent be damned!!


I feel like you're disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing. You've pretty much just told me that you disagreed with me and then argued the same point I was making. The key difference in our opinions is that you feel Blu-ray is strong enough on its own merits to someday overtake DVD in sales, eventually to the point where studios will find DVD unprofitable enough to pull the plug. I don't share that optimism. Consumers are too willfully ignorant, too content with DVD, and -- for the moment, at least -- too broke to buy either format, let alone the big new expensive one. For Blu-ray to truly threaten the status of DVD, studios and CE manufacturers are going to literally have to ram it down people's throats.


For once, I think we might actually agree!:)

another similiar point on yahoo today http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/108657

I have to agree with the economy assesment. Even people that are excited about the technology may not be able to justify the extra $200 for the player and extra $5 - $10 for each title. especially for TV's <42" where the increased resolution may not be realized.


One thing that makes me mad is that when the format war was going on, the proponents of one over the other (The Digital Bits especially) always said it was the war itself holding HD back. Assuming that once it was over the confusion would be gone and people would flock to the winner. When in fact I think it did more to promote HD. Nothing like price wars with hardware and software to get your equipment into the hands of consumers. I haven't seen anywhere near as good a deal as from Blu as when they had to compete with HDDVD

I missed 800.com and reel.com. You couldn't beat their prices on DVDs.


The only thing I liked about HD DVD was the combo disk. I never had a problem playing a movie on either side.

I wish Bluray would get rid of their digital copy disk and replace it with a standard dvd that works on any DVD player.

This holiday season, they should not sell any profile 1.0 and 1.1. Remove them off the shelves. They should pushing to sell profile 2.0 players at a really low price.

You could make people care about sound quality, if it were possible to cheaply set up a listening room to demonstrate it. Unfortunately, unlike video you can't do that with audio.

I'm not so sure the downgrade in quality isn't being pushed as much by studio execs as consumers, seeing as how (a) they always hated high-res formats, that's why they used crippling DRM on SACD and DVD-A & probably why their marketing was so weak, and (b) they still think that consumers want and prefer massive dynamic range compression, despite the huge number of complaints regarding this practice.

SACD and DVD-A had 3 big flaws in my opinion

1) No marketing. At least, none that I could see in retail stores where it might have made an impact with consumers.
2) DRM. Consumers hate DRM that gets in the way of enjoying the product. You still can't (AFAIK) make SACD media servers (not sure about DVD-A). The way Blu-ray is currently implemented makes Blu-ray media servers impossible.
3) They didn't use standard CD cases. SACD cases are horrible. I have much the same complaint with Blu-ray cases.

The main issue during the format war, was the number of studios supporting the particular format. This is what killed HD DVD. And it was brutal. And if you invested in either format at this time pre-CES 2008, you were taking a serious risk.

Currently, you have virtually all movie studios supporting Blu-ray. You didn't have this in 2007 or pre-CES 2008.

I have 260+ HD DVDs, but even I can see Blu-ray has more support. The more support you have, the more the probability the format will survive.

And quite honestly, I'm tired of DVD. I was just thinking last night. It's the same old shit. I want something better. After viewing HD movies, I'm getting rather comfortable with Blu-ray, regardless of my opinions of Sony and the BDA. It's a love-hate relationship with them, but players are coming down (at least for me anyway, as I always get the flagship players for longer life and maximum benefit) and deals on Blu-ray movies can be found. Yes, the deals seem to be less than what we saw before (I and others predicted this), but as time goes on, Blu-ray movies will become less expensive. Purchasing the latest releases however, is always going to be expensive. It's like this with any new product being released. You pay for having it now, rather than a few months down the road.

So, my advice is to grab some Blu-ray movies from Amazon's B2G1 sale, and get a Blu-ray player during this holiday when we will see some deals. Grab some older titles, and read the reviews here on DVD Talk and HD Digest.

The reason why people didn't buy VHS was because the price was too high. The studios were selling VHS at $60-$100 a tape to rental outlets, and only dropped in price after the VHS rental outlets were selling their used stock. Warner had the bright idea of selling new DVDs directly to the consumer at the price point of the used VHS tapes, and as soon as the DVD players got cheap enough, the market for DVDs exploded.

Most consumers don't have a big HD screen with theater quality sound, and would only see incremental increase in quality in Blue Ray over DVD, so they're unwilling to pay 50%-200% more for Blue Ray over DVD, especially on a movie that has no compelling needs for improved PQ. I don't think Blu-ray is dead, but the studios' dreams of fast adoption of BR and double-dipping their entire catalog are just that. I'm cynical, but if they really want BR adopted more quickly, they ought to price them the same as the 2-disc DVD special editions, and slowly switch DVDs to barebones editions only, and make the BR edition special editions, and not do DVD special editions.

Then it is perhaps a good idea that you look up one, see when was the last time major blockbusters came in "full screen", and how they sold. In my opinion, at this point it is not even worth arguing whether or not "full-screen" represents a large number of the market.

Once again, don't ask me to realize, show me numbers, and make be agree with your point. Aside from Walmart where some old catalog titles are still occasionally being sold as "full screen" the overwhelming majority of big releases is in OAR. As far as Best Buy goes "full screen" releases are practically gone (how many "full screen" releases do you see on release day regularly?). As far as catalog titles go they are, I would argue, 99% gone.


See above.

I disagree with you because the DVD market shows otherwise and that is all that matters. OAR is the standard and arguing otherwise is just silly.


OAR DVDs became the norm long before wodescreen TVs were as common as you believe. And the studios helped quite a bit by not catering to the small number of "full screen" supporters long time ago.l To even claim that nowadays there is a sizable group of customers who still influence the studios to consider "full screen" support is, again, silly. OAR is the norm, not the other way around.

These folks are absolutely, undoubtedly, unimportant at the moment. They won't be important as to where HD moves in the future as well. Really, I am simply lost with your concern about "full screen".


You must be reading a different text as I most certainly disagree with your stance on practically everything. The opinion I agree with so far is the one shared by Jon2. I believe that as the market expands and Blu-ray improves its performance DVD numbers will continue to decline to a point where content will eventually be restricted.

Time will tell!

Pro-B

VHS to DVD was an easy sell anyway. Even people like my parents in their 70's with no HDTV yet could see the benefit of DVD. No rewinding, no adjustments to get rid of the lines, easy to jump to a favorite scene (especially good for music or musicals). I'm not usre which percentage of the population has a TV big enough to even benefit from HD but it's not going to be most of my parents generation I assure you.

With regards to the average consumer not caring about the difference in quality between DVD and Blu-Ray - they seem to accept the huge downgrade in picture quality with SD channels on their new LCD/Plasma screen. If they don't have a problem with how bad SD channels (something they watch most of the time) look on their new HDTV, then why would they care about the slight increase in picture quality from DVD to Blu-Ray - especially since they don't watch it as often?

What is this 4% market share you speak of? (Yahoo blogs)

Pro-B