• On BNET: Apple's insanely great marketing
February 23, 2009 9:22 AM PST

Has Blu-ray moved from early-adopter to early-majority phase?

by David Carnoy
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 80 comments
(Credit: Futuresource)

Just got a press release from UK-based Futuresource Consulting that claims, "Consumers are on target to buy in excess of 100 million Blu-ray discs (BD) across the USA, Western Europe and Japan this year, with sales of High Definition capable LCD and plasma TVs and continued dramatic reductions in BD player prices continuing to fuel interest in packaged HD content despite the economic downturn."

Mai Hoang, Senior Market Analyst at Futuresource Consulting says that, "In the USA, BD has moved from early adopter phase through to early majority, with the format gaining real traction in the marketplace." She adds that last year in the US alone, BD video retail sales increased 320 percent to 24 million units and the momentum would continue in 2009, with over 80 million disc sales forecast.

If you look at the included graph, Futuresource is also predicting that Blu-ray and DVD will be even by 2012--each with 50% of the market (in the U.S. anyway). I can't vouch for the accuracy of the research, but it doesn't seem too out of whack with what other market analysts have been saying. And on a more anecdotal level, we're seeing a lot of interest in Blu-ray players here at CNET--even in this down economy.

Who agrees or disagrees with this analysis?

Hunkered down in New York City, Executive Editor David Carnoy covers the gamut of gadgets and writes his Fully Equipped column, which carries the tag line "The electronics you lust for." He's also the author of "Knife Music," a novel. E-mail David. Follow David on Twitter.
Recent posts from Crave
Top 5 car technologies
Dialed In 104: Visit from Asia
Junk-metal Nikes only a geek could love
Behold, the Porsche of flashlights
Motorola rolls out one tough Quantico
Chumby gets leaner, cheaper, and faster
Grass-covered mouse: Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia
Your wireless Xbox connection just got faster
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)
by umbrae February 23, 2009 10:36 AM PST
Total BS. I saw a fully-functional upscaling DVD player for $25 dollars over the weekend. I have yet to find a fully-functional BR player for less than $250 (and that was a limited sale). I never see anyone with a BR disc in a checkout line. How can they project this?

Unless the prices of BR (player/disc) come down I don't see 50% in 3 years. Streaming services are leading hand over fist, so I doubt there will be many "disc" buyers left in 3 years; which I might add was the project lifespan of BR altogether. Sounds like FUD from marketing...
Reply to this comment
by jmchien February 23, 2009 2:26 PM PST
Good point
But statistically your argument is flawed unless you've been monitoring a bunch of stores at different locations at different times.
In any case their prediction is pretty bold, but not too hard to believe since blu-ray sales on average have been doing well on Amazon.com (http://eproductwars.com/dvd).
by RRosal February 23, 2009 3:25 PM PST
You sound like a disgruntled HD-DVD fan. Typical.
by Waam February 23, 2009 5:48 PM PST
You can also find a fully functional VCR for that price as well, are you going to get one? No. When most people own LCD's in the near future, no one will want to go back to regular DVD's.

In fact, HiDEF will be called standard and the regular DVD's now will be low def.
by BoManiac February 23, 2009 6:45 PM PST
This has to be an HD fanboy...or X-Box fanboy. Probably both.
by sweaty_taco February 24, 2009 9:31 AM PST
You know, there are people like myself, who would rather rent blu-ray movies w/services such as Netflix or Blockbuster than buy.
I agree that the discs are expensive, but dont compare blu-ray with upscale dvd. There is no contest when it comes to picture quality of blu-ray.
by BCF1968 February 24, 2009 9:40 AM PST
Ok I can guarantee that $25 DVD player is crap. Just because it CAN do something doesn't mean it can do it WELL. Up-scaling DVD is not the same as blu-ray either.

You mention prices drop as if they aren't already happening. Which they are and will continue to do so. You sound like a hater. Serious say say crap like "they better drop the price" Duh they already are dropping prices. Prices will continue to fall. Just like the did with VCRs and DVD players. 25 years ago a low priced VCR cost $150 which is $300 in today's money.

Streaming? Are you serious? First of all streams, even so called "HD" streams, are nowhere near the quality of blu-ray. They are barely the quality of DVD or SD Tv. Second you are obviously one that think everyone has a 10Mbps or greater internet connection. hate to tell you the MAJORITY doesn't have that kind of connection. Also ISPs are imposing caps. A 10 Mbps connection from Charter has a 100 GB cap per month. That's not very many HD streams not to mention all the other things you need to use your connection for.
by NYJohn413 February 24, 2009 11:56 AM PST
"...so I doubt there will be many "disc" buyers left in 3 years"

Wanna bet? Say about my soul and all of my earthly possesions... Deal?
by mre_man February 24, 2009 8:08 PM PST
I have to agree. The people who think Blu-Ray will catch on are those early adopters hoping that they didn't blow a ton of money on a useless piece of over-rated technology. I rarely ever see anyone buy or renting blu-ray.

In addition to being expensive blu-ray has far too many problems to become mainstream. To this day I fail to see how it won the format war. I have a blu-ray player and I know a few other people who have blu-ray players. Blu-Ray players take too long to load, even a standard DVD. The menus are jerky and take forever to come up. And that's even if your disc will play. If you don't believe this look at all the reviews on websites like Best-Buy, Amazon, and others. The comments are fairly consistently along this line. The only useful Blu-Ray player is the PS3, and that's saying something. It's not worth the effort when Iron-Man looks almost as good on DVD playing from one of the first Sony DVD players compare to Blu-Ray on a brand new Blu-Ray player.

Streaming will beat disc formats hands down. I recently hooked up an old laptop to our TV. My dad was amazed with the quality of some of the stuff that's streamed online. He actually ejected the DVD drive because he didn't believe it was streaming. If you look at the numbers Blu-Ray is being picked up much slower than DVD was. DVD was first released in the US in 1997, by 1999 almost everyone had a DVD Player. Blu-Ray was release in 2006 and very few people have them. There are less than 1500 title available, and of the one's that are available most are crappy

Blu-Ray is Sony's pipe dream. They got pissed off because they payed IBM to develop their brand new top of the line PowerPC chip and theyblow a bunch of money on another busted technology.

Like Bill Watkins said
"People are saying Blu-ray won the war but who cares? The war is over physical distribution versus electrical distribution, and Blu-ray and HD lost that,"
by tcr071 March 1, 2009 9:42 AM PST
Very bold prediction given the current rate of job losses and the worsening economy. Many people forget that a very large percentage of blu-ray sales from 2008 were from the 5 free in the mail offers, buy one get one free from Amazon, Best Buy, Target, and the 5 free deals when you bought one in the store. The push to kill HD-DVD led to a dramatic increase in sales that have ballooned the entire years sales. There was a period in time from September to late October where blu-ray media sales fell double digit percentages week-to-week over and over again.

People aren't spending money, TV sales have declined dramatically, and PS3 sales have declined. It is slightly outlandish to think that a large portion of people who don't have very much disposable income will begin to start paying $25+ for a blu-ray movie instead of $25+ for FIVE DVD's.
by c_bosie March 1, 2009 2:19 PM PST
I'm sorry your HD-DVD collection has no value and only works in your x-box. While the Blu-ray players are relatively expensive (I bought the PS3 for obvious reasons) there is no reason to doubt that prices of the players will drop significantly in the next few years. The price of the actual discs have already dropped and you can find them under $20 at most stores. There is no way I will ever want to go see a movie in the theater or even want to watch dvd's since I have superb sound and fantastic video output from my system.
See more comment replies
by nfrankli February 23, 2009 10:50 AM PST
Early majority... Is that marketing speak for "very small market share"? I wouldn't actually dispute the projection though that DVD sales will equal BluRay in 2012 though. The thing they're not saying is that digital distribution will greatly exceed physical, so even if BluRay has more of the pie, it's become a much smaller pie.
I'm a big fan of HD but BluRay was just a few years too late. If they had $250 players when most people upgraded to HD TV they'd be a force, but its too late now and there are way too many other ways to get HD without the upfront cost.
Reply to this comment
by traxx09 February 24, 2009 6:41 AM PST
I don't own a BluRay player and I'm not a BluRay apologist. But I don't see where everyone is getting that digital downloads are going to push discs into the grave. Is everyone believing the hype and the marketing from places like iTunes, Netflix et. al. It's not true HD. It's not the same HD you get from BluRay or OTA from the networks.

HD movie downloads ITunes are 720p not 1080p like blu-ray and have bitrates from 4 Mbps whereas blu-ray is 40 Mbps. Anyone claiming a 720p HD download with a 6 Mbps bitrate is the same thing as a 1080p blu-ray disc that has a 40 Mbps bitrate isn't doing their homework. It's a good thing HD downloads aren't 1080P with 40 Mbps bitrates because they would take 3 1/2 hours to download even with a 16 Mbps connection and nearly 6 hours with a 10 Mbps connection. So physical media will be needed and wanted for a while longer.
by BCF1968 February 24, 2009 9:48 AM PST
Digital won't trump physical when a HUGE % of the country doesn't have broadband internet or can't get broadband internet. Not to mention every ISP is imposing caps. My ISP is Charter. If you have their 5 Mbps or 10 Mbps tier you have a 100 GB monthly cap. If you have their 20 Mbps tier is 250 GB. A 2 hour so called 720p HD download from XBL, PSN or Itunes will be about 6 GB. A 1080p version would probably be twice that if they existed. Not to mention those movies are tied to the devices they are downloaded too. I can't even take the movie I downloaded to my XBOX 360 from XBL to a friend house and watch it on his XBOX 360. A blu-ray disc I can take anywhere and play on any blu-ray player.
by tcr071 March 1, 2009 9:48 AM PST
Digital won't surpass the physical formats but it WILL eat up market share.

I won't buy a single blu-ray movie. Not one. There is no point. I will use my netflix service to rent blu-ray movies and DVD's but I will not rip myself off at Best Buy just to own something that will be obsolete in a couple of years.

Blu-ray wasn't innovative and it isn't a next generation format. Fragile optical disks that play higher quality content than the same fragile optical disks isn't amazing in any way. Give me something solid.
by xason February 23, 2009 1:29 PM PST
Short answer - BD will replace DVD when both players and discs cost about what DVDs do today and HD becomes the norm for most affordable TVs. If it takes just three years, fine. If not, nothing is going to push the "majority" of people to spend that much more.
Reply to this comment
by blusky08 February 24, 2009 6:14 PM PST
By the time BD equals DVD sales they'll both be obsolete.
There is already a realization that another disc format wasn't the smartest idea.
Technology is demanding a smaller more durable format (ie, memory card format like the music industry already accepted with SlotMusic).
by Rick3904 February 25, 2009 8:55 PM PST
Reply to blusky08:
Slot Music? Who cares if the music industry has accepted it? Has the public accepted it? WILL the public accept it?

Does anyone want to buy an album that is the size of your fingernail? This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. Any one who would be comfortable with slot music; switching a bunch of little chips in and out of a player, would be comfortable with digital downloads, or ripping their own CDs. Slot Music will NEVER catch on!
by blusky08 February 26, 2009 6:40 AM PST
You obviously are unaware of the emergence of all-in-one handhelds, portable DVD players, emerging MIDs, netbooks w/o a disc drive (they could easily incorporate a memory card slot), etc, etc. And, these devices will play the same content to a large HDTV with the proper cables. Miniaturization is the future.
by tcr071 March 1, 2009 9:55 AM PST
RIck -

You may keep your fragile optical disks that become worthless when scratched and must be kept in a case at all times. I will take the physical SD card that I can drag behind my car home from Best Buy and not have to worry about it being unusable.

How is "switching a bunch of little chips" any different from switching a bunch of massive CD's? Well I guess it is different because you have to worry about where you touch the disk because your fingerprints might cause the CD to skip. That is different I suppose.

Every desktop out there, a large portion of laptops, a lot of DVD players, DVR's, and TV's have SD card slots. I'll play my music on whichever medium I want to. Good luck sticking your disk into the DVR and the TV.
by ksorota February 23, 2009 1:38 PM PST
Gotta say that I do not see it happening, we bought our DVD player for 25 dollars two years ago and we are still hesitant to spend another 25 until the current one breaks. There is no way I am going to spend in excess of two hundred dollars to watch my dvd's. They have always looked good and will continue to until my standard, non-upscaling dvd player breaks.

Unless BR players come down to the 50 dollar mark, and BR disks come down to the 20 dollar mark I do not see myself converting to BR anywhere close to 2012. Its either too expensive, or I am too cheap.
Reply to this comment
by the46zone February 24, 2009 8:28 AM PST
You are too cheap. And furthermore you are not the market they are interested in getting.
by sweaty_taco February 24, 2009 9:37 AM PST
It depends what you are watching it on and if you are happy with it. I had Directv for over a year an a half with standard def on my lcd tv. I figured I really didnt need to upgrade to their high def receiver because it wouldnt make much difference and didnt care.
I finally took the plunge last summer and watching hd programs is like night and day. Is it worth the extra money? I dont think so, but it sure looks nice on my tv. In the end. It's your money and decision.
by Inconnux March 1, 2009 1:07 PM PST
Completely agree, blu-ray is FAR too expensive and until they drop the price I'm not interested. Kinda reminds me of ISDN... hyped and hyped as THE replacement for dial up but at the cost it just didn't sell... then along came cable/DSL at a fraction of the price. I'm sure in the future there will be a much cheaper alternative to bluray
by Paul001312 February 23, 2009 1:46 PM PST
Streaming services may end up winning over physical media in the long run, but the sorry state of readily available high speed internet access for the world, and relatively small bandwidth to stream 1080p video and 7.1 channel sound is going to slow down adoption of the streaming model. Until you can stream Blu-ray quality video and audio over the net to a majority of homes simultaneously, there will always be a market for physical media, whatever format it happens to take.

Streaming media may eventually win the 'format war' , but it will have to be able to match what the physical media can already do, and do it for a compairable price. I like having direct control over what media I can access, and the consistency it works at. Whenever 4k TV's come to the market, we will see a next generation video system to take advantage of the resolution, and this arguement will start all over again.

Now if a company made a box that would let me leaglly download a Blu-ray quality video to my (insert streaming box company here) and copy it to some form of permanent storage media (also legally) for viewing whenever I want, for less than a Blu-ray disc would cost, I'd be in for that.
Reply to this comment
by warmsounds-wordpress-com February 23, 2009 1:54 PM PST
Blu-Ray will never take off. People are too happy with standard dvd's and the standard dvd players are very affordable. The future of home media is streaming content connected to your home television, not an enhanced media disc.

You can read more on my thoughts regarding the potential failure of Blu-Ray at my blog:

http://warmsounds.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/blu-ray-will-fail/
Reply to this comment
by pbamma February 23, 2009 10:13 PM PST
I think in your review, you look too closely at the consumer, and not at all at studios. If I were a movie producer, I would see a much bigger benefit to selling my film at $25 per disc as opposed to the new iTunes model of $.99 per disc. Ok, so maybe they raise the price to $4.99 per movie in an iTunes model, but when you consider that a mas produced disc costs around $3.00 to replicate, that leaves $22.00 of disc profit for the pie to be enjoyed by the studio.

Also, I could not agree that a true videophile would be ok with an upscaled DVD on an HD set. With an ailing economy, I can almost guarantee sub-$100 profile 2.0 players coming out this Christmas season. At that price range, I doubt any HDTV owner would deny the full potential of their HD set to play the high bit rate quality that only the Blu-ray format can yield.
by jeffpoker February 23, 2009 2:15 PM PST
Blu-Rays will outsell DVDs when the mass market will have switched to a Blu-Ray player (obviously).
That will (start) happen(ing) when Blu-Ray players will cost the exact same thing as DVD players. When that happens, there will be a lot less DVD players available in stores, therefore people won't have much of a choice.

Until then, I don't think the mass market will buy a Blu-Ray player when a DVD player still does quite a bit of a good job.
But then again, that's just my opinion.
Reply to this comment
by Paul001312 February 23, 2009 2:29 PM PST
I have to disagree with all of you that DVD is 'good enough". I can clearly tell the difference between 480i/p upconverted to 1080p, and the 1080p native from my blu-ray player. The sound from the new lossless formats is superior to lossy dolby digital or dts.

While I understand that blu-ray is more expensive than DVD, it's worth it to me when the movie was mastered with blu-ray in mind. I'm still not so hard-core that I'll arbitrarily replace all of my existing DVD's with Blu-ray, but on most new purchases, I'll spend the extra few dollars to buy Blu.
Reply to this comment
by reneirwolf878 February 23, 2009 7:38 PM PST
that's just it though, i dont need a 1080p player. i have a 32" lcd and my 480p dvd player is just fine. now, if i had a 50" with a sweet surround sound set up then i'd splurge for the blu ray. but i dont. i, and im sure the majority of people cannot afford to spend money on a big tv, speakers loud enough to blow clothes of women and blu rays that allow us to see the pores on someones face. frankly, im not unhappy with my dvd player and until prices fall and my equipment breaks ill continue to use and enjoy.
by MovieFan007 February 24, 2009 7:07 AM PST
Just for the 'good enough' record...

I own about 600+ DVDs and 100+ HD DVDs (no BluRay at this time but maybe later when the price drops to $10 per disc).

My primary AV setup...
Toshiba HD DVD H35 with HDMI connection set to 720p video output (matches my projector LCD resolution) and six channel analog audio outputs to a Harmon Kardon 7000 AV amp using analog inputs, speakers from various companies and a powered subwoofer.
Sony Cineza Front Projector to light gray painted wall (Bear Silver Screen) 16 foot away. Projector resolution set to 720p (1 to 1 mapping for the LCD elements in this projector). The Dynamic setting is used for 50k to 1 contrast. The maximum viewable horizontal screen width is 11.5ft. Diagonal size depends on the movies aspect ratio. The projector Bulb is set to low output and usually set to 50% output, contrast is set to 100%. The room is fully blacked out so no light from the outside gets in.

DVDs - when watching a DVD and the focus is set correctly the only major video difference I can see is print text either in the credits (readable but smaller text looks a little fuzzy on the edges) or from a printed document when it is shown on the screen (Newspaper - I can read the headlines but the regular print is too fuzzy to read), all other video aspects (color, edge definition and shading) look very good (better than most theaters I attend).

HD DVDs (and BluRay from my PC Movie server using LG BluRay/HD DVD player with Component connections) do seem to have deeper colors and more defined black shades but the difference is minimal and most of my friends and family that watch don't notice any difference between the different Medias. However with HiDef media I can read newspaper print if the newspaper takes 30% of the screen or more.
If you want to pause a scene and read the newspaper or other fine print displayed on a 13-15 foot video screen then go ahead and buy only BluRay - other wise both formats with good equipment and DVD upconversion look as good or better than your neighborhood theater, and no teenagers talking or throwing popcorn at the screen to distract your viewing pleasure.

So if you are limited to only a small 60" or less screen I can't see how any honest viewer could tell which media was playing especially when seated eight or more feet from the display as most viewing rooms provide.

This statement is my humble opinion after over a year watching DVD and HD DVD (and a few BluRay discs) in this environment.
by Paul001312 February 24, 2009 7:36 AM PST
I find it interesting that you say it's good enough given the equipment you are using MovieFan007. I have a similar sized screen (92inch 1.78:1 which is 125 in at 2:35:1). I am also sitting about 16 feet away from my screen in my man cave, and am using a JVC 1080p projector with anamorphic lens setup. I find upconverted DVD provides a soft picture, and I see banding on certain scenes in movies. I have tried different all three processors I have at my disposal, a farajouca (sp?) DcDi at the low end, a Silicon Optix Reon, and their top of the line Realta chip is what I normally use. I have had no problems telling the difference between DVD and blu-ray, and my friends and family agree that blu-ray is a far better picture (and sound). hardly a large sample of people I know, bu tintersting that my expereince is a total opposite of yours. What are you using to upconvert your DVD's?
by the46zone February 24, 2009 8:32 AM PST
Why do people like MovieFan007 say they will only buy BD at $10 per disc but say before that they have 100+ HD DVDs??? They didn't pay $10 or under for those. HD DVD was not cheap but it is funny tho hear people talk like the studios just gave them away. It makes everything else you say pointless when you start off sounding dumb.
by gary85739 February 23, 2009 3:01 PM PST
blu ray will be redundant in 3yrs...like laser disc, cassettes, 45rpm's, it'll be replaced with newer tech that will make it seem like snail mail vs email..
Reply to this comment
by M5er February 23, 2009 3:12 PM PST
There's several BASIC reasons why BD will *not* be the media to replace Blu-Ray:

1) MOST consumers don't care about BD: Women (who do most of the spending), Children, the Elderly and the lower classes (PC?) couldn't care less about high definition. So what's left is upper-middle class, tech-savvy males, aged 18-45 who are really the only ones who care about BD. Try convincing a mom that her kid needs to watch Wall-E in Blu-Ray when regular DVD looks just fine? Trust me, she doesn't care about 1080-anything.

2) The truth is, the only movies worth watching in Blu-Ray are the action/effects-driven movies. Dark Knight? Sure. Iron Man? Probably. But for comedies, romances, it just doesn't matter. Nobody in their right mind will ever go out of their way to buy a BD version of most films that are released. I have a bunch of HD-DVDs, and trust me, watching "Old School" in HD doesn't really make it all that much more enjoyable - and that's actually a good movie... imagine the fate of lesser films on BD.

3) The benefit from moving to BD from DVD just isn't significant enough for most to care. DVDs won over VHS because DVDs are lighter, smaller, way more flexible, cheaper to make, and best of all: all you needed was a DVD player to enjoy a DVD disc. What's the sell for Blu-Ray? "Well, if you're one of the few people who has 1) a 1080p display 2) SOTA-sound and 3) a BD-player, then you'll see a great picture and hear great sound." But the initial costs to be able to enjoy Blu-Ray are prohibitive, and normal people can't justify spending ~ $2k on a setup to be able to watch "Atonement" in Blu-Ray.
Reply to this comment
by M5er February 23, 2009 3:13 PM PST
Oops, I meant to "replace DVD" in the first line..
by BCF1968 February 24, 2009 9:59 AM PST
On major flaw in your argument. Even when DVD discs and players became cheap some people still insisted on buying VCRs and VHS tapes. That is until the movie studios stopped putting movies out in VHS format. Then those VCR die-hards had not choice but to come over the DVD. Once the studios decide to stop putting out movies on DVD those DVD die-hards won't have a choice either. And face it they make more money on blu-ray than DVD.
by blusky08 February 24, 2009 6:23 PM PST
Right. BD doesn't matter for most titles.
It's great for movies dependent on FX--but for movies that rely on a great story/plot it's unnecessary.

PLUS, many long sought after titles are only now arriving on DVD. Who wants to wait another 10 years for them to appear on BD?
by loki2240 March 1, 2009 2:40 PM PST
People buy Blu-ray for their HDTV, not an HDTV for Blu-ray. Of course few single moms are going to go out and buy an HDTV, 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound system, and BD player, so their kid(s) can watch kids' movies in HD. But a lot of people, who already have an HDTV, want HD content for it. BD is the best quality HD content available (in picture and in sound).

Why would a $250 or less BD player be cost prohibitive to a person who spent over $1K on a 1080p HDTV? I spent $218 on a Panasonic progressive scan DVD player for my girlfirend at Christmas 2002 (about 6 years after DVD launched). People need to stop acting like BD players are Bentleys. HDTV's continue to drop in price, too. The more people there are with an HDTV, the bigger the market for BD will be.

And I don't want to own every movie, anyway. So, why would it matter that BD (and HD, in general) is more geared toward action and sci-fi movies, nature documentaries, and sports? There is (and will be) plenty of content in those genres, and any person is only going to purchase so much of it, anyway. Should they not enjoy 20 BD's because there are thousands more that don't have the same "pop" -- especially when they wouldn't be buying almost all of those other movies, anyway?
by make_or_break February 23, 2009 3:22 PM PST
Personally, it sounds like at least one person at that consulting firm is holding too much Sony stock.

Seriously, if the media price comes down then the format will have plenty of traction to gain in the marketplace. If the movie companies insist on the higher price tag, I think there will always be a large segment of the masses who will go with the cheaper alternatives.

I still think that downloading will the ultimate winner here. The convenience factor is hard to beat, and if the stories hold true about recent developments in bandwidth capacity and outright speed, it doesn't seem implausible that you could order one or two HD movies before leaving for work and they'll be ready for viewing on your big screen by the time you get home...and you'd never even had to bother setting foot in a retail store or have to be at the mercy of the USPS.
Reply to this comment
by menssie February 26, 2009 11:06 AM PST
In reply to: make_or_break,

"Seriously, if the media price comes down then the format will have plenty of traction to gain in the marketplace. If the movie companies insist on the higher price tag, I think there will always be a large segment of the masses who will go with the cheaper alternatives."

I couldn't agree with you more. It's that simple!
by StevieD377 February 23, 2009 4:34 PM PST
Haha it's funny how incredibly wrong most of you are.

Blu-Ray WILL catch on and eventually become as standard as DVD's are today. I find it funny how most of the arguments for why Blu-Ray will fail are the same arguments made for why DVD's wouldn't take off. Prices will drop for both players and discs, and the world will move on to the next greatest thing.

And I'm sorry, but streaming media isn't the answer either. Lower definition and no physical disc to carry around with you or play on your laptop on the go? Maybe one day this method will catch on when our infrastructure is beefed up, but not before Blu-Ray takes over...not a chance.

Mark my words, in 3 years DVD's will be as useful as VHS's.
Reply to this comment
by M5er February 23, 2009 4:53 PM PST
The fact that there's even a debate as to whether Blu-Ray will become standard is bad enough.

BD is probably going to be the stepping stone to the next generation of Media.
by BCF1968 February 24, 2009 9:55 AM PST
"by M5er
BD is probably going to be the stepping stone to the next generation of Media. "

In this economy plus the cost of deveolping blu-ray there isn't "next generation" media being worked on. And won't be for years.
by M5er February 24, 2009 1:59 PM PST
'In this economy plus the cost of deveolping blu-ray there isn't "next generation" media being worked on. And won't be for years.'

1) I don't know that anybody can say what the economy will or will not be like in one, two or three years.
2) The cost of developing blu-ray is reportedly high - To me, that sounds like a good incentive to explore replacement technologies.
by blusky08 February 24, 2009 6:32 PM PST
Quote: "In this economy plus the cost of deveolping blu-ray there isn't "next generation" media being worked on. And won't be for years."

That's not necessarily true. There is a movement for content in memory card type format. (ie, MOD Systems). Also, prototypes of better super upconversion technology are approaching true HD quality.
by AslanGeorge February 23, 2009 8:17 PM PST
In 3 years none of this will matter a "hoot" because the world economy will have tanked so badly into a Really Great Depression that we will be worrying more about food on the table, than BD or DVD entertainment.
And if it doesn't, I vote for BD. But only if they fix the machines so they work consistently with all DVD and BD discs. I own a Samsung BD-1500 and the only reason it works is because I refuse to upgrade the firmware. A ton of people are complaining (on CNET forums) about loss of function after upgrading the firmware. So far, so good for myself. But I don't trust it to stay that way.
Reply to this comment
by genghis-ron February 23, 2009 9:32 PM PST
Blu-ray is spectacular, but there are some who have no desire to see the hairs growing out of the moles of movie stars. The format's growth is currently slowed by it's cost, and that may be a mortal blow. If that doesn't snuff it out downloading will - it's simply more convenient in a scratch and win world.
Reply to this comment
by graviz February 24, 2009 6:34 AM PST
It cracks me up to see this argument over and over again. No one knows for sure what?s going to happen unless you have a Delorean with a flux capacitor. I understand Blu Ray doesn?t have as much over DVD as DVD had over VHS however I?m not going to kick sand in the sandbox dismissing what Blu Ray has to offer. Blu Ray is a great format and offers great picture quality and I don?t think movie companies would invest their money in it unless they saw a difference (but then again maybe production companies don?t like money : ). I don?t want to hear the whole ?but Blu Rays can still get scratched!!!!?. I have over 400 dvds and I I?ve never scratched one to the point that it has trouble playing. If you do then you deserve it by not taking care of your things. I do feel eventually Blu Ray will be over taken by another format (i.e. downloads, flash memory, etc) however the industry isn?t going to invest in another technology right away because it discourages consumers to invest if they keep seeing formats fail. Maybe everyone needs to stop bashing other formats and start selling the benefits of the one you support.
Reply to this comment
by dmv300 February 24, 2009 4:55 PM PST
don't you own an apostrophe key?
by Rick3904 February 25, 2009 9:37 PM PST
Have you looked at the price of apostrophe keys lately? ;-)

Seriously though, I think all of the question marks in graviz's response is due to some sort of browser issue.
by the_iceman February 24, 2009 8:08 AM PST
I want a Blu ray player bad, I already own a few movies, but I am waiting for better price drops on the players > down to 100$. It may take another year or two though. As a side note I hope that Blu ray audio really takes off as well, we need a replacement for the ancient CD format.

Go Big Blu !!
Reply to this comment
by blusky08 February 24, 2009 6:35 PM PST
Audio is moving onto memory card format--it's called SlotMusic.
by Rick3904 February 25, 2009 9:35 PM PST
I think if you want Blu-ray so badly and already own a few movies that you might as well go get a player. Just look around for a super bargain. Even if it's a discontinued item, at least you would have something.

I think it may be a while before players are $100.. You should go for it.

Blu-ray audio would be cool, but in this era of MP3s, I have my doubts that people would be willing to pay higher prices for music. Heck, many people pay nothing at all any more for music!
by the_iceman February 24, 2009 8:17 AM PST
as far as a format that could overtake Blu, I dont like downloads, however I can see other physical formats such as the upcoming SDXC or HVD perhaps adding some interesting capabilities to home video, but that tech may be 10-12 years out and by then 1080p may be obsolete as well.
Reply to this comment
by Clockpuppet February 24, 2009 8:20 AM PST
Yes, I can tell the difference between Blu-Ray and regular DVD. My wallet can as well. The difference, for me, isn't good enough. HD-DVD had a good idea packaging a reg DVD in box for no extra charge. Blu-ray does that and I may buy more than my current on BD-DVD. I have 2 TVs and 2 computers. One of these can play my movie. Reg DVD plays on them all. Plus, going from $2-19.00 for a dvd, to $30-40 for BD....Pass. I even disabled the $2 Netflix BD option just so I could watch my movies on either TV of choice.

If you have the money, it is a compelling option. With the exception of older movies [which make no sense to be on BD anyway] I can always tell the difference. But as things are, DVDs are dirt cheap, BDs are not. Till that changes, my BD player will collect dust [I have an HD-DVD/BD Combo drive on my Acer, which was on sale for cheap].
Reply to this comment
by Paul001312 February 24, 2009 11:02 AM PST
Actually, some studio's are starting to include DVD copies of movies in with the Blu-ray purchases, that way all bases are covered.
by ereal2000 February 24, 2009 9:57 AM PST
This is interesting but I wonder if certain factors were put in the research. Now that we have a recession going on how would sells of Blu ray be affected? I think people will still stick to DVD since the DVD and players are less expensive compare to Bluray. I think once Bluray players are under $200 and the movies are under $20 then you will certainly see an upswing.
Reply to this comment
by postman424 February 24, 2009 10:46 AM PST
Interesting topic to talk about.. THe Death of Dvd's with Blu-rays, all becasue of HD TV's.
Let me tell you all something...

You know after playing Blu-rays for sometime now on my computer i have noticed allot of good and bad things about Blu-ray.
Good would be that it does play ok in allot of ways and the sound is good to.
The Con would be that they are easier to scratch but not to easy to clean(like say DVD's) and they take forever to load up on a computer that is.
Now with DVD's they just play perfectly and I don't see THX ever getting on to Blu-ray or The Star Wars Trilogy at all. So I do see DVD's lasting more then 3 yrs more then 5 or 10 yrs.

In fact isn't that what they said about the CD's? I think I remember reading where they did say the same thing about Cd's. And here they are lasting and maybe for a good full 10 yrs also. Just because there are HD TV's doesn't mean everything has to be in HD! Because the reality is that not everything well be in HD because of this and there are still people that well keep their DVD's and there well always be Dvd players and recorders because DVDS are just that much compatible and convenient. And besides they haven't increased the speed of BD's to record on they are still stuck on the low end of the speed spectrum!
So don't think for once that DVD's well be joining the Tapes and VHS's at all becasue that won't happen at all in the near feature.
Reply to this comment
by Bigtimechamp February 24, 2009 6:13 PM PST
Blu-ray discs are harder to scratch than regular DVDs.
Showing 1 of 2 pages (80 Comments)

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

Add this feed to your online news reader

Crave topics

As alternative energy grows, NIMBY greens

With more renewable energy projects trying to come online, the country grapples with the balance between local land use and a national push for clean energy.

Google to remake programming with Go

A Unix co-creator is among those behind a language Google hopes will speed computers and programming. Today, Go becomes open-source software.