Comments on: Believing Blu-ray will succeed doesn't make sense

Despite winning the popularity contest over HD DVD, the share that Sony's high-definition video disc format has of the market is slumping. Does it have a chance?

[ouiving--2008]

There is also one issue that has not entered the picture. It's the change from analog to digital transmission. Let's face it, how many people do you know that still have older analog TV's that still work fine. With the switch to digital transmission, it is another reason for someone to finally think about upgrading their TV's. When you get more people upgrading to newer TV's, they will start thinking about getting full use of the new TV, this is where the media based entertainment will start to pickup. Now whether it's Bluray or some other format......holographic discs anybody?

[cityscapex5]

100% Agreed. For the average consumer they won't see a difference on their 26-37" TV's even if their hi-def. All the blue ray players are crap with their confusing profiles, long load times and bugs - they are not ready for prime time even after 2 years. I like hi-def broadcasts but you dont have to 'buy' anything or replace your movie library to enjoy it. Blue Ray is Dead Man Walking and will be joining UMD and yes, HD-DVD in format heaven shortly.

[Matthew Hurst]

There was a big difference between DVD & VHS, but THAT big? I dunno...not for regular folks I suspect. Plus DVD's couldn't even record and this was pre DVR days. It is all about price. The price will come down and people will convert over. Don't and they won't.

[SJ2571]

No, there wasn't a big difference between VHS and DVD -- there was a HUMUNGOUS difference! No degradation of the tape, no fast-forwarding to get to the movie itself or to other parts, superior video and sound, zooming, alternate languages, subtitles for the hearing impaired, commentaries... shall I go on? Because I can. :)

As for the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray: it's only the video and sound quality, and that's not by much. Even if you argue that you CAN tell the difference, the fact is that 99% of the population can't... and that's all the matters: the lowest common denominator. And those low aren't going to want to buy their entire movie collection all over again, especially when it's not affordable to even buy gas for their cars.

Blu-Ray is doomed. Face it.

[masterpc99]

I'm a longtime videophile who has gone through redoing my collection now on three different formats. Starting with VHS in the early 80's, I then went to LaserDisc (LD) in the mid 80's till after 2000 (I bought over 200 LD titles). I was very slow to buy into DVD because the early players and media was trash compared to LD particularly due to jittery picture, low frame rates (25fps compared to 30fps for LD) and poor sound quality due to compression.
I then began a modest collection of DVD?s (60 discs so far) because I was not going to replace the movies I already have on LD. When HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (BD) came out, I sat on the fence to see who would win. I previewed both and was more impressed with HD-DVD for picture and sound but knew that the format was doomed because Toshiba could never out spend Sony and the nail in the coffin was going to be the PS3?s limited success. I broke down 6 months ago and bought a standalone BD player. I am only buying new releases and replacing some of my favorite LD?s because the movies redone in HD from the same sources that were used to produce the LD (Examples are ?Close Encounters of the Third Kind? and ?Blade Runner?).
LD never had a great sales percentage either, less than 7% compared to VHS but that didn?t stop it from being produced until DVD?s finally surpassed it with Progressive Scan in 1999. (BTW, put an LD with a Scan Doubler and I think it looks just as good as 480p DVD). LD were still being made until 2001. Considering that LD was first produced in the late 70?s, that is a pretty impressive run!
What made LD stay around for so long is because many movie makers including Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Frances Forde Coppola and many others supported it because it was the best video format available at the time. LD was the innovator of high resolution video (425 lines vs 220 lines for VHS), Digital Audio, AC3 (Dolby Digital), Widescreen (Letterbox) format, supplemental material and digital special effects (slow, FF, REW, Step).
When Steven Spielberg stated he was going to release his movies only on BD, despite the fact that the studios who produced most of his pictures were HD-DVD supporters at the time, the studios jumped ship and joined the BD camp. HD-DVD was then on its death bed. What it takes is the right people in Hollywood to support BD and it WILL survive. So I guess my point is, market share does not always dictate the longevity of a Video format, but rather WHO SUPPORTS IT.

[alegr]

"due to jittery picture, low frame rates (25fps compared to 30fps for LD) and poor sound quality due to compression". I'll tell you a secret. A theater movie has 24 fps. PAL/SECAM TV is 25 frames/s (50 fields/s). NTSC TV is 29.97 frames/s (59.94 fields/s). Unless you had movies made specifically for LD, it was 24 fps, either stretched to 25 fps, or converted to 30 fps by duplicating frames. And analog sound of it could not be much better than MPEG-1 sound of early DVD.

[Mister Winky]

Blu-Ray is the SACD of video.

SACDs sound better than CDs and offer more features in a similar, but often incompatible physical format. Same goes for Blu-Ray when compared to DVD.

SACD competes only with another new audio format, DVD-A, but it never achieved the scale of a mainstream format. Same goes for Blu-Ray when compared to HD-DVD.

The discerning listener can tell the difference between SACDs and CDs, but only if they have the will, patience and great audio equipment to hear the difference. Same goes for Blu-Ray.

Most people don't care enough about the SACD improvements to re-purchase all their existing CD media. Same goes for Blu-Ray when compared

While SACD caters to the audiophile crowd, most people care more about low prices and convenience when it comes to media purchasing -- MP3s are inferior to CDs and SACDs, but far more embraced the downloaable format popular because it's cheap and easy. Same goes for Blu-Ray when compared to online video.

SACD is a technically superior Sony format, but it will fail as a long term business model. Same goes for Blu-Ray.

I'm a perfect example of why Blu-Ray will fail. I'm an audiophile who loves SACD and I buy all the good SACD media I can find, but me and the other 1% of music listeners around the globe are not enough to keep the format afloat in the face of cheap and easy MP3s. I know that, but I enjoy SACD while it lasts.

Even though I watch a lot of movies, I probably won't bother paying more for a Blu-Ray player or Blu-Ray media. HD movies on cable, HD movies on demand and DVDs are fine for me.

-Mister Winky

[masterpc99]

I'm a longtime videophile who has gone through redoing my collection now on three different formats. Starting with VHS in the early 80's, I then went to LaserDisc (LD) in the mid 80's till after 2000 (I bought over 200 LD titles). I was very slow to buy into DVD because the early players and media was trash compared to LD particularly due to jittery picture, low frame rates (25fps compared to 30fps for LD) and poor sound quality due to compression.

I then began a modest collection of DVD?s (60 discs so far) because I was not going to replace the movies I already have on LD. When HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (BD) came out, I sat on the fence to see who would win. I previewed both and was more impressed with HD-DVD for picture and sound but knew that the format was doomed because Toshiba could never out spend Sony and the nail in the coffin was going to be the PS3?s limited success. I broke down 6 months ago and bought a standalone BD player. I am only buying new releases and replacing some of my favorite LD?s because the movies redone in HD from the same sources that were used to produce the LD (Examples are ?Close Encounters of the Third Kind? and ?Blade Runner?).

LD never had a great sales percentage either, less than 7% compared to VHS but that didn?t stop it from being produced until DVD?s finally surpassed it with Progressive Scan in 1999. (BTW, put an LD with a Scan Doubler and I think it looks just as good as 480p DVD). LD were still being made until 2001. Considering that LD was first produced in the late 70?s, that is a pretty impressive run!
What made LD stay around for so long is because many movie makers including Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Frances Forde Coppola and many others supported it because it was the best video format available at the time. LD was the innovator of high resolution video (425 lines vs 220 lines for VHS), Digital Audio, AC3 (Dolby Digital), Widescreen (Letterbox) format, supplemental material and digital special effects (slow, FF, REW, Step).

When Steven Spielberg stated he was going to release his movies only on BD, despite the fact that the studios who produced most of his pictures were HD-DVD supporters at the time, the studios jumped ship and joined the BD camp. HD-DVD was then on its death bed. What it takes is the right people in Hollywood to support BD and it WILL survive. So I guess my point is, market share does not always dictate the longevity of a Video format, but rather WHO SUPPORTS IT.

[Dragon--2008]

yep unfortunately that is true....but I can still enjoy my HD DVDs.

[BarnabeeJones]

"Granted, those figures show only one week's performance"....

Thats a very good point. Blu Ray's sales are up over all. There was a 30 percent increases during the two weeks before (combined) that went unnoticed. You can not forcast the future based off of a weeks worth of data. The over all trend is up.

I am 28. I own a PS3, 46"1080P LCD TV, and a hand full of Blu Rays and have never looked back.

[kknights]

LOL! I lost this article's credibility when he said:
"comparing VHS to DVD and anything, well, disappointing when comparing that DVD movie to Blu-ray"

Blu-ray vs DVD is a much bigger difference then DVD vs VHS. DVD has only twice the resolution of VHS, Blu-ray has SIX times, yes that's SIX times the resolution of a DVD. Much bigger difference. When I'm watching a DVD movie, it feels weak compare to Blu-ray. When you're watching Blu-ray, you feel like you're actually in the movie. Blu-ray also supports D-BOX which now you can feel the movie as well... You get the LOOK, SOUND and FEEL of the movie. You can also interact with your buddies while watching the movie. Some movies comes with digital content where you can transfer your movie to your PC, iPod or PSP. Not only Blu-ray is excellent for movies but data storage as well... Pioneer has already developed a prototype BD disc that holds up to 400 gigabytes! Blu-ray is also becoming de facto technology in Asian countries like Japan, Hong Kong and soon South Korea. I bet you this X-mas, everyone's wish list will be a Blu-ray player. Last year it was the Wii. This year is Blu-ray.

My suggestion, don't listen to this clown. He's probably still upset that HD-DVD lost and still can't accept that Blu-ray is the next-gen disc that everyone will be using.

[Dragon--2008]

just because you will bend over to inferrior video and sound quality does not mean it is the right choice...it sure as hell is not.

[inachu]

I'll start converting to blue ray when I see the prices relaxed.....
Same goes for the Segway...

[braindelay]

Don's kind of an angry little man isn't he? Blu-Ray will succeed in time just as DVD's did.
It just may take a bit longer because of the economy. In 5 years everyone will have a Blu-ray player.
Hell I have 2 already!

[Dragon--2008]

I sure as hell won't and by that time something worth buying should come out by then...no worrys...no loss.

[GenX2.0]

Everyone seems to be missing the biggest reason. You need to compare apples to apples. When DVDs came out in the 90's, we were going through a great economy, and like the writer said a very noticeable VHS TO DVD quality difference. Now, with up scaling DVD players/TVs, regular DVDs look quite good. Now add a terrible economy, bad feelings/waisted money (by the HD-DVD customers), the high cost, and little portability, you get 8%. Nothing is static when it comes to new technology, look how long it took Bluetooth to become mainstream. Eventually things will come around, and Blu-Ray will replace the DVD format. I can easily notice the difference between the two, but only purists will really care about that. I buy 90/10 when it comes to DVD/Blu-Ray, and the 10% is for action movies with great cinematics/sound (e.g. POTC -Worlds End). The rest of the movies (e.g. run fatboy run) have no need for Blu-Ray. As the goes the economy, so goes the adaptation of expensive technology.

[1stGreg]

Mr Reisinger, your thoughts are "interesting", but I have myself a question:
Do you ever tired of .. well .. being wrong?

Do you remember your top 5 predictions for 2008? Let me help ya there.
1) The Wii will fail in 2008
2) The death of DRM
3) Google cell phone will revolutionize the industry
4) The Rise of IPTV will change everything
5) Apple OS will gian significant market share

I won't even comment on those, as laughable as they appear now ;)

A few other pearls from 2007:
The Blu Ray / HD DVD war will continue for -two years MINIMUM- (ended 5 months later)
A little later you tell us : Apple will NOT get into gaming (Wrong)
Just in February 2008 you were telling us : MS will soon anounce a Blu Ray XBOX !! (lol)

Checking through your articles, I saw a huge Sega and MS fanboyism pattern, a huge tendancy to downplay or Spite anything Sony, and immensely debatable aptitude to actually predict -anything- that could happen in the tech industry within, say even the next 2 weeks.

Let's just say that I find this latest article of yours to be -at best- a joke ;)

But let me respond to a few ludicrous statements that you make:

The "disapointment" of popping a Blu Ray vs a DVD. No, I am actually amazed at the details, the colors, and the quality of sound. If you aren't, may I suggest you change your HDTV or HT audio Amp?
When you say that DVD offer the same "basic" experience, anyone who has seen a Blu Ray on a good HDTV with good sound will know you are full of it.

As per downloads, I guess you are basing your predicitons on the succes of the Amazon Unbox, Vudu, or Apple TV? (DOH! )
Let's reason for a sec here. Downloaded content is long to get (worse with HD), limited in time (and soon bandwidth, cf Comcast) and is more akin to rentals than actual ownership of a movie.
Physical medias won't go away any time soon.
As per DVD, it'll still be around a while, but BR will gradually increase its share as more HDTVs are around and the prices go down (did you see? Good BR players under $300 now!).

I know you are wrong often, but this one wasn't that hard to pull. Come on :)

[meh130]

Some really stupid comments:
DVD is MP3, BD is WAV? Really? I thought DVD was MPEG-2 and BD was MPEG-4 (i.e., more aggressive compression algorithm). And there is nothing wrong with compressed digital formats, it all depends on the compression level. Both WMA and Apple support lossless compression. WAV would be a complete waste of space when a lossless WMA would take up half the space.
Comments on BD lossless audio? Lossless audio makes a difference? Really? Isn't BD about video? Did you know your video is lossy? More lossy than DVD? Why would you tolerate lossy video on your 60-inch 1080p screen? And does anyone remember DTS audio on DVD? Wasn't DTS "better" than Dolby 5.1? But, wait a minute! DTS is more compressed than Dolby. How could it be better?
And some real issues:
One, there are a lot of crappy early BD (and HD DVD) titles out there. Crap at 1080p is still crap. Clean up the prints, digitally remaster in HD, then put it on BD. The newer titles (like Planet Earth) look much better.
Second, is it really worth $30 for a BD of something when the DVD is on sale for $10-$15? A 100%-200% premium is a lot. A 300% premium for an older movie ($30 BD vs $7.50 DVD) is unacceptable.
Finally, give us more and better titles, while complying with #1 and #2 above.

[meh130]

Oh, and yes, I own a Blu-ray player.

[robd11]

once you can get the greedy consumer electronics guys to break the $200 barrier for a standalone blueray player, and the home theatre in a box guys to put blueray in instead of dvd then yer good to go. the problem is the best blueray player is a video game box. *** is up with that? blueray does look better than dvd on a good hdtv, just not $500 better.

[Dylan_Wisor]

No one with two working eyes will say that Blu-Ray isn't a whole lot prettier than standard DVDs. The problem is that most people will still relate the two. DVD was a huge step over VHS simply because it went from physical to digital media (and all of the perks that came with that switch).

Plus you have to keep audience in mind here. The people commenting here are mostly technophiles who (sometimes) know their stuff. These people make up less than 10% of the market. Do you think that the other 90% are going to understand this comment:

"DVD is MP3, BD is WAV? Really? I thought DVD was MPEG-2 and BD was MPEG-4 (i.e., more aggressive compression algorithm). And there is nothing wrong with compressed digital formats, it all depends on the compression level. Both WMA and Apple support lossless compression. WAV would be a complete waste of space when a lossless WMA would take up half the space."

Of course not, most would get lost after the third acronym. Blu-Ray is superior, but for now, and into the foreseeable future, it's not commercially viable.

[ofmyony]

Don is right about Blueray. Blueray is going to be a non factor in the near future. DVD will remain around for the late adopters and HD downloads are here. As soon as someone says you can stream HD movies by subscription game over for Blueray.

I have a Blueray player in my computer. I rent the Blueray movies from Netflix. Guess what? I do not own one Blueray disc. The prices are out of sight and why buy movies any longer. With Netflix watch now feature at no extra cost why buy Blueray. The format is nice the value and consumer experience is poor. Give me HD Downloads please. I am tired of Blueray promising and not delivering.

[darussian12]

"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."

theres the problem...most people dont want to buy a new flat screen plasma or lcd and surround system to exp the greatness of blue ray...i sure as hell dont. i can go get the nicest/most exp blu ray player out there but with my crap 32 in tube tv it wont make a diff. and it looks fine enough on the with regular dvds and i know i sure as hell am not going to buy a new tv of equiv size but a lot more money to be 1080 or any sort of HD now to notice the quality diff. and the computer argument is valid to. got a laptop last year, mid range, i play plenty of dvds and d/l movies on it....im not going to buy a new laptop to watch bluray.

[SVContrarian]

I have to laugh when people comment on the superior audio features of BD.

* Most folks don't even have DTS capable gear, and a bunch who do didn't hook it up correctly. [e.g., optical connections, 5.1 speakers, balanced and correctly installed, stereo set to decode properly]

* Let's suppose you hit the lottery, bought a BD Player ($250+), made sure you had an HDCP compatible TV ($2k), and a new DTS-HD capable receiver and 7.1 speakers ($2k easily) and perfect hearing. You're still not likely to notice a thing.

Most peopel are lucky if they get the Red/Red White/White cables matching for left and right audio in. Or [ACK!] listening through the TV speakers. I bet fewer than 1% of the people have 7.1 DTS-HD capable systems and speakers of sufficient quality to resolve the difference. Even home theater enthusiasts typically have a nice 5.1 DTS at best, or Dolby Digital, which is a required format on every BD disk.

Without dumping a boatload on new stereo gear, and with most people over 25 showing some level of hearing loss, there's basically no chance that the vast majority of consumers (even with a DTS-HD system) will distinguish any difference in the BlueRay audio quality relative to a quality DVD.

Those that say they do are probably just convincing themselves it sounds better because they turned up the volume, and spent all that dough on new gear. It's all marketing hype you %#$% lemmings.

[Galaxy5]

Duh. We don't like re-buying our movies and players every few years, even if it nets us better resolution and sound.

A trade-in program would be vastly better, but we all know that'll never happen. Hollywood bleeds so much money that they'd never make it work as well as a real business could.

[Fire Balls]

I will never go to blu-ray I think the real future is streaming HD heck I can already rent HD movies on my 360 and there are many other services that let me do the same. Also I think with the dropping price and increasing size of solid state media (ssd and flash drives) we will eventually move away from optical media all together. Really in my mind all spinning media is moving towards being out dated (magnetic or optical) and I'm honestly happy about that. Solid state reduces wear and tear on components, is more energy efficient, and in turn more reliable then spinning media. Blue ray is the last upgrade to the horse and buggy before everyone gets a car. (yes I know they are working on holographic disks but really come on who cares at this point) Good bye optical.. I won't miss you