Ten Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed

[Hipnotic4]

When ps2 came out it complelty changed the market in china, they had a whole show on this about how it introduced a cheap dvd player that worked and also played amazing games.

Since PS3 was a bluray ready player, i knew they would win the "format war." My brother owns a ps3 and has never had any problems with it yet. It works flawlessly as a gaming system and bluray player. I really believe it is the best bluray player out their being that it does what it is suppose to do and does it well.

 

[The-Jimbo]

Looks like you really hit the nail on the head with this one!

 

[Leo730]

Lol

Had to join this forum after reading that garbage of an article albeit old.

Dear Clint:

Please, in the future, refrain from spewing your misinformed garbage. You even updated your article a full year later with more garbage. Wow, how does it feel to have been so blatantly wrong? Why do I join years later to tell you this? Because you were so very arrogant in your article. This reminds me of the time when people were skeptical about the emergence of video games.

During the times when your article had an inkling of relevance, I saw HD-DVD as a doomed technology. However, Blu-Ray was destined to succeed. It simply had a better laser behind it as well as the Sony name.

The most absurd "fact" about your article... your comments about HD quality being the same as regular DVD. To that I simply ask... ARE YOU BLIND?

 

[JerryLove]

During the times when your article had an inkling of relevance, I saw HD-DVD as a doomed technology. However, Blu-Ray was destined to succeed. It simply had a better laser behind it as well as the Sony name.

That's just silly, and I call BS on it.

If Sony had any history in format wars, it's that it looses (Betamax, MiniDisk, DAT, Hi8, Memory stick) all lost (to VHS, CD, CD, MiniDV, and SD respectively).

Further: few know or care about the laser. It's about the content.

But I do agree that the article seems to (falsely) identify the move from 480i to 1080p (and now 1080i-3D) as "irrellevent" to consumers. I'm not sure how that conclusion seemed valid even back in 07.

 

[AJinFLA]

Had to join this forum after reading that garbage of an article albeit old.
Dear Clint:
Please, in the future, refrain from spewing your misinformed garbage. You even updated your article a full year later with more garbage. Wow, how does it feel to have been so blatantly wrong? Why do I join years later to tell you this? Because you were so very arrogant in your article. This reminds me of the time when people were skeptical about the emergence of video games.
During the times when your article had an inkling of relevance, I saw HD-DVD as a doomed technology. However, Blu-Ray was destined to succeed. It simply had a better laser behind it as well as the Sony name.
The most absurd "fact" about your article... your comments about HD quality being the same as regular DVD. To that I simply ask... ARE YOU BLIND?

Where were you with your insight, in '06?

 

[BWG707]

It was pretty funny and very entertaining to read the article from '06. Hilarious to see just how far off the mark it was. Just about everything that was stated has turned out to be wrong. As I look back on my thoughts concerning this subject years ago, I remember being anxious to go out and buy an HDTV and a Blu-ray player but I just could not justify the costs at the time. I told myself I would just wait until HD became more affordable and to see who would win the Blu-ray, HD-DVD war. I've had my HD home theater set up for alittle more than two years now. I think I was very patient to wait that long but if I waited a little longer I could have reduced my costs significantly.

 

[AverageJoe]

...The most absurd "fact" about your article... your comments about HD quality being the same as regular DVD. To that I simply ask... ARE YOU BLIND?

You'll have to point out that comment in the article. After reading it again, I guess I missed it.

Also, as far as "...Blu-Ray was destined to succeed. It simply had a better laser behind it as well as the Sony name" - I'd say the Sony name had much less to do with the outcome of the "war", than Warner Bros., Disney, etc. Sony's name didn't help Betamax much.

Be that as it may, the so-called success of the Blu-ray format/HD discs is marginal, at best. I admit, I was a bit sceptical of the conclusions when the article first came out, but now looking at it four years later, I gotta' admit it's more true than it might first appear.

Unlike Cassette to CD and VHS to DVD, Blu-ray has not replaced the DVD as the format of choice for most consumers, as near as I can tell. Granted, I would not call it a niche market, but if I was on the distribution end of DVD/Blu-ray movies, I'm not sure I could say this was a raging success.

Lets say you sell 100 red widgets every month. Some marketing guy tells you if you make blue widgets, you can sell them for twice as much and they will only cost you 2 dollars more. Four years later, you're selling 60 red widgets and 40 blue widgets, but you had to lower the price of the blue one's to $2 more than the red. Were the blue one's a success? Sure - they're selling.

OK, that's probably over-simplifying it, but that's about what I'm seeing. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoy HD movies. I much prefer to get a Blu-ray movie from Netflix than an SD DVD. But I don't always buy Blu-ray if the DVD version is less (and it's just a chick-flick for the wife ), unless it's Avatar or Lord of the Rings. Not to mention all the movies we watch as a Netflix download instead of purchase (I never thought that would be the case four years ago).

 

[BWG707]

You'll have to point out that comment in the article. After reading it again, I guess I missed it.

Also, as far as "...Blu-Ray was destined to succeed. It simply had a better laser behind it as well as the Sony name" - I'd say the Sony name had much less to do with the outcome of the "war", than Warner Bros., Disney, etc. Sony's name didn't help Betamax much.

Be that as it may, the so-called success of the Blu-ray format/HD discs is marginal, at best. I admit, I was a bit sceptical of the conclusions when the article first came out, but now looking at it four years later, I gotta' admit it's more true than it might first appear.

Unlike Cassette to CD and VHS to DVD, Blu-ray has not replaced the DVD as the format of choice for most consumers, as near as I can tell. Granted, I would not call it a niche market, but if I was on the distribution end of DVD/Blu-ray movies, I'm not sure I could say this was a raging success.

Lets say you sell 100 red widgets every month. Some marketing guy tells you if you make blue widgets, you can sell them for twice as much and they will only cost you 2 dollars more. Four years later, you're selling 60 red widgets and 40 blue widgets, but you had to lower the price of the blue one's to $2 more than the red. Were the blue one's a success? Sure - they're selling.

OK, that's probably over-simplifying it, but that's about what I'm seeing. Don't get me wrong - I really enjoy HD movies. I much prefer to get a Blu-ray movie from Netflix than an SD DVD. But I don't always buy Blu-ray if the DVD version is less (and it's just a chick-flick for the wife ), unless it's Avatar or Lord of the Rings. Not to mention all the movies we watch as a Netflix download instead of purchase (I never thought that would be the case four years ago).

I understand what you are saying and agree to an extent. But give Blu-ray more time and you will see prices decreasing. Since winning the format war blu-rays have consistently been coming down in price. I do agree that blu-ray movies vary in quality just as Dvds do and that some high quality dvds are close to the quality of low quality blu-rays. The one huge advantage that blu-ray has over dvds is the sound quality and for some reason this is left out of the debate. I beleive we will see a steady decrease in blu-ray prices which will lead it to dominate the market until the next innovation.

 

[s162216]

The main reason why you have not got mass migration to bluray from DVD is simple: its not like an entirely different format like it was from VHS to DVD.
Many people I know have HDTV's yet I only know perhaps one person that actually owns or watches blurays and thats only because he uses a PS3, your just getting exactly the same content as the DVD and DVD upscaling is pretty good. Blurays are just too expensive at the moment, I can get about 3 DVD's for the price of one bluray.

BTW with your comment about Sony's Minidisc losing the format war with Phillips Digital Compact Cassette, no one really won that one as both were largely ignored in the marketplace.

 

[AverageJoe]

BWG707, You're absolutely right, and I think that is why I would call Blu-ray a marginal success. Not marginal for us, the consumers, but rather as a financial success for the suppliers/studios. For us - especially as prices drop and titles are released to disc so quickly - it's been a great enhancement to our home viewing.

But I'm guessing my goofy analogy about the "widgets" was probably pretty close. 5 or 6 years ago some bigwigs at Sony or somewhere were discusing the posibilities of offering HD content, and you know it had to involve: How much will it cost, and how much can we make? No new technology is intentionally developed at a loss (well, except from the government) - They intended to make a very good profit from this.

Their (manufacturers and studios) forcast was that Blu-ray discs would outsell DVD's over two years ago - at $30 or more each. Last year, the studios were still not happy with the Blu-ray sales at $22 or $24 each, but DVD's were still about $10 less. Now we see about a $2 difference in the two formats, and Blu-ray is finally getting closer to DVD sales. Avator sold around 1.7 million DVD copies on the first day, and 1.5M BD's (some reports say 1.2M BD's).

So I think you're right about the prices dropping, and it's great for us. From a technical and viewing standpoint, Blu-ray is definately a success. I gotta' wonder if the studios are thinking we would have bought 3 million copies of Avatar on DVD anyway if Blu-ray didn't exist, and if it was worth it to them.

 

[s162216]

Perhaps its like that in the US, but in the UK Blurays are usually about £18.00. Avatar for instance was £7.00 on DVD when it came out but the Bluray was £18.00

 

[BMXTRIX]

Perhaps its like that in the US, but in the UK Blurays are usually about £18.00. Avatar for instance was £7.00 on DVD when it came out but the Bluray was £18.00

I'm not sure what the point of this is.

For example: My HDTV was $3,000 when I bought it. My 27" CRT was $200.

My Paradigm speakers were $1,500 - my complete Kenwood HTiB was $400.

My watch was $500, my Swatch was $40.

There is a price for a better product and with HDTVs running prevalent in the industry, the demand for HD content to supply those displays is very real. But, the varied content now available in HD is extraordinary compared to what was availabe... or more accurately, unavailable a decade plus ago when DVD came to market.

Blu-ray will never be the success that DVD was, there is way to much competing product available. But, it will outsell DVD at some point. Earliest predictions called for 2010 to 2011 time frame, but quickly they shifted to 2012 or a bit later.

Frankly, I don't care anymore because the HD optical disc has hit a point of market saturation, sell through, and profitability that studios will be releasing all new major titles on the format and will continue to pick and choose from their vaults for some great classic releases for years and years to come.

Oh, I believe I DID have something to say about all of this in 2006...
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=187883&postcount=66

 

[s162216]

Their (manufacturers and studios) forcast was that Blu-ray discs would outsell DVD's over two years ago - at $30 or more each. Last year, the studios were still not happy with the Blu-ray sales at $22 or $24 each, but DVD's were still about $10 less. Now we see about a $2 difference in the two formats, and Blu-ray is finally getting closer to DVD sales. Avator sold around 1.7 million DVD copies on the first day, and 1.5M BD's (some reports say 1.2M BD's).

That was what I was referring to

 

[Wayde Robson]

I'd like to pipe in two points:

Sony won the format war because it's a film studio and was able to con the other studios (a majority backed BD) that it was going to be more resistant to copy-protection using extra DRM, ie. BD+ technology.

Remember, Sony isn't the same company it was back in the Beta days.

Back then it was a cowboy technology company, taking the landmark case Sony vs. Universal all the way to the Supreme Court. It gave us the term 'Fair Use' (ie. your inherent right to copy material you own and 'timeshift' broadcast TV) thank Sony for this!

But not anymore, now Sony is a DRM-promoting, Studio First company.

That's why Sony won! It had nothing to do with 'better' technology or a few more Gigs of storage than HD DVD.

 

[Wayde Robson]

One more point...

I think the criticism of Clint's article has gotten way out of hand. I don't think that (as the headline reads) "already lost" means that the earth was going to open up and swallow HD disc formats whole.

Obviously there are several years left in them. Headlines use expressions, figures of speech... he was stating that in the long term they're already irrelevant technologies as they are already (in '06) AV technologies in use that PROMISE to devour the disc format.

Of this fact there can be no doubt. It didn't happen in '06 and it's not happening in 2010.

Of course Clint and I have disagreed about how long this would take. I think it'll take longer for streaming or downloads to replace discs than he does. But that's just my opinion. I prefer discs for movies I really care about and downloads for casual viewing.

But to argue Clint's editorial is to argue that someday disc formats will give way to digital streaming/downloads.

iPhone Won't Come to Canada

I once wrote an editorial for a mobile devices website that said the iPhone wasn't coming to Canada. Obviously the headline turned out to be wrong, and boy did I take heat for it from the Apple fanboys in Canada. But that wasn't the point of the article.

The iPhone wasn't coming to Canada without deep concessions from Apple, namely its requirement for unlimited data plans. This is because Canadian Telcos are controlled by a monopoly enforced by a tyrannical government program called the CRTC. That was the point of the article.

It's funny that I took a lot of heat in comments when Rogers released the iPhone to Canada - with only an "introductory" unlimited data plan.

 

[gmichael]

20/20 hindsight is great. If we all knew then what we know now, we could have been stinkin' rich.

 

[Wayde Robson]

20/20 hindsight is great. If we all knew then what we know now, we could have been stinkin' rich.

I find it interesting that such an old topic came back to life, with all the vehemency of the original debate. It's so absurd I think I'll tweet this link

 

[dobyblue]

I'd like to pipe in two points:

Sony won the format war because it's a film studio and was able to con the other studios (a majority backed BD) that it was going to be more resistant to copy-protection using extra DRM, ie. BD+ technology.

That's why Sony won! It had nothing to do with 'better' technology or a few more Gigs of storage than HD DVD.

Sorry, your information is incorrect. BD+ wasn't even in the Blu-ray Disc specifications until Fox requested it to be. Fox agreed to support Blu-ray Disc if their BD+ copy-protection (developed with the co-operation of Panasonic) could be included and so far it has kept major new titles out of the pirates hands for the all-important retail window, so it's doing exactly what they want it to do without even using BD+ anywhere near its full potential.

You can see the list of BD+ code developers here. Until recently Fox was the ONLY developer and participant, now Rovi Corporation is also listed as developing code for Kinowelt GmbH..

http://www.bdplusllc.com/home/list_of_adopters_content_participants_and_eligible_code_developers

 

[MDE427]

I enjoy coming across old(er) articles such as this, and comparing the authors take on things to what reality is presently. Its hard to believe that this was written 9 years ago. I had to laugh at the 'prediction' that this HD 'fad' would be short lived, and that blu-ray would fail, as it hasn't made any strides to catch on. I will admit that, in 2006, I wasn't sure if HD DVD or blu-ray would win out. But I was 100% certain that at least one format would prevail, and would become standard in most people's homes. I am surprised that the author felt consumers would just brush over high definition in general.

Funny article in retrospect ... hope no one put any money on the authors opinions expressed here. lol

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Let me congratulate you on your perfect 20/20 hindsight, and to be fair HD-DVD did fail and PS3 didn't saved the BD format - thou it was near perfect BD player for a while for many folks.

3D is near gone now and 4K fab is going to be niche product - I would buy 4k Projector , but 4k TV is pure non-sense