Comments on: How can we expect Blu-ray to succeed?

Can Blu-ray succeed like DVD did? Don Reisinger thinks it's very unlikely.

[mavfan2]

I like blu-ray and it definitely looks better than streaming HD, but with an upconverting player my DVDs look really good too so there's no way I'd ever spend money to replace a move I already have with it's blu-ray version and a lot of DVD sales came from people replacing their VHS so I definitely think blu-ray won't ever sell in the amounts DVD did. I also still buy the regular DVD versions sometimes because of the price difference if the film is a drama or comedy, for instance, something that I'm not going to be wowed by visually as opposed to action/sci fi. I also have a netflix account and get blu-ray when possible. On two occasions I just popped the DVD in and didn't realize until it was done that it was a regular and not a blu-ray, the upconverting was that good. I have a 52" LCD and I'm sure the benefits of blu-ray are more apparent as the screen size increases but what the videophiles out there have to understand is that with all the reviews of giant 1" thick OLEDs and 60" Kuros, and the large LCDs out there, 32" LCDs are a big part of the market. I don't know the numbers but a lot more 32" HD TVs are selling out there in the hinterlands that people that frequent cnet boards may realize. At 32" there no way a blu-ray looks anything more than marginally better than an upscaled DVD. And if that's the screen size a significant amoutn of Americans are viewing then blu-ray isn't going to be a roaring success.

[spriggers]

Ughhh... Watch The Dark Knight on a DVD and BR side by side, and there is a huge difference.

As someone mentioned, the US thinks the world revolves around them. Do you honestly think other countries have the infrastructure to support the HD video streams these kinds of services need? That many users right now streaming Netflix using "High Speed DSL or Cable" are getting crappy streaming because they still don't have enough bandwidth? That people like owning things? That BR is on a faster pace of adoption than DVDs were at this time? That at the same time in it's cycle, the Matrix sold wayyyy less than the Dark Knight, and that it was considered to be the title that got DVD sales rolling? There are so many things wrong with this article, that I don't know where to begin.

[lixpaulian]

Yeah, right, streaming IS the future. BluRay is doomed, it will sit nice along with other similar forgotten technologies (do you remember SACD or DVD audio?). It amuses me to read all these comments about download speed, 20 minutes buffering etc. etc. C'mon folks, just rewind 10 years ago: the few of us on a cable/ADSL at 512/64 kbps where really happy, weren't they? Or let's go back no more than 15 years back: what did you have? 9600 baud V32 modems, that was state of the art, right?

I tell you: in 5 years fiber optic will be common and will become in 10 years standard, by then probably over 50% of the Internet connexions will be optical. Streaming HD? of course, this is the future. What happend with audio CD will hapen to video too: I had a collection of several hundreds of vinilyn LPs, in 1990 I started replacing everything with CDs (I have over 400 of them meanwhile...); since a year ago I buy all my musinc from iTunes (only DRM free songs) and I will probably never go to a CD store again. This is the way it is, and this will happen with video too. Life goes on...

[spriggers]

Are you reading what you're writing? in 5 to 10 years in the US? In 5 years, BR will have a stranglehold on the market. For streaming to compete, it needs to be there in all countries in the next year or two. Not 5 years. Not 10 years.

Listen. I can understand that we will be going digital with streaming of data, apps, and so on in the future. That makes sense. But some of you are acting like the infrastructure is already there, and everyone will have it shortly. Now what makes more sense now? A BR player that can be used in any country of the world with movies that they can get now with the same quality visuals? Or streaming that only is happening in one or two countries, where quality is dependent on your internet provider / cable lines installed? Sure other countries will get some streaming services, but when? And when will they get the bandwidth cabling in their country?

People can buy a BR player now for $200 and buy movies now in Canada, Japan, where ever. Streaming is such a small segment in a fraction of the countries. Do you think that movie studios even want streaming to take over BR if a load of other countries can't get a hold of the content? It makes no sense.

I can respect those who say streaming and over the internet is the future. That future just isn't even close to being now for the average Joe, and for probably 80% of movie viewers, and for most countries on the planet. I even have doubts that the infrastructure will be there in the US for all users in 5 years, let alone the rest of the world.

[deffroz]

Uhg, I couldn't even imagine doing that. legitimate downloadable music is almost entirely lossy at horrible bitrates. I still buy CDs simply because their lossless is far superior and sound much better on my system than some crappy 128 kbit mp3.

A DVD has what? A life of 50 years (properly pressed ones, not the ones your computer burns), compare that to the average HDD life of 10-15 years. Add on top of that any DRM restrictions on transferring that exist on downloads and the complete lack of features that are included on DVDs but are completely missing from and digital distribution model (especially streaming). digital distribution is just completely lacking in comparison to the physical counterpart.

[lixpaulian]

Of course I am reading what I am writing. It seems you don't read what I am writing. Or perhaps you are new on the block. I wish you were here 10 years ago on a 9600 dialup modem. Just think about it, what are 10 years?

I hate when people do not see things in perspective. You are living in the present, while I am simply extrapolating what would happen in 10 years based on the technical development pace.

There is another thing. I don't claim that all of us will go streaming in 10 years, but I said probably 50% will do. There is the same today, not everybody buys music from Amazon or iTunes. I do, and the quality of a 256 kpbs AAC or MP3 is comparable with an uncompressed CD (those who claim otherwise are audio snobs, blind tests have systematically demonstrated there is no perceptible difference).

Judging from the time the DVD needed to eliminate VHS, I claim that BluRay will need at least 10 years to replace DVD. And this is the problem: these 10 years are only in theory, because HD streaming will be there faster. BlueRay is born dead already.

[GamingGodfather]

Blu-ray is the first video format that requires you to purchase a new television in order to gain the full benifit of the media. Everyone keeps talking about the price of a Blu-ray player and the disks but there is no mention about that 1080p television that you "HAVE" to own in order to see this great difference in picture quality.
If you compare a standard DVD movie on a quality disk being played in an upconvert DVD player on a 1080p television and Blu-ray, yes there is a difference, is there a significant difference? Not enough to justify the expense.
As for streaming, get yourself a decent internet connection or stop complaining about the buffer speed. I love these people with 1Mbs internet connections complaining about the load times of movies. I have an 8Mps connection and I really can't complain. There are glitches at this time but as fiber optic becomes the norm you are going to have the ability to stream HD movies in a way that DVD will be a forgotten format.
Blu-ray would be an improvement on about 10% of the movies I own. All of the older movies without CGI that were produced using anolog formats are not going to wow anyone on Blu-ray. Something like The Dark Knight that was filmed to take advantage of the format will wow even the biggest skeptic but it still brings us to the expense. Player + TV + discs and you are out at least 1500.00 to get started.
Lastly, it's the story that makes the movie. If all you are looking for is the visual pop then you are seeing the movie for all the wrong reasons. Go play a video game instead.

[bwvla]

If you are content to live with your old 1960-1999 standard definition TV there is no more quality any movie player technology can bring you. DVD was the final ounce for old school tvs. To make an image look better you have to have more pixels in which is what an HDTV does.

However even my dad, a self described crotchety old man who distrusts new things is now loving football, movies, and PBS on his HDTV. Apparently even for his old eyes more pixels makes for a more compelling viewing experience.

For those of us who have upgraded from 308,200 pixels per screen (SDTV) to 2,073,600 pixels (1080 HDTV) we need a new movie format like blu-ray with disks that store the added resolution and players that can handle these new disks. The result is an image that is not hobbled for an old school TV but much closer to what you see in a theater in terms of detail.

And yes even old CGI movies like star wars will look better on blu ray because they were produced for 35mm film which contain several times the visual information that can be displayed on a standard TV.

If we followed your logic concerning "visual pop" movie theaters would have closed 3 decades ago, star wars never would have happened, IMAX would not be around, and production companies would be using cardboard cut outs for sets.

[aranben]

Keep writing these anti-bluray articles Mr. Don Reisinger. As long as it gets you to sleep at night.

[gsmiller88]

I will buy a BRD player when I can pirate and burn BRD movies for as cheap as DVDs.

[sythara]

Are you serious?

[CrazeeBrit]

This is so funny. I remember exactly the same article in 1986. It was about CDs never taking off. The situation was exactly the same. Europeans were buying CDs like crazy, and folks in the US were still buying vinyl. Then I remember 1996. All kinds of doomsday prophesies about DVDs. No one is going to give up their VHS players because (at that time), you cannot record your favorite TV show on a DVD player. Oh I know, now we have downloads, which we didn't have then, but it is still funny to see these prophesies about new technology adoption fall flat on their face. I believe folks will want both downloads and Blu Ray disks. They each have their place.

[G0DJOEY]

1080p isn't going to be the end all resolutions keep that in mind... Blu ray will go above and beyond nobody is going to be streaming 400gb movies of the future. Unless by a miracle we start installing 5"-8" pipelines of bandwidth in every household which isn't going to happen. The 400gb Blu ray discs will most likely double if not more the basic 1080p that we are enjoying right now. Streaming if you are lucky is a pixelated 1080i or 720p at best and skimp on the sound. This editor caused an epic failure of understanding where blu ray is going vs the dvd9 format...

[aaronautical]

VHS took a while to die after DVD became dominant, but even still there is a market for it. Especially older titles which are not out on DVD. Blu-Ray will serve the market for those who want a high definition hard copy. Some will. Not everybody will. There are a lot of HDTVs out there now and as the cost of the media and the players get cheaper, more and more people will adopt it because it is a bit nicer and the cost difference won't make it prohibitive. This will especially be the case for the rental market, like NetFlix. And let's be honest. Good visuals are quite a bit more noticeable than the subtleties of high-end audio.

HD streaming will be an acceptable alternative if you have the bandwidth, but many millions of persons in the U.S. don't have options better than regular DSL, like me. And the ISPs are not laying new pipes anytime soon, especially in light of the down economy. At least not in my neighborhood (Miami, FL).

Blu-Ray doesn't need to dominate the market, but as costs come down, choosing DVDs will be irrelevant for new titles if you live in an industrialized land. Older titles and the market for microprofits in third world lands will keep DVDs alive around for a long,long time.

But the real reason for Blu-Ray to stick around will be Blu-Ray only titles once they have enough market share to cut out DVDs for certain exclusive "Titanic" like releases.

But don't impose DVD success requirements. Nothing else in technology history, besides perhaps the Internet and the cellphone, have succeeded at those levels where millions adopted it in few years. DVD was miles ahead of VHS. Blu-Ray is another step forward. But once you've got the wheel invented, there's only micro-improvements to be made anyways. And with the Blu-Ray consortium having cast their lot on this technology, they are going to milk it for all it is worth before moving on to the next one.

10 years from now, Blu-Ray, DVD, and HD streaming will all be options from the consumer. And you'll have your reasons for choosing one versus the other.

[sbarnes766]

This is interesting Don, I'm looking at your picture right now and I wonder why is this Cro-Magnon looking creature talking and thinking he knows something about BluRay? To be honest, I wonder why you dont show a full body shot on all of the internet? Is that because you have the body of a 12 yr old girl that is overweight?

Thanks, Samantha Barnes

[orakga]

AHAHAHAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAA~~~
Another article from Don.

This time last year, I used to get angry at Don for his ignorance.
And I would respond with comments explaining where his logic failed.

But now this is just comedy.

Pleeeeease keep these coming, Don.
You're the Rush Limbaugh of the tech world.

[thelemurking]

I don't think Blu-Ray overall will fail, but until the prices start to come down closer to the DVD counterparts, most people are going to opt for the DVD. When you can buy 2 new DVDs for what one Blu-Ray costs, I think it's pretty clear which route most people will take.

Granted, there are some things that look amazing on BR. I absolutely love the Planet Earth series in BR. Some stuff like Lost season 3 and 4 I opted for BR over DVD and I went with BR for Wall-E, but the majority of the time I find myself going with DVD over BR as are most people I know who own BR players. Perhaps when the economy equals out and the prices drop on BR movies, it will change, but when I bought The Dark Knight on DVD, I also bought another movie that turned out to be cheaper for both than it was for the BR version of The Dark Knight. If memory serves me correctly, it was Horton Hears a Who... so 2 DVDs for cheaper than the BR. That's why DVDs will continue to outsell BR for at least a few more years.

[sythara]

Once BR becomes freely available on PC is when it will finally take off. When I can burn BR disk for data, or when comanies can distribute their software on BR thats when things will pick up for it.

When you can buy a TV series collection on a single BR as opposed to 10 DVDs thats when you know it has taken off. BR does not need to mean high definition. You can fit alot of data on it, and if marketed properly you can do alot with it. Think about it, The Office on 4 BR disks, 1 disk per season...

And for the games industry. You'll no longer be limited to a single DVD-DL capacity. Higher rez textures (for PC games), better sound quality, more speech, and larger worlds (think of Fallout 3 but 10 times larger world) All of it can be achieved with BR if people are smart enough to market it properly.

[bwvla]

Blu-ray burners are already down to under 200 dollars. Its wont be long till they start shipping standard on mid level machines.

[laithf]

Nice thing about Blue-ray is you don't need to replace your library. Just upgrade it....

[dracoaffectus]

"replacing an entire library of movies isn't as fun as it sounds"

You used this statement as a negative aspect of blu-ray, even though it is not exactly true. It is not necessary to replace your entire library of DVDs, if you get a blu-ray player. This statement was true of DVDs compared to VHS, and seemed to have little impact on the success of DVD (probably because it's possible to own more than one media playing machine at a time). But since Blu-ray players can also play regular DVDs, there's not much reason to replace your entire library, except for the movies where it really makes a difference.

And as for streaming HD, the quality of streaming HD pales in comparison to blu-ray. Not to mention, buffering problems, anybody else get infuriated when the movie suddenly has to buffer at a suspenseful moment of the movie? Also, download services need to workout their issues with TV (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10119509-93.html?tag=mncol) before it can be taken seriously.

[bitshiftr]

Only some of you understand the average joe. Please, sit down and have a read.

Flash back to the debut of the DVD player. Many people were haters and were afraid of the threat of a new media format and did not immediately embrace it. Like many of you, I once shared a VHS collection of a digustingly large number of movies (my collection was upwards of 200). I didn't want to have to repurchase all of my movies, paralelling the reluctancy of many people today.

Today, I now own a collection of 300+ DVD's. I weeded out the movies I didn't want and purchased the remastered versions of the classics that I enjoyed. I caved and purchased a DVD player when the price was around $100 and vowed to never purchase a DVD that was not either an award winner or a classic. And like all consumers, I caved and now have this huge collection of titles.

So what have we learned from this.

Despite an early reluctancy (and I'll be damned if you don't agree with me when I say this is very early in Bluray's life) I eventually caved. I was able to appreciate the quality and enjoy movies more without having to rewind and fast forward. All I had to worry about was scratches on a disk instead of siblings pulling the tape out of the casette. Will this happen again? Probably, but here's a wrench thrown into this trend...

The upgrade from VHS to DVD was HUGE. No more grain, no more rewinding, no more popping audio, no more flickering, no more tape cleaning. (This goes the same in an auditory level, no more rewinding, popping, cleaning, and this is why CD's are unrivaled to date). Now we're talking about upgrading from circular disk to circular disk, and the only appreciable difference is the quality of the picture. If you appreciate quality.

My eyesight is deteriorating. I know this because I have terribly thick glasses and a family history of progressive lenses. I've attended many concerts and I'm sure I've damaged my hearing working unprotected beside a jackhammer 6 hours a day, 5 days a week every summer, for 3 years as a teen. What makes you think that I can appreciate the difference between DVD and Bluray? What tangible qualities will I, as an average joe, appreciate? Is it worth the hastle? While many more will switch to Bluray, it will never dominate the market, since it is an unappreciable upgrade. (And yes, I have watched Bluray movies, and while the quality is better and the sound a tad more crisp, it's not enough to make me revamp my video collection.

But ultimately it will come to this. When a movie is produced and it is no longer made for a DVD, we will be forced unto Bluray. We're doomed, and it's just a matter of time before Dreamworks and Universal and Paramount all decide Bluray is the new DVD and we as consumers are forced to upgrade. It's inevitable.

[Tallredeye]

The "average joe" doesn't work next to a jackhammer 5 days a week and doesn't have deteriorating eyesight (like an average cnet blogger).

[worsethannormal]

The problem with articles like this, is they only focus on video content delivery. This is only a portion of what DVD's are used for. As BR moves into the burnable PC space the life span of the media WILL be ensured until its capacity no longer keeps up with our needs.

Currently, BR's can hold up to 50GB and there are multi-layered version about to hit the market that take it up 150GB. Have you ever tried transferring 50GB of data across the intertubes? I've done 15GB before, its painful and took more time than snail-mailing DVDs to the other end. I know because I had a race between the 2. And the Internet had a several hours head start.

With the U.S. slipping farther and farther down the list of Internet speed and access (compared to other countries), physical media will become more and more important. If we don't upgrade soon, there won't be any room in the intertubes for us to all be streaming HD content. And even if we upgrade, there will continue to be data sizes inappropriate to send across the wire.

Until we can move any amount of data tacross the internet instantaneously to any part of the world, physical media will still be, not only viable, but necessary. Period.

[NocturnalCT]

What I love best about Blue Ray (and HD DVD before it got killed) is how they try to show how terrific it is on regular broadcast or even DVDs. You know the advertisements that try to demonstrate how much better the color and sound is etc. while being limited to whatever medium they're using for the ad.

I like Netflix streaming for those occasions that I'm stuck at the inlaws with nothing to watch. Works great for catching up on TV shows and the occasional movie. Lack of subtitles and extras (as mentioned earlier) is a severe limitation. Lack of chapters as well. Until they figure out a standard by which the entire disk gets downloaded to your local device actual disks won't go away. In fact by the time they can deliver true HD content online the disk medium will have improved again most likely.

As for current BR compatibility issues, that's to be expected. When DVDs were new I did some testing of a then novel media processor that enabled 166 MHz Pentiums (MMX preferred) to do DVD decoding. We had several set-top boxes as gold standards. Some movies were tricky and didn't work with our product and some set-top boxes. Eventually this all got fixed but it took a few years.

As soon as BR disks cost the same as DVDs adoption rate will increase dramatically I suspect. For now people will pocket their $10 and say 'good enough for me' except maybe for special occasions. BR players are getting cheaper by the month and we all know that the real cost is in the movies, not the player. Just like your xbox or playstation. The box is cheap, they get you with the games. That's where the money is.

[simonsonjh]

Why does Blu-Ray success depend on everyone replacing DVDs with Blu-Ray. What is insignificant about everyone simply ADDING Blu-Ray discs to their library? How is a high-speed internet connect more affordable? I just don't see it.

[epross]

Of course Blu-Ray is not going to succeed the same way DVD has.

DVD when it first came out was a huge improvement over VHS in terms of quality, reliability, and no more rewinding! Not to mention DVD's take up less space on the shelf. Currently DVD technology is dirt cheap - and for many people, price is the bottom line.

Blu-Ray brings a marginal improvement over DVD as the form factor and basic operations are unchanged. What blu-ray brings to the table is incremental improvements in terms of video and audio quality and ability to be more interactive. However, Blu-Ray relies on people having the technology to properly utilize it. WIthout large, HD capable displays, Blu-Ray can not be employed to its full capabilities.

Of course DVD is going to outsell Blu-Ray by a factor approaching 10:1 by the simple fact that it has a huge installed base where there is only marginal motivation for people to switch. As older displays die and people replace equipment, that is when you will see them jump to blu-ray (provided the price is not a barrier.)

DVD basically had no competition so it was easy for people to make the switch from VHS. Blu-Ray faced competition from HD (and won) but it also has to compete with the internet and streaming HD service (whose quality and coverage is sketchy)

You could easily write an article saying that HD downloads will never succeed over DVD. It is a meaningless argument as you never really define what you mean by success. Is it total units sold? Total dollars in revenues? Number of years in the market?

What I will say is that HD downloads, streaming, whatever won't succeed any better against DVD until they resolve issues with coverage, quality, download speeds, throttling, etc. and of course what do you do if your service goes under (Wal Mart discontinued its DRM servers) I'd hate to have purchased the rights to watch an HD movie only to not be able to access it because the server is no longer running or my internet connection has crapped out. I'm sure it will come, but there is a lot of work yet to do -- especially outside of the USA.

So Blu-Ray may never achieve the magnitude of success that DVD did, nevertheless, it is too early to regulate it to the dust-bin of history. It fills an important niche in the current marketplace, that will inevitably get stronger, stabilize, and then wane as newer technologies replace it. But to write it off so early is pure folly - Blu-Ray has quite a few years ahead of it to grow and mature.