|
Originally Posted by MoviePage
(Post 9143922)
I was immediately suspicious of the author's opinions when he included HD-DVD as one of the best tech products of 2008.
I still agree with a few of his points, however. I believe they would be things still plaguing HD DVD as well had it survived (pricing, compatibility, ease of use, etc.). |
Originally Posted by MoviePage
(Post 9143922)
I was immediately suspicious of the author's opinions when he included HD-DVD as one of the best tech products of 2008.
|
Originally Posted by Doctorossi
(Post 9143973)
I would be, as well. Entirely anecdotal, but in my experience, the issues he has (load times, software pricing) are pretty near identical between the formats. I think HD DVD is (was?) a little more consumer-friendly, being region-free and profile-mess-free, but he doesn't even address those aspects. And calling it one of the best technologies in 2008, despite being almost-nonexistent? :confused: Well, I guess the prices are good, in 2008! ;)
J6P will NOT do these updates without a lot of help. DVD was nearly 100% turn-key. |
Originally Posted by SoSpacey
(Post 9141673)
come on namja, i thought we all agreed to go apples for apples in this thread.
if i walk into Best Buy, today, I am paying $30 for most Blu titles. just like walking in to The Wiz back then and paying $25 for Analyze This. Sure I could have found titles for $15 back then through on-line means, just like today I can get Kill Bill (Blu) for $12.99 on-line, but still have to pay $30 at Best Buy. My first 90 DVDs averaged just over $5/title with all the deals we used to get. But I am talking about the typical shopper and the prices they are seeing in stores now v. then. |
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
He did? That shows some clear bias, then.
I still agree with a few of his points, however. I believe they would be things still plaguing HD DVD as well had it survived (pricing, compatibility, ease of use, etc.).
Originally Posted by Doctorossi
(Post 9143973)
I would be, as well. Entirely anecdotal, but in my experience, the issues he has (load times, software pricing) are pretty near identical between the formats. I think HD DVD is (was?) a little more consumer-friendly, being region-free and profile-mess-free, but he doesn't even address those aspects. And calling it one of the best technologies in 2008, despite being almost-nonexistent? :confused: Well, I guess the prices are good, in 2008! ;)
|
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9144245)
But don't forget that when people paid $25-$30 for a DVD, the only alternatives were VHS and laserdisc, both of which had immediate disadvantages when compared to DVD, and weren't significantly cheaper. In the case of laserdisc, most titles were probably more expensive. And with rental windows on VHS, you probably couldn't buy most new titles on VHS when the DVD came out. This is not true with Blu-ray.
|
Actually, I would say that BD does not benefit from the current retail environment specifically because of the inroads DVD has made. As others have said, BD's biggest competition is DVD, and specifically DVD's under $15. Stores could get away with charging $30-$40 for a single DVD because at the time they were so revolutionary. The size of a CD, no rewinding, special features, multiple language tracks, commentaries, none of these were on VHS. And even for those who had laserdisc, the compact size and relatively lower prices, combined with superior image quality, meant that DVD was the undeniable next step. Blu-ray is a much harder sell, it doesn't have that "must have" feel to it for people outside of enthusiasts. Neither, mind you, did HD DVD.
|
Suprmallet hit it on the head. I'm sure many people don't really remember the days of VHS, but it was relatively rare for new releases to get "sell through" pricing. I remember when Aliens came out on VHS, my Aliens obsessed friend paid something like $100 for it. And thats 1987 money.
Here is an interesting article about how Warren Lieberfarb really killed the rental market by changing the paradigm on how movies were distributed: http://www.slate.com/id/2133995/ In 1998, at the dawn of the age of the DVD, Blockbuster made a decision that would change the future of Hollywood. Warren Lieberfarb, who then headed the home-video division of Warner Bros., offered Blockbuster CEO John Antioco a deal that would have made the DVD the same kind of rental business as that of the VHS tape, which, at the time, provided the studios with $10 billion in revenue. Lieberfarb proposed that Warner Bros. (which, along with Sony, was launching the DVD) create a rental window for DVDs during which sell-through DVDs would not be available for new movies. Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss in the FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAILGet Slate RSS FeedsRSSShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Single PageSINGLE PAGE Yahoo! BuzzFacebook FacebookPost to MySpace!MySpaceMixx MixxDigg DiggReddit RedditDel.icio.us del.icio.usFurl FurlMa.gnolia.com Ma.gnoliaSphere SphereStumble UponStumbleUponCLOSE With this window, Blockbuster, which then accounted for nearly half of the studios' rental income from new movies, would have had the opportunity to rent out DVD releases before they went on sale to the general public. In return, the studios would receive 40 percent of the rental revenues that Blockbuster earned from DVDs, which was exactly the same percentage they received for VHS rentals. In fact, it was Sumner Redstone, whose Viacom conglomerate then owned Blockbuster, who personally pioneered the revenue-sharing arrangement for video. Only a few years earlier, Redstone had told Lieberfarb, "The studios can't live without a video rental business—we [Blockbuster] are your profit." Yet, even though Lieberfarb was only asking that the same deal be extended to DVD, Blockbuster, perhaps not realizing the speed with which the digital revolution would spread, turned him down. Nevertheless, Lieberfarb, determined to make the DVD a success, went to Plan B: pricing the DVD low enough so that it could be sold to the public in direct competition with video rentals. |
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
(Post 9144826)
Actually, I would say that BD does not benefit from the current retail environment specifically because of the inroads DVD has made. As others have said, BD's biggest competition is DVD, and specifically DVD's under $15. Stores could get away with charging $30-$40 for a single DVD because at the time they were so revolutionary. The size of a CD, no rewinding, special features, multiple language tracks, commentaries, none of these were on VHS. And even for those who had laserdisc, the compact size and relatively lower prices, combined with superior image quality, meant that DVD was the undeniable next step. Blu-ray is a much harder sell, it doesn't have that "must have" feel to it for people outside of enthusiasts. Neither, mind you, did HD DVD.
DVD made getting a movie on a disc everywhere a reality. DVD changed the marketplace. It also set expectations, and while BD is far better than DVD it is not nearly as revolutionary as DVD was. |
BD also hurt itself with the constant BOGO deals when they were battling for turf. Now we're spoiled.
|
Some of you also don't remember the "VHS Looks Better" crowd, who didn't think DVD looked better. I was involved in the rental industry in the mid-90's to late 90's (chuggin' along at a rental store), and saw it first-hand. VHS was better. "Analog" was better--more real.
We're seeing the same thing happening with the DVD vs. HD crowd. Different formats, same arguments. |
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
(Post 9145268)
Some of you also don't remember the "VHS Looks Better" crowd, who didn't think DVD looked better. I was involved in the rental industry in the mid-90's to late 90's (chuggin' along at a rental store), and saw it first-hand. VHS was better. "Analog" was better--more real.
We're seeing the same thing happening with the DVD vs. HD crowd. Different formats, same arguments. |
Originally Posted by chanster
(Post 9144851)
Suprmallet hit it on the head. I'm sure many people don't really remember the days of VHS, but it was relatively rare for new releases to get "sell through" pricing. I remember when Aliens came out on VHS, my Aliens obsessed friend paid something like $100 for it. And thats 1987 money.
Here is an interesting article about how Warren Lieberfarb really killed the rental market by changing the paradigm on how movies were distributed: http://www.slate.com/id/2133995/ |
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
(Post 9145268)
Some of you also don't remember the "VHS Looks Better" crowd, who didn't think DVD looked better. I was involved in the rental industry in the mid-90's to late 90's (chuggin' along at a rental store), and saw it first-hand. VHS was better. "Analog" was better--more real.
We're seeing the same thing happening with the DVD vs. HD crowd. Different formats, same arguments. The revolutionary flag is as naive and as moot of a point as one could come up with. I am willing to hear however what revolutionary segment HD could have offered to its tech portfolio to match the revolutionary improvements DVD delivered. Enlighten me (not you Polizei)! Pro-B |
I don't think anyone is saying that DVD is better than BD. In my post above I say as much.
I am not sure how BD could have been revolutionary. That does not change my feeling that most people see it as an evolution of DVD. That does not mean it can't be successful, just that it lacks the paradigm shift that DVD made happen. The CD was revolutionary, though not as much as DVD. DVD-A was an evolution of the CD. |
Originally Posted by B5Erik
(Post 9143673)
The problem I have with those flash cards would be data degrading. It's not as durable a format as a disc like Blu Ray.
I don't buy movies to have them become unwatchable in 10-15 years. |
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
(Post 9143963)
Yes. I don't think that is common opinion. Your opinion, maybe, common opinion, no.
|
Maybe current flash isn't the solution but there must be a future beyond spinning discs
|
Something must be changing since I feel like a douche for preordering Band Of Brothers BD at $65 thinking it was a good price and it is selling at Best Buy this coming week for $37.49 just a month later or so later. And feeling dumb for buying the James Bond BDs for around $22 each release week and then seeing Amazon price the individual movies recently in a group sale with an average of around 8 or 9 bucks each after being released for less than a month.
The prices are coming down. But watching this happen will definitely prevent me from buying any more BDs on release week in the future no matter what it is. I sucked it up for the special Batman mask packaging but anything else can wait. Those are large money differences. But at least it does show the price is coming down on certain titles...and some are coming down quickly! |
Originally Posted by brianluvdvd
(Post 9145820)
Something must be changing since I feel like a douche for preordering Band Of Brothers BD at $65 thinking it was a good price and it is selling at Best Buy this coming week for $37.49 just a month later or so later. And feeling dumb for buying the James Bond BDs for around $22 each release week and then seeing Amazon price the individual movies recently in a group sale with an average of around 8 or 9 bucks each after being released for less than a month.
The prices are coming down. But watching this happen will definitely prevent me from buying any more BDs on release week in the future no matter what it is. I sucked it up for the special Batman mask packaging but anything else can wait. Those are large money differences. But at least it does show the price is coming down on certain titles...and some are coming down quickly! |
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
(Post 9145562)
I don't think anyone is saying that DVD is better than BD. In my post above I say as much.
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
(Post 9145562)
I am not sure how BD could have been revolutionary. That does not change my feeling that most people see it as an evolution of DVD. That does not mean it can't be successful, just that it lacks the paradigm shift that DVD made happen.
Pro-B |
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
(Post 9145897)
You are arguing that one of the products is revolutionary while the other isn't. This implies to me that one of the formats still offers more advantages to the consumer than the other.
DVD is revolutionary. It changed the way movies were presented at home as well as offering many new features that we previously didn't have with VHS. That is a revolutionary format. Blu-Ray is evolutionary as it was only an upgrade in presentation over DVD, but doesn't offer any major new features that DVD didn't already have. Had Blu-Ray been released in place of DVD 10 years ago, then Blu-Ray would've been considered revolutionary. All you have to do is compare the advantages DVD had over VHS with the advantages that Blu-Ray has over DVD. You'll see that DVD was a major upgrade overall for people while Blu-Ray is a minor one. However when comparing the two formats, DVD and Blu-Ray, it's obvious that Blu-Ray is the better format as it offers what DVD does and a bit more. That doesn't necessarily equate to the format being worth the investment for the average consumer though. |
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
(Post 9145897)
You are arguing that one of the products is revolutionary while the other isn't. This implies to me that one of the formats still offers more advantages to the consumer than the other.
So, you don't know what could have been revolutionary but you are certain BD isn't it. And so do most people. Can you describe what a revolutionary format would have been in general, or did the revolutionary cycle end with DVD? Pro-B Blu Ray is the successor format to DVD. It offers better sound and video. The other touted "advantages" are suppose interactivity and online access. I have yet to see one person post in this forum they bought Blu Ray for this advantage. When HD DVD touted the same advantage, I discounted it too. DVD was revolutionary - its pricing, special features and ease of use was unparelled. Yeah, and frankly Blu Ray still has some disadvantages to DVD - mainly compatibility issues and the cost. Is Blu Ray better? Definitely. Is it worth $10-$15 more for new releases? Or $20 more for some catalog releases? I don't know, thats a personal decision. |
Wait a second? Joe Schmo says Blu-Ray sucks?? Time to sell those players, people, stat!
|
Originally Posted by RoboDad
(Post 9141633)
Exactly. And that is probably the main problem that the BDA has had, setting and managing consumer expectations.
So far, Blu-ray seems to be growing in spite of their efforts, not because of them. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.