Sony Thinks Blu-ray Will Sell Like DVDs by Year End

An anonymous reader writes "Sony CEO Ryoji Chubachi knows something we don't. At a press conference, he announced Sony's plan to increase Blu-ray market share to 50% of all movie discs by the end of the year. 'DVD and BD currently account for about 80% and 20%, respectively, of global demand for movie discs, Chubachi indicated. The new BD devices to be offered by Sony include models integrating an HD LCD TV with BD recording functionality, Chubachi pointed out. Sony has relied mainly on the PlayStation 3 (PS3) to promote BD, and sales of the game console will increase along with the offering by top Hollywood studios of new BD movies, Chubachi noted. However, Sony will extend its BD promotion from the current focus on the PS3 and BD players/recorders to IT devices, Chubachi pointed out.'"

Comments

Then you had better lower those prices!

[elrous0]

By the time DVD reached that kind of market share, the prices on players had dropped to the sub-$200 range and disc prices had dropped to the average $20 range.

Right now, the cheapest blu-ray players are still up around $400 and the discs still average (at most brick and mortar retailers) in the $30 range. Not to mention that DVD looked good on virtually any TV (even older legacy sets), wheras Blu-ray players will (for most people) require the purchase of a new, potentially very expensive, HDTV.

If you're going mainstream, you had damn sure better get those prices into the mainstream. Japan made be filled with technophiles who are willing to spend big money on the latest tech of the moment. But most of the rest of world isn't.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[kevin_conaway]

If you're going mainstream, you had damn sure better get those prices into the mainstream. Japan made be filled with technophiles who are willing to spend big money on the latest tech of the moment. But most of the rest of world isn't.

Average people will not spend $400 on new technology especially with an economic recession looming over us.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Gription]

More to the point: BlueRay won't hit 50% until the price drops so there is a $150 player and the disks have dropped to a sub-"premium" price.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[explosivejared]

Not to mention the fact that any reduction in the price and increase in the prevalence of Blu-Ray will cause a depression in the price of DVD's. People have already invested in the DVD technology and are familiar with it. For the time being, DVD is the biggest competitor to hi-def. For now, only the quality buffs will pushing gains in market share. People want cheap movies. High-quality is an afterthought as long as the current standard isn't complete trash, which DVD isn't.

I'd hate to see it come to studios extorting people by squashing DVD while there is still legitimate demand, but it is not unthinkable.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[future assassin]

Damn straight and for the average person DVD is way beyond what VHS was which is why most probably switched. I have three DVD players at home, do they think I'm actually gonna dump them and go for Blue Ray and fork over $400 for another player? No thanks.

Plus who wants to have a root kit on their tv. No thanks Sony.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[yankeessuck]

Amen to that! I only have the Spiderman 3 disc that came with my PS3 for that same reason. IMHO, there's a pretty short list of movies that could pry $30 from my wallet.

However, Netflix could be the savior for all parties involved. They already let you borrow BD discs for the same price as DVDs so that's really the only cheap BD source for consumers. As demand goes up, Netflix will have to increase BD purchases which should ultimately lead to lower production prices.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Hognoxious]

Average people will not spend $400 on new technology especially with an economic recession looming over us.

Right. So credit cards serve what purpose, exactly?

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Alphi1]

I'll be honest, the "average person" sure won't see that much of a difference between DVD and BluRay. Even if they do, it'd be a real hard sell to convince them it's worth buying a $400+ player and spending MORE for each disc than they could with DVD. I mean, it's one thing when there's a MASSIVE jump in technology, like going from VHS to DVD. I mean, with DVD suddenly the discs were a lot higher quality (picture and sound), and were considerably closer to indestructible than VHS tapes (that would wear out over time regardless of how well they were maintained). And then you add the DVD extras as well, it's a slam dunk. What does Blu Ray have over DVD? A better picture (but only for those who have HDTVs and can see the improvement), a little better sound (but how many "average" users think that 5.1 from a DVD really sounds "bad"?). What else? Not much. Certainly not enough to justify the extra cost. Personally, I'll buy my first BluRay player when I can buy one that will also up-convert my existing DVDs and cost $100 or less. Considering you can get up-converting DVD players now for $40, I'd pay an extra $60 for the ability to play BluRay at some point. But pay an extra $360? No way.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Albanach]

I have three DVD players at home, do they think I'm actually gonna dump them and go for Blue Ray and fork over $400 for another player?

I doubt Sony expect you to. However, once you have a BD player, are you going to buy a DVD or a BD of the latest movie. I'd hazard a guess that most folk would opt for the new technology.

I know I stopped buying VHS tapes as soon as I had a DVD player, even though I still owned a couple of VHS players and plenty of old tapes.

As others have commented, they need to get the player price down to encourage adoption, but I think that once the players are out there, the disc sales will quickly follow. Assuming they make a decent royalty off each disc, it may even be in their interest to subsidise the player cost to boost uptake.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Doc Ruby]

Blank recordable Blu-Ray discs (BD-Rs) cost $109 for a 10-pack of 25GB/1L ($11ea), and a 50GB/2L costs $175 ($37ea).

DVD-R costs $190 for a 1000-pack, $0.19ea.

Sony's got to cut those BD-R prices really a lot, to something like 2-5%, to get the IT industry using them the way we use DVDs. Compared to media prices, the burners even at $500 are only the price of 15-45 blank discs.

There's still not much demand for single packages of content spanning multiple DVDs, which is where BD is better. BD is only 5-10x DVD, so once content is larger than a single DVD, there's good chance it's larger than a single (1S) BD. So real applications will still need a changer, which is expensive. By that time, the whole contraption is more expensive than a competing HD (eg. 200BD changer is at least $2000 for IT, BD-R drive is at least $500, discs at least $2180, so $4680 (probably well over $5000) for 5TB, which is clunkier and slower (and less rewritable) than 7*750GB HDs @$115ea = $805 + maybe $150 for an entire 1Gb ethernet host PC, at $955 for a way better system. But one that doesn't spit out 25GB or 50GB discs you can hand or mail to someone, or let some normal user put in their "videodisc" player.

You can, however, get a 20-disc 1xBD-R USB duplicator for $3025. Which should cost $500.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[samkass]

I think your facts are a little off.
1. "Not to mention that DVD looked good on virtually any TV (even older legacy sets)"

DVD looks like crap on any television with coax inputs (a significant portion of them when DVD first came out) because of Macrovision copy protection. Running the DVD player through a VHS machine to get coax outputs triggered the copy protection, and DVD players did not have coax natively.

2. "Blu-ray players will (for most people) require the purchase of a new, potentially very expensive, HDTV."

Actually Blu-Ray will work just fine on older televisions, although it won't look any better than DVD. But if the prices do come down it would be silly to buy a DVD when you could future-proof your collection with a Blu-Ray disc instead.

3. "By the time DVD reached that kind of market share, the prices on players had dropped to the sub-$200 range and disc prices had dropped to the average $20 range."

Firstly, it's not really comparable because DVD players could not play VHS, so you were making a pretty big jump back then. All Blu-Ray players can play DVDs, so if you're buying a new player you might want to future-proof the hardware, as well. But even so, with inflation you can't compare exact dollar figures. If folks are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on iPods, it doesn't seem unreasonable they'd spend something similar to play the latest disc media.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[CastrTroy]

Even then, an Upconverting DVD player looks almost as good as BluRay. It's not exactly as good, it gets you quite a bit closer, with spending quite a bit less. The last upgrade from VHS to DVD offered a ton of new features. BluRay, apart from quality advances, doesn't really offer anything.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[onkelonkel]

Credit Cards allow you to go shopping without carrying large sums of cash around. Given the interest rates most cards charge, only a mentally defective person would carry a balance on a card and pay it off over time.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[MBGMorden]

I think that will be the case for many people and for many movies so long as Blu-Ray discs are at a premium. If they're the same price then naturally I'll go Blu-ray every time. For movies like the Harry Potter series, or Serenity, or Lord of the Rings, etc, I'd spring for Blue-ray. However, there are those "other" movies I buy. You know, the $5 bin movies. Not necessarily bad (well, subject to personal tastes), but not an epic movie. I'm talking about movies like "Mr. Destiny" or "Defending Your Life". "Robin Hood: Men in Tights". I like those movies (and many other similar such films), and I pick up a lot of them as an impulse purchase for pretty cheap. There's no way I need to see them in full HD glory though and I'm certainly not going to pay extra for that. As such so long as they make both and price them differently, I envision buying both BD's and DVD's depending on the particular movie in question.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[future assassin]

>However, once you have a BD player, are you going to buy a DVD or a BD of the latest movie. I'd hazard a guess that most folk would opt for the new technology.

Actually considering the price difference here between DVD and BD I'd still buy DVD's. Now for me I also rarely buy new dvd's I always buy used dvd's from pawn shops ($4-10) and rental stores ($7-12).

IF they would bring in a cheap BR burner for computers then I might be persuaded to change since it is a huge change in the amount of data BR can store. Now this makes sense to me and would be a VHS to DVD type of a leap.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Creepy]

heh - that's what the "economic stimulus" package is for.

But blu-ray is worthless without an HDTV and HD capable receiver, which will set you back several thousand more if you don't already have them. With the push for digital only, an HDTV/receiver is far more important than Blu-ray - maybe in 2-5 years when those prices drop and Blu-ray drops we'll see 80%.

I'm still debating whether to do what I'm supposed to, buy cheap Chinese goods with the government loan from the Chinese (like an HDTV) with my economic stimulus, or doing the 'wrong' thing and paying another month on my mortgage. Never mind - I'm paying off my debt first - I can always move to a debt free country.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[outlander78]

As I understand it, Blu-Ray evolves and new versions are released. If I buy a 1.0 or 1.1 player today, there is no guarantee that later Blu-Ray releases will be able to play in my 1.0/1.1 player, as they may have new features, or just updated DRM due to hackers breaking older DRM attempts.

If future players are going to support DVDs, then I don't see the harm in buying cheap DVDs that are good enough for my eyes, can play in next-generation players, and can be ripped to my PC should players cease to support them.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[pnewhook]

What's the point of an upconverting DVD player when the TV can do it natively and likely much better (as it knows what its own native format is)?

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Firehed]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of mentally defective people in the world.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[FredFredrickson]

I'm calling you out.

1. "Not to mention that DVD looked good on virtually any TV (even older legacy sets)"

DVD looks like crap on any television with coax inputs (a significant portion of them when DVD first came out) because of Macrovision copy protection. Running the DVD player through a VHS machine to get coax outputs triggered the copy protection, and DVD players did not have coax natively.

BS. DVD is always better, even on crappy sets. And, no, people didn't just deal with the macrovision and assume that it was functioning normally. They got themselves an RF modulator (or just used their VCR, since back then, a lot of VCRs didn't even have macrovision features). But claiming that DVDs looked like crap? I still use a DVD player hooked through an RF modulator, looks just fine, and there's no annoying stripe at the top of the screen for the first half hour of the movie.

So compairing the best scenerio (Blu-ray) with a clearly not-functioning setup (DVD-through macrovision enabled VCR) is just a bit disingenuous. At least give us a fair comparison.

2. "Blu-ray players will (for most people) require the purchase of a new, potentially very expensive, HDTV."

Actually Blu-Ray will work just fine on older televisions, although it won't look any better than DVD. But if the prices do come down it would be silly to buy a DVD when you could future-proof your collection with a Blu-Ray disc instead.

Actually, blue ray will require a new tv. Know why? Technically, it'd work on an old TV. But wasn't your last argument simply that DVDs "DVD looks like crap" on older tvs? So why go blueray if that's true? At least be consistent!

The upgrade from DVD to Bluray is purely asthetic. So don't get your panties in a bunch, but people are only going to upgrade to blu-ray if they have a TV that will show the difference. Otherwise you're throwing $400 out for absolutely NO increase in quality.

3. "By the time DVD reached that kind of market share, the prices on players had dropped to the sub-$200 range and disc prices had dropped to the average $20 range."

Firstly, it's not really comparable because DVD players could not play VHS, so you were making a pretty big jump back then. All Blu-Ray players can play DVDs, so if you're buying a new player you might want to future-proof the hardware, as well. But even so, with inflation you can't compare exact dollar figures. If folks are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on iPods, it doesn't seem unreasonable they'd spend something similar to play the latest disc media.

First problem in your reasoning:

1. Blu-ray needs to be backwards compatible because it's the only way to get people to switch. DVD was a major improvement over VHS, that alone was enough reason to switch and buy replacement DVDs for all those crappy VHS Tapes. Additionally, it didn't take long for combo players to appear, to get those people who wouldn't make the switch.

2. The iPod comparison doesn't work. There are obvious benefits to the new iPod: Space. Your old iPod only fits X number of songs? But you have more? If your audio collection is cumulative (and it is) then you'll always need more space. But the comparison you're trying to make is buying an ipod that plays the exact same amount of songs, but pretends to do so with higher quality, which isn't that big of a deal unless you're plugging it into $1500 speakers or earbuds. Oh, and this high-quality version of the ipod is $400 more, but again, offers no new space for more music.

As you can see, you've compared apples and oranges. During a recession people will have to make decisions on what they'll buy. Understand that you must maximize the advertised value to get people to buy. Money is tight, but not gone. So yes, people will buy an iPod because it's obvious what the benefits are. Blu-Ray? Expensive, plus neccessary additional equiptment to enjoy. Not in the budget- my dvds play just fine.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[phantomlord]

All Blu-Ray players can play DVDs, so if you're buying a new player you might want to future-proof the hardware, as well I can play any DVD in my DVD player...

Some people are already complaining that their profile 1.0 Blu-Ray players can't play the latest discs. I'd say DVD is the better bet for future proofing at this point, especially as far as hardware goes. Who wants a $400 Blu-Ray player that won't play next month's discs?

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Gregg Alan]

Which BluRay dics have you watched? I'd like to avoid them if they look as crappy as a DVD, even upscaled.

For me, everytime I watch a BluRay disc it's as WOW as when I first tuned into DiscoveryHD when I first got the HDTV.

But even the overcompressed HD of some of the cable channels is better than DVD.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[codegen]

However, once you have a BD player, are you going to buy a DVD or a BD of the latest movie. I'd hazard a guess that most folk would opt for the new technology.
  It very much depends on the movie. I know that there are many movies out there that I won't even pay regular DVD prices for, and I only buy them when they hit the bargain bin. There are a few movies that I would be willing to pay a premium price, but for the rest, I would buy the DVD.

I don't think tour analogy to VHS is entirely accurate. I also stopped buying VHS tapes as soon as I had a DVD player, but that was because (a) no more rewinding, (b) smaller size and easier to store and look through (c) easy fast forward and backup [including skip] (d) subtitles and closed captioning, (e) easy access to bonus materials. The advantage of Blue Ray is not nearly as compelling

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[twistedsymphony]

Does the upconverting really make any difference? I've never seen the output of an upconverting player, but I don't understand how upconverting in the player can look much better than upconverting in the TV.

Technically it doesn't matter where it gets up converted but the general thinking is that up conversion in the player is of a higher quality since it is performed before the signal is compressed to fit over the video cables.

Also players typically offer a higher quality of up conversion since they're designed to work specifically with the kind of content found on DVDs while TV upconverters are designed to be more generic (jack of all trades, master of none... or some such).

Really it comes down to which device has the better scaling equipment. No matter what you should set it up to only scale the image once. ie: having your player scale from 480i to 720p then your TV from 720p to 1080p is a no-no.

What you should be doing is setting your player to scale to the native resolution of your display, and see how that looks, then set your player to output at the native resolution of the original content, thus letting your display do all the scaling, and see how that looks.

The problem is most people have their player set to upscale something stupid like 1080i (because it's the "biggest") when their display has a native resolution like 1366x768 and the results generally look like garbage in comparison to what they COULD look like.

As for myself, personally I have a projector with a native resolution of 1280x768, and I have an Oppo upscaling DVD player set to scale the dvds to 720p (1280x720), my projector is set to just center the signal and leave some black bars on the top and bottom (often called "just scan" mode) thus completely bypassing the scaler in the projector. Both the player and projector have identical scaler chips (Faroudja DCDi) so the player is the better place to scale since it's done before converting the signal for travel over the cable. The scaling is only done once and the picture looks fantastic.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[AbsoluteXyro]

Does the upconverting really make any difference? I've never seen the output of an upconverting player, but I don't understand how upconverting in the player can look much better than upconverting in the TV.

The problem is most people have their player set to upscale something stupid like 1080i (because it's the "biggest") when their display has a native resolution like 1366x768 and the results generally look like garbage in comparison to what they COULD look like. Actually, on my setup I have a 720p LCD HDTV with a native resolution of 1366x768, and an OPPO upconverting DVD player. I find that the image actually looks better with the player upconverting to 1080i, then having the TV scale the image down to 1366x768. I believe that may be because at 720p, the image must still be stretched to fit the native resolution of the screen. The image winds up looking better being squeezed down from 1080i to fit 1366x768. Just my two cents.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Alphi1]

To put it simply: HDMI. A non-upconverting DVD player isn't likely to have an HDMI out, and if I'm trying to minimize the cables that have to go to my tv (or for that matter my receiver), I'd rather use a single HDMI cable instead of a three-cable component video and a single digital audio cable.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Enderandrew]

I had a top of the line upconverting DVD player (which now sits in my basement ignored). My wife and I both believe that the PS3's upconverting is better than the upconverting found in our $250 DVD player.

Buying the PS3 for $400 netted us:

- Home media server
- BluRay player (with frequent firmware updates!)
- The best upconverting DVD player I've seen
- A next gen console.

I won't hate on the other consoles here, but people are quite willing to spend $450 on the XBox 360 Elite. You can argue that the $400 PS3 is a much better value all around.

Even at the horrendous launch, everyone just focused on the $600 price tag, which was a huge mistake. Sony should have just launched the $500 version alone. At $500, it compared to the $400 360 model (both had HDDs) and you could in theory justify the $100 difference in price due to BluRay and better processing power.

Sony is still playing catch-up because of the $600 snafu, but for those of us who did take the jump, I feel the investment was very worthwhile.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[teh kurisu]

Well I think we're in completely different markets, which is probably why we have different perspectives on it. I know loads of people with HDTVs, but cable is almost non-existent here (let alone on-demand cable). Sky HD is prohibitively expensive, the box alone is between £200 and £250 (so, at least $400). That's with a subscription, which increases by £10 if you want HD channels. So Blu-ray starts to look less of an expensive option. HD channels on Freeview are a few years away, by which time Blu-ray prices will have dropped.

You're also not considering that many people, having already bought an HDTV and having an expired cheap DVD player, might be willing to spend a little more money on their next shiny disc player (assuming prices drop over the next few months).

Just thought I'd mention as well, the digital switchover, which is beginning this year and will be complete by 2012, is driving sales of Freeview-compatible TVs in general, and many people will opt for an HDTV as the future-proofed option, which is why there are possibly more in my market than in yours.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[vux984]

Does the upconverting really make any difference? I've never seen the output of an upconverting player, but I don't understand how upconverting in the player can look much better than upconverting in the TV.

The upscaler in a new DVD player may be better than the upscaler in the TV, but that's only half the issue. For a LOT of people, the benefit to upgrading DVD players isn't so much about the scaler as it is about getting a progressive scan player with composite/dvi/hdmi output.

Hooking up a 7 year old $20 walmart DVD player that does 480i over RCA ... well, you can imagine that's not going to look its best, no matter how good your TV's upscaler is. Its only got half the information to work with. It was more than good enough on the old 25" TV that only took RCAs, but on the 46" HDTV its just not up to the job.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Enderandrew]

By the way, every retail store I've gone to has had expensive BluRay movies. Yet, on Amazon I have found tons of BluRay moves (new and used) for $15 or less, which sure beats the $35 they want to charge in many stores.

I don't know if they're still doing it, but when I bought my PS3 I mailed in the proof of purchase, and got 5 free BluRay movies. Check online and they may still be doing that.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[twistedsymphony]

Actually, on my setup I have a 720p LCD HDTV with a native resolution of 1366x768, and an OPPO upconverting DVD player. I find that the image actually looks better with the player upconverting to 1080i, then having the TV scale the image down to 1366x768. I believe that may be because at 720p, the image must still be stretched to fit the native resolution of the screen. The image winds up looking better being squeezed down from 1080i to fit 1366x768. Just my two cents.

Actually your scenario is not uncommon. The problem is that a lot of "720p" HDTVs aren't really 720p as that would imply that they have a native resolution 1280x720... instead they use some weird bastardized resolution CLOSE to 720p but not quite. The problem ends up that unless your using VGA or some flavor of DVI (that includes HDMI) you can't send 1366x768 over a video cable since it's not a standard signal in A/V world.

This means that you have two options 1. Knowingly scale your image twice, once with the source device to get CLOSE to your native resolution, and then again when your TV converts actual 720p or 1080i/p to 1366x768... or 2. don't do any conversion in the player and let your TV do all of the scaling.

IMO this is a bad situation to be in since you're always at the mercy of your TV's scaler, and the reason I personally avoid, and encourage others to avoid purchasing an HDTV with a non-standard native-resolution.

The best thing to do here is to simply try all of the output resolutions at your disposal and see which one looks best to you. Theoretically setting your DVD player to output 480i or 480p over HDMI would produce the best quality image, but it really comes down to how well your TV's scaler handles it since there is no good way to bypass it.

Re:Then you had better lower those prices!

[Omestes]

You're better off just waiting. Rent only during the transition: your DVDs are obsolete. They've been obsolete for a couple years now, the only question is when, not if they'll be supplanted.

How are they obsolete? I just watch a couple DVDs last night and they worked fine, I didn't find their entertainment value in any way decreased. Just as when I watch thing on my friends Blue Ray on my friends PS3 I don't find any more entertainment value than I do on my old DVD player. I don't find any real increase in the only thing that matters, entertainment. But then again I'd say the average age of when the movies in my collection were made is around 10+ years ago, so no graphical improvements will really effect them.

I don't want to replace my television and my player just because some marketing shit tells me that their OLD and OBSOLETE, and most assuredly, NOT THE NEXT BIG THING. I don't care if my neighbors or friends are impressed, I don't care if I get the best possible picture in the unnoticeable details. I don't care if they can handle 500 more special features that I won't watch more than once (if even). I AM glad though that the media companies could come out with such a profitable scam to make more money, and foist more DRM on us, AND widely convince everyone to buy into it.

Blue Ray isn't a big improvement, at least not big enough to get me to go get a new TV, a new player, new over-priced cables, and buy a bunch of massively over-priced movies (much less even think about replacing the ones I own). DVD was a large technological leap above VHS, and I still haven't managed to replace some of my old tapes yet, and now I'm supposed to worry about the whole damn mess again.

I own maybe 6 (out of 100+) DVDs made after 2000, and rarely see any need to buy them since they are largely inferior to older movies, as my tastes go. Is the Blue Ray version of the Godfather really going to be better than the DVD version?

Sure, if my TV dies I will replace it with HD. This is equal parts by force (no one sells CRT anymore), and because I might as well replace it with the new thing. If my DVD player dies, then I MIGHT replace it with Blue Ray, if they get really cheap fast (roughly same price as a middling DVD player), and play vanilla DVDs to my liking. I dobut this will happen soon, since my TV is ten years old, and works fine, and my DVD player is 5 years and works fine. Will I replace any of my movies? No, not enough added value to justify the price. Will I buy new Blue Ray movies? Only if they are cheaper than the DVD equivalent, and available at the places I mostly buy movies (Sales, and used book stores).

In brief, Blue Ray isn't big enough a leap to justify me spending any extra money on. They are basically DVD 1.5. The difference is so small I have a hard time seeing it at any normal viewing distance, and really don't care. I don't watch movies for the "pretty", I watch them for the plot, acting, and the other intangibles that no technological gimmick will ever improve.

Not if everyone is like me

[2.7182]

I am going to wait at least 2 years. DVD's are fine for me. Maybe a drive for storage though.

Maybe if they give away HDTVs

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got two perfectly good non-HD televisions in my house that I have no plans to replace anytime soon-- the longer I hold out, the better and cheaper HD sets get.

Regular DVDs look fine to me, and the price is right. When you factor in the TV needed, upgrade costs are ridiculous.

Upgrade? Not Worth It

[Tiberius_Fel]

They seem to be overlooking the problem that DVDs are good enough for most people and that Blu-Ray doesn't really confer the same advantage over DVD that DVDs did over VHS.

Meanwhile ... In Neighboring Microsoftia

[eldavojohn]

Meanwhile in the enemy camp of Microsoft (maybe not so enemy now that HD-DVD is dea), they claim they were concentrating on HD downloads (digital distribution) the whole time!

"The horse that we're fundamentally backing is the one that says the future of entertainment content is online digital distribution. I would argue that we backed the right horse," Xbox UK chief Neil Thompson told The Guardian.

"If we're sitting here in 12 or 18 months time, we'll be saying, 'Why were people even thinking about a disc format when it's really about digital distribution?' Our strategy's been developed for the last six or seven years, and ever since we launched the platform this has been our big, big, big bet." So I guess you still have two camps here--Sony who thinks Blu-Ray is the future and Microsoft who is now betting on downloads of HD.

Convenience and you being at the mercy of whether or not your ISP deems that traffic taxable or expensive bulky disc boxes with insane prices? Good luck, consumer, you're bound to be screwed one way or the other!

Whats the point?

[pablo_max]

Seriously, whats the point of spending 2-400 bucks on a DVD player and then an additional 2--50 per movie? I know that they look better, but they don't look 40 bucks better than upconverted DVD in my opinion. especially when you are talking about older movies that sure as heck were not recorded in HD....why the hell would you pay triple for someone else to unconvert it when you can do it with your 80bucks DVD player? Then again, why buy and DVD? Personally, I would prefer to download it.

Re:Whats the point?

[poetmatt]

One of the real subtle reasons why DVDs eventually added extra features is because it increased the size of the discs to where you'd need to have a dual layer to copy all the data. This was to "combat casual piracy", labeled as "increasing the value of a dvd" (ever heard that in the market? hmmmm?)

Not many people care for the extra features. But they sure do manage to take up a lot of space! You'd be able to fit if it was "just a movie" onto a regular 2.4gig DVD easily, thus the media industries say its too easy to pirate...don't forget the production costs to come up with all this "Commentary" bullshit and all that instead of giving it out online.

Re:Whats the point?

[91degrees]

especially when you are talking about older movies that sure as heck were not recorded in HD.

They were recorded on 35mm or 70mm film. The grain size is finer than a High definition CCD's pixel.

Re:Whats the point?

[leuk_he]

You forgot one detail,

Buy Blue ray player now, and buy it again next year when the 2.0 profile becomes mandatory for the published disks. Only the sony PS3 promises it can be updated. All "cheap" BR players do not say such details, and probably you can forget about that.

Re:Whats the point?

[gEvil (beta)]

I love these discussions, because it's ridiculously easy to pick out the people who have no idea what they're talking about. The "but it wasn't shot in HD" argument is one of my favorites.

Re:Whats the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's a reason why movie theaters with digital projection point out that the resolution in the theater is 4x greater than that of HDTV.

Actually, 16mm film meets or even exceeds HDTV resolution.

I would guess that pretty much any movie made after 1930 probably has more resolution than HDTV. Of course, to harness this, the studio would need to master from the original negatives, or a high-quality print.

I don't believe it.

[MMC Monster]

Looking at the local Best Buy and Walmart, I can't believe that BluRay makes up 20% of the demand of video discs. Even if you throw in all the Playstation 3 games. I'd be surprised if it was more than 5%.

Maybe 20% of generated income, since Bluray discs are not discounted and tend to be $30 or more, while DVDs are getting to be heavily discounted.

Re:I don't believe it.

[Dan East]

I agree. Also, where does HD DVD fit into that figure? I remember reading that HD DVD was selling like mad after Toshiba conceded defeat, so if 20% is Blu-Ray and 80% is DVD, where are the HD DVD sales?

I think they are spinning it:
DVD and BD currently account for about 80% and 20%, respectively, of global demand for movie discs

So this isn't sales, it is demand. What is demand and how do you quantify it? Through a survey? Through a market expert? Are people really demanding Blu-ray, or do they merely want HD and Sony is conveniently using the Blu-ray trademark to represent all HD content in all forms? Just because 20% of people want higher resolution than DVD doesn't mean they will pay for it. Heck, I demand even better resolution than Blu-Ray, but that doesn't mean I will actually pay money for it. Do the people that demand and seek only HD movie torrents count in that 20% too?

Upconverting is good enough for me.

[andy1307]

I have a good HDTV and I'm quite happy with my upconverting DVD player. I don't see the point in spending 300-400$ on a bluray player.

Re:Upconverting is good enough for me.

[zzatz]

His opinion is not worthless. Perception matters for market success. The first obstacle to BR success is the user's satisfaction with his current setup. The previous poster is satified, and therefore will not be trying a direct comparison.

It doesn't matter what wins a comparison without the desire to compare in the first place. It doesn't matter to me what the best car on the market today is because I already have a car, and I'm happy with it. When I am no longer happy with it, then I'll compare the cars on the market at that time.

I have a HDTV that I use to watch OTA digital broadcasts. It looks good. I'm sure BR discs would look great. I don't care. I rarely watch movies. I don't need to compare. BR would win the comparison, and the answer would still be that buying a BR player would be a waste of money for me.

Will I ever need one?

[tsotha]

Sony has a small window where Blu-Ray is available and convenient, legal downloads aren't. They had better make the most of it, or Blu-Ray will join mini-disc in the "almost but not quite" category. Remember those?

Not in this household.

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't buy another drive/receiver/player for a format which doesn't allow me to store the content in a networked media library under my control. I know it's technically feasible to see movies without shuffling pieces of plastic. I won't pay for the houses of another round of media executives just because they think they can hold back technology.

20% of sales?

[AndGodSed]

Wow, I did not even think they had that much market share...

I sense a snake in the grass - no way Blu-Ray is gonna up sales to that levels without either a massive price cut or other sneaky tactics - like no longer making regular DVD drives - but that would be stupid...

Re:20% of sales?

[znerk]

And if by year's end you can't watch a movie put out by Sony without owning a blu-ray player, then that will drive up blu-ray sales. Not for me. I go out of my way to avoid giving Sony any money. I never liked the money-grubbing tactics of th big-time marketers, and when they came out with the rootikit on their audio disks, that just put the final nail in the coffin. I haven't knowingly purchased a Sony product in over two years.

Real question :

[Arthur B.]

Will blu ray rips outdownload dvd rips ?

The alternative interpretation ...

[trolltalk.com]

The other interpretation is that regular DVD sales will crash, to the point where they're even with BluRay sales.

In a severe recession, anything is possible, especially since cable is rolling out video-on-demand like crazy, and if people have a choice between a dvr or a bluray player, they'll take the dvr.

Utterly clueless ...

[gstoddart]

What is the statistic on how many people own HD display devices? I'm betting it's only in the 20% range of penetration compared to all TVs.

If people don't have something to display it on, they're not going to buy the Blu Ray disks, it's that simple. Everyone who owned a TV got to switch to DVD, and it was an improvement. The utterly huge installed base of a standard definition TV means that high definition DVDs are going to be relegated to a very small percentage of people with that kit.

My house has 3 functioning TVs -- none of them HD compatible. So, what do I want with a BD disk? Unless everyone stops making normal DVDs, there is no market reason why they can improve their sales ratio. If they stop making plain DVDs, I'm going to stop buying them, not upgrade just because Sony thinks I should.

Plain and simple, Sony is dreaming!

Cheers

Honestly, hard to say.

[oahazmatt]

Without getting into the dificulty of predicting market conditions, the price of gas, and all the other reasons companies use for not meeting their own expectations, I'm horribly underqualified to believe one way or another if this will happen on a large scale.

I can speak through personal experience.

For the longest time, I told myself I wouldn't be interested in HD displays, at least, not for a while. Then, I got my new laptop, with an HD capable monitor. After a month I finally popped in a DVD, and after being exposed to HD content I was able to appreciate the difference. I noticed how the picture was not as sharp, colors were muted.

Then I downloaded some movie trailers in HD. I saw a considerable difference, and for the first time seriously considered purchasing a new HD TV and player.

I think the secret to Sony's success on this front will be a gradual but constant exposure to HD content over time. As people upgrade their computers and get new monitors with better capabilities, I believe the desire for HD content will grow.

Most people only get exposed to HD in retail outlets, looking at a 52" LCD and saying "Oh, isn't that nice" and then move on at the price tag. Also, those not technically inclined may not be anxious to jump headfirst into something so new.

Impulse buys are only going to get Sony so far. And it won't be easy convincing people that they need HD content. Getting them to want it is the trick. And to want it, someone needs to appreciate what they're missing (in my case, through prolonged exposure to HD and then reverted back) and affordable pricing.

Having ranted on that with no particular organization (and the above is only my opinion, as is the following) I don't see Blu-ray selling like DVDs by the end of this year. Next year, perhaps, if they can provide a competitively-priced player and televisions, and are willing to take a financial loss to gain a presence in the living room.

Re:I'm skeptical

[Seumas]

Agreed. I have owned a bluray player for over a year now and there just isn't much of a selection. Amazon's entire bluray selection contains about three pages of movies. And most of them are garbage like "beautiful sceneries set to the sound of guitar music" or lame movies from the 80s.

I wanted to buy The Mist. Can't.

I wanted to buy Battlestar Galactica. Can't.
(There's not even a Season 2 on bluray).

Have wanted to buy some other stuff, but either the movie doesn't exist on bluray or it's an edition with limited content. For example, why would I want to spend $30 to get Fifth Element with no extras or other special content when I could wait a year or two and buy the full ultimate type version for much less money?

After a year of owning my bluray, I own Planet Earth, Apocolypto, 300 and the special five disc edition of Blade Runner. That's it. Four movies in a year. They're losing a lot of money by having nothing but crap out there.

Don't forget the "rent vs. buy" distinction.

[DdJ]

They're saying that DVDs make up 80% of sales and Blu-Ray 20% right now. A lot of people don't believe it.

I believe it. Why? Rentals. Most of the people I know with DVD players do not buy many DVDs. They rent tons, but do not actually purchase many.

Is it hard to believe that Blu-Ray early adopters are more likely to buy media than rent it when compared with late adopters? No, it's not hard to believe at all, which means each DVD sold is on average viewed by more people via rentals. And that makes the 80%/20% split much more plausible.

Can they drive up Blu-Ray usage so it makes up 50% of sales? Dunno. Seems ambitious. But the thing to remember is, the number of people consuming Blu-Ray does not have to equal the number of people consuming DVD for it to be true. You could have 90% of the population sticking with DVD, but as long as the Blu-Ray folks make purchases all out of proportion to their numbers and the DVD folks stick with rentals, it's possible for Sony to hit their numbers.

What will Sony do now that they have "won" the war

[R2.0]

Sony has a history of producing technically superior proprietary products that are more expensive than the competition - and losing. Betamax, Memory Sticks, Mini discs. Then they grudgingly admit defeat and make a shitload of money building components based on someone else's storage technology, competing on price and quality.

But what do they do now? Their proprietary technology has won out, but have they ever been in this situation before? It sounds like there past and current plan is to make profit by keeping prices high due to keeping a tight grip their proprietary tech. But they've never gotten past the first market hurdle to see if that actually works - in their mind, their business model MUST work, because it hasn't actually *failed*, it was just never allowed to succeed.

I think Sony may be in for a harsh education in consumer economics and psychology.

Re:Average people won't spend $400 on gadgets?

[Colonel Korn]

The average person laughs at the idea of buying an iphone. The average person has a tv. The average person has a car. The average (American) person does not have a $400 phone.

BR players are flashable just like DVD players

[Thag]

Every DVD player that I know of can be flashed with new firmware by the simple expedient of burning the update file to a CD-ROM and putting it in the drive. It was common to do this back in the day, because sometimes the old firmware couldn't play some newer DVDs. Or sometimes people did it to gain access to extra features like region code hack menus.

You can update the firmware on Blu-ray players as well. Probably the exact same way.

Re:BR players are flashable just like DVD players

[evilviper]

Every DVD player that I know of can be flashed with new firmware

You just don't know of many, then.

This was very true back in the day, and is a big reason I go to great lengths to keep two of my old VCR-sized monster DVD players working.

However, when the DVD-CCA got upset about all the workarounds, and when price competition drove DVD players down to $50, the ability to flash firmware was entirely removed from the vast majority of DVD players. ROM is cheaper, and fewer instructions in the firmware means you need even less of it. Not to mention you don't get numerous player returns due to failed flashes of buggy and unofficial firmware that people deny they were doing...

I still collect Laserdiscs you insensitive clod!

[TWX]

I doubt Sony expect you to. However, once you have a BD player, are you going to buy a DVD or a BD of the latest movie. I'd hazard a guess that most folk would opt for the new technology.

In all seriousness, my laptop, my wife's laptop, my PC, my wife's PC, the PVR in the entertainment center, and the cheap portable DVD players that we're considering getting for my wife and for her parents all use DVDs, not Blu-Ray. EVEN IF the desktop PCs become cheap to upgrade to Blu-ray I'd have to buy at least two readers and a burner, and I'd still have to buy laptop drives and install them, and I'm not aware of any reasonably-priced ($100) Blu-ray portable player.

I'm still converting Laserdisc, SVHS, and VHS (thanks to COX Cable for removing Turner Classic Movies from analog cable) into a format that will at least play on the laptops if not be burnt back to DVD, and I'm not going to add even more optical players to my already electrical-straining entertainment system until I'm truly convinced that I should bother.

In my opinion, the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD was a red herring anyway. Like with Betamax, Sony still has to compete with another less expensive, consumer friendly format, and their only advantage this time is that their device can play regular DVDs. Rather than a format elimination, I suspect that Blu-ray will be to Laserdisc as DVD is to VHS; the videophiles will spend the money for better quality (or the perception of it based on the sum of equipment in their racks), while the regular consumer will go, "Oh! Look! Spaceballs is five bucks in the bargain bin!", or, "That promotional price for The Bourne Ultimatum at fifteen ninety-nine is a steal!" (with the unsaid, "Compared to $30 for Blu-ray.") and the technology might be adopted, but again, not nearly as widespread as a cheap, good, established format.

Re:EXACTLY!

[vux984]

New Up Convert Pioneer DVD Player with HDMI Output: 25% additional increase.

Its a little more complicated than that.

Component vs HDMI cables carrying the same resolution signal should be barely distinguishable in normal circumstances. And even when you can see a difference, it should come down to blind luck to be able guess which is HDMI and which is component.

You didn't state what resolution the component was on the Sony. (Was it 480i as well?)
And more importantly, you didn't try component on the Pioneer at all!

If your TV is doing the scaling (ie you compare 480p over component and hdmi on an HDTV (720p or 1080i), then HDMI has an ever so slight advantage, because processing (scaling) the original digital image before conversion to analog is slightly better.

But if your player is doing the scaling, then all the processing is still done before the analog conversion, and sending the upscaled image at 720p or 1080i over component vs hdmi... there's almost no chance you could tell them apart. (granted if you have a digital display -- plasma/lcd/dlp/etc... theres an analog-digital conversion but a straight da-ad conversion without no other processing is pretty clean.)

I suspect the difference your seeing is that the Sony component was still only 480i, while the Pioneer HDMI is 720p/1080i. I further suspect if you tried the Pioneer on component at the same resultion as your HDMI you won't be able to tell the difference.

Provided your equipment is up to that of course. Unfortunately that test may not be possible, many DVD players only do 720p/1080i on the DVI/HDMI outputs. And similarly, many TVs only take 480p/480i into their component inputs but not 720p/1080i. My own HDTV has two component inputs for example, but only one will take 480i/480p/720p/1080i, the other only takes 480i/480p. (presumably this was done to cut costs; fortunately I use component 2 with my Wii, which only does 480p so it works out just fine for me...)

But yeah, in cases like that, yes, moving to hdmi will make a significant difference over component... but its not that component isn't as good, its just that some equipment doesn't support component at those resolutions to shave a few bucks off the product. The vendor assumes that if you've got a big HDTV you'll use the digital connector, and the component being locked at 480p isn't going to be an issue because its only going to be used with old 32" SDTV CRTs anyway...

So...you can count on HDMI to be a safe choice for 'top' picture quality. But don't underestimate component it can look equal to HDMI provided your equipment supports the same signal types on its component connectors.

The final wrinkle is 1080p (and the future), which will probably only really be supported on DVI/HDMI (with HDCP). Its not that component can't do 1080p, but it won't do HDCP (hi-def content protection), and AACS limits "MPAA" content to 1080i over component becase of this. I doubt the movie industry is going to authorize anyone to output their content in 1080p unprotected... so other than your own 1080p home movies... there's going to be practically no content that will be usable.

Bottom line... if your buying new stuff get hdmi and don't worry about it. But if you've got a system running component at the same native resolution as your TV don't assume 'upgrading' to hdmi is going to make any difference, because it probably won't.