Believing Blu-ray will succeed doesn't make sense
CNET's Crave on Friday reported on Nielsen's latest VideoScan figures, showing that Blu-ray Disc's market share in the video disc market has slumped in the past week.
According to Nielsen, Blu-ray's market share dropped to just 8 percent of the overall market, giving DVDs a whopping 92 percent ownership.
Granted, those figures show only one week's performance, and Blu-ray may have a huge week soon and capture more of the market, but let's be honest with ourselves: do we really think that will happen?
According to a study released in August by ABI Research, more than half the people it surveyed had no plans to buy a standalone Blu-ray player in the near future, and 23 percent are considering it, but not until 2009.
When your format is limping along with just 8 percent of the market, the last thing you want to hear is that only 23 percent of the population actually wants a Blu-ray player.
But wait! There's always the PlayStation 3, right? Surely, everyone who knows about Blu-ray is picking up a PlayStation 3 to watch their movies. After all, won't that product be the savior for which Sony has been waiting?
Please. According to NPD's latest numbers, Sony sold just 185,000 PlayStation 3 units, which represented a 17 percent drop, compared to July sales numbers. Worse, it barely beat out the PlayStation 2, DVD player and all.
The PlayStation 3 isn't going to be Blu-ray's savior, and neither is that sub-$200 price tag. At this point, I simply don't see how Blu-ray has a chance.
Eight percent of the market is nothing. Sure, it's a young product, and DVD started out slowly too, but do all the people who espouse the belief that Blu-ray will succeed somehow forget that the jump between VHS and DVD was substantial?
Find yourself a VCR, and pop a tape into it. After that, throw a DVD into your player, and watch it on your HDTV. When you're done with that, do me a favor, and pop a Blu-ray movie into your PS3. Notice anything shocking when comparing VHS to DVD and anything, well, disappointing when comparing that DVD movie to Blu-ray?
That's what I thought.
Why would I want to buy a Blu-ray player and Blu-ray movies, which are more expensive than DVDs, when I can get the same basic experience (if not quite as enhanced) for little or no additional cost?
Worse, why would I want to buy my library of movies all over again, once Blu-ray becomes the de facto leader in disc media? That's an added expense I'm not willing to incur.
But the issues with Blu-ray go far beyond the slight difference (except on large HDTV screens) between DVD and Blu-ray. How about the fact that Blu-ray movies can't be brought, well, anywhere?
Sure, you can buy a Blu-ray movie at the store or get one from Netflix, and play it on your PS3 or standalone player, but you won't be able to play it on your notebook unless you have the latest and greatest laptop on the market. And you certainly won't be able to watch it in the car on a long ride. And unless your friends have a PS3 or a Blu-ray player, you won't be able to watch it with them, either.
Mobility is a key reason why DVD is such a success. You can buy a portable DVD player or pick up some movies, and play them practically anywhere you are. At this point, you simply can't do that with Blu-ray.
We also can't forget about HD downloads, the various streaming services on the Web, set-top boxes that let you stream movies to your home theater, cable boxes, and countless other technologies that put Blu-ray's usefulness and its entire future in doubt.
Services like Hulu are becoming increasingly popular, and products like the Roku Netflix box could easily command much of the market, as more people realize that streaming movies to an HDTV is more than possible. Better yet, iTunes now has HD video, which means that taking HD from your computer to your HDTV is getting simpler with each passing day.
And all the while, Blu-ray is the wild card, hoping against hope that someone, anyone, will finally find considerable value in the product, adopt it, and start making everyone around them jump on the bandwagon.
But alas, the possibility of that happening is slim. Blu-ray, while appealing in its own right, is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. As the inertia of the industry starts pulling us away from physical media formats, and HD video can be easily found elsewhere, everyone will realize that what they really need to do is move past Blu-ray and start using the products that will carry them into the future.
It may have beaten HD DVD, but Blu-ray doesn't stand a chance against DVD, nor the broader industry it's a part of. It's as simple as that.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Blu-Ray's awesome for people like me that love movies. People that can't see the difference don't know what they're looking for, or probably have their sets miscalibrated (or worse, set to 480p for a Blu-Ray movie).
Then again, I'm spoiled. I used to collect 35mm prints so I know what to look for. When you have a discerning eye, DVD is crap. Sure, it's convenient and popular, but it's the MP3 of the movie industry - Blu-Ray is WAV.
It's a shame that Blu-Ray isn't doing better, but I wouldn't discount it yet. Movie downloads may or may not do well, especially with Comcast's new bandwidth cap. If you're a movie nut and go over your cap, then what? Comcast's letter says about the number of movies you can grab with that cap:
* Download 125 standard-definition movies (at 2 GB/movie)
So what if you have a 25GB HD movie? That's only 10 movies a month!
Yeah, I'll be sticking with Blu-Ray for a while.
35 mm prints? Are you kidding me? Maybe you can argue the saturation of Kodachrome 35 mm slide, but 35 mm print? 12 megapixel cameras capture more information than a 35 mm print could ever produce. You can push a 35 mm negative to the limits at 17x22 or so, but that's well within the limits of quality prints from a 12 megapixel photo. I guarantee you, if you obtain the right setup of printer and ink, you can produce B/W photos from even a 6 megapixel camera that is not discernible from a 35 mm negative print...except for silver gelatin.
You need to quit thinking in old school terms of ' What's Available Today'. One year ago, a terabyte drive was more than double in cost. Two years ago, Comcast was pushing 6 Mbps downstream, and two years before that, 4 Mbps downstream, etc. You only need to go back 10 years to see that most of us were using 56 Kbps or starting to get on the DSL bandwagon running 256 Kbps. Comcast's deal is that they're attempting to subvert net neutrality, and divert traffic and income to their OnDemand service. It's an awful shame politicians aren't able to see Comcast's actions for what they are.
I have a high-end Panasonic plasma (50-inch) and I can barely tell a difference. I don't think my experience is uncommon at all.
-Don
-Don
-Don
Something to consider..
-Don
When a sensible/affordable streaming HD solution that can match the specs comes around, I'll go get it. Until then it's Blu-ray.
-Don
However I disagree about the sub 2 benji statement. If they bring out a player at 175 over the holidays I think you will see a bunch more people have one. Once you start watching BluRay movies you really start noticing the difference. Take the movie The Fall for instance that thing seems like it was made for Bluray.
With that said..you can download some movies already on the Playstation Network.
Great point on the PSN too -- Sony is already counting Blu-ray out, it seems.
-Don
I question your ability to read. He clearly cites an example where he says that the jump from VHS to DVD was more dramatic than the jump to Blue-ray. Its very clear that the author believes that Blu-Ray provides a higher resolution image.
When DVD came out it provided better storage and portability in addition to a better picture. BD doesn't offer any portability difference while adding in an additional level of encryption to prevent users from device shifting movies.
Don't put words in my mouth.
-Don
Same can almost be said about comparing VHS to DVD on a cheap / low end color television from the era when VHS was king and a decent DVD player was over $1000 and 20" B&W TVs could still be purchased "new".
Sony themselves know it was a crap idea, they have already started looking elsewhere to make up for it...http://tinyurl.com/3gsvkn <---this is a much better idea, just like the jump from VHS to DVD, its a completely different type of media
Why, no. Not only is the picture quality totally amazing, but the sound is totally different. Watching a DVD now feels like you're watching regular old TV. Of course, it depends on the setup you have. But blu-ray steps much farther up to the plate with a nice home theatre system than DVD.
The arguments above are ineffective. Blu-ray is a very new format. When DVDs first came out, mobility was non-existent as it is now for blu-ray. What makes you think in a few years it won't be possible to have a portable blu-ray player? Prices will drop quickly. As far as downloads, I prefer the blu-ray format for my favorite movies because you're getting a totally native, non-compressed format. Downloads, even though they are HD, still suffer a little in quality. Apple TV in HD looks great, but still not as good. We're quite a few years away from reliable streaming HD over http. I know it's real now, but I said 'reliable' as in no hiccups, starts and stops, etc. Clearly the market is, and will continue to be for some time, big enough for both a physical format and digital version.
Also, I recently saw a blu-ray boxed set for sale (forget which one) that comes with a compressed mobile version that you can load onto your portable digital player. This is a totally brilliant strategy, since you're basically paying for the portable format up front, you always have a 'master' copy of it, there are no sticky legal issues with ripping it, and you get to watch the movie however you want without taking up disc space somewhere.
Its more value when you can take that single disc and play it in everything you ALREADY HAVE. I agree with this article. Normal every day people will look at the two physical formats and scratch their heads and say, "But they look exactly the same!"
You tell them that they need ANOTHER Machine to play Blu-Ray. You tell them they cannot play Blu-Ray on ordinary DVD players and they are going to ask, "Then why does that make it better? Why does it cost more when I can do less with it?"
The only people supporting this whole Blu-Ray is gonna win! campaign are audiophiles who really care about having the best sound and audio quality. Everyone else just wants to watch their movies.
By the way, I own a PS3 and only own a handful of Blu-Ray discs and mostly rent. Sure, I was blown away by the quality of Lost Season 3. But when someone asked me to bring it over to help them catch up, I realized that I now know what the biggest problem with Blu-Ray is going to be.
Yes, it's good, but it's not nearly as good as some like to think it is. And at that price, it's simply not worth it.
-Don
-Don
-Don
Sony can't write this off as a loss. It spent so much money on Blu-ray and put its future so much in its success that failure isn't an option. This won't be a write-off like a crappy product. This could be disastrous.
-Don
As for a backup medium, I have a media PC for that. My days of swapping disks are long over.
-Don
By your logic though, when you get old and need glasses, why bother? As long as you can make out a person is standing in front of you it doesn't matter if you can make out the detail of there face.
-Don
Downloaded video, on the other hand, once they get their head straight on the DRM., could already go to all the computers, and the TV with the XBOX 360 on it. I'd only need to upgrade a few places. This has way more potential, but again, I won't jump in until they get the DRM right for a "household" as opposed to one device.
-Don
Plain and simple facts. No country on Earth, even Japan, has the disposable bandwidth to support mass adoption of true HD downloads. None. In the United States alone, it would require an unspeakable amount of money to be pumped into our broadband infrastructure. Yes, networks are improving...but not THAT much.
I agree with MyGQDavid, I really do think that stating the comparisons between DVD and BR are minimal at best, is a sure fire way to show people you really don't know what you're talking about. Sorry man, I'm only 29, I have a PS3, a plethora of BR movies, and a HDTV (that displays at true 1080p) and a sound system to back it. And this is just a silly statement.
Morne
-Don
To obtain a noticeable difference, one must buy a tv that is 42' or larger to really see it (It can be seen in as small as a 32' but its not nearly as obvious)
So in order to enjoy this media the user is required to buy a bluray player, new tv, new cables and a new stereo system.
People cannot even afford healthcare and are struggling with gas prices, seeing a movie that looks nicer and sounds better is not an incentive to blow $1500 to obtain.
When blu-ray does something that actually changes the way we watch movies, then it will catch on
VHS to DVD was huge because you could skip full scenes, zoom in, extras, better quality and picture and with media players such as an ipod you can take said media anywhere with no hassle.
Better picture and sound quality is not reason enough to drop $1500
-Don
-Don
Yes, DVDs, not movie downloads, is Blu-Ray's primary competition.
According to Pew research, only "55% of adult Americans now have broadband internet connections at home". Of those, many have low-end DSL connections that aren't appropriate for downloading movies. And then, there is the whole usage capping issue.
On the bright side for Blu-Ray, many computer companies offer optional Blu-Ray Reader drives.
-Don
Industrial and Commercial production needs it for it to really take off I think. This group lead the way with VHS years ago. And it is a huge industry. Larger market than Hollywood no doubt in the money spent in it.
Event and business video is where this has to happen as well as for theatrical content which is most of the discussion here. The problem here is that more than half the NLE's out there in pro land are FCP. In the industrial market, likely 75%. There is no way in Apple's pro apps burn Blu Ray DVD's. as of this writing.
Adobe's solution starts at 1600, but you buy all of their product nearly to get that one app... Encore.
Premiere is less than 20% of the market, and FCP users don't have a Blu-Ray solution from Apple. That will likely change. Apple has that iTunes thing going... it makes them think twice I'll wager. But they don't want to stream the thousands of industrial videos for everyone, now do they? Or do they?
The other problem with "BluRay" is screen size and distance from screens. If you have a 42" Plasma, and you are sitting more than say, 7 feet from it? You cannot see the difference between HD and SD playback of upconverted DVD's (which also vary in quality depending on the gear involved. Human vision is rarely that good. All this varies on the quality of your flat screen of course. But why pay more if you aren't seeing the difference?
You should see the difference at 6 feet or so from a 42" screen. at 4' it's terribly obvious the difference between downloaded stuff and a Blu-Ray disk. There's simply more file/size and quality.
No wonder Blu-ray is slow to adopt. However... All these industrial guys need the ability to deliver these 100/off disks for the format to take off, and we need larger screens in general. Once the business world is using it all the time, the game changes for consumers I'll bet. The disk prices could drop down. They are expensive.
AND, We've created ANOTHER problem... upconverted SD to Plasmas can look rank. They've never really looked as good as the same feed on a CRT. TV is much better in HD, because the SD feeds on flat screen are suspect at best.
Blu-Ray is not going to die though, don't think, until we have faster internet and less compressed video to look at. And the way to burn a Blu-ray disk from our computers, so we're not buying drives for this storage at home.
The experience you think is the same between SD and HD, isn't to my old eyes. I can see the difference if close enough to the screen, and it's a better experience.
Jerry Hofmann
-Don
-
by giyad
September 26, 2008 1:05 PM PDT
- you know what, this is getting annoying... people keep posting articles on whether blu ray will be here to stay or not. No one can predict the future, but we know one thing is for sure, it will eventually be obsolete, just like every other technology. You can either embrace it for the period its in now, or be a blu-ray anarchist... if you don't want to use it, your the one losing out on what it has to offer, but hey, maybe you will save a few bucks... sorry felt like ranting a bit
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by dd13reis
September 26, 2008 3:33 PM PDT
- The problem here is that Sony shareholders are the people who will win or lose. Sony has gambled quite a bit with Blu-ray and we can't just ignore the fact that it's not that well-liked for their sake. Sorry, but it has to be said.
-
-
-
by SJ2571
September 27, 2008 7:14 AM PDT
- LOL, it has nothing to offer me. That's the point you don't get.
-
-
-
by Dragon--2008
September 28, 2008 3:32 PM PDT
- I am not looseing out I still own HD DVDs and still enjoy them.
-
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (118 Comments)-Don