Blu-ray's Field of Dreams

[FirstReflection]

Personally, I think it's all about mindset.

Young consumers have basically come to expect entertainment for really cheap, if not outright free. They don't pay the cable bill, so TV, to them, is free. They don't pay the internet bill, so streaming videos, bit torrents and pirated content, to them, is free. They get an allowance or work a part time job and believe it or not, the bulk of that money gets spent on food! Not going to the movies, not clothes, not videogames. Food actually takes up the bulk of their disposable cash these days.

So when it comes to entertainment, we've got a whole generation of kids who basically have never had to pay for it and really don't expect to. It doesn't matter how relatively cheap we make Blu-ray, they're not going to care when they can get the movie for free online.

The people buying DVDs, they're all the mid-twenties to forties crowd. People who grew up expecting to have to pay for things and not believing it is totally unreasonable to have to pay for something. As an aside - I read reviews of iPhone apps and anything that charges even $0.99 gets totally blasted as being a "rip off" for NOT being free!

So here's the thing - Blu-ray, no matter how cheap - only appeals to a certain sub set of a sub set. The kids expect everything to be free. Young adults who aren't total home theater nuts like us are totally 100% happy with DVD quality and would be more interested in something like Vudu because it's new and neat even though the quality doesn't really go up. Senior citizens (other than a few anomalies ) have never really been into any of it because they just never grew up with this idea of owning a collection of movies and having everything available at their fingertips. So the only people really looking at Blu-ray at all are the people who are really into movies and HDTV AND have the income to support spending disposable income on such a particular form of entertainment.

We all belong to that small sub set, but we're basically ok with paying a little bit more for the higher quality. Sure, we'd all love lower prices too. But it doesn't really change our buying habits. So long as we can afford it, we'll buy it, because that's what we're into. And we've also been raised with the mindset that paying for things is normal!

So the real question ends up being - would decreasing the price increase the market?

And my honest opinion is that it really wouldn't. It would expand it somewhat, but not a whole lot.

Let's put it this way: I honestly think you could price Blu-ray players at $80 and sell the discs for $15 and we STILL would not see an explosion in adoption. Why? Because the vast majority of people just don't care. We may go on and on about how great Blu-ray looks and sounds, but in reality? The vast majority of people just don't see or hear the difference over DVD.

First question the average person would ask about a $80 Blu-ray player?

"Does it play DVDs?"

That's the mindset. That's all they care about. Now show them a Vudu and they'll totally think it's the bee's knees!

So we can preach and we can hollar and testify. We can show average people a Blu-ray version vs. a DVD version and we could even price them exactly the same. But the reaction will remain a steadfast, "meh..."

Honestly, for Blu-ray to ever really get a foothold, it's going to need to literally replace DVD. In other words, Iron Man comes out ONLY on Blu-ray. No DVD SKU at all. Wall E comes out ONLY on Blu-ray, no DVD SKU. The Dark Knight comes out ONLY on Blu-ray...get the picture?

But we can't do that and the studios never ever will. DVD is just far too entrenched and there's no chance in hell that a blockbuster movie won't have a DVD release. Quite honestly, you could give Blu-ray players away for free. Just hand people the player and sell The Dark Knight on Blu-ray for $5 and people would STILL complain! Why? Because of the hassle of having to connect a new player. Free player. One plug to the wall and one HDMI cable to the TV. $5 Dark Knight in high def. Nope. Not interested. Too much hassle. Just give me the damn $15 DVD.

That's the market. That's the mindset. And the kids? They aren't going to buy anything. They expect it for free and they'll watch it via YouTube quality streaming or a pirate bit torrent on their 2" iPod screen.

So that's why I'm so adamant that us movie nuts, we Audioholics better buy up all the Blu-ray movies we possibly can while it's still around! I'm rather convinced that this is the absolute highest quality we are EVER going to see in our lifetimes and it's a blip. A tiny blip in history. The seniors don't care. The kids don't care. Only a tiny portion of us in the middle care and the rest of the middle thinks Blu-ray looks and sounds no better than DVD.

So the Blu-ray camp could give the players away and it still wouldn't make a difference. Heck, HD-DVD basically did just that! $99 players and 5 free movies (basically a player for free) and look where that got 'em! What did average people remember most about HD-DVD players? They made regular DVDs look a little bit better with good upscaling! THAT was the selling point! Not the HD-DVD discs.

People don't want a new player. The Blu-ray players could be free and the Blu-ray discs could be priced lower than DVDs and people still wouldn't want them. The simple hassle of adding a new player is enough to drive them away and they're not interested in having a split library of discs that don't work on all the players they already have in each room of the house.

DVDs are it. Only something like Vudu is going to get any average person's attention. It's all too complicated for grampa and the kids think Vudu is a rip off because it isn't free.

The End

 

[dobyblue]

I would totally agree with FirstReflection were it not for the fact that Blu-ray is the only physical media right now seeing growth, and that growth is 350% more sales than this time last year.

I would also totally agree if Blu-ray were 5 years into its life-cycle and we still weren't seeing day-and-date titles getting 50% of the market share.

DVD took 7 years to out-rent VHS. 7 years. If you think that people weren't looking at DVD in June 1999 saying "oh that's too expensive, VHS is good enough for me" you're kidding yourself, and that's the exact point Blu-ray is in its life-cycle right now as well.

The Matrix was the first DVD to move one million copies. It was released two and a half years into DVD's life. "300" is approaching the half-million mark and it came out in HD on two HD formats. The 2.5 year point in Blu-ray's lifetime is this Christmas season. So if one of the upcoming big movies like "The Dark Knight" matches The Matrix's first week sales of 780,000 +/- 100,000 (given that it was released only on DVD 9 weeks ahead of the VHS release) I don't see how anyone can argue that it is not following a similar pattern of acceptance.

As for Wall-E, The Dark Knight and Iron Man, suggesting they only come out on Blu-ray this early in the format's life is completely and utterly ridiculous. They didn't stop releasing movies on VHS until 8+ years into DVD's lifetime.

Here's a thread from Home Theater Forum noting in September 2006 that there had been several new releases not appearing on VHS.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/sd-dvd-film-documentary/242755-final-vhs-releases.html

If you think they'd consider no new releases on DVD before Blu-ray has lived and breathed for a similar period, you're kidding yourself; they're not about to shoot themselves in the foot.

DVD is the studio's bread and butter right now, much as VHS was in 1999.

People don't want a new player. The Blu-ray players could be free and the Blu-ray discs could be priced lower than DVDs and people still wouldn't want them. The simple hassle of adding a new player is enough to drive them away and they're not interested in having a split library of discs that don't work on all the players they already have in each room of the house.

Yet people moved from VHS to DVD.
People moved from cassette and vinyl to CD.
What are you basing your argument on?

 

[wnmnkh]

Yet people moved from VHS to DVD.
People moved from cassette and vinyl to CD.
What are you basing your argument on?

The point it that Blu-ray is never be innovate enough to convince people to move from DVD.

DVD was insanely expensive, but was groundbreaking innovation compared to VHS.
CD was insanely expensive (yes it was,) but was groundbreaking innovation compared to vinyl (I also believe that properly mastered CD is 100x better than vinyl in terms of sound quality)

Now, Blu-Ray is...... a just mere upgrade from DVD, and they are insanely expensive compared to DVD. Do you see the problem now? If you want big money, you need to give a big stuff. If you can't, you need to give a LOT of cheap ones for big money. BDA does neither.



IMHO, The only viable way for blu-ray is for storage/archive purpose for computer data for the people who do not trust hard drive like myself.

 

[BMXTRIX]

The point it that Blu-ray is never be innovate enough to convince people to move from DVD.

This is a very questionable point.

HDTV is not innovative in the least. It's a mere picture quality jump which is also insanely expensive compared to CRT televisions, and (typically) requires premium television services.

Yet, the industry, after ten years, has basically abandoned the SDTV, and people are clamoring for more and more HD content, and are willing to pay the extra prices necessary.

All for what amounts to a basic 'performance upgrade'.

To then make the jump and say that people aren't willing to move from DVD to Blu-ray is flat out wrong at this point. While still early in the life cycle, Blu-ray has already captured 6% of the opitcal disc market, and has seen significant growth in the last 12 months.

Whether this growth can be sustained is obviously questionable, but to say that people aren't doing it, or that it hasn't happenned at significant levels is just not true over the VERY short current lifespan of the technology.

DVD was insanely expensive, but was groundbreaking innovation compared to VHS.
CD was insanely expensive (yes it was,) but was groundbreaking innovation compared to vinyl (I also believe that properly mastered CD is 100x better than vinyl in terms of sound quality)

As a non-video person when DVD was released, I think it was about three years or more into the formats release before I bought in. I didn't buy almost any discs to begin with (rentals only) and was in no rush to move from the VHS format. I was 'uninterested'. I was AWARE, but I wasn't interested.

Now, Blu-Ray is...... a just mere upgrade from DVD, and they are insanely expensive compared to DVD. Do you see the problem now? If you want big money, you need to give a big stuff. If you can't, you need to give a LOT of cheap ones for big money. BDA does neither.

I see very little difference between what is going on with Blu-ray and what went on with DVD as a roll-out product. Blu-ray is a natural progession to DVD. It has seen huge drops in pricing in the last two years while improving performance, yet it is still relatively expensive.

So what?

What does the price of technology today mean for what technology will be priced in two years?

This is what so many people seem to not be able to understand, it is the entire basis for why HD DVD failed as a format and people were shocked, and it is why Blu-ray has so much of a chance for overall success.

In 2-3 years, every Blu-ray player willl include Ethernet, it will include HD audio, it will handle all discs without issue, and they will cost $20 more than the DVD player sitting right next to it on the shelf at Wal-Mart, Target, or Best Buy.

Unlike SDTVs, which have now been discontinued at Best Buy, and cost hundreds of dollars less, when people go to buy a new DVD player, they will see an insignificant difference in price between the old DVD player technology pricing, and the new Blu-ray technology pricing.

It will be a no brainer at that point. Right NOW it is still a big investment and price differential, but within a few years, 80%+ of new player sales could belong to Blu-ray.

IMHO, The only viable way for blu-ray is for storage/archive purpose for computer data for the people who do not trust hard drive like myself.

This is clearly part of what Blu-ray may deliver, but I would say is almost an entirely different concept. Blu-ray has broad spectrum studio and CE support which hasn't been seen in any unified format since DVD was release a decade ago.

Obviously, I could be wrong, but to this point, I have used the numbers, historical evidence, consumer actions related to HDTV, and pricing trends with technological leaps as evidenced by history to make predications which have followed very true to course.

The BDA has released projected sales targets, it has released some long term predictions, but the 12 month predictions are some of the most interesting. The BDA isn't hoping to dominate DVD in the next 12 months, and it wasn't hoping for it this year. Instead, it just wants steady, predictable growth, as the product is further developed and gains support from additional CE manufacturers. Had the BDA claimed 15% of the market by year end 2008, and come up with 10%, then it would have looked very bad. But, they claimed 300% growth to 8%, and is currently running 350% compared to last years numbers - actually running ahead of the curve, and on track for their long term expectations.

 

[BMXTRIX]

First question the average person would ask about a $80 Blu-ray player?

"Does it play DVDs?"

That's the mindset. That's all they care about.

I think you brought up some excellent points, but this is the one that I believe is one of the biggest reasons why BD will succeed.

Consumers rent first, buy second. So, if they are able to buy a player in two years, for 20 bucks more than a DVD player, and they know that it will play their current DVD collection, yet will also allow them to rent discs which will give them higher quality to the 37" HDTV they bought last year, then that 20 bucks extra is well worth it.

Rentals? You know, those free things that kids get from BB/Netflix online services.

At the end of the day, the Digital Download SALES market is a good deal smaller than Blu-ray is already. While cool and likely to see significant growth, hard drives aren't free, and other than illegal downloads, and ripping DVDs (also illegal), there isn't a real way to get 'free' Hollywood movies.

We aren't there yet, it's as simple as that. Blu-ray will continue to drop in price, it will continue to get better, the raw hardware will be a single chip to do everything, with some mechanical pieces JUST like DVD and CD is right now. The price differential will be negligible.

The disc authoring process will be refined so instead of $1.50 a disc to make, it will be $.40 or less, just as it is with DVD. But, more importantly, BD authoring will include the tools that DVD has now, and then some, for incredibly easy authoring.

As I've said, this isn't where it is at today, but someone needs to tell me why it HAS to be today before making arguements about why the technology is doomed, or why it must fail.

Perhaps the youth of today could kill it, but I'm far from convinced that this is the case. While 33% of average songs on iPods were not paid for (recent study), it still means that 2/3 of the content was acquired legally. Hard to believe that movies will stray that far from those numbers, especially with top notch films that come to market, and the nearly 'free' availability of the rental market.

 

[dobyblue]

The point it that Blu-ray is never be innovate enough to convince people to move from DVD.

DVD was insanely expensive, but was groundbreaking innovation compared to VHS.
CD was insanely expensive (yes it was,) but was groundbreaking innovation compared to vinyl (I also believe that properly mastered CD is 100x better than vinyl in terms of sound quality)

Now, Blu-Ray is...... a just mere upgrade from DVD, and they are insanely expensive compared to DVD. Do you see the problem now? If you want big money, you need to give a big stuff. If you can't, you need to give a LOT of cheap ones for big money. BDA does neither.



IMHO, The only viable way for blu-ray is for storage/archive purpose for computer data for the people who do not trust hard drive like myself.

Blu-ray is just a mere upgrade from DVD where DVD was groundbreaking innovation?

VHS 250 lines of vertical resolution
DVD 480 lines of vertical resolution
Blu-ray 1080 lines of vertical resolution

DVD 1996, sub-CD quality lossy audio (a 1983 medium)
Blu-ray 2006, lossless 7.1 multi-channel up to 24/96, innovative, never been seen before

Am I missing something?

I'll tell you what you haven't addressed. Right now Blu-ray at 2.3 years old is cheaper than DVD at 2.3 years old. Where were the $14.95 catalogue titles on DVD in 1999? I sure as hell didn't see any!

Iron Man 2-disc Blu-ray - $27.95
Iron Man 2-disc DVD - $22.95

Transformers 2-disc Blu-ray - $24.95
Transformers 2-disc DVD - $24.95

Ratatouille Blu-ray - $20.95
Ratatouille DVD - $19.99

Insanely expensive? I don't understand how people can point out these flaws with a brand new technology that makes the picture quality look like the jump from VHS to DVD (even though as a percentage it's GREATER than that jump) and completely ignore what current month of its life this technology is in.

Everything about DVD's introduction to the market and acceptance is incredibly similar to Blu-ray's current march, so what exactly is the evidence currently that supports the doom and gloom forecast?

If Blu-ray is still sitting at 6-10% of the market share by the end of Christmas 2009 I'll join in with you and say that I don't see Blu-ray taking over from DVD, but as of right now I don't see anything to suggest that Blu-ray won't see similar acceptance withing a 1-2 year time frame of what DVD saw, especially on this continent.

 

[jostenmeat]

Blu-ray is just a mere upgrade from DVD where DVD was groundbreaking innovation?

VHS 250 lines of vertical resolution
DVD 480 lines of vertical resolution
Blu-ray 1080 lines of vertical resolution

DVD 1996, sub-CD quality lossy audio (a 1983 medium)
Blu-ray 2006, lossless 7.1 multi-channel up to 24/96, innovative, never been seen before

Am I missing something?

I'll tell you what you haven't addressed. Right now Blu-ray at 2.3 years old is cheaper than DVD at 2.3 years old. Where were the $14.95 catalogue titles on DVD in 1999? I sure as hell didn't see any!

Iron Man 2-disc Blu-ray - $27.95
Iron Man 2-disc DVD - $22.95

Transformers 2-disc Blu-ray - $24.95
Transformers 2-disc DVD - $24.95

Ratatouille Blu-ray - $20.95
Ratatouille DVD - $19.99

Insanely expensive? I don't understand how people can point out these flaws with a brand new technology that makes the picture quality look like the jump from VHS to DVD (even though as a percentage it's GREATER than that jump) and completely ignore what current month of its life this technology is in.

+1 to your entire post. Your examples above are the reason why I share the opinion with friends and family that buying a DVD is a waste of money.

I'm pretty sure I told the poster below that I think its all cool as long as he's not actually purchasing DVDs anymore. That's how poor of a purchase decision I think it is. I'm not saying to throw one's existing DVDs away! Just that buying new ones seems so silly to me. The costs are much more similar than not.

The only times I've spent more than $20 on a disc was because it was something from Criterion or something I really wanted.

AFAIK, all Criterion titles to be released in November, and on forward, will have exactly the same price whether BD or DVD. Yet another example.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I think the big thing is that there seems to be some people who think BD should be doing better, which just makes no sense at all.

If the BDA, the group that runs the show, makes predictions which are on track, or even ahead of schedule, and CE manufacturers are excited about current BD sales, then what exactly is it which is bad, not doing well, or wrong with the format?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement with the world that lower prices would be better. But, it just seems naive to act like current pricing isn't accurate for the format at this particular stage in its life, or that prices won't fall, significantly, as they already have.

The hard part is dispelling myths of the format without sounding like a fanboy. I see the failings of Blu-ray, but as a day one PS3 owner, strictly (mainly?) for Blu-ray, it's hard for me to feel like I haven't gotten my moneys worth out of the unit.

As a person who rents 90% of the films I watched, and have waited for sales, the 20 or 30 titles I own I have not paid more than about $15.00 per movie on average.

Right now, Amazon has sales, as well as other places. Yeah, maybe I'll get stuck paying $25 for Iron Man and The Dark Knight, but I imagine that in 2 years it may be 20 bucks for those new releases, and that DVD may not end up costing any less at all.

 

[jliedeka]

DVD had Dolby Digital. Regardless of how may bits were used, there were 6 channels of discrete audio as opposed to two channels with Dolby surround encoded into VHS tapes.

I bought my first DVD player in either late 1997 or early 1998. I don't remember how far that was into the life cycle but I know I didn't stop buying VHS tapes after I had the DVD player. Some things were only available on VHS or the tape was way cheaper than the disc.

I think that people will still buy DVDs that are cheaper even if they have BD players. It depends, of course. I don't expect to buy too many BDs of things I already have on DVD but may make exceptions for something where the audio is a lot better or at least the video is to die for.

Jim

 

[wnmnkh]

Big no.... guys.... DVD was not a upgrade from VHS; it was simply different animal.

It is not just more resolution, DVD.....

1.) Smaller, easy to maintain.
2.) Does not degrade due to many playbacks (well, eventually DVD may fail, but it is much durable than VHS)
3.) interactive menu, choice of subtitles, can choose the specific scene easily while you have to re,fastwind on VHS.
4.) Multi-channel audio
5.) Can be easily stored, and used on other media like computers, portable players.
6.) last but not least, better video and audio quality, of course.


Now, Blu Ray has...

1.) More interactive menu via internet connection.
2.) More channels with lossless audio.
3.) of course better video/audio quality.
And.... what?

Do you see a problem? There is really few new innovative features I could gain from Blu-ray other than better video/audio quality. All I really see is a just new optical media with some improvement.

Don't get me wrong; I like my Blu-ray discs and really enjoy to watch, but I really don't see J6P will be interested. Not to mention most people seem satisified with upconverted players, and they actually think it is HD. Sadly but true.

They buy HD TVs to see some HD channels and upconverted DVDs, I see really few people intend to buy HD TV for blu ray.

 

[BMXTRIX]

They buy HD TVs to see some HD....

That's all you actually need to say to understand why the general consumer can be convinced to buy Blu-ray in a couple of years when pricing hits $100(ish) levels.

People buy HDTVs to watch HD - they don't own DVDs, the average consumer has less than a dozen. They don't care about upconversion, they buy upconverting players because they say "HD" on the side, but ten seconds with an untrained Best Buy/CC employee and J6P will be convinced they need to spend the extra $20 to get a true HD player for their HDTV.

These are the same stores that have little issue selling Monster Cable to everyone, and make top dollar on Bose equipment.

The only difference here is that the consumer actually gets quality for their purchase, so the sale should be that much better.

Keep in mind, almost anyone who owns Blu-ray and watches titles regularly does rave about the quality, so the "Word of mouth" level for Blu-ray is mostly positive.

 

[dobyblue]

DVD had Dolby Digital. Regardless of how may bits were used, there were 6 channels of discrete audio as opposed to two channels with Dolby surround encoded into VHS tapes.

I bought my first DVD player in either late 1997 or early 1998. I don't remember how far that was into the life cycle but I know I didn't stop buying VHS tapes after I had the DVD player. Some things were only available on VHS or the tape was way cheaper than the disc.

It was extremely early in the lifecycle. The average player was still $700 and the majority of titles did NOT have discrete multi-channel audio on them, but rather Dolby stereo.

Big no.... guys.... DVD was not a upgrade from VHS; it was simply different animal.

It is not just more resolution, DVD.....

1.) Smaller, easy to maintain.
2.) Does not degrade due to many playbacks (well, eventually DVD may fail, but it is much durable than VHS)
3.) interactive menu, choice of subtitles, can choose the specific scene easily while you have to re,fastwind on VHS.
4.) Multi-channel audio
5.) Can be easily stored, and used on other media like computers, portable players.
6.) last but not least, better video and audio quality, of course.


Now, Blu Ray has...

1.) More interactive menu via internet connection.
2.) More channels with lossless audio.
3.) of course better video/audio quality.
And.... what?

Do you see a problem? There is really few new innovative features I could gain from Blu-ray other than better video/audio quality. All I really see is a just new optical media with some improvement.

Don't get me wrong; I like my Blu-ray discs and really enjoy to watch, but I really don't see J6P will be interested. Not to mention most people seem satisified with upconverted players, and they actually think it is HD. Sadly but true.

They buy HD TVs to see some HD channels and upconverted DVDs, I see really few people intend to buy HD TV for blu ray.

People don't buy HDTV's to watch upconverted DVD's, sorry. You could ask 100 purhasers at the counter why they are buying an HDTV and you wouldn't get that answer once. The only answer you'll get is "I want HD"

Why have you lumped in two massive differences between Blu-ray and DVD in your first point for Blu-ray? The interactivity and internet connectivity and two separate entities. The menu structure is much greater and once people are used to being able to select menus with no delays and no interruptions, going back to DVD seems archaic, sort of like watching a VHS when you're used to DVD. Much like DVD the potential was slowly utilized over the first few years. Blu-ray's interactivity allows for a few things to happen with PIP - first off all the window can move to wherever the least amount of action is, with DVD it's static. It's static because PIP on DVD requires a separate encode of the scene with the PIP window on top. With Blu-ray it's encoded on the fly and as such can be moved around. If a studio chooses to make the PIP window a 1080p source they can swap the window around to enhance the interactivity for scenes where the PIP is more important to showcase how a scene was shot, rather than just a guy in a chair. The internet connectivity is a complete different facet of Blu-ray, yet you manage to wring every possible point about DVD into a different number. That seems VERY skewed.

All the arguments you've made were all the exact same arguments people were making AGAINST DVD in 1996.

You can't make back-ups of it like VHS
It's too expensive,
J6P won't notice a difference

Have a read - http://www.robertsdvd.com/failure.html

Here are a few snippets:

Consumers will look at DVD and see that it doesn't record. That will instantly arouse suspicions in their mind that if the movies they want to watch are not available on the DVD discs, then the machine will be useless to them and a waste of money. Just because DVD will have a (supposedly) better picture quality than VHS will play no part in their decision. it doesn't record, therefore, it is crippled and worth less than VHS, which DOES record anytime they want.

There have been Blu-ray recorders in Japan for years

Another question is, how many consumers actually WANT and USE all the special features that DVD *might* offer? CD players offer all kinds of special programming and playback options, yet most people never touch these features. A cheap VCR is seen as too intimidating to most Americans. They just want to watch the movie, not select different versions, languages and such. The LD market has proven that these extra features are desired, but only by a small segment of the population. The special edition LDs don't even sell to most LD owner/collectors. They are a small segment of an already small market. Are the studios going to spend money on DVD to make discs that only a select few will buy and care to view? NO!

Availablitly of titles for rental is another area of concern. How many stores are going to stock DVD and take up selling space that could be better stocked with something else? Why should they even get into it in the first place? They will have a few titles, that, because of low ownership of players, will sit on the shelves doing no rentals. I seriously doubt that most stores will offer DVD for rent for longer than 2 months after the launch.

DVD is just a bad idea. It is being forced upon a uncaring and unwanted public and is an inferior product that simply isn't needed or desired. DVD exists only for one reason. Greed. Motion picture studios are always looking for a way to sell the same stuff over and over again and they think DVD is the answer. Electronics giants are always looking for the hot new gadget that will make consumers junk their existing products and they feel that DVD is the answer. Its not. Actually, it is an answer to a non existent question. A question that has never been and never will be asked.

 

[wnmnkh]

People don't buy HDTV's to watch upconverted DVD's, sorry. You could ask 100 purhasers at the counter why they are buying an HDTV and you wouldn't get that answer once. The only answer you'll get is "I want HD"

Yeah, I am pretty sure the answer for getting HDTV is "I want HD". But the problem is, people have all kinds of different opinions about the definition of "HD".

So is 1080P 24fps is HD? 720p? upconverted? HD channels from cables and satellite? xbox 360 online video shop? or just a high quality viewing from youtube? (I am not kidding; some people really think so)

You know, most people are just utterly confusing about HD, and their only reliable indication about HD is the word, "HD".

With so many products other than Blu-ray claim themselves "HD." Do you really think people buy HDTV for blu-ray?

No.

Why have you lumped in two massive differences between Blu-ray and DVD in your first point for Blu-ray? The interactivity and internet connectivity and two separate entities. The menu structure is much greater and once people are used to being able to select menus with no delays and no interruptions, going back to DVD seems archaic, sort of like watching a VHS when you're used to DVD. Much like DVD the potential was slowly utilized over the first few years. Blu-ray's interactivity allows for a few things to happen with PIP - first off all the window can move to wherever the least amount of action is, with DVD it's static. It's static because PIP on DVD requires a separate encode of the scene with the PIP window on top. With Blu-ray it's encoded on the fly and as such can be moved around. If a studio chooses to make the PIP window a 1080p source they can swap the window around to enhance the interactivity for scenes where the PIP is more important to showcase how a scene was shot, rather than just a guy in a chair. The internet connectivity is a complete different facet of Blu-ray, yet you manage to wring every possible point about DVD into a different number. That seems VERY skewed.

So what? I don't use all the strange menus and interactive features; heck I rarely watch even some extra features on DVDs these days. I prefer to watch the movie only. Well, it is very subjective and different from people, but you need to recognize there are people who are already satisfied with basic features DVD provides.

However, again, DVD is just completely different. The magnitude of difference is just different (completely new and reliable profile, physical properties, introducing 'new' features, convenience, etc) And it still took more than 5~7 years to become mainstream. Now, for Blu-ray, I'd say only 'new' feature they are bringing to is internet connection as you pointed out, but the question is, are people going to use that?

Heck as I said some people, like myself even feel the menu of DVD is annoying, and just skip to main movie. I wonder if these people change their minds when they see Blu-ray. There will be people who enjoy the improved features, but not all (and again, will these improved interactivity and internet connection are enough for people to buy the whole movies and player again?)

All the arguments you've made were all the exact same arguments people were making AGAINST DVD in 1996.

You can't make back-ups of it like VHS
It's too expensive,
J6P won't notice a difference

Have a read - http://www.robertsdvd.com/failure.html

No no no no..... my main argument is that Blu-ray is merely an upgrade from DVD, thus not strong enough to attract most J6P. The price will go down (as we are already seeing 167 bucks players) and we can make a backup of Blu-ray already a long time ago (well, did I say "I cannot make backup of Blu-ray" as an argument anyway? :S ) And J6P may (or will) notice the difference in quality, but this does not guarantee the format will succeed.

Hey, this is similar to DVD-A and SACD; now I can get dual players for less than 100 bucks (usually with excellent DVD video capability and extra stuffs,) for DVD-A case I can make backups with a computer, and finally they have nice multi-channel support which brings some significant difference between CD and SACD/DVD-A. Now, are these formats alive now?

vinyl has always outsold both SACD and DVD-A combined btw, and there is no guarantee blu-ray will not go same path as SACD/DVD-A went.

 

[BMXTRIX]

vinyl has always outsold both SACD and DVD-A combined btw, and there is no guarantee blu-ray will not go same path as SACD/DVD-A went.

This is where the arguement falls flat though, and it is consistent with what many arguements do.

The BDA has presented sales predictions, and BD is running ahead of those numbers. CE manufacturers build products to match predictions, and they are actually running behind on manufacturing due to demand.

SACD & DVD-A never touched what Blu-ray has already done. Blu-ray regularly captures 6-7% of the total weekly optical disc revenue. It doubles the intake of digital downloads, and who knows how much more than HD digital downloads.

There is no guarantee we will live through tomorrow, but to pretend that exceeding expected sales levels isn't a strong showing for a new format would be a pretty big error. Making claims that it likely won't succeed, in the face of sales outpacing expectations just doesn't make any sense.

That's it - it just doesn't make sense to predict gloom and doom when the market has already said "We want more!" - not the market... consumers. People. In the last year, the commerical company I work for has seen no less than a dozen Blu-ray players go in compared to the prior year where we saw about two go in. My anecdote means diddly, but it is just the reality that Blu-ray is moving forward, whether you believe it is or not is irrelevant. Whether you think it will be a success or not is also irrelevant.

What matters is actual sales, and those figures are ahead of expectations right now, and are on track the beat year end expectations.

So, what is it that's suddenly going to make the format fail in the face of all this non-failure?