Slashdot Mirror
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray Disappointing So Far
Dster76 writes "Reuters is reporting that the new format wars are showing signs of underwhelming performance, both technically and financially. In fact, according to the article, the new formats are just not selling. Reuters chalks it up to a current lack of interest. They indicate that as more movies and players become available this autumn, sales should improve. Just the same, the current picture is quite sour." From the article: "'Neither format is selling well or at the level I had expected. I had expected early adopters to step up and other retailers have had the same experience,' said Bjorn Dybdahl, president of San Antonio, Texas-based specialty store Bjorn's. 'High expectations were set. At every meeting with Sony, every demonstration was spectacular,' Dybdahl said. 'Then along comes the first Blu-ray player from Samsung and that's when my expectations were hurt. When we put the disc in, all the sales people looked around and said it doesn't look much better than a standard DVD,' he said."
Simple demand/supply says that you will not need an infinite supply of anything, and that also applies to technology. Diminishing returns says that sooner or later, people will have enough technology (Blu-Ray, XBox360s, Laptops, etc) and they will not want or need any more. Upgrades are in the same boat.
When we put the disc in, all the sales people looked around and said it doesn't look much better than a standard DVD,'
They don't mention exactly what they watched it on. If it wasn't some 1080p wonderdisplay, then it brings out what I think the major failing of these hd formats will be (at least this first gen). The great thing about dvd was that you saw immediate benefits both from the medium and the content on your _standard_tv_. You didn't need the latest lcd/dlp/plasma display to appreciate what you were getting. The jump from tape -> dvd was massive, both in quantity and quality of content and the convenience of the medium itself, and it was available to anyone. Now we have only an incremental increated in the convenience of the medium (saves having multi-disk sets) which really doesn't mean much for most viewers and the improvements in quality only applies to a much smaller audience.
I rent DVDs from NetFlix and take screen captures and short clips for one of my sites, and would love to use HD movies instead. For the same subscription price, I'd be getting 1920x1080 images instead of ~640x480 or 852x480, a huge difference for stills.
But then again, I don't even know if I'd be able to take screen captures from a computer, with all the DRM they have.
When he speaks of convenience I can't but help think he means broken kicked in the ass and left in the gutter encryption that is on dvd's. No one reasonably geek would have a device that it takes 3 seconds for their 2 year old to kill the only disk they have and be forced to buy another. I backup dvd's religously as I have a 5 and an 8 year old. While they do not fubar my movies much they fubar theirs like mad. "imagine if you will your 5 year old walking into the room with the dvd held correctly in the center by his finger.. and the underside of the dvd having peanut butter and jelly on it.."
I have no desire or intention to pay for anything more than once. Taxes are bad enough at doing that why should I buy a player that only makes it harder for me to escape that idiocy? Better quality? Well I have a 42in plasma.. and yes it looks great with hdmi connections and Hi Def... but there's not enough hi-def content for me to appreciate it fully yet. Dvd's look good and i'm happy with them so far. I still don't have a compelling reason to buy anything incrementally better. I'm not paying for a screwing regardless if your a hooker in Mexicali or Sony in Japan.
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I believe you are entirely correct in that assessment.
I was an early adopter of DVD (got mine in '99 as I recall) because at the time it was a huge improvement over VHS, and I couldn't see spending money on any more VHS while I slowly build my home theater.
Here it is 7 years later, and I don't own an HD-TV, and I'm not interested in it just yet. HD DVD brings nothing new or interesting to me.
I think it's absolutely correct they thought they could come out with a new format and people would flock to it. They also decided to make the user experience far worse so they could lock down access to the content even more.
I give them a big 'no thanks' for this round of technology.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
One of the things that really separated DVD from VHS was size and look. The DVD was futuristic to many, durability and very obvious image quality were bonus reasons to move to the new platform. It was similar to the move from Cassette tape to CD's, it was an obvious and cool transition, no more switching tapes for long movies, no more tapes stretching or wearing out and dvd's dont eat tapes like cassette decks. Dont forget there was also the early promise that the media would eventually be cheaper (even though it never happened)
The only obvious benefit from HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is image quality, it doesnt really look different, its no more durable, and for most it just seems like a scam to get people to buy their movies over again.
Increased resolution is a benefit but most people still dont have HD tv's and probably more than half that do only have them because there are very few tv's that arent HD for sale anymore. You can further reduce the total by subtracting the ones that dont know how to hook it up properly and arent recieving HD anyway most of them are now disillusioned by HD through their own stupidity. That leaves a very tiny fragment of a market that actually sees any advantage to HD formated DVD's. I do think eventually one of the formats will stick but they would be better off doing hyrid disks with one format on one side and standard dvd on the other that way they can snag the replacement buyers not just rely on folks willing to make an upgrade most see as not necessary.
The limits of humans' ability to perceive sensor information is fixed and while the DVD isn't perfect, the lackluster response of the HD-DVD & Blu-Ray in the marketplace is an indication that diminishing returns for entertainment-based technology are here. I think underpinning this issue is an unexcited general public that has been underwhelmed by the quality of recent movies. If a movie is crap, then seeing it in HD might allow you to say "I think he ate corn"
I have to agree with this poster. I'll take it one step further. If they are unable to provide a more visible difference affordablly; this could very easily end up like SACD for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. The only reason DVD Audio has been doing ok is that you do not have to buy a new player. Go figure.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
I think sony is going to get handed their ass on this one. Sony doesn't have a good track record when trying to release a competing standard. Betamax vs. VHS anyone? PSP against the Nintendo DS? From what I read most of the DVD manufacturing companies would rather go with HD-DVD than BR. because they don't have to reduce their manufacturing lines. They can just up grade the equipment that they make DVD's on. Where with BR they will have to buy all new equipment, buy it from Sony that is.
Another thing is if Sony is the only one manufacturing BR players that will tend to keep the price high. When the price of a HD-DVD player drops to 300 bucks and BR are still around 500 joe walmart shopper is going to buy the cheaper. As more people buy HD-DVD players the prices will continue to tumble putting HD DVD in the lead. Movie studios will abandon the BR because no one is buying it, opting to go with the cheaper and technically inferior HD-DVD. At least I think its technically inferior.
But anyway it comes right down to Sony sinking a few hundred million into a pig that can't dance. An I really have no problems with that what so ever.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
The post's marked funny, but no, seriously, if both formats flop, it isn't a big issue. Upscaled DVDs are just fine for me, thanks, and I imagine a lot of other people too. Not only that, but I'd be amazed if they don't try the launch again a few more years down the line, hopefully with better formats...
Heck, we may never see another format like DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, because we'll all download movies over ultra fast broadband, but I'm a believe it when I see it kinda guy on that front.
I personally think China's EVD standard will become dominant -- not because consumer's will flock to it, though, but manufacturers. There is no copyright or other licensing to use it, and it's a freely published standard for high-def. No royalities, and it's codecs can even be implemented in Linux without legal issues.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Actually, what I was getting at was more that the sound chip was like a VHS tape, and the sound card like a DVD. The general idea being that once you have a mature version of a technology, there is little to be gained from upgrading yet again.
:-)
So, I fully agree that these new formats aren't sufficiently better than DVDs to justify their cost and drawbacks. That was my point
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
To be clear, DVD's look pretty good on my 110" tv.
These new media are unnessecary for HD movies as with any halfway decent MPEG-4 scheme, you can easily fit an HD movie onto a single-layer disc. So, why are we still using MPEG-2? After all, with either option, the consumer has to buy a new DVD player... wouldn't cheaper MPEG-4 discs sell better?
are you implying that current DVD and SD displays are the "peak" of home theater technology?
I think even discerning early adopters would disagree with you. Using your example it's like we have a chirping PC speaker now, and they're trying to sell us a sound card but all the sound card is doing is making chirps. They're not using the new tech to it's full potential, but we're still being asked to pay the price as if it was. I've seen TRUE HD content through HD cable as well as through examples of the WM9/VC1 codec on MS's website, I've played them through my HDTV and they look spectacular and I would be more then willing to pay $500 for a player that could bring that spectacular image to my DVD collection, unfortunately it hasn't happened yet, they've told me that's what their players can do but I don't see it yet. Blu-Ray is the worse of the two, it costs more and from the demo's I've seen it doesn't look much better then regular DVD, HD-DVD looks better but it doesn't even seem to be at the quality level of what I can get from a HTPC or HD cable. Then of course both formats have the issues of cost and the threat of not being supported if the alternative becomes the standard.
If this were a game of hold'em it'd be like them asking you to go all in when all you've got in your hand is an Ace and a Two, sure it could go really well but it could also go really poorly. I think even the typical early adopters are holding on to their chips until they have a better idea how things might turn out.
Collector's Edition
> 1) Standard DVD's look like crap on 55" screens. This is subjective, sure, but if you really
> believe this, you will *never* need HD because you're blind. Standard DVD's leave tons of
> compression artifacts in dark scenes (even title credits!) which are very visible. Tell me,
> would you run a 21" computer monitor at 640x480 -- with uncompressed video data? No? Then why
> do you think that *very* lossy compression of 640x480 looks good at 55"?
You're on crack.
Standard DVD's look quite repectable on 55" screens. It helps if it's an HDTV that
runs at 720p or better and not some ancient CRT projector. However, DVD's are quite
respectable on moderately priced players on GOOD TVs.
The display device matters.
Now HD-DVD or BlueRay is going to be just more of the same or an even higher
level of compression. So the "compression" argument really makes 0.0 sense here.
Now, I could likely tell the difference with some well done 720p or 1080p
content. However, it would take a very good conversion. I am not exactly blind.
I am actually pretty demanding. I am certainly far more demanding that most
consumers out there.
I can notice the difference. I just am not convinced that it's enough of
a gain for the cost involved in HD formats for a meagre 55" screen. I can't
really see the average consumer being all to impressed either.
480p on a good set 60" or better is likely all best people can even percieve.
Nevermind whether or not they think it's worth the minimum $1100 conversion cost.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There is a hug difference from "keeping your eye on" and actually purchasing. I DO have my eye on a nice huge LCD (meh to plasma) television, a $4000 gaming rig, a nice new stereo, a new car, etc ect... How many of these will I purchase in the next year, probably none of them, since most of them are just status items, and don't serve for much more than to impress my neighbors in the "See my shiny bling!" way. Perhaps if our economy returned to Clinton Era (mid 90's) levels, then these gadgets will switch from eye candy to actual goods.
Right now though... I can't excuse myself to buy a new DVD player when this one isn't broken, nor do I really feel like switching over to a whole new format. I'm still hunting for a couple movies on DVD that I only have on VHS. DVD is good enough, whereas VHS sucked, HD-blah isn't too much of an improvement to the non-pathological videophile like me, at least not enough of an improvement to warrent much money being spent. I like to think, and pray, that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be like mini-disks were, vast selections of limited media rotting in the aisles of your nearest store, forgotten. I hope they don't catch on, since there is no need for them except for mindless technophilia, and this I would lose some respect for the average American consumer. They aren't addressing a need, only some odd lust for more consumer goods, and corporate manipulations. Same thing with the odd goverment enforcement of HD technology, I don't like the government forcing me to subsidize television manufacturers and cable companies by making me upgrade to something pointless. Wow, now I can watch law and order in letterbox!
Sorry for the rant. For some reason this technology pisses me off, I don't want to be forced to upgrade again, once in 10 years is enough. I wish I could wait until there is something as revolutionary as DVD and CD were.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I think "peak" is the wrong word here. I think of it as "delta", as in the difference in performance between the old version and the new version.
:-)
When comparing VHS to DVD, the delta in picture quality and sound was VERY large. Just about everyone could appreciate DVD as the superior medium, and the market migrated accordingly.
However, the delta between DVD and these new formats isn't quite as pronounced. Yeah, I'm sure many here could see the difference, but believe me, not everyone can. Plus throw in the fact you need to own a HDTV, and it's just not going to matter to the majority of the market at this time.
To go back to the soundcard comparison, everyone will agree that a sound card will give you better sound than the PC's onboard speaker. But does that mean that everyone here can appreciate the difference between, say, the SB-AWE32 and AWE64? Or, how about the differences between the first and second generations of the Audigy? Would you bother upgrading your Audigy to the Audigy2 (or whatever it's called)? Probably not. The delta between the two isn't worth the extra money.
Video cards still make pretty large strides each generation. Most probably don't upgrade every day a new card comes out, but can agree jumping every 2 or 3 generations is a good idea if you're serious about cutting edge games.
The only way you're going to get people to upgrade is to convince them that the delta is worth the cash. Otherwise, if they won't buy because their current equipment is "good enough."
Of course, issues like: format war, uncertain DRM, expensive players, sub-standard movies, etc. doesn't help things any. After all, it's usually the early adopters who convince their non-early-adopter friends to go buy the thing after seeing it in action at the early adopter's house
TV sets tend to have an extremely long life relative to most other consumer electronics. Plenty of people run 10 year old sets, only replacing them when they finally die.
:)
I agree. I have a Hitachi 32 inch that was 'new' in '95. I bought it used from a friend of mine in 2000. To this day it still has one of the best tube pictures that I've ever seen. I've looked at getting a new TV a few times, but to match the picture I currently have I would have to spend way more money than I would want to. Especially since my TV still works great. Now when my TV finally goes kaput, 42 inch LCD here I come
I have to grudgingly agree with you. When I got the new HDTV and programming, I was stoked. For a long time, all I would watch were shows in HDTV, because of the amazing clarity. I bragged about it to all my co-workers and friends, and it was always the guys that were in envy.
Of course, my wife barely even notices the difference between HD and SD. It basically looks the same to her. And that's quite amazing, because SDTV on an HDTV looks even crappier than normal. Our old SDTV upstairs still gets a lot of use, because it's more than good enough for her.
Now, try getting her to notice the difference between regular DVD and a high-def DVD (Blu-ray or HD-DVD)? Might as well give up now. Or she may notice a small difference and just not care.
However, what she DOES love is the DVR functionality we got a few years ago. That's definately a sign that convenience > quality for many folks.
-- jchenx
I have to agree with this assumption as well, being as and how people (myself included) are still burning single layer DVD's because they are cheaper to buy 100 of them than 5 gallons of gas these days....
Of course, since DVD 4.7's are half the size of their dual layer counterparts, there is a further reduction in quality when one duplicates a DVD from Dual Layer to Single layer... I neither notice nor care about the loss in quality. The price is right and the quality is adequate for my needs.
Yes I'm Joe normal and I probably lack audiophile taste... Yes I have bad perception of the quality difference between single and dual layer DVDs. And yes, I am part of the larger 80 percent of people in the bell curve, that unless they are paying attention, they'd never notice the difference either... I figure most people are the same, since I have never brought over a movie and had someone complain about the choppiness, graininess or what have you from the 'lowered resolution'... We just sat down and enjoyed the show, blissfully ignorant of the fact the picture 'could have been better'.
My guess few but the most irratable twits would wince or moan at having to watch a single layer dvd movie. These people are also prone to rare illnesses, allergies, and can't be out in the sun for more than 7 1/2 minutes at a time.
Simply put, when most people don't care, or cannot perceive a difference without a 'side by side' comparison, you cannot successfully market a 'commodity' product in a way that will only appeal to the outliers of the bell curve... This is simple economics.
You can do that with Ferraris and Lotusses, because they are goods sold on the basis of their exclusivity, (and as a result, the difference is not only in their exclusivity, but the perceived increase in quality one is receiving for investing in such a product). Home equiptment, even of audiophile quality is rarely successfully sold in such a manor, since the required investments in creating the product are just as high, margins are very low, and most people want something that just works and is cheap, versus something that is of little perceivable better quality for a considerably higher expense.. Even with audiophile-quality equipment millions of units are still required to be sold to be considered lucrative enough for the risk in investment, not thousands as in the case of boutique cars).
In addition, Ferarris and Lotuses still use a compatable medium (gasoline) albeit in 'premium' form. Nevertheless the medium is plentiful enough to make the product viable, despite the additional 'premium' on the media, since the 'quality' of the media can be fully appreciated with such a product (premium does nothing in an 8:1 compression normally aspirated Buick, for example). These player's 'premium' media has yet to surface in any way to where the product could be viable...
If I were Sony making a media device, I would start with the disc, and work my way to the player, not the other way around. I would covertly (or at least no hype) make media with multiple layers, with a DVD layer and then layers which only the new player could play... I wouldn't make a big stink about it, I'd just work on making it and refine the process until its cheap. I'd release it to the public and they'd be none the wiser. I could make version revisions if necessary, but the DVD part I sell wouldn't change of course. Once the media is mature production-wise, (ensuring the new media is reliable in both players over a production run of about a year), I'd uneventfully put a new logo on the dvd case and make no mention of it for at least another 6 months or so. The more nondescript a logo, the better.
Then one day, when I was sure the technology of manufacturing the discs was mature, I'd release the player, and say 'Best of all, if you use a Sony player, you can already appreciate the difference using your current dvd's, provided they were a Sony title, and they have a certain logo on the DVD case...
This solves the