Majority of Americans still clueless about Blu-ray

A new report released Tuesday says that less than half of high-definition television owners in the U.S. know what Blu-ray Disc is.

While that's an improvement over a year ago, it still means that more than half of that group--the target audience for high-definition video vendors--still has no idea what Blu-ray is.

(Credit: Samsung)

According to The NPD Group, a market research company that tracks consumer awareness, while 45 percent of HDTV owners surveyed said they were "familiar" with the format, only 9 percent said they planned on buying a Blu-ray player in the next six months. That's only slightly higher than the general population, 6 percent of which said they planned a similar purchase.

HDTV owners familiar with Blu-ray stood at 35 percent as of June 2007. So what's more odd is that that group's awareness of the format has creeped up only 10 percent in the past year, in spite of the most intense battles between Blu-ray and now-defunct HD DVD taking place at the end of 2007, and early 2008.

The report suggests that Blu-ray is still facing the same problem of a year ago: prices are still too high compared with less expensive upscaling DVD players that are "good enough" for most consumers.

[Groucho6]

Too expensive, and with 100MBit broadband and downloadable HD already on the horizon, obsolete. Blu-ray is too little too late for too much.

[ibeetle]

100MB...lol... broadband....lol.... wait... I am still trying to catch my breath on the 100MB part.....lol.....oh God! I have to pee now....
Jesus, that was the funniest thing I heard all day.

[HighTechTech]

Hey Groucho6. You're clearly one of those pinheads who wants to "enjoy" movies from a compressed & archived pc "file". Grow a brain!...and eat a whole bar of ex-lax while you're at it. Blu-ray fans enjoy this medium because of excellence in picture and audio quality. No need to lash out at people who "get it". You're a sad organism. Now return to the rock from whence you crawled out from.

[john55440]

All I need to know about Blu-ray is that it's overpriced. (grin) When I custom order my next computer, it's no Blu-ray drive for me.

[kevinmfb]

It amazes me that some people don't know what Blu-ray is and how upscaling players are "good enough". The picture quality of Blu-ray is far superior than that of upscaling and then, if it suits your fancy, the added features are way above and beyond a normal DVD. I love my Blu-ray player...

[C433Z]

yeah, but nobody wants those extra features; i don't. The only other things you get with blu-ray are better picture, and better audio, and you can only utilize that audio with an fairly high end sound system.

[HighTechTech]

I've found that the people who criticize Blu-ray are the same types who can't distinguish the difference between cassette audio quality and CD audio quality. The sound is "just sound" to them...therefore video is "just a picture". There's no arguing with these closed-minded neanderthals. I love my PS3, with upgradeable firmware and 24 fps film quality at 1080p. Gaming is also off the scale on a filmscreen!

[gerrrg]

I guess the conclusion might be made, that the battle between formats was a moot point, because so few people really cared in the first place.

[HighTechTech]

With millions of Blu-ray players already sold in the U.S, it's clear that alot of people DO care. Gawd gerrrg, your pathetic! And you're probably another one of those who complains that STANDARD definition DV players are too pricey... at 29 dollars! All the while forgetting that STANDARD definition players originally hit the market at upwards of 1000 dollars...yes, back then! NOW, Walamart's selling Blu-ray discs for only 15 dollars. Even YOU can jump in ow gerrrg! Think about it ;)

[bluraysuks]

What sucks about Blu Ray is the 3 minutes it takes to power up and the additional 2 minutes to eject the disc and another 2 minutes to read the disc. At $500 bucks I think we can fit the tecgnology in there to be faster. And whats up with the size of the box? The DVD player has been the same size since its inception. I understand the there is more detail and it may take a little longer to to load up but at the price they're asking we could get a faster Blu Ray. And you know what, next years model will...and so will the following year etc. etc.

[ibeetle]

What is really scary is you actually believe what you typed. I own a Blu-ray Disc player and I can assure you not one word you said is true. Not one.

[HighTechTech]

Talk about somebody who picked the wrong horse. LOL! Good luck in recouping only a fraction of the money you lost in choosing HD instead of Blu-ray. Think about that as you try to unload your now-defunct HD player on eBay!

[sting7k]

I'm not surprised at this finding. Not only is Blu-ray still expensive but I would say about 70% of the time when I go to see someone and they want too show off their new HDTV they don't even have it hooked up to an HD source, or they have their Xbox 360 or PS3 using the composite cables (in case of PS3) and never changed the 360 to output in HD with component.

[groink_hi]

The only way Blu-Ray will become mainstream is if there is an effort to kill DVD. As long as there is a cheaper alternative out there, people will flock to it. Why do you think VHS is still around? Today, they're still trying to convert VHS people to DVD! But as long as VHS recorders and blank tapes continue to be manufactured, people will continue to use VHS.

People do not conform to newer technology because they want to. People are being pressured into purchasing hi-dev TV because they're afraid they'll be obsolete come February 2009, and not because hi-dev TV are better. Forget about being clueless about Blu-Ray - most people are clueless about February 2009!!!!

Blu-Ray will be a niche product for the life of the technology. It will never replace DVD as long as companies put out upconverting DVD players, and TV studios keep putting out DVDs. As the population of hi-dev TV owners grow, that percentage of Blu-Ray savvy people will be even LESS than what it is today. Today it is less than 50-percent. Expect the number to be less than 40-percent come February 2009. And less than 30-percent in 2010.

[ibeetle]

I agree with almost everything you said.

The end of the single dominate format is here. The entertainment industry is no longer interested in theater, home, cable distribution. Now they offer a myriad of options. Digital projection, standard projection, IMAX, IMAX 3-D, standard DVD, high definition DVD, digital download, internet streaming, and the list goes on.

This is going to do nothing but dilute the brand and confuse the customer. And when customers get confused they usually do not buy anything and just stick with what they have.

[ibeetle]

Not surprising few know about Blu-ray. A few months ago there was a report that said less than half of all high definition televisions were hooked up to a high definition video signal. In most cases many were unaware they needed to upgrade their cable or satellite service to a high definition tier in their plan.

[greengeek]

The numbers in this article are a bit suspect. 45% of HDTV owners are familiar with Blu-ray, but only 9% plan on buying a Blu-ray player in the next six months. Well, how many already own a Blu-ray player?

[fredmenace]

Probably like 1-2%. Really, nobody cares. Most people who happen to own HDTVs only care that they have a large, flat television. They don't really care about the resolution. Even if I were interested in HD, for a large number of reasons I would never buy a Blu-Ray player if it cost more than $50, and if the disks cost more than $10.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Blu-Ray is nice. It has a lot higher resolution than DVD, looks better than a DVD played on an up-converted DVD player. However, my experience causes me to come to one conclusion. Is the extra resolution and the ability for example to see separate and distinct strands of hair on someone, does this make the movie more enjoyable? Is that worth the cost?

My answer is a simple no. Blu-Ray is too expensive. Beyond the resolution there is very little else to entice and the resolution simply doesn't add enough to justify the cost. Now if you want a blu-ray player and you want a game system then the PS3 is a great way to go. You get both for about $200 each, not bad. But, to buy a blu-ray player standalone the cost is crazy. The discs are too expensive. You don't get any extras on a blu-ray disc that are worth talking about, browsing the web site for the movie on a TV screen is a nightmare, the game most include is junk.

I also have a blu-ray burner for my computer, mostly for my HD video editing projects. However, both the burners and the blank media are far too expensive, at least right now. When they come down I expect both to do well on computers. However, 25GB and 50GB still isn't enough to backup 1TB of hard drive storage or in my case 8TB. So for backup it is less than useful.

You would think that they would have designed blu-ray to offer something more over DVD especially considering the cost, but they didn't.

As for downloads over the internet. Well, only idiots would think this is a good thing. High costs, you provide the download bandwidth, you provide the storage, they provide a lower quality movie, with copy protection and probably so sort of drop dead on a date mechanism for too much money. Not my idea of a good solution. DVD is still the way to go.

Robert

[HighTechTech]

Heebie Jeebies: It's really no big deal to see every "strand of hair" perhaps, but it's nice to see depth & detail in backgrounds. See "310 To Yuma" for example. With standard definition, backgrounds all wash together, appearing about as exciting as one of those cheesy museum backgrounds on a dinosaur display.

[gerrrg]

Quickly...how many of you really care (and know all there is) about HDMI, SVGA, DVI, HDCP, BD, 802.11a/b/g/n, WiMax, HSDPA, 1080i/p, 720p, 480, 60fps versus 30fps, Gbps versus GB/s, Mbps versus MB/s, 56K,......? Exactly why Apple is growing in popularity, even with a price premium. 90% of the population doesn't give a hoot if you used Javascript, Java, AJAX, Actionscript or Python to do whatever it is that you want them to look at, and likewise it shouldn't take a couple of days to figure out how to make the picture pretty (it should be that way from the beginning.)

[OscarWeb]

I agree with the other reply to your comment. You appear to fall into the same category as the group mentioned in the title of this blog post. Startup issues have been resolved with firmware updates on pretty much all Blu-Ray players, and were you even around when the first DVD players came out? The original Sony DVP-S7000, the first commercial player in the US, was a behemoth with an SRP of about $900 or more.

[Cawgijoe]

Once you witness Blu-Ray you will want it. It's far superior to up-converting. It's better than broadcast, cable, or satellite HD. The nay-sayers either have never seen it or are HDDVD owners still fuming over picking the wrong horse. As to players, I will agree that the standalones have not been up to snuff, but they will improve. If you want a player now that is fast, upgradable through fimware updates and produces a fantastic picture, buy the PS3. As to price....many people have very short memories.....original DVD players were priced at $1,000 and up when they first came out. I waited a couple of years and got a great deal on a Sony DVD player for $450! That's $450 at least eight years ago....no progressive scan....no upconverting. Think about that when you whine about a much higher resolution PS3 for example that does tons more for $399. Having said all that, yes, players do need to come down to the $200 or less level soon to really get the format rolling as well as disc prices need to be under $20......if this happens, it becomes more of an impulse buy.

[Heebee Jeebies]

There is no doubt about the resolution of Blu-ray compared to DVD is impressive. However, it doesn't do a thing for making movies more enjoyable. Sucky movies still suck, good movies are still good, great movies are still great. None of this nor the mostly lame extras (the extras over what you get on DVD) are mostly lame and none is worth the high $ that the players costs or the movies cost. Plain and simple.

[Heebee Jeebies]

On the other hand if anything important was happening in the background the people making the movie would have been sure to enable you to see it clearly. Still nothing that improves the enjoyment of the movie and if it does by a small amount it isn't worth the high cost for the players or the discs.

[jd_astro]

I am a newbie on this Blu-ray vs. HD DVD issue. But in the last few days I have learned a thing or two. I agree that up-converted SD is nowhere near as good as BD. One is 480p and the other is 1080p. But a $100 HD will still make a standard DVD look better if it upconverts to 720p or even 480p. And as most people are not buying 50" plasma screens, 480p looks great on a 40-inch HD screen at 10 feet distance. Another comment, VHS and SD are very affordable for the majority of the population. Blu-Ray is still too expensive for the masses, most of whom are still enjoying standard DVD's on perfectly good flat screen TV's. As for myself - I aim to pick up a relatively new HD-DVD player/upconverter for $70 for use on my 720p projector at home in a country where BD is as far away as Mars and all I'll be able to rent in the next two years is Standard DVDs. The discussion is still interesting to observe however!

[benjaminstraight]

Blue Ray costs too much. This could be the laser disk of this generation.