Blu-ray questions

[rthomas]

My DVD player died Friday night. Rather than repairing it, I'm thinking of buying a Blu-ray. Since I am techno-ignorant, I would appreciate some advice.

My son says that I should buy a Playstation 3 - it comes with a Blu-ray and has better sound than most stand alone Blu-rays.

Is my son correct or is he just angling for a new game thing?

Is there anything I should be looking for in a Blue-ray player?

[YmoBeThere]

I'm a vote from the losing side(HD DVD), but the sound issue is a bit of a canard as the audio on the Blu-ray disc is the same no matter what the player. The sound is more likely to be limited by the device you are playing the audio through, receiver or TV. He is likely angling for a new game thing...however, for what it is worth, given the pricing for Blu-ray players, you are essentially paying nothing more for the game playing capability of a PS3 if you go that route.

You can spare yourself the expense as well as avoiding the gaming thing by getting an upconverting DVD player. While not as good as Blu-ray, it would serve as a stop-gap until the true nature of downloadable HD movies reveals itself in a year or two.

[billybreen]

I'm a vote from the losing side(HD DVD), but the sound issue is a bit of a canard as the audio on the Blu-ray disc is the same no matter what the player. The sound is more likely to be limited by the device you are playing the audio through, receiver or TV. He is likely angling for a new game thing...however, for what it is worth, given the pricing for Blu-ray players, you are essentially paying nothing more for the game playing capability of a PS3 if you go that route.

You can spare yourself the expense as well as avoiding the gaming thing by getting an upconverting DVD player. While not as good as Blu-ray, it would serve as a stop-gap until the true nature of downloadable HD movies reveals itself in a year or two.

Well, there is another advantage to the PS3 if you want a Blu-ray device -- it is network upgradeable, and it is made by the creators of Blur-ray, so you know that it will be well supported with software updates for many years to come. Some early Blu-ray adopters have found themselves saddled with devices that are difficult to upgrade or don't support the more recent versions of the Blu-ray spec.

I agree that downloadable will probably be the way of the future, but I may pick up a PS3 at some point if prices come down. I would be doing so primarily for game play.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I got this in my email this week from Kim Komando (I get her daily tips. If I could link to it I would but this is just a free email, so I think copying it is OK?)

Blu-ray player profiles
Question
I know that Blu-ray has won the high-definition DVD format war. So, I felt that I could finally buy a player with confidence. But then I heard about player profiles. Does that mean there are different kinds of Blu-ray players? What do I need to look for when shopping for a player? Thank you, Kim! I love your show and tell all my friends about it.

Answer
Thank you, right back. I love what I do. And I’m glad you love it, too.

I want to make sure you buy the right Blu-ray player. If you don’t know some important facts, you could end up with old gear.

You heard right; the format war is over. HD DVD is dead. Blu-ray Disc is the way to go for high-definition DVDs. But yes, there are different kinds of Blu-ray players.

I know it feels like I just threw you another curve ball. But it may not be as big a deal as you think. The profiles concept isn’t complicated. But it’s important to understand if you’re shopping for a player.

The Blu-ray format is adding new functionality to DVD players. New features will bring interactivity to your movies. But they are rolling out slowly. New Blu-ray profiles add different features. As new profiles emerge, older ones will be phased out.

Here’s what you need to know.

The first Blu-ray players were profile 1.0. This profile was often called the Grace Period Profile. These players simply played Blu-ray movies. They provided HD quality video. But they didn’t include any extra features.

All players manufactured after Nov. 1, 2007, must be profile 1.1. This profile adds picture-in-picture capabilities. Blu-ray movies can show bonus content in a picture-in-picture window. And they can show it while the movie is playing.

Profile 2.0 is coming soon, probably in the fall. It will add Internet connectivity to Blu-ray players. You’ll be able to access movie-related games, blogs and other content. And you’ll be able to interact with this content on your HDTV.

Salespeople may not know a lot about the different profiles. Just know that if the player supports picture-in-picture, it’s profile 1.1. And, in the future, if it has Internet connectivity, it’s profile 2.0.

So, should you go out and buy a profile 1.1 player? Should you wait for profile 2.0 players? There are probably profile 1.0 players still on the shelves. What about those?

I recommend picking up at least a profile 1.1 player. Profile 1.0 players should still play all Blu-ray discs. But format standards and requirements can change. It could become obsolete in the future. Then you’d have to buy a new player.

If Internet connectivity sounds enticing, you might wait for profile 2.0. It’s not available just yet. But several Blu-ray releases already include Web content. It’s a feature that you can expect in future Blu-ray discs.

Another option is to buy a PlayStation 3. The PS3 plays Blu-ray movies. It can already connect to the Internet. And it’s capable of receiving firmware updates online. A PS3 can be upgraded to profile 2.0 when the time comes. Plus, PS3s are priced on par with stand-alone Blu-ray players.

[billybreen]

Another option is to buy a PlayStation 3. The PS3 plays Blu-ray movies. It can already connect to the Internet. And it’s capable of receiving firmware updates online. A PS3 can be upgraded to profile 2.0 when the time comes. Plus, PS3s are priced on par with stand-alone Blu-ray players.

This is what I was talking about wrt the PS3 being upgradeable, I was just too lazy to do the research on version numbers. Thanks for posting that Oz (though it may be flirting a bit with copyright rules).

[YmoBeThere]

HD DVD already had the network upgradability as well as no Region coding like Blu-ray. How many weeks ago was I supposed to let this go? Apparently, I haven't...

[rthomas]

I got this in my email this week from Kim Komando (I get her daily tips. If I could link to it I would but this is just a free email, so I think copying it is OK?)

Blu-ray player profiles
Question
I know that Blu-ray has won the high-definition DVD format war. So, I felt that I could finally buy a player with confidence. But then I heard about player profiles. Does that mean there are different kinds of Blu-ray players? What do I need to look for when shopping for a player? Thank you, Kim! I love your show and tell all my friends about it.

Answer
Thank you, right back. I love what I do. And I’m glad you love it, too.

I want to make sure you buy the right Blu-ray player. If you don’t know some important facts, you could end up with old gear.

You heard right; the format war is over. HD DVD is dead. Blu-ray Disc is the way to go for high-definition DVDs. But yes, there are different kinds of Blu-ray players.

I know it feels like I just threw you another curve ball. But it may not be as big a deal as you think. The profiles concept isn’t complicated. But it’s important to understand if you’re shopping for a player.

The Blu-ray format is adding new functionality to DVD players. New features will bring interactivity to your movies. But they are rolling out slowly. New Blu-ray profiles add different features. As new profiles emerge, older ones will be phased out.

Here’s what you need to know.

The first Blu-ray players were profile 1.0. This profile was often called the Grace Period Profile. These players simply played Blu-ray movies. They provided HD quality video. But they didn’t include any extra features.

All players manufactured after Nov. 1, 2007, must be profile 1.1. This profile adds picture-in-picture capabilities. Blu-ray movies can show bonus content in a picture-in-picture window. And they can show it while the movie is playing.

Profile 2.0 is coming soon, probably in the fall. It will add Internet connectivity to Blu-ray players. You’ll be able to access movie-related games, blogs and other content. And you’ll be able to interact with this content on your HDTV.

Salespeople may not know a lot about the different profiles. Just know that if the player supports picture-in-picture, it’s profile 1.1. And, in the future, if it has Internet connectivity, it’s profile 2.0.

So, should you go out and buy a profile 1.1 player? Should you wait for profile 2.0 players? There are probably profile 1.0 players still on the shelves. What about those?

I recommend picking up at least a profile 1.1 player. Profile 1.0 players should still play all Blu-ray discs. But format standards and requirements can change. It could become obsolete in the future. Then you’d have to buy a new player.

If Internet connectivity sounds enticing, you might wait for profile 2.0. It’s not available just yet. But several Blu-ray releases already include Web content. It’s a feature that you can expect in future Blu-ray discs.

Another option is to buy a PlayStation 3. The PS3 plays Blu-ray movies. It can already connect to the Internet. And it’s capable of receiving firmware updates online. A PS3 can be upgraded to profile 2.0 when the time comes. Plus, PS3s are priced on par with stand-alone Blu-ray players.

Thanks to all of you who posted on this. I read about the Profiles but this is much clearer. OK I think between what you posted and my son lokking in my office and whispering "Playstation" all day, may be sold on one.

My kid told me that Blockbuster has a 40 and 80GB bundle. Any recs on why so much memory is needed. The 40 GB bundle come with a controller (for him) and the 80GB has a remote control (for me). Plus a movie and a game or something.

[YmoBeThere]

For my old Xbox, the drive size seemed irrelevant as I wasn't online playing games and so wasn't saving very much. A hard core gamer may have a better explanation.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

For my old Xbox, the drive size seemed irrelevant as I wasn't online playing games and so wasn't saving very much. A hard core gamer may have a better explanation.

If and when you can download HD movies online you might want the larger HD. Hmmm, first HD = Hi Def, second HD = Hard Drive, although you would probably download to a separate drive anyway.

[DukeDude]

Thanks to all of you who posted on this. I read about the Profiles but this is much clearer. OK I think between what you posted and my son lokking in my office and whispering "Playstation" all day, may be sold on one.

My kid told me that Blockbuster has a 40 and 80GB bundle. Any recs on why so much memory is needed. The 40 GB bundle come with a controller (for him) and the 80GB has a remote control (for me). Plus a movie and a game or something.

The Ps3 is designed so that you can upgrade the hard drive yourself should the need arise, so there is no need to buy the extra storage from Sony. Unless you are downloading movies to it, 40GB will do just fine. You can buy the remote control separately for around $25.

I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the upscaling of regular DVDs by my Ps3. I don't see any need to replace any of my current collection with bluray versions.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the upscaling of regular DVDs by my Ps3. I don't see any need to replace any of my current collection with bluray versions.

That's the other option for the OP. Instead of going to Blu-ray now, get yourself a cheap upscaling DVD player for under $100. It'll make your current DVD library look a bit better and you can bide your time for a cheaper 2.0 standard Blu-ray player later on.

Also note that Blu-ray movies themselves are selling for around $30. So not only is the player more expensive, the discs are about 30% more too.

BTW, Sony announced plans (http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/26/sony-announces-bdp-s350-bdp-s550-first-new-blu-ray-players-sin/) for two new players coming out later this year. I still feel we're in the early adopter stage, so it's buyer beware.

[IamMatt'sUserName]

I own both HD DVD and Blu-ray. The biggest difference I notice between these HD media formats and SD DVD is the increased color depth, with increased resolution and detail being second. Screen size is also an important factor (i.e., 1080p is only perceptible when the screen is >= X inches - I think it's ~50 inches).

I've found SD DVD upconversion less than ideal; however, Toshiba promises to introduce "super upconversion" in their standard DVD players later this year. Apparently, this technology is currently used in astronomy and by intelligence services and will leverage the computational power of the Cell processor, which can be found in the Sony PS3, today.

Honestly, as the cost of storage continues to fall and the introduction of widespread HD Video on Demand increases, I fully expect these HD media formats to die an untimely death.

[Clipsfan]

If it helps, I chose to go the PS3 route. I bought it on Amazon and including the remote it was $420 shipped (only one controller, no games). I got the 40GB model because the downloads aren't all the enticing at the moment and it will be cheaper to upgrade the storage capacity in the future.

[Kdogg]

My DVD player died Friday night. Rather than repairing it, I'm thinking of buying a Blu-ray. Since I am techno-ignorant, I would appreciate some advice.

My son says that I should buy a Playstation 3 - it comes with a Blu-ray and has better sound than most stand alone Blu-rays.

Is my son correct or is he just angling for a new game thing?

Is there anything I should be looking for in a Blue-ray player?

Your son's right. Right now the PS3 is the best price/performance Blue Ray player on the market. The only thing I hate about it is the remote. It uses bluetooth so a universal remote will not work.

[crazie4duke]

My parents purchased a PS3 as a family gift this past Christmas. We love it, the games/movies have awesome pictures! When watching the pixar type Blu-Ray movies it is as if there is no screen it seems so life like. As far as the 40GB and the 80GB we chose the bigger one simply b/c it plays both the PS2 and PS3 games. I do not believe that has been mentioned here yet. Obviously the PS2 games are behind on quality, but they are a little cheaper and I can borrow games from friends. If you want a Blu-Ray player go for a PS3. You may end up addicted to the games even if you are not currently. Having two machine types in one does make for a less cluttered entertainment area also.

[Johnboy]

We have had a 40GB PS3 since they came out (Christmas 2006) and my kids have had no complaints - they play online games with their friends and haven't yet run into the disk limitations. It plays PS2 and PS3 games, so I'm not sure why crazie4duke bought the bigger one.

For me, it handles Blu-Ray disks perfectly. I'd rather use the Wii if I'm gaming, though I do play Guitar Hero on PS3.

A 40GB PS3 will do everything you need.

[Dukiedevil]

Get a PS3. Sony has done a nice job designing it and your kid will be happy for getting a nice gaming system. It really is a nice player for blu-ray discs. Unless you want to use a video game controller to run your discs, I'd invest a few bucks in the remote though.

Also, I would buy the upgraded (larger HD) system. The upgraded system has wireless capabilities which makes it convenient for the upgrades. Otherwise you have to run a long LAN cable (or unhook your system and take it to your modem) each time you do a firmware update.

As noted above, the PS3 also does a nice job upconverting DVDs. I have a 65" TV and the picture looks really nice.

Check out www.slickdeals.net for current deals on the PS3. There is usally some deal where you order it and get a rebate for 5 free blu-ray discs (which at $30 a pop is a nice perk). Also may be some other discounts mentioned.

[Johnboy]

Get a PS3. Sony has done a nice job designing it and your kid will be happy for getting a nice gaming system. It really is a nice player for blu-ray discs. Unless you want to use a video game controller to run your discs, I'd invest a few bucks in the remote though.

Also, I would buy the upgraded (larger HD) system. The upgraded system has wireless capabilities which makes it convenient for the upgrades. Otherwise you have to run a long LAN cable (or unhook your system and take it to your modem) each time you do a firmware update.

As noted above, the PS3 also does a nice job upconverting DVDs. I have a 65" TV and the picture looks really nice.

Check out www.slickdeals.net for current deals on the PS3. There is usally some deal where you order it and get a rebate for 5 free blu-ray discs (which at $30 a pop is a nice perk). Also may be some other discounts mentioned.

If what dukiedevil sez is true, get the bigger HD PS3. Convenience is good, and LAN cables are a pain.

[Dukiedevil]

I retract my statement above based on this link. It looks like the only benefit is backward compatability with PS2 and One games as well as the ability to read memory sticks. Both systems now have wireless.

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/About/Comparison

I would still consider the upraded system, but that's just a personal preference. Sorry for the earlier mis-statement. What I said was true last Spring :)

[BlueDevilJay]

Well, there is another advantage to the PS3 if you want a Blu-ray device -- it is network upgradeable, and it is made by the creators of Blur-ray, so you know that it will be well supported with software updates for many years to come. Some early Blu-ray adopters have found themselves saddled with devices that are difficult to upgrade or don't support the more recent versions of the Blu-ray spec.

I agree that downloadable will probably be the way of the future, but I may pick up a PS3 at some point if prices come down. I would be doing so primarily for game play.

Bingo! That is the exact reason I got a PS3 and not a BluRay standalone player. Plus I love Pro Evo Soccer (just released today) and Call of Duty 4, which is an AMAZING online game. Back to BluRay discussion.

[BlueDevilJay]

We have had a 40GB PS3 since they came out (Christmas 2006) and my kids have had no complaints - they play online games with their friends and haven't yet run into the disk limitations. It plays PS2 and PS3 games, so I'm not sure why crazie4duke bought the bigger one.

For me, it handles Blu-Ray disks perfectly. I'd rather use the Wii if I'm gaming, though I do play Guitar Hero on PS3.

A 40GB PS3 will do everything you need.

Correction. If you bought it when it first came out, you got either the 20GB or the 60GB, as the 40/80 were not offered at first release. Both the 20 and 60 were backwards compatible. Now that Sony has "redesigned" and rereleased them, they only offer a 40GB and 80GB version. The 40GB is not backwards compatible with old PS2 and PSOne games. That said, I already had a PS2 anyways, so I went with the 40GB version this time around (I bought the 60 when they first came out but had to get rid of it) since it was cheaper, and really isn't that much different.

[Johnboy]

Correction. If you bought it when it first came out, you got either the 20GB or the 60GB, as the 40/80 were not offered at first release. Both the 20 and 60 were backwards compatible. Now that Sony has "redesigned" and rereleased them, they only offer a 40GB and 80GB version. The 40GB is not backwards compatible with old PS2 and PSOne games. That said, I already had a PS2 anyways, so I went with the 40GB version this time around (I bought the 60 when they first came out but had to get rid of it) since it was cheaper, and really isn't that much different.

We have the 20GB version. It has been fine for us so far, as I stated earlier.

My 13 year old plays way too much Call of Duty 4 for my taste. We are undoubtedly too permissive as parents . . . <sigh>

[crazie4duke]

We have had a 40GB PS3 since they came out (Christmas 2006) and my kids have had no complaints - they play online games with their friends and haven't yet run into the disk limitations. It plays PS2 and PS3 games, so I'm not sure why crazie4duke bought the bigger one.



I guess Best Buy just wanted us to spend more money. The associate that was helping us make sure we had everything and answering questions was who informed me that only the 80GB played the PS2 games also. From what some other posters have noted, I was unaware of some of the changes they had from model to model depending on time of purchase.

[BlueDevilJay]

I guess Best Buy just wanted us to spend more money. The associate that was helping us make sure we had everything and answering questions was who informed me that only the 80GB played the PS2 games also. From what some other posters have noted, I was unaware of some of the changes they had from model to model depending on time of purchase.

Well when you went to BB to get it, they weren't lying to you. They no longer sell the 20 and 60 GB versions, only the 40 and 80GB versions now, and out of those 2, only the 80GB plays the old PS2 games, so they were telling you the truth.

And JohnBoy, I know what you mean. I play way too much of that game myself, and I couldn't imagine a 13 yr old playing it, with all of the violence and cursing that goes on in the game. But I also understand them wanting to, and giving in as a parent. My girl is only 2.5 yrs old and I already give into almost everything she wants.

[YmoBeThere]

Blu-ray player prices are moving on up without HD DVD competition...

The Samsung player was actually as low as $270 during the Christmas season.

If the PS3 didn't have Xbox360 or Wii competition, Sony would be raising those up too...

http://gizmodo.com/367216/blu+ray-prices-higher-than-ever-man-this-is-going-to-piss-you-off

[wumhenry]

I retract my statement above based on this link. It looks like the only benefit is backward compatability with PS2 and One games as well as the ability to read memory sticks. Both systems now have wireless.
Yep. I bought the 40 gig player for a Christmas present (ostensibly ;) for my 14YO daughter), and it downloads just fine through our wireless router. To all prospective PS3 purchasers: beware Pixeljunk Monsters addiction!

[billybreen]

Just an update, the PS3 is now Blu-ray 2.0 compliant (http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/03/20/playstation-3-firmware-update-brings-blu-ray-2-0-home) thanks to a downloadable software update.

[rthomas]

Thanks for all of the info. I bought a PS3 at BestBuy. Of course it cost me 50% more than I expected - I needed an optical cable, a HDMI cable, a remote, a second controller, some games, a movie.......

[tecumseh]

The other Blu Ray requirement is Planet Earth from BBC was watching it last night with my son. It is one of the best things EVER put on television, remarkable. It is also stunning in hi def.

[Clipsfan]

Thanks for all of the info. I bought a PS3 at BestBuy. Of course it cost me 50% more than I expected - I needed an optical cable, a HDMI cable, a remote, a second controller, some games, a movie.......

If you still can, buy the cables on the internet for around $7-12 each and return the ones you bought at best buy (assuming you paid their typical prices).

[billybreen]

The other Blu Ray requirement is Planet Earth from BBC was watching it last night with my son. It is one of the best things EVER put on television, remarkable. It is also stunning in hi def.

Good call. That aired shortly after I got my HD TV and Tivo last year, and it paid back the investment.

[Dukiedevil]

If you still can, buy the cables on the internet for around $7-12 each and return the ones you bought at best buy (assuming you paid their typical prices).

www.monoprice.com has excellent deals on cables and they have good quality products

[dukie8]

www.monoprice.com has excellent deals on cables and they have good quality products

i just ordered 2 hdmi cables from monoprice. with digital output, there is no difference between the $10 cables and the $150 cables that monster makes. slowly, the public is catching on. avsforum has a tremendous amount of information on this if you are interested.

[Clipsfan]

i just ordered 2 hdmi cables from monoprice. with digital output, there is no difference between the $10 cables and the $150 cables that monster makes. slowly, the public is catching on. avsforum has a tremendous amount of information on this if you are interested.

Completely correct and monoprice.com is one of the best sites. Best Buy really rips you off with the peripherals.

[tecumseh]

Here is something on Netflix and Xbox (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/netflix-movies.html) I think Microsoft is hoping there will be quicker adoption of streaming to a box and then BluRay will only be around for a short time. I think BluRay will stick around for quite some time it was not that long ago you could still rent VHS tapes. The files that are equivalent to the BluRay discs will be HUGE and not quick downloads and also require considerable storage.

[bjornolf]

is that the 80 GB version is the only version that is FULLY backward compatible. The other versions supposedly play some PS2 games but not all, supposedly.

[Clipsfan]

Here is something on Netflix and Xbox (http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/netflix-movies.html) I think Microsoft is hoping there will be quicker adoption of streaming to a box and then BluRay will only be around for a short time. I think BluRay will stick around for quite some time it was not that long ago you could still rent VHS tapes. The files that are equivalent to the BluRay discs will be HUGE and not quick downloads and also require considerable storage.

VHS tapes are still around (although almost dead) due to the massive adoption of the technology. Almost everyone had a VCR 10 years ago. Blu-ray will only stick around if people adopt the technology, which they haven't done so far.

[bjornolf]

VHS tapes are still around (although almost dead) due to the massive adoption of the technology. Almost everyone had a VCR 10 years ago. Blu-ray will only stick around if people adopt the technology, which they haven't done so far.

to be honest, it took almost 20 years before you could really say that EVERYONE had a VCR. Once the prices of BluRay players and discs drop the way VCRs, DVDs, CDs, etc. did, people will start buying them. Not to mention the fact that most people still think DVDs (nobody tried to bring out the super-fancy version of a VHS tape that I know of) are good enough. Once HD becomes the standard and more people see the difference, I think BluRay will catch on more. I mean, come on, how many people bought VHS VCRs when Beta was still around and a VCR cost $900 and a movie on it cost $30? How many people had a DVD player when they cost $600 and a DVD movie cost $30? Or when CD players cost $600 and a CD was almost $20? Once every company starts making a BluRay player and there's more competition within the medium, prices will start dropping and more people will spring for them. I know a LOT of people who are just waiting for the standard TV signals to become HD, then they're going to go out and get an HD TV and a BluRay player. I also know a LOT of people who were waiting for the format war to end to choose between HDDVD and BluRay, just like they did with Beta and VHS. The format war ended what, two weeks ago?

[DevilAlumna]

While you're right, over time, prices of BluRay might drop, you're overlooking the fact that multiple competing technologies will probably far surpass the need for BluRay in that timeframe.

Hulu, AppleTV, XBOX Live, Tivo, On Demand, Netflix Downloads -- the future of HD Streaming/On Demand movies is coming (or already here, depending on your definition.)

In 5-7 more years, the concept of needing a physical "disc" to carry/display media will seem laughable.

[bjornolf]

I've thought about that, but there are a LOT of people that LIKE that physical disc feeling. I mean, why do people still own records?

[DevilAlumna]

I've thought about that, but there are a LOT of people that LIKE that physical disc feeling. I mean, why do people still own records?

Because vinyl has an incredible (analog) sound fidelity that can't be duplicated on digital copies?

[billybreen]

Because vinyl has an incredible (analog) sound fidelity that can't be duplicated on digital copies?

And for scratching.

But that's not a compelling argument for Blu-ray -- it's digital, so there's no difference between the media stored on the disc and a file floating around a computer network.

[DevilAlumna]

Because vinyl has an incredible (analog) sound fidelity that can't be duplicated on digital copies?

Oh, and/or because they can't find digital copies of their analog records? (Anything coming out in BluRay now is also available in a non-media-bound form.)

Or because they don't want to invest in upgrading their library? (Not too many old movies are re-releasing in BluRay, if any, and if no one's buying BluRay movies now, this won't be an issue in the future either.)


Aside -- I remember listening to one of the original founders of Kazaa talk about how the recording industry was whining about how CD sales were declining, and blaming with digital downloading phenomenon. But, they hadn't taken into consideration the fact that CDs had been around long enough by 2002 that most people HAD in fact upgraded their music libraries with CDs, so now were only buying truly "new" music, so of course sales would drop anyways. I wonder how much truth there was to his theory.

[bjornolf]

While you're right, over time, prices of BluRay might drop, you're overlooking the fact that multiple competing technologies will probably far surpass the need for BluRay in that timeframe.

Hulu, AppleTV, XBOX Live, Tivo, On Demand, Netflix Downloads -- the future of HD Streaming/On Demand movies is coming (or already here, depending on your definition.)

In 5-7 more years, the concept of needing a physical "disc" to carry/display media will seem laughable.

another problem is that if you actually want to keep the movies you're getting and not just "rent" them, so to speak, you'd need a HUGE hard drive (in the terabytes) to store all the hi-def movies you'd want. Songs and pictures and home movies are one thing, but hi-def full length motion pictures take HUGE amounts of space. Look at a TiVo. A TiVo that stores 200-300 hours of SD TV can only record 35 hours or so of HD material. My movie collection would probably take up 10x that. Yeah, if I want to download a movie on Netflix for a few days, that's one thing, but keeping it around permanently is another. I guess it depends how the downloading occurs. I don't want to have to pay EVERYTIME I watch a certain movie. If my account keeps track of EVERY movie I've paid for and lets me watch it ANYTIME I want, that's different. However, I still couldn't watch things in some places. For example, my wife's parents live in a place where there just isn't any hi-speed internet. Or in the car where my kids like to watch their DVDs on the portable player. Anyway, I just think it'll be a LONG time before nobody wants a physical disc anymore.

[YmoBeThere]

to be honest, it took almost 20 years before you could really say that EVERYONE had a VCR. Once the prices of BluRay players and discs drop the way VCRs, DVDs, CDs, etc. did... The format war ended what, two weeks ago?
Was Sony the lead instigator on any of those succesful formats? (Sony was involved with CD's but much of the technology came from Philips.) Look at Sony's history, they lost out on BetaMax and ultimately gave in on DVD. They needed to win this one from a psyche standpoint, but the consumer will not benefit that much.

[YmoBeThere]

another problem is that if you actually want to keep the movies you're getting and not just "rent" them, so to speak, you'd need a HUGE hard drive (in the terabytes) to store all the hi-def movies you'd want. Songs and pictures and home movies are one thing, but hi-def full length motion pictures take HUGE amounts of space. Look at a TiVo. A TiVo that stores 200-300 hours of SD TV can only record 35 hours or so of HD material. My movie collection would probably take up 10x that. Yeah, if I want to download a movie on Netflix for a few days, that's one thing, but keeping it around permanently is another. I guess it depends how the downloading occurs. I don't want to have to pay EVERYTIME I watch a certain movie. If my account keeps track of EVERY movie I've paid for and lets me watch it ANYTIME I want, that's different. However, I still couldn't watch things in some places. For example, my wife's parents live in a place where there just isn't any hi-speed internet. Or in the car where my kids like to watch their DVDs on the portable player. Anyway, I just think it'll be a LONG time before nobody wants a physical disc anymore.You would likely be the exception to the rule, it all depends on how many movies you want to store. The average HD movie is between 5-6 GB. A single terabyte would handle between 150 to 190 movies...terabyte drives will run you $240 or so right now. The HP MediaSmart server with additional drives could handle probably 550 movies. How many are you really looking to keep?

[bjornolf]

You would likely be the exception to the rule, it all depends on how many movies you want to store. The average HD movie is between 5-6 GB. A single terabyte would handle between 150 to 190 movies...terabyte drives will run you $240 or so right now. The HP MediaSmart server with additional drives could handle probably 550 movies. How many are you really looking to keep?

I don't know. Between my DVD collection and my VHS collection, I probably have about 350 movies or so. My buddy has over 600 in his DVD collection (he's got a 10' HD projection movie theater in his basement...movie night ROCKS at his house!). Could I watch these movies on all my TVs? Could I bring them with me on trips? How would all that work? I'm not overly familiar with the ins and outs of this stuff. :rolleyes: What can I say, I'm a dinosaur. I like the physical disc thing, and so do most of my friends I've talked to about this.

As for the Sony thing... the only reason they still exist is the walkman. Sony lost MOST of its money on the BetaMax thing. The walkman is the only thing that saved them. Part of the reason they didn't dive into some of the other format wars is that they were gunshy after the bath they took on Beta. And yes, they DID need to win this one bad. And they did.

[billybreen]

I don't know. Between my DVD collection and my VHS collection, I probably have about 350 movies or so. My buddy has over 600 in his DVD collection (he's got a 10' HD projection movie theater in his basement...movie night ROCKS at his house!). Could I watch these movies on all my TVs? Could I bring them with me on trips? How would all that work? I'm not overly familiar with the ins and outs of this stuff. :rolleyes: What can I say, I'm a dinosaur. I like the physical disc thing, and so do most of my friends I've talked to about this.

Likes change. MP3s and iPods have destroyed physical media in the music industry, and at the dawn of the MP3 era the average hard drive could hold as many MP3s as a modern hard drive can hold hi-def movies. Yes, in the next few years your iPod (and certainly your laptop) will be able to hold hundreds of HD movies and easily connect to a TV to display them.

Sure, there will be those on the fringes who want physical media as a backup or for some other psychological reasons, but the convenience and flexibility of digital media will do to video what MP3s have done to audio.

[tecumseh]

Likes change. MP3s and iPods have destroyed physical media in the music industry, and at the dawn of the MP3 era the average hard drive could hold as many MP3s as a modern hard drive can hold hi-def movies. Yes, in the next few years your iPod (and certainly your laptop) will be able to hold hundreds of HD movies and easily connect to a TV to display them.

Sure, there will be those on the fringes who want physical media as a backup or for some other psychological reasons, but the convenience and flexibility of digital media will do to video what MP3s have done to audio.

I think you overstate your case somewhat last year digital media accounted for only 15% of the recording industry sales you make it sound like physical media is dead. Your friends and indeed the people who are on this board are earlier adopters of technology the average Joe is not. For movies there is still the problem of bandwidth and download time.

[billybreen]

I think you overstate your case somewhat last year digital media accounted for only 15% of the recording industry sales you make it sound like physical media is dead. Your friends and indeed the people who are on this board are earlier adopters of technology the average Joe is not. For movies there is still the problem of bandwidth and download time.

I'm not the only one saying it. Music execs agree (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080226-music-exec-music-1-0-is-dead.html), and the numbers in that article are at least twice as high as the 15% you claim:


Interscope now rakes in 40 percent of its total revenues from digital sales, while Sony BMG makes 30 percent (in the US), but this hasn't been nearly enough to offset the loss in revenue from plummeting CD sales. While the majors once held all the cards when it came to licensing music (and they used their power to negotiate revenue splits on the order of 85/15), they aren't quite so powerful any more. In fact, several audience members and panelists even questioned whether major music labels brought much to the table besides their back catalogs.

That's what I mean by devastation. The game has fundamentally changed.

As for bandwidth, the situation for video download is not much worse than was music downloading at the dawn of the MP3 age, where dial-up was the only option for most. Bandwidth will only get better. Since you can start watching video while it's still streaming, it's already much faster to get digital video (using Amazon Unbox, iTunes, etc) than to a) drive to a store to buy or rent physical media and b) wait for that Netflix order to arrive in the mail.

[YmoBeThere]

As for bandwidth, the situation for video download is not much worse than was music downloading at the dawn of the MP3 age, where dial-up was the only option for most. Bandwidth will only get better. Since you can start watching video while it's still streaming, it's already much faster to get digital video (using Amazon Unbox, iTunes, etc) than to a) drive to a store to buy or rent physical media and b) wait for that Netflix order to arrive in the mail.


I am curious if it will get better fast enough...maybe its because I'm sitting on copper right now.

[billybreen]

I am curious if it will get better fast enough...maybe its because I'm sitting on copper right now.

Yes, FIOS is really raising the bar, and Comcast is pushing to roll out the new DOCSIS standard to increase cable bandwidth to keep up. My current FIOS connection is 20mbps, and both Comcast and Verizon are making noises about supporting up to 100mbps in the next few years.

Frankly, 20mbps is more than enough to comfortably stream and watch HD content. The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed (stole that line from William Gibson).

[tecumseh]

I'm not the only one saying it. Music execs agree (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080226-music-exec-music-1-0-is-dead.html), and the numbers in that article are at least twice as high as the 15% you claim:

.

It's US vs international here I think US it is 30% (and growing) while the international number given at the beginning of this year was 15%. Still I do think the poster who stated once something is widely adopted like VHS tapes it has a long life and Blu Ray is not there heck HDTV is not there. Here is something that would seem to indicate the most likely place for HD movie streaming should be Japan (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html) Again the problem in the US would seem that bandwidth is unevenly distributed. The other problem is changing my dsl cord to my laptop and downloading to my updated laptop and then connecting my updated laptop to my television starts sounding like a lot of work, they don't call them couch potatoes for nothing. Then there is the problem of selling another device like AppleTV or Xbox to everyone which they don't understand, a BluRay is a discplayer only better that I can understand. There will need to be more have to be some sort of new generation laptop or Ipod set up with outputs to HDTV.

Don't underestimate that one of the things driving digital music was it was easy and people preferred to listen to it digitally because it was more portable and it allowed people to cherry pick only songs they liked. In other words it made the experience of listening to music better....ever try to jog or ski with a CD player? This advantage is lacking in movies.

[tecumseh]

I agree with the poster who implied that BluRay needs to get a lot of boxes in houses quickly. But this is putting the cart before the horse the first step is getting more HDTVs out there most households don't have them. So I think HDTV manufacturers and Sony in particular are the big winners in the economic stimulus package I mean the rebate $600 or $1200 too small for a car is perfect range for an HDTV. I bet a lot of checks go that way.

[YmoBeThere]

Still I do think the poster who stated once something is widely adopted like VHS tapes it has a long life and Blu Ray is not there heck HDTV is not there

This doesn't really change the case for Blu-ray getting skipped over...DVD is going to be around for awhile, Sony will keep Blu-ray too expensive for too long and so it will get skipped over. At least that is the case I am making.

[billybreen]

It's US vs international here I think US it is 30% (and growing) while the international number given at the beginning of this year was 15%. Still I do think the poster who stated once something is widely adopted like VHS tapes it has a long life and Blu Ray is not there heck HDTV is not there. Here is something that would seem to indicate the most likely place for HD movie streaming should be Japan (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html) Again the problem in the US would seem that bandwidth is unevenly distributed. The other problem is changing my dsl cord to my laptop and downloading to my updated laptop and then connecting my updated laptop to my television starts sounding like a lot of work, they don't call them couch potatoes for nothing. Then there is the problem of selling another device like AppleTV or Xbox to everyone which they don't understand, a BluRay is a discplayer only better that I can understand. There will need to be more have to be some sort of new generation laptop or Ipod set up with outputs to HDTV.

Don't underestimate that one of the things driving digital music was it was easy and people preferred to listen to it digitally because it was more portable and it allowed people to cherry pick only songs they liked. In other words it made the experience of listening to music better....ever try to jog or ski with a CD player? This advantage is lacking in movies.

The same objection about connecting laptops or computers to stereos (let alone cars) was present when MP3s first hit the scene. There were no iPods at the time -- it took a couple years from Napster bringing digital music mainstream before portable devices caught on. Easy to use devices that connect to your TV or existing home equipment in exactly the same way as disc players (though, even easier, as you never need to put discs in them -- they'll grab media automatically from your home computers) are begging to arrive, and they will continue to get smaller and easier to use.

The advantages of selection are not lacking with movies, either. Viral video in the form of Youtube is incredibly popular, and the AppleTV and other new home video devices bring Youtube to the TV, providing a breadth of short duration options that compares favorably with the a la carte nature of the MP3 revolution. This will really shine as Youtube ramps up the supported video quality of its clips in the next year or so.

As for portability, if you've flown on a plane recently, you've noticed that many passengers spend the trip watching a movie on their laptops. If you have youngish kids, perhaps you have a DVD player in your car. Both of these options are even more attractive with digital media -- not needing to spin a disk means your movie player takes less energy and can play for longer on that flight, and you don't need to juggle discs for your kids in the minivan.

[tecumseh]

The same objection about connecting laptops or computers to stereos (let alone cars) was present when MP3s first hit the scene. There were no iPods at the time -- it took a couple years from Napster bringing digital music mainstream before portable devices caught on. Easy to use devices that connect to your TV or existing home equipment in exactly the same way as disc players (though, even easier, as you never need to put discs in them -- they'll grab media automatically from your home computers) are begging to arrive, and they will continue to get smaller and easier to use.

The advantages of selection are not lacking with movies, either. Viral video in the form of Youtube is incredibly popular, and the AppleTV and other new home video devices bring Youtube to the TV, providing a breadth of short duration options that compares favorably with the a la carte nature of the MP3 revolution. This will really shine as Youtube ramps up the supported video quality of its clips in the next year or so.

As for portability, if you've flown on a plane recently, you've noticed that many passengers spend the trip watching a movie on their laptops. If you have youngish kids, perhaps you have a DVD player in your car. Both of these options are even more attractive with digital media -- not needing to spin a disk means your movie player takes less energy and can play for longer on that flight, and you don't need to juggle discs for your kids in the minivan.

Pretty convincing argument I am buying it except do not discount the fear of new devices. It took a while for Tivo to catch on though clearly it was a great device.

[bjornolf]

I was talking to a friend of mine who's an IP attorney. He says one of the biggest problems with all this downloading and whatnot is legal. The movie industry is going to fight this tooth and nail cause they're worried about pirating. The European parliament is fighting Microsoft right now because they want people to be able to transfer files between players, but IP issues prevent it legally. So legal issues might be the biggest hurdle to this brave new world.

Further, he's a tech nut. He was telling me that bandwidth is a big problem with the file sizes involved. Not many people (percentage-wise in the US) have hi-speed internet. Even with download speeds of 15Mbs on the maximum current Verizon Fios (which even fewer people have), it takes hours to download a movie. Also, your measurement of the size of an HD movie is off according to him, as well as several websites I looked it up on. A STANDARD definition, full-length motion picture is around 6 gigs downloaded. An HD movie is closer to 12 gigs or more. And that doesn't include all the special features.

Between the legal issues and the problems with bandwidth and file size, I think BluRay has a better chance than you're giving it. Downloading an mp3 is a whole different ballgame than a movie, especially when 90% of the population doesn't have the equipment to do it. A LOT more people have the required equipment to download their music than they would to handle movies that way, and yet MOST people still don't have mp3 players.

[billybreen]

I was talking to a friend of mine who's an IP attorney. He says one of the biggest problems with all this downloading and whatnot is legal. The movie industry is going to fight this tooth and nail cause they're worried about pirating. The European parliament is fighting Microsoft right now because they want people to be able to transfer files between players, but IP issues prevent it legally. So legal issues might be the biggest hurdle to this brave new world.

This is a strong point. Legal issues always suck, but the example of the music industry getting on board with iTunes has somewhat broken the ice on these discussions. The movie industry correctly realizes that there's a lot of money on the table for video downloads, and it's much better to give users options rather than let them go find illegal, free offerings.


Further, he's a tech nut. He was telling me that bandwidth is a big problem with the file sizes involved. Not many people (percentage-wise in the US) have hi-speed internet. Even with download speeds of 15Mbs on the maximum current Verizon Fios (which even fewer people have), it takes hours to download a movie. Also, your measurement of the size of an HD movie is off according to him, as well as several websites I looked it up on. A STANDARD definition, full-length motion picture is around 6 gigs downloaded. An HD movie is closer to 12 gigs or more. And that doesn't include all the special features.

My Fios connection is 20mbps, not 15. A standard def movie 90 minute movie from iTunes is 1GB, not 6. An HD movie on iTunes is sub 6GB. The difference is the level of compression used by the digital video vs. that shipping on discs which relies on earlier standards. Also, movies start playing as soon as enough buffer is available -- on iTunes, that typically means within a couple of minutes.


Between the legal issues and the problems with bandwidth and file size, I think BluRay has a better chance than you're giving it. Downloading an mp3 is a whole different ballgame than a movie, especially when 90% of the population doesn't have the equipment to do it. A LOT more people have the required equipment to download their music than they would to handle movies that way, and yet MOST people still don't have mp3 players.

Not sure I understand this point. I don't think people have any less equipment for playing digital video than they had equipment for playing digital audio back in the last 90s.

[DevilAlumna]

I was talking to a friend of mine who's an IP attorney. He says one of the biggest problems with all this downloading and whatnot is legal. The movie industry is going to fight this tooth and nail cause they're worried about pirating. The European parliament is fighting Microsoft right now because they want people to be able to transfer files between players, but IP issues prevent it legally. So legal issues might be the biggest hurdle to this brave new world.

Further, he's a tech nut. He was telling me that bandwidth is a big problem with the file sizes involved. Not many people (percentage-wise in the US) have hi-speed internet. Even with download speeds of 15Mbs on the maximum current Verizon Fios (which even fewer people have), it takes hours to download a movie. Also, your measurement of the size of an HD movie is off according to him, as well as several websites I looked it up on. A STANDARD definition, full-length motion picture is around 6 gigs downloaded. An HD movie is closer to 12 gigs or more. And that doesn't include all the special features.

Between the legal issues and the problems with bandwidth and file size, I think BluRay has a better chance than you're giving it. Downloading an mp3 is a whole different ballgame than a movie, especially when 90% of the population doesn't have the equipment to do it. A LOT more people have the required equipment to download their music than they would to handle movies that way, and yet MOST people still don't have mp3 players.

It took at least 5 years for the music industry to get its collective head out of its collective arse and make digital music available for legal purchase and download. Even now, it's a limited offering, and doesn't include whole libraries (you couldn't legally download the Beatles for the longest time.) Most casual music consumers couldn't tell you which labels produce what artists, and so don't understand why a song might be available for consumption on Rhapsody or Urge, but not Zune or iTunes. [They're still beng morons about it, hiring someone to propose a "music tax" (see TechCrunch blog) for ISPs to charge every user, because they may or may not download music.]

The movie industry is already being smarter about the impact of going digital, and are allowing multiple legal options for downloading -- something the music industry resisted for way too long. There are options to rent, options to buy, and better yet, the players once involved in the manipulation of physical disks aren't whining, they're helping too! (See "Netflix" for prime example.)

Storage won't matter, it's a commodity market and soon you'll be able to buy multi-terabyte hard drives at the same prices of multi-gig hd's. Heck, I can already buy a 12 GB microSB card. That's right, 12 GIGS on a piece of silicon less than 1/2" square. That's 4-5 movies I can fit just on my cell phone.

Bandwidth will be an issue, but you seem to be taking a "what's happening now" look, whereas I know I've always said, this is really a full 5-7 years out that the need for physical plastic discs for storage would disappear. Did you read BlueDawg's question and the thread on wireless broadband? The two topics go together.

The whole reason I chimed in on this topic to begin with was your analogy that BluRay would drop in prices, and become as ubiquitous as VHS. I disagree, because competing, better technology solutions are not allowing that period of stability that VHS had once Betamax went down. I've yet to see a decent counterargument why BluRay will win out over digital download.

[Jarhead]

...The whole reason I chimed in on this topic to begin with was your analogy that BluRay would drop in prices, and become as ubiquitous as VHS. I disagree, because competing, better technology solutions are not allowing that period of stability that VHS had once Betamax went down. I've yet to see a decent counterargument why BluRay will win out over digital download.
DA, I'll have to disagree with your lack of confidence in BluRay. A check of the market place for players and recorders shows some promise, and now that the uncertainty of the format is settled, we can expect a nice downtrend as the competition for marketplace takes effect. Keep in mind that there is a large portion of the population that loves movies, and hates technology they don't understand. They will take the cheapest, simples solution they can find.

There will be a run once everybody understands how much better the experience is watching a movie in HD on your own flat panel. You can do that with an Olevia, a PS3, and Blockbuster or NetFlix. You can get started for about a grand, and coming down. That should last us a while, long enough for those plastic BluRay discs to become ubiquitous. There is a whole world of folks out there that don't own computers, or lack the know how, but can insert a disc. They've been doing that for years. Keep in mind the increasing numbers of seniors with some money. The market niche to worry about is the multiplex theater business. They're toast, if you ask me.

[bjornolf]

The whole reason I chimed in on this topic to begin with was your analogy that BluRay would drop in prices, and become as ubiquitous as VHS. I disagree, because competing, better technology solutions are not allowing that period of stability that VHS had once Betamax went down. I've yet to see a decent counterargument why BluRay will win out over digital download.

...Woah, woah... I believe you're misquoting me. I said that once BluRay dropped in prices, MORE people would by it. I also said I knew several people who were waiting for the format war to end to jump in. I don't think I ever said I thought it would become as ubiquitous as VHS. I don't think I'd say that because I don't believe it's true. Somebody said that people hadn't adopted the technology yet, and I just pointed out that the market saturation to which they referred for VHS took 20 years to complete, and that I thought we needed to give BluRay a little more time than a few weeks after the format war ended to see what would happen. You don't need something to be as ubiquitous as VHS to say that people have adopted the technology and that it's viable. A LOT more people own VHS than DVD still, but I don't think you'd argue the viability of DVD as a technology, would you? And no, I'm not even saying that BluRay will surpass the DVD either. I was just saying that I didn't agree necessarily that BluRay was dead in the water and not to bother buying it, that's all. Anyway, just trying to keep things straight. ;)

[Clipsfan]

You would likely be the exception to the rule, it all depends on how many movies you want to store. The average HD movie is between 5-6 GB. A single terabyte would handle between 150 to 190 movies...terabyte drives will run you $240 or so right now. The HP MediaSmart server with additional drives could handle probably 550 movies. How many are you really looking to keep?

Most DVD movies are more than 5-6 GB (dual Layer DVDs are over 8GB). Blu-ray discs are 25 (single) or 50GB (double layer). Most of the movies in their true format are in the 30-40GB range. That's only 25-30 movies per terabyte.

[billybreen]

Most DVD movies are more than 5-6 GB (dual Layer DVDs are over 8GB). Blu-ray discs are 25 (single) or 50GB (double layer). Most of the movies in their true format are in the 30-40GB range. That's only 25-30 movies per terabyte.

That's assuming you are storing video in the fairly low compression MPEG-2 standard of DVDs and (first generation) Blu-ray discs. Blu-ray optionally supports, and all digital download services support by default, video compressed at a much higher rate using a codec such as H264. That gets you down to a manageable file size without loss of video quality.

[Clipsfan]

My Fios connection is 20mbps, not 15. A standard def movie 90 minute movie from iTunes is 1GB, not 6. An HD movie on iTunes is sub 6GB. The difference is the level of compression used by the digital video vs. that shipping on discs which relies on earlier standards. Also, movies start playing as soon as enough buffer is available -- on iTunes, that typically means within a couple of minutes.

The quality isn't the same when it is compressed, even if technology is now better on that front. Given that the compelling argument behind Blu-ray is the quality, compression currently isn't the final solution.

As for the bandwidth, we have to look at what is commonly available when we're talking about the mass market, not what the early adopters have. I don't know if you truly get 20mbps (what do speed tests tell you? Mine show that my pathetic 3mbps is really only 2.2). Assuming that you have the full bandwidth, and that Fios is rolled out everywhere in the next 5 years, and that people adopt it (chance of this? not great still), it still would take more than 3 hours to download a Blu-ray movie. Not super long, but that would be using the entire bandwidth. I think that at some point digital will be the preferred delivery method, but it's going to take a while.

One of the things which you've neglected to mention is the ease of mind which many people get from owning something physically. HD failures still happen frequently enough that it's a scary thought to spend $1000+ on movies which could disappear instantly (and that would only be 50 or so movies). If you've only pirated them all, not as big of a deal, but if you've bought them all... Sure, you can back them all up (and should) but the space constraints end up being that much worse. People like physically holding possessions.

[billybreen]

The quality isn't the same when it is compressed, even if technology is now better on that front. Given that the compelling argument behind Blu-ray is the quality, compression currently isn't the final solution.

Blu-ray video is compressed, either with MPEG2 or AVC (itself an H-264 codec). There's no such thing as uncompressed HD video, as YUV formatted HD would be significantly larger than even Blu-ray discs could hold. Compression is the previous solution, the current solution, and the future solution.


As for the bandwidth, we have to look at what is commonly available when we're talking about the mass market, not what the early adopters have. I don't know if you truly get 20mbps (what do speed tests tell you? Mine show that my pathetic 3mbps is really only 2.2). Assuming that you have the full bandwidth, and that Fios is rolled out everywhere in the next 5 years, and that people adopt it (chance of this? not great still), it still would take more than 3 hours to download a Blu-ray movie. Not super long, but that would be using the entire bandwidth. I think that at some point digital will be the preferred delivery method, but it's going to take a while.

I really get 20mbps, all day every day. It's nice. On Comcast, I got 13mbps consistently, but I realize that's not everyone's experience.

Since the HD formats will be significantly smaller than MPEG-2 Blu-ray, latency is less of an issue, even on your current connection. Once you start a download, you can start viewing video as soon as it has adequately buffered. As I said in an earlier message, the time to value (time from deciding to buy or rent a video to watching it) is already lower for digital downloads.


One of the things which you've neglected to mention is the ease of mind which many people get from owning something physically. HD failures still happen frequently enough that it's a scary thought to spend $1000+ on movies which could disappear instantly (and that would only be 50 or so movies). If you've only pirated them all, not as big of a deal, but if you've bought them all... Sure, you can back them all up (and should) but the space constraints end up being that much worse. People like physically holding possessions.

This is a good point, and I think in general the world needs better digital backup solutions. As DA mentioned, disk is an increasingly cheap commodity, so expect to see more and nicer options for home media backup going forward. We're already starting to see these offerings in the form of Windows Home Server and Time Capsule, and these products will become easier to use and an expected component of our computer and media networks.

Again, to the analogy of MP3s, there was a time when I couldn't imagine giving up my 100s of CDs. Now I can't wait to get rid of my 100s of DVDs, and there's no way I'm saddling myself with 100s of Blu-ray discs. The convenience of digital media significantly outweighs any psychological benefit of physical ownership.

[bjornolf]

Because vinyl has an incredible (analog) sound fidelity that can't be duplicated on digital copies?

I was kind of making a joke. Referring to Nicholas Cage in "The Rock". Someday, someone will say "why would somebody choose a BluRay disc over a download?" And the answer will be either "cause I wanted the 15 gigs of extras" or "cause it's hard to find good coasters anymore". ;)

[bjornolf]

Again, to the analogy of MP3s, there was a time when I couldn't imagine giving up my 100s of CDs. Now I can't wait to get rid of my 100s of DVDs, and there's no way I'm saddling myself with 100s of Blu-ray discs. The convenience of digital media significantly outweighs any psychological benefit of physical ownership.

I disagree there. "The convenience of digital media significantly outweighs any psychological benefit of physical ownership" for you (and I'm sure for several million other people in America). "The psychological benefit of ownership" outweighs "the convenience fo digital media" for several million other people in America. IOW, I don't think that we should be saying what outweighs what for anyone but ourselves. For my in-laws and their neighbors, for example, who live in the sticks and can't afford any internet beyond 56K dialup, I don't see digital downloading of HD material anytime in the near future. However, they like movies, have an HDTV and a BluRay player which they love.

I still have all my CDs despite having a large chunk of my music on iTunes. I don't see my wife giving them up any time soon. I also don't see me wanting to get rid of my DVDs anytime soon. They fit in those nice little binder thingies on a shelf on my bookshelf. Here's a related question...has the eBook struck the deathknell of the paper book? I'm not being facetious here, I'm truly wondering what you think. :o

[billybreen]

I disagree there. "The convenience of digital media significantly outweighs any psychological benefit of physical ownership" for you (and I'm sure for several million other people in America). "The psychological benefit of ownership" outweighs "the convenience fo digital media" for several million other people in America. IOW, I don't think that we should be saying what outweighs what for anyone but ourselves. For my in-laws and their neighbors, for example, who live in the sticks and can't afford any internet beyond 56K dialup, I don't see digital downloading of HD material anytime in the near future. However, they like movies, have an HDTV and a BluRay player which they love.

That's a fair point. It's certainly possible that my personal interests and the company I keep introduce some selection bias. I'm really just trying to counter a lot of the technical objections to digital media as I don't think they hold water. However, people could certainly decide that they want physical objects. I'm hoping that's not the case (for, as yet unmentioned, environmental reasons as well as for convenience), but it's certainly possibly.

Maybe we should just make a bet. My contentions are:

Blu-ray will never achieve the market penetration of DVD
Blu-ray is the last physical media format
Video downloads will exceed Blu-ray sales in the next 3 years, if not sooner


Let's check back in 3 years and see how we're doing. :)


I still have all my CDs despite having a large chunk of my music on iTunes. I don't see my wife giving them up any time soon. I also don't see me wanting to get rid of my DVDs anytime soon. They fit in those nice little binder thingies on a shelf on my bookshelf. Here's a related question...has the eBook struck the deathknell of the paper book? I'm not being facetious here, I'm truly wondering what you think. :o

First, a related question: whether the web has struck the deathknell for news papers, where shorter reading sessions and the benefit of being able to quickly move between articles (without all that annoying page turning :)) shows the benefits of digital media without exposing the limits of current technology. I can unambiguously answer yes to that -- the web is killing print newspapers.

There are certain classes of readers who may jump on the eBook bandwagon soon. Travelers, for example, might like the lighter, less bulky option. I could see a lot of benefits in reference books and textbooks -- instant search is a huge advantage of eBooks. But still, current offerings just aren't ready for mass consumption. And, yeah, I'm including the Kindle in that.

From there, it just remains to be seen how quickly the technology progresses. If you can provide the feel and quality of printed text and images (and we'll likely be able to exceed it dramatically within 15 years), I'm similarly bullish about its uptake. As a bibliophile, I'll always have shelves for my 400 odd books, but I will gladly consume digital books as well.

[YmoBeThere]

A check of the market place for players and recorders shows some promise, and now that the uncertainty of the format is settled, we can expect a nice downtrend as the competition for marketplace takes effect.

The market niche to worry about is the multiplex theater business. They're toast, if you ask me.

1) Sony controls the Blu-ray format, this is the worst possible scenario for wide-scale adoption from a price perspective. They have proven that they will overcharge for technologies with limited competition. Also, they will be slow in delivering and innovating. They are just now coming out with online features that HD DVD already had. I am relying on history as my guide, but I don't see that Sony will necessarily change.

2) The demise of the theater business has been discussed for many a year. No doubt, it is in a secular decline but there is still something to be said for the experience of a truly big screen.

3) What has been left out of the discussion in the last couple of posts is HD on Demand. Again, seniors(such as my parents) can use their cable box to get HD content that they think they will only watch once. Sure, they can't download the movie to their PC(not on dial-up anyway) but in many cases they won't need to. Again, this goes against wide scale physical media adoption.

[billybreen]

3) What has been left out of the discussion in the last couple of posts is HD on Demand. Again, seniors(such as my parents) can use their cable box to get HD content that they think they will only watch once. Sure, they can't download the movie to their PC(not on dial-up anyway) but in many cases they won't need to. Again, this goes against wide scale physical media adoption.

Great point. That will put a lot of pressure on the rental business, and the rental business is a major consumer of physical media. Strong "On Demand" offerings will depress overall disc sales.

[Jarhead]

1) Sony controls the Blu-ray format, this is the worst possible scenario for wide-scale adoption from a price perspective. They have proven that they will overcharge for technologies with limited competition. Also, they will be slow in delivering and innovating. They are just now coming out with online features that HD DVD already had. I am relying on history as my guide, but I don't see that Sony will necessarily change.

2) The demise of the theater business has been discussed for many a year. No doubt, it is in a secular decline but there is still something to be said for the experience of a truly big screen.

3) What has been left out of the discussion in the last couple of posts is HD on Demand. Again, seniors(such as my parents) can use their cable box Sony to get HD content that they think they will only watch once. Sure, they can't download the movie to their PC(not on dial-up anyway) but in many cases they won't need to. Again, this goes against wide scale physical media adoption.
I still believe that there is a place for the low tech consumers who want the simple put-in-a-disc-and-push-a-button approach, and they will get the cheapest HDTV and BluRay player they can find to watch what they get from Blockbuster or NetFlix. I happened upon an article about the situation in ComputerWorld (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9064898) that sheds some light on the topic. I've softened my thinking on it.

I had forgotten all about the HD on demand from the cable companies. It is going to be a factor in all of this for all levels of users, computer downloads will only be useful to folks with the computer savvy. My wife and I have already watched a few on demand movies, for $3.99 from Time Warner, and it was a very fulfilling experience. We watched 3:10 to Yuma, The Assassination of Jesse James, and In the Valley of Elah, and we are considering a couple more. The only problem I have with cable on demand is the paucity of good movies on their list. All three were really good movies, and at least for a while I am sold on the concept.

I don't see much hope for the theater business as these things continue to develop. The big screen is not so impressive when I compare it to my 46" Sony Bravia just seven feet from my easy chair. Just wait until I get a surround sound system set up in our sun room. (Yes, sun room. We can watch tv in our sun room even at the brightest time of day. The LCD screen has no problem handling that situation, but I digress.) The Bravia does toss out some of the sound to the side, though, so I will hold off on the sound system for a while.

To summarize, I still see a place for BluRay players, and maybe even recorders, but for only one part of the market place. Downloading may be a choice if Time Warner or somebody else comes down my street with fiber optic service, but not for a while. I'll watch the prices on BluRay players, and I will also monitor the inventory that Time Warner on demand offers. They both have to compete with baseball and with the upcoming second season on tv. My wife doesn't mind the fuzzy pictures in the local multiplex, and she likes to go there midday while I am playing golf.

[DevilAlumna]

I was kind of making a joke. Referring to Nicholas Cage in "The Rock". Someday, someone will say "why would somebody choose a BluRay disc over a download?" And the answer will be either "cause I wanted the 15 gigs of extras" or "cause it's hard to find good coasters anymore". ;)

Man, I'm sorry I didn't get the "The Rock" reference. And I just watched part of it the other night.

Sorry also for the terse response this morning, I was kind of rushing to get out the door, and should have gone back and re-read your earlier posts; I don't mean to ascribe positions/statements to you if you didn't make them.

eBooks are an interesting one for me -- I'm a total paper person when it comes to books and magazines. I think most "book people" won't be happy with eBook readers, but avid readers might want the ability to carry many books in one "book-like format" so they will be the target market for any ebook solutions. My digital format for books is via Audible.com; I listen to more books than I read these days.

I completely understand the joy of the physical presence of media -- I love my full bookshelves! But I'm with BB on CDs and DVDs -- they're gone with the next big housecleaning. (I heart my all-you-can-eat Zune pass.)

[tecumseh]

I don't see much hope for the theater business as these things continue to develop. .

One of the reason why the theater business will continue is for dates and making a night out. One of the most powerful things about watching a movie in a theater is simply there are no interruptions. Yeah you can have a nice home movie theater but it is not the same as going to the theater and watching a big screen and buying that oversalted popcorn and Cokes and Diet Cokes. If you read the article that Jarhead cited they pointed to $200 as a widespread price point. I am not sure Sony will not drive prices down in the future. Right now they have limited manufacturing capability and have no reason to discount it but once they ramp up? This (http://dtvbrief.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/fifty-percent-of-us-households-owns-a-digital-tv-set-today/)makes me think BluRay might make significant penetration. HDTV is really catching on and I know this sounds crazy but I really think a lot of those stimulus checks are going to go towards HDTV. Once you shell out a grand for an HDTV you sort of have to buy an BluRay player there is no digital solution to download and play and won't be in the near future and I just don't see all those people waiting for the online solution which may be several years away. Once the online solution threat is real then BluRay players will be real cheap.

[tecumseh]

Oh yeah this might help you can make a Blu Ray player a business expense. (http://www.huliq.com/55279/meet-dell039s-sub1000-bluray-laptop)

[Jarhead]

One of the reason why the theater business will continue is for dates and making a night out. One of the most powerful things about watching a movie in a theater is simply there are no interruptions. Yeah you can have a nice home movie theater but it is not the same as going to the theater and watching a big screen and buying that oversalted popcorn and Cokes and Diet Cokes. If you read the article that Jarhead cited they pointed to $200 as a widespread price point. I am not sure Sony will not drive prices down in the future. Right now they have limited manufacturing capability and have no reason to discount it but once they ramp up? This (http://dtvbrief.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/fifty-percent-of-us-households-owns-a-digital-tv-set-today/)makes me think BluRay might make significant penetration. HDTV is really catching on and I know this sounds crazy but I really think a lot of those stimulus checks are going to go towards HDTV. Once you shell out a grand for an HDTV you sort of have to buy an BluRay player there is no digital solution to download and play and won't be in the near future and I just don't see all those people waiting for the online solution which may be several years away. Once the online solution threat is real then BluRay players will be real cheap.
That's what they said about the big screen drive-ins. They seemed to disappear overnight. Isn't the movie date out of style?

Back to BluRay. There are several manufacturers selling BluRay. They are here, but nothing else is. That's why they will grab a pretty good sized market. We will have a better picture of things next February. That's when analog dies,and folks will be rushing to buy new tvs. That means HDTV. I see very little activity involving digital sets with standard definition. The demand for HD material will skyrocket, and BlueRay will help to meet that demand, along with HD on demand from the cable people.

[billybreen]

That's what they said about the big screen drive-ins. They seemed to disappear overnight. Isn't the movie date out of style?

Back to BluRay. There are several manufacturers selling BluRay. They are here, but nothing else is. That's why they will grab a pretty good sized market. We will have a better picture of things next February. That's when analog dies,and folks will be rushing to buy new tvs. That means HDTV. I see very little activity involving digital sets with standard definition. The demand for HD material will skyrocket, and BlueRay will help to meet that demand, along with HD on demand from the cable people.

Yep, a hybrid result like this seems likely -- Blu-ray isn't going to disappear or fail overnight, but its long term success will be hampered by the new competition it faces (from digital media, on demand, etc). That's why I think the overall penetration of Blu-ray will be smaller than DVD.

I also agree that the theater business is in a bad spot. I'm hopeful that the studios will start to support simultaneous releases where on demand and digital offerings of movies will be available on the day of their theatrical release. The theater operators will fight this tooth and nail, but they won't have the pull to stop it if the studios can substantially increase their box office gross by providing more consumption options.

[Jarhead]

Time Warner has Flawless with Michael Caine and Demi Moore on HD on demand for $6.99. It was available there on the same date as its theatrical release. It's a raw diamond theft caper movie, I think. Anybody see any reviews on it? That's about half of what my wife and I would be paying at the local multiplex where it won't be available until this Friday. The phrase "self destruction" comes to mind.

[Clipsfan]

Maybe we should just make a bet. My contentions are:

Blu-ray will never achieve the market penetration of DVD
Blu-ray is the last physical media format
Video downloads will exceed Blu-ray sales in the next 3 years, if not sooner


Let's check back in 3 years and see how we're doing. :)

Your contentions as listed are fairly reasonable and slightly different than your previous statements (if nothing else, to the degree of the difference). I would also be surprised if Blu-ray achieves the market penetration of DVD as it doesn't offer as many improvements vs. the competition as DVD did at the time it came out (and did for a period of 8+ years). However, I think that it will be greater than you probably expect due to issues of technological adoption/capabilities. It will be easier to buy a blu-ray player and physical discs than to download movies (both psychologically and in terms of feasibility) for many people. I would assume that downloads will surpass physical purchases due to one main factor: most studios are thinking about offering a digital copy of the movie alongside the physical copy due to the myriad viewing devices currently in existence. Personally, I think that the real threat to the physical purchase is that most of the library building has already been done on DVD and the growing convenience of VOD/IVOD is going to replace actual purchases. I don't know that Blu-ray will definitely be the last physical format, but it's possible.


Great point. That will put a lot of pressure on the rental business, and the rental business is a major consumer of physical media. Strong "On Demand" offerings will depress overall disc sales.

I guess I agree with this as I say it above :)


I also agree that the theater business is in a bad spot. I'm hopeful that the studios will start to support simultaneous releases where on demand and digital offerings of movies will be available on the day of their theatrical release. The theater operators will fight this tooth and nail, but they won't have the pull to stop it if the studios can substantially increase their box office gross by providing more consumption options.

Theaters are going to continue to adapt, but they know that they're in a tough spot. I don't know if you saw that a new chain of "high end" theaters was just announced. They'll bring sushi and wine to your seat, but will charge something like $35 for a ticket (and extra for the food etc). Box office gross only refers to the theaters, btw, so more options wouldn't increase but would rather decrease the box office.

[billybreen]

Your contentions as listed are fairly reasonable and slightly different than your previous statements (if nothing else, to the degree of the difference).

Just read through all my posts in this thread to be sure, but I haven't changed my position at all. I never said this would happen overnight, I was just agreeing with DA and Ymo that the future is digital and downloads present a compelling alternative to Blu-ray (or at least substantial justification to hold off buying for a year or so).

If I argued strenuously, it's because I didn't agree with most of the technical objections to the adoption of digital media. There were a lot of inaccuracies presented as fact, and I was trying to correct them.

[tecumseh]

That's what they said about the big screen drive-ins. They seemed to disappear overnight. Isn't the movie date out of style?


Depends what you mean by date there is still a strong desire by kids living with their parents to get out of the house and the movie theater fills that niche. When I go to movies more than a boy and a girl I see groups of young people taking in the movies together. This is one reason why so many movies are bad they are aimed at thirteen year olds IMHO.

[bjornolf]

...I'm hoping that's not the case (for, as yet unmentioned, environmental reasons as well as for convenience)...

Partially joking here, but what are the environmental ramifications of millions of people tossing their old computers and receivers/tvs/entertainment systems to buy new ones so they can have the hardware capability and hard drive size to support all these movies? Not many will bother recycling or disposing of them properly, and if that many people do it, I doubt that recycling facilities could keep up with it anyway. As I said, partially joking here, but I would think that would be as much of a concern as people buying BluRay discs. Most people I know don't have entertainment systems with USB ports and the capability to plug in an iPod or computer or other device to their tv/receiver/whatnot to watch a movie in their den.


Blu-ray will never achieve the market penetration of DVD

I won't take that bet. If you read some of my other posts, you will see that I don't think it will either, but I also don't think you'd NEED to achieve that level for the format to be considered a success or to make money.


Blu-ray is the last physical media format

Again, not taking that bet as that wouldn't surprise me. However, for all we know, that format could be around for 30+ years, just like VHS has been.


Video downloads will exceed Blu-ray sales in the next 3 years, if not sooner

Now THAT'S a bet I would take. I seriously doubt that video downloads of full-length motion pictures will exceed BluRay sales in the next 3 years, as I think BluRay is just starting to build. Since you claim video downloads are king (and I don't think you're wrong, I just think it'll take longer than you think), I think an even fairer bet would be how long do you think it will be before video downloads surpass physical media sales, i.e. DVDs AND BluRay sales combined?


First, a related question: whether the web has struck the deathknell for news papers, where shorter reading sessions and the benefit of being able to quickly move between articles (without all that annoying page turning :)) shows the benefits of digital media without exposing the limits of current technology. I can unambiguously answer yes to that -- the web is killing print newspapers.

Personally, I've never paid for a newspaper subscription. I've gotten all my news from the web since I matriculated to Duke in 1993 and mosaic was the browser of choice. Most people over the age of 50 that I know still get newspapers, including my parents and in-laws, who are all pretty net savvy for the 60+ crowd. If nothing else, the diaper coupons they pass along are really nice! ;)


There are certain classes of readers who may jump on the eBook bandwagon soon. Travelers, for example, might like the lighter, less bulky option. I could see a lot of benefits in reference books and textbooks -- instant search is a huge advantage of eBooks. But still, current offerings just aren't ready for mass consumption. And, yeah, I'm including the Kindle in that.

I'm not an eBook fan. For some reason, those things give me TERRIBLE headaches. I still like the paper book, too. ;)

[billybreen]

Partially joking here, but what are the environmental ramifications of millions of people tossing their old computers and receivers/tvs/entertainment systems to buy new ones so they can have the hardware capability and hard drive size to support all these movies? Not many will bother recycling or disposing of them properly, and if that many people do it, I doubt that recycling facilities could keep up with it anyway. As I said, partially joking here, but I would think that would be as much of a concern as people buying BluRay discs. Most people I know don't have entertainment systems with USB ports and the capability to plug in an iPod or computer or other device to their tv/receiver/whatnot to watch a movie in their den.

Any new devices people buy for consuming digital media will largely be replacements for Blu-ray and other systems. Yeah, there are substantial environmental concerns with hardware, but those aren't materially impacted whether Blu-ray or digital media wins the day.

With digital, the entire carbon impact of creating, pressing, packaging, and shipping discs goes away. The material waste of packaging (and the discs themselves, eventually) goes away. That is a huge savings.


Now THAT'S a bet I would take. I seriously doubt that video downloads of full-length motion pictures will exceed BluRay sales in the next 3 years, as I think BluRay is just starting to build. Since you claim video downloads are king (and I don't think you're wrong, I just think it'll take longer than you think), I think an even fairer bet would be how long do you think it will be before video downloads surpass physical media sales, i.e. DVDs AND BluRay sales combined?

That's a good bet. Given that people are still buying PS2s for some reason, I'll assume that the lifespan of DVDs will be a bit longer. I'll go with 6 years.


Personally, I've never paid for a newspaper subscription. I've gotten all my news from the web since I matriculated to Duke in 1993 and mosaic was the browser of choice. Most people over the age of 50 that I know still get newspapers, including my parents and in-laws, who are all pretty net savvy for the 60+ crowd. If nothing else, the diaper coupons they pass along are really nice! ;)

Right, I said in an earlier post that likes change. I think this is a key example. Most people over 50 are so accustomed to getting the paper that they wouldn't think of doing things any other way. Unfortunately for the papers, that portion of the market will age out, and the prospects for replacing them with no purchasers aren't great.

We may well see something similar with digital downloads, where the generation with a fetishistic attachment to physical objects resists change. I expect that it will happen fairly quickly for quite a few reasons. Most importantly: newspaper subscriptions don't expect you to buy new technology every few years to fully enjoy the newspaper experience. Video discs do, and those purchase decisions give people a greater opportunity to survey competing alternatives.


I'm not an eBook fan. For some reason, those things give me TERRIBLE headaches. I still like the paper book, too. ;)

That's what I meant by the technology not being ready. We are very close to having true electronic ink that is indistinguishable from paper. Until then, it's hard to gauge how the technology will be adopted.

[tecumseh]

With digital, the entire carbon impact of creating, pressing, packaging, and shipping discs goes away. The material waste of packaging (and the discs themselves, eventually) goes away. That is a huge savings.
.

Not sure that savings is as huge as you think. In China you can buy bootleg movies for like a buck and in this country high volume DVD duplication is between one and two dollars. When you are talking about a $25 dollar movie or a $60 dollar game this cost represents just a few percentage points of the cost of the product.

Don't underestimate the human element in how it embraces or fails to embrace technology. Why are we not all talking on video phones now? I think security will be a key player. For instance games would be the obvious first thing to go largely digital most people are playing on line already so the box is hooked up to the TV is already hooked up to the high speed internet connection. But if game manufacturers think on line copies will be easily pirated they will fight it tooth and nail to keep physical media and they have a lot of leverage.

[billybreen]

Not sure that savings is as huge as you think. In China you can buy bootleg movies for like a buck and in this country high volume DVD duplication is between one and two dollars. When you are talking about a $25 dollar movie or a $60 dollar game this cost represents just a few percentage points of the cost of the product.

As I said, I'm not talking about the dollar cost. I'm talking about the environmental cost of creating and moving physical objects when it's so unnecessary given modern technology.

[DevilAlumna]

Don't underestimate the human element in how it embraces or fails to embrace technology. Why are we not all talking on video phones now? I think security will be a key player. For instance games would be the obvious first thing to go largely digital most people are playing on line already so the box is hooked up to the TV is already hooked up to the high speed internet connection. But if game manufacturers think on line copies will be easily pirated they will fight it tooth and nail to keep physical media and they have a lot of leverage.

Why no video phones? Price of the hardware. But it's dropping. We have a VOIP one in every 3rd or 4th conference room in my co., because working globally means teleconferencing with Shanghai and Hyderabad on a near-daily basis for some teams. Video phones save a LOT of travel and expense. But, not too many businesses have that scope of need, so no mainstream adoption = still high prices.

And by security, do you mean DRM? (Digital rights management?) it's possible to have good DRM - unobtrusive to the customer, semi-friendly in allowing legitimate transferability of content, etc. It's taken the music world a long time to get there, but it's improving, and ever-more rapidly. In some instances, (Amazon MP3 purchasing) there is DRM, but it's essentially unknown to the end customer. Again, music DRM will lead the way for other media.

And the only games I play on XBOX360 are downloaded games (Bejeweled, Zuma, Lemonade Stand.) Not sure what you're getting at there. In fact, that's an excellent example of good DRM for games (unless you have to ship your XBOX hardware in b/c of the red rings or something.)

[billybreen]

Why no video phones? Price of the hardware. But it's dropping. We have a VOIP one in every 3rd or 4th conference room in my co., because working globally means teleconferencing with Shanghai and Hyderabad on a near-daily basis for some teams. Video phones save a LOT of travel and expense. But, not too many businesses have that scope of need, so no mainstream adoption = still high prices.

And by security, do you mean DRM? (Digital rights management?) it's possible to have good DRM - unobtrusive to the customer, semi-friendly in allowing legitimate transferability of content, etc. It's taken the music world a long time to get there, but it's improving, and ever-more rapidly. In some instances, (Amazon MP3 purchasing) there is DRM, but it's essentially unknown to the end customer. Again, music DRM will lead the way for other media.

And the only games I play on XBOX360 are downloaded games (Bejeweled, Zuma, Lemonade Stand.) Not sure what you're getting at there. In fact, that's an excellent example of good DRM for games (unless you have to ship your XBOX hardware in b/c of the red rings or something.)

Good points, DA. Video chat works well on computers today, and I expect it to be the killer app on new cell phones within 5 years. Digital downloads of games are actually more secure and difficult to crack than physical media -- the network connection component means that it's easy for the software developer to keep track of who is running a program, who has rights to run it, etc.

[billybreen]

A few interesting data points for this discussion: iTunes is now the largest music retailer in the US (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080402-apple-passes-wal-mart-now-1-music-retailer-in-us.html), surpassing Walmart. There was a time not too long ago when this was unthinkable. Also, last year 48% of teens didn't buy a single CD.

[tecumseh]

Good points, DA. Video chat works well on computers today, and I expect it to be the killer app on new cell phones within 5 years.

Have you ever multitasked while talking to someone on the phone?
Have you ever cleaned up your house before having someone over?
Have you ever put on nicer clothes or any clothes for that matter before meeting someone, or put on makeup?
Have you ever talked to anyone while in the bath? or on the toilet?
Have you ever been somewhere or with someone you did not want the person on the other end of the phone to know about?

A videophone is a lot more intrusive than a regular phone so I will pass on it and I think most people will to for a long time. Yes I do Skype some and the video aspect does little for me.

[billybreen]

Have you ever multitasked while talking to someone on the phone?
Have you ever cleaned up your house before having someone over?
Have you ever put on nicer clothes or any clothes for that matter before meeting someone, or put on makeup?
Have you ever talked to anyone while in the bath? or on the toilet?
Have you ever been somewhere or with someone you did not want the person on the other end of the phone to know about?

A videophone is a lot more intrusive than a regular phone so I will pass on it and I think most people will to for a long time. Yes I do Skype some and the video aspect does little for me.

Umm, a videophone doesn't only do video. The functionality is available if you want to have a more personal conversation with friends and family around the world. It's about having options, not about forcing all conversations to be via video.

[RelativeWays]

If it hasn't been mentioned already, the PS3 is phenominal at upscaling DVDs I'd imagine that a lot of Blue Ray players do the same thing. Just make sure if you have an HDTV to pick up an HDMI cable.

[tecumseh]

Umm, a videophone doesn't only do video. The functionality is available if you want to have a more personal conversation with friends and family around the world. It's about having options, not about forcing all conversations to be via video.

Yeah but if the function is usually turned on and you usually turn it on and then you answer the phone and keep it turned off don't you think someone will think it a bit odd? I think for the majority of calls by the majority of people they would not want that function. What you have human habits and comfort colliding with technology I doubt we will see widespread adoption of videophones anytime soon.

[billybreen]

Yeah but if the function is usually turned on and you usually turn it on and then you answer the phone and keep it turned off don't you think someone will think it a bit odd? I think for the majority of calls by the majority of people they would not want that function. What you have human habits and comfort colliding with technology I doubt we will see widespread adoption of videophones anytime soon.

The technology will be designed in whatever way is most conducive to selling it. If many people feel as you do, that defaulting to video communication is intrusive and weird, it won't default to video. That's how markets work.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

Another point to consider is the the rising cost of fuel. This may accelerate the move to a more digital media marketplace. Why spend the extra dollars on gas to get in the car and drive to the Big Box retailer when you can just download the music, movie, game, etc?

[billybreen]

Another point to consider is the the rising cost of fuel. This may accelerate the move to a more digital media marketplace. Why spend the extra dollars on gas to get in the car and drive to the Big Box retailer when you can just download the music, movie, game, etc?

Not to mention that the cost of moving around all those physical objects is increasing for the studios, so they'll be more inclined to move to a digital model where transport costs are much lower.

[tecumseh]

The technology will be designed in whatever way is most conducive to selling it. If many people feel as you do, that defaulting to video communication is intrusive and weird, it won't default to video. That's how markets work.
I think you miss my point it is not a question of defaulting. I my teenage son does not want a cell phone cause he wants his privacy. If he has one we can bug him about turning it on. If that video capability is there and you usually use it it will seem odd to have it off. Much better to have a phone that does not do it all. I guess what I am saying it is simply a feature most people don't want. Here is an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101569_2.html) that reiterates my position that some basic human nature will have to change first. I think it is a looooonnnnngggg way off.

[billybreen]

I think you miss my point it is not a question of defaulting. I my teenage son does not want a cell phone cause he wants his privacy. If he has one we can bug him about turning it on. If that video capability is there and you usually use it it will seem odd to have it off. Much better to have a phone that does not do it all. I guess what I am saying it is simply a feature most people don't want. Here is an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101569_2.html) that reiterates my position that some basic human nature will have to change first. I think it is a looooonnnnngggg way off.

Well, I'll take that bet. I would submit that your data point at home may be a bit of an aberration. It's my understanding that the majority of teenagers love their cell phones, and interestingly the dominant use is texting. Most adults would think that phone calls are what you do with a cell phone -- you normally use audio on a phone, so why would you have it off? Because texting fills a need and the technology supports it.

As for the upcoming rise of video calls, why do you think so many camera and video recording phones are being sold? It's now an expected feature because capturing and sharing images and video allows us to feel closer to the people we communicate with. We can show them where we are and what we're doing. You're telling me that being able to do that immediately, rather than having to manually send someone a picture or video, won't be a nice feature?

As a side note, there will be some very interesting IP issues with video chat on cell phones. As bandwidth and quality increases, we're approaching the point where thousands of people attending (for example) the Final Four can all be broadcasting the view from their seats to a next generation Youtube where viewers can watch the streams in real time. It will be increasingly difficult for broadcasters to retain their monopoly on sporting events.

[tecumseh]

I think most people are happy with the way their voices sound or don't give it much thought but unhappy with how they look, too fat, too old, too much acne. It's funny because blogging and chatting is popular because of a certain level of anonymonity and this is what we are doing now. Texting is interesting because less information is actually conveyed and that is so popular. Videoconferencing is adding information. Again gentleman's bet we won't see widespread adoption (greater than 20% of all calls) in the next twenty years.

[billybreen]

I think most people are happy with the way their voices sound or don't give it much thought but unhappy with how they look, too fat, too old, too much acne. It's funny because blogging and chatting is popular because of a certain level of anonymonity and this is what we are doing now. Texting is interesting because less information is actually conveyed and that is so popular. Videoconferencing is adding information. Again gentleman's bet we won't see widespread adoption (greater than 20% of all calls) in the next twenty years.

I wouldn't take that bet. I don't expect it to be anywhere close to 20% as usage will depend on the situation. Still, the feature will be a killer app and will sell a tremendous number of phones.

A better bet: in 10 years, each of the top 10 best selling cell phones will offer video chat as a feature.

[DukeDude]

I think most people are happy with the way their voices sound or don't give it much thought but unhappy with how they look, too fat, too old, too much acne. It's funny because blogging and chatting is popular because of a certain level of anonymonity and this is what we are doing now. Texting is interesting because less information is actually conveyed and that is so popular. Videoconferencing is adding information. Again gentleman's bet we won't see widespread adoption (greater than 20% of all calls) in the next twenty years.

The percentage of calls using it is irrelevant to the demand for it. It is the percentage of phones that have it that matters.

I agree that very few people will use the feature 100% of the time, but the real question is how many people are willing to pay extra for the ability to use it for some of their calls.

[Clipsfan]

Not to mention that the cost of moving around all those physical objects is increasing for the studios, so they'll be more inclined to move to a digital model where transport costs are much lower.

The studios are fine with moving to a digital model assuming that there is demand for it and the economics work. As it is, there is nowhere near enough demand.

[YmoBeThere]

"Sony to delay "Home" online service for PS3 again" - for the second time. 1 year total...

Just a reminder that this is who won the HD physical format war. IMHO, skip Blu-ray and move on to downloadable content. Heck the airlines have me printing my own boarding passes.

[YmoBeThere]

The lastest Blu-ray update, this time from Business Week. Nothing shocking here and could and was predicted as soon as the die was cast in favor of Sony.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_20/b4084050513499.htm?chan=search

P.S. No I still have not let it go...

[DukeDude]

The lastest Blu-ray update, this time from Business Week. Nothing shocking here and could and was predicted as soon as the die was cast in favor of Sony.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_20/b4084050513499.htm?chan=search

P.S. No I still have not let it go...

Prices for movies on bluray are way out of whack. I think they are still trying to gouge early adopters rather than trying to grow their market. A lot of movies cost 2x on bluray compared to DVD. There is no stronger advocate for digital downloads than the current pricing structure for bluray movies.