Comments on: Blu-ray gets portable. Success to follow?

Blu-ray is now portable. But will it be a success because of that?

[CnetHD]

Too long to bring the prices down and too little and expensive disc selection. Thats what is holding me up from going Blu-Ray.

[CptGreedle]

My dad just got a Blu-ray player that plays Netflix, Pandora Radio, DVDs, CDs, Blu-rays, and even movie files from a computer wirelessly for less than $200.
Plus at Amazon and other websites, you can find Blu-ray movies for $15-$20. I think that the prices will continue to drop by this holiday season, but you have a huge library already available to you if you really wanted to get it.

If you really there isn't enough of a jump in quality between DVD and Blu-ray to force people to jump to the new format - you are sadly mistaken. I think what you want to say is - people don't have the TV technology to be able to utilize the HUGE jump in quality that there is between DVD and Blu-Ray. Watching them both on an old CRT will do nothing for you. Watching them on a 50+ inch LCD will clearly show Blu-Ray is far superior.

[scaught78]

I agree 100%. I have a 53" TV with 7.1 sound. When people come over to watch a Blu Ray, they get floored. There has yet to be a person who has seen a Blu Ray over at my house that hasn't said, "Wow....Blu Ray is AMAZING!"

[chrisx1]

It still will not sell to the masses based on that. If you have a new Bentley and take your neighbor for a ride, they may say "Wow, you car is so nice," but will keep driving their own Camry.
Yes, audiophiles and videophiles that are willing to pay premium prices on 50, 60 and 70" in TVs and high end audio equipment and speakers to get "the best of the best" home theater systems will of course buy Blu-Ray as part of their setup.

That is not enough to make Blu-Ray a success. The other 90% of the public will not pay the price it will take to see and hear the benefits of Blu-Ray.

[Thranx]

but a 42" TV isn't so uncommon anymore with the way the prices are.

As with any new technology, the technophiles will buy in early, fueling the market to make things cheaper in the long run. Bluray will eventually supplant the DVD. It may take longer than the VHS->DVD switch, but it will happen.

Here's to hoping that we get 15 years before the next format.

[dcardozo]

well, I don't see cars in my neighborhood with 50+ inches displays, so if you need those to notice the quality difference, they won't ever replace the DVD players, unless they will become cheaper than them.

[ZetaZeta_]

@chrisx1: Yes, but his point was that people aren't "not switching because the quality jump isn't that great." People are probably "not switching because they can't even tell there's a quality jump on their hardware."
People don't have the hardware to see the difference, but if they had an HD-TV, I think they would definitely want to purchase the product based on the quality difference.

The writer of the article made the general assumption that people don't see a jump in quality, which I think is wrong.

[coulterboyz]

@dcardozo
While Blu-Ray will never be cheaper than if companies continued to develop DVD players, eventually you WILL see Blu-Ray players as an option in cars from the show floor. It will probably be 5 years, but it will happen, and most of that will be because when BR hits about 35% of the household market higher end cars are going to start to throw those in. Then it'll trickle down over a couple of years til it hits the market DVD players are in today.

The reasons I have for saying this are that those who can buy higher end cars will have Blu-Ray players. They will be willing to pay to be able to play all their movies in their car, since BR can play DVD and BR movies. And as cost goes down on producing them, they will work their way down the line to less expensive cars.

To everyone who is going to say, "I don't want to wait 5 years to watch BR movies in my car, so I won't buy a BR player at my house (I know if I don't put this here Someone will say it), You should be reminded that no company will add BR players in their cars if they decide their isn't enough market for it. Just buy the thing, and that'll help spur growth in the sector, and everyone will be happy.

And just a side note as to why it is taking longer for BR to take over than DVD; in the VCR to DVD jump, you didn't have to buy a new TV. No one buys a BR player until they buy an HD TV, and that adds a whole heck of a lot of cost to Blu-Ray. But soon it'll take over. I'm not holding out for any streaming of movies before Blu-Ray has run its course because so far I have yet to see a Streamed movie of the EXACT same picture quality as that of one on a physical media. While streaming is fine, and the instant gratification factor is nice, its just not worth it yet. Also I can think of a lot of people I know who wouldn't be able to work the thing. So that will hinder it some.

[El_Segfaulto]

When I made the switch from VHS to DVD it wasn't for a difference in quality but a difference in media. The smaller form factor, the instantaneous playing, and the fact that I didn't have to rewind. I am not going to repurchase my entire DVD collection on a graduate student budget when I can simply buy an upconverter. YMMV

[sanjayb]

@ El_Segfaulto

Any decent Blu-Ray player can upconvert your DVD's. And the players are coming down in price every day. To buy a plain old up converter DVD player these days is silly and short sighted.

[josh606]

I agree with the 2nd post. Bluray + full 1080p display is beautiful. I made the jump to blu-ray....I have 5 or so discs and my favorite is Planet Earth, it is just amazing, the detail is great.

Playing DVDs on a Blu-Ray player will make them "look better" and it does to a point.

I also agree that the technology is a bit expensive, but the same was true for DVD technology when it was first introduced to the market.

[Don Key]

Josh606, remember when DVD came out you didn't need a whole new TV to use it. With a cheap converter box, even TV's made in the 50's could let you watch DVD. Blu-ray requires an HDTV.

I have Blu-ray player by default and not by choice because I have a PS3 and I have a 42 inch HDTV but I never use the Blu-ray functions of the machine. While some stuff like Planet Earth look great, most of my older movies that I love don't have a big jump like Full Metal Jacket (which had to have a second release since the first one was so crappy) and Goodfellas. It's not a blanket statement that all movies are going to look as good as Planet Earth.

[coulterboyz]

For movies to look as good as possible, they needed to be made with HD in mind. Planet Earth was. Anything made before 2006 really wasn't, so only newer movies look that great. They can go back and remaster (I don't know if this is actually the term for what they do, so don't nit-pick and say I don't know anything because I said "remastered" when I should've said "") a movie for Blu-Ray, but it still doesn't look as good as a non-BR movie. I know because I have A Christmas Story on BR. While it's much better than I had ever seen it before, the picture quality still suffered greatly compared to The Dark Knight. It all has to do with how production has changed over time. So sorry, but FMJ will make a life-altering jump. Enjoy what ya got lol

[sanjayb]

I have Batman Begins on Blu-Ray. It's gorgeous compared to the DVD version I have. The movie was made in 2005.

[wired_x]

DVD didnt depend on portability to achieve its current success

[shldvebnacwby]

Just because the price is high now doesn't mean that Blu-ray will fail. The first VHS player my family owned cost around $300 in the 1980's. VHS was expensive at one time and it did very well. The point is that you can't necessarily predict the future based on the present.

[badmojo42]

the difference is there was no alternative. People are okay with watching DVD quality movies at home for cheap. you can even just stream a movie or watch it On Demand. Why go pay 5-10 thousand dollars just to get some better quality. sad, but its cheaper to go to the movies.

[coulterboyz]

Ummm... What are you buying, exactly? Only some of the drool-worthy HD TV's still cost 5-10 THOUSAND still. Sheesh. Lower your examples lol. A new TV is ~grand nowadays, and add on 200 for a BR player and another 100 in movies. Not to mention that most BR players up-convert your DVD's a bit to make them look a smidge better than they would otherwise (typically there is better contrast when playing a DVD on a BR player to an HD TV than on any other set-up) so you still have all your old movies. It's not that ridiculous.

A couple other points
1)$300 bucks was more in the '80's than now.
2)There is no alternative for a BR player anymore. Just like the VCR beat out the BetaMax, BR beat HD DVD. Maybe it was a little crooked the way they did it, but its happened so deal
3)Just because people are happy with it doesn't mean they will go for a better product when they can. I was perfectly fine with a 2 year old Non-iPod MP3 player and a Razr phone. Now I have an iPhone because I was tired of drooling at them. You do this every day. That's not a reason it'll fail

[sparrowhyperion]

They need to drop the price of both Discs and Players before I will bother with one.

[tektaktyks]

Wow! high def on a tiny lil' screen,that must look awesome...lol

[coulterboyz]

haha That's true. But maybe we'll see bigger screens, maybe set so that they won't block the rear view?... No, I know I'm hoping for too much lol

But the closer you are to a screen, the smaller the screen size needs to be before you see the HD quality. So you don't need a 42" in your car. At 2 feet from your face to the screen it wouldn't need to be that big at all actually. Probably in the 20" range. So there you go :) HD on a tiny screen that is better than current. Problem solved

[ralfthedog]

1. Blu-ray is doing fine. If you compare the Blu-ray adoption rate to that of Video tape or DVD, Blu-ray is doing quite well.

2. Streaming is only a short term content distribution method. The low quality of streaming video combined with bandwidth caps limit streaming on the long term to a missed TV show or an occasional news event watched from work.

3. Blu-ray adoption will begin to grow exponentially when more people own HD TV's and quality sound systems.

[TravisOwens]

Low quality of streaming? Obviously you haven't streamed HD via NetFlix.

But otherwise I agree with you.

[brightstarbeing]

Video streamed on ANY online service is at most 720P with poor audio compression. Blu-Ray is ALWAYS 1080i and ALMOST always 1080p with lossless audio! Anyone who thinks streaming will compete in quality with Blu-Ray in the next decade are sadly mistaken.

[ofmyony]

I have streamed 1080p as a lab test from TV.com. It was beautiful and played fine. Multi-channel sound is available with some downloads

Why buy expensive physical media when you can already get a HD digital copy now for 10 dollars cheaper.

Save your money HD streaming and downloading is available now. If you don't believe me check out Crackle.com and stream beautiful HD content for free. It's a Sony site so compare it to Bluray and see for yourself.

Bluray disc suffer from compression artifacts I have found that HD streams have less artifacts and look cleaner.

[ZetaZeta_]

Why buy physical media when you can download free off the pirate bay. T_T
Some people like having a hard copy.

[ralfthedog]

"I have streamed 1080p as a lab test from TV.com. It was beautiful and played fine. Multi-channel sound is available with some downloads."

Was the 1080p of the quality of a Blu-ray, or was it the OTA junk you get from the local TV station (I hope it was not the garbage they call HD you get from PPV.). When you talk about multi channel are we talking about low quality 5.1 you would get from a DVD or lossless 7.1?

[mediocrates--2008]

Oh c'mon, Don! Are we really holding off on ultra-high-def video until we can watch it on a 7" screen?! I mean, forget about the 2-Large I dropped on the 50" HDTV hanging on my wall (not to mention the 7.1 speaker system). To get the full Blu-ray experience, I need to wait until it's available on my flip phone.

[marcusjames]

He's not saying the quality of the small viewing mediums will draw people to Bluray, but that DVD is still pulling from BD sales because people want the portability. My sister owns a Bluray player but still only buys DVDs of films for their kids specifically because she can take them in the car.

[pjhenry1216]

They really need to drop the prices of the discs more so than the players in my opinion. The player is a one time cost. People will be more willing to drop a little extra at that time as opposed to buying discs. If every disc is $30, that is a repeated cost over DVD. I mean, each disc is generally about twice as much as regular DVD. The player is 6x or 8x (maybe more) than the price of a DVD player. Right now, that price still puts it in the *high* end. If the disc prices come down, more people will be willing to buy the systems which would in turn bring down the system prices.

Also, the portability you're referring to really had nothing to do with the success of DVD. DVD was popular *before* it came to minivans everywhere. Though, portability is a problem, just in a different manner. If I want to watch a blu-ray with my friends, they have to come over my place or I need to bring my PS3 to their place. If I wanna watch a DVD with friends, I just need to bring the DVD to wherever we want to watch it. So, ubiquity of the players themselves is holding them back. At the time of VHS, people wanted to upgrade to DVD. The difference in quality was much more significant than DVD->Blu-ray. Also, just functionality in general. VHS forced to rewind. You couldn't jump chapters. When it came down to it, it was the visual equivalent of casette->CD for music. Blu-ray offers little in impressive new functionality. Yea, it can go online or you can play games. But thats not really going to draw people on its own. Thats just extra. I don't know anyone that has said they want blu-ray because they can play little crappy games (really, the games are terrible) loosely based on the movie (live free or die hard had one that i gave a shot. it was awful.). Other than that, it has the same feature set as DVD (skip chapters, no rewind, etc.). It improves on them slightly (much higher speed fast forward and rewind), but nothing thats going to change the way people watch movies. Blu-ray is just a higher quality DVD when it comes down to it. Its not a game changer like DVD was to VHS. So, VHS wasn't real competition to DVD in the way DVD is to Blu-ray.

[tektaktyks]

Wow! high def on a tiny lil' screen,that must look awesome...lol

[brenhow]

Until those teeny little screens in the minivans are also HD, there's no real reason to have a Blu-ray player in the car. And let's be honest -- 90% of the people watching those screens are under 10, and I doubt that any of them care if they are watching Shrek in HD or standard definition.

The segment of the population that only watches movies in tricked-out home theaters with giant HD screens will continue to gobble up Blu-ray discs. Those of us who watch movies on portable DVD players, laptops, and non-HD televisions in other rooms of the house will wait until our TVs and computers are replaced with HD-compatible hardware so that upgrading actually has some meaning.

[ZetaZeta_]

There's plenty of reason to have a BD Player in the car. Same reasons why there will be plenty of reason to have the next available media format in your car: People like watching movies on the go, there will always be a dominant format that will phase out the last.

The key here is that the portable version of the last format is stifling the growth of the newer format (according to some). Portability will always be wanted out of every format, even if its designed to be played on massive screens.

Also, an 8" screen can easily do 720p (the Sony Vaio P has an 8" 1600 x 768 screen). I wouldn't be surprised to see some 1080p 9" portable players down the line.

[sting7k]

Portabiliby it pretty much worthless with Blu-ray. It's real and only advantage, being an HD picture is totally wiped out on a small portable screen. At it's current price that is way to much money to spend to totally eliminate it's big selling point over DVD. Blu-ray doesn't need to be portable; thats what DVD and downloads are for.

[subslug]

I agree, I can't imagine why anyone watching movies on their small laptop screen would really care whether or not it's a BR disc or not. It's not like you can even notice the slight improvement in detail on such a small screen.
Same thing with the device in this story, I've still yet to figure out who or why someone needs an in-dash screen of any kind? Weren't we suppose to pay attention to the road?

I don't even bother carrying DVD discs with me now when I travel, I just rip to a video file and I don't have to worry about keeping up with a bunch of discs. The resulting file size is fine for a laptop, imagine the same file size on a BR disc.....who needs em?

[marcusjames]

You're both missing the point. Portability of Bluray is not important because people want higher quality on their portable devices, it's because it lets them watch a movie they own wherever they want -- which adds value. If a family is considering the switch to Blu and they know they'll still want to watch movies in the car there is not as much value for Bluray because they can only watch them at home. Their only practical option is to buy both DVD and BD of each movie, which few people are willing to do. Regular people don't mess with ripping discs or finding alternative ways to play content in their minivans.

Portability WILL help Bluray adoption.

[subslug]

If you say so marcusjames but, I would think these families with minivans could probably find more important ways to spend their money in these tough times rather than having to upgrade their regular def DVD library with all new BR discs and players when really, the old DVDs look fine for most people and for sure they're good enough for kids in the backseat of a minivan.

If they really wanted people to buy BR players and discs then wouldn't they simply make the costs of the players and discs comparable to the regular def stuff? To me that's value, not portability.

[malexandria1]

With Digital Copy becoming a standard feature on high-end Blu-ray releases, portability isn't the big issue this article is claiming it is, not only that but making a portable Blu-ray player is retarded and defeats the whole point of the new format. Blu-ray is meant to be seen and experienced on large screen (42 inch or more) screens. But I do agree it'll never become mainstream as long as a) again it requires a large, expensive television to get the full benefit, b) the players are still too much, c) they still don't really have a standard across the board software base - like HD-DVD had) and d) the media is outrageously expensive. Even at Walmart, yesterday, a Blu-ray copy of Yes Man was $29!

Michelle
http://www.eclipsemagazine.com

[malexandria1]

With Digital Copy becoming a standard feature on high-end Blu-ray releases, portability isn't the big issue this article is claiming, not only that but making a portable Blu-ray player is retarded and defeats the whole point of the new format. Blu-ray is meant to be seen and experienced on large screen (42 inch or more) screens. But I do agree it'll never become mainstream as long as a) again it requires a large, expensive television to get the full benefit, b) the players are still too much, c) they still don't really have a standard across the board feature set like HD-DVD had and d) the media is outrageously expensive. Even at Walmart, yesterday, a Blu-ray copy of Yes Man was $29!

Michelle
http://www.eclipsemagazine.com

[yacahuma]

"there isn't enough of a jump in quality between DVD and Blu-ray". WOW. You should get your eyes checked!!

In terms of price, I just got a refurbished samsung internet upgradable for $150.00 in Amazon. It works perfectly.

Now , when I watched a DVD movie, they look old and outdated.

[Ken_Burk]

Poratability of the content is a must - no one wants to shell out twice for the same content. I only buy DVDs for my kid because it needs to be portable. I pay the upcharge for netflix bluray because it looks gorgeous and enhances the viewing experience.

Any luddite that says the quality of bluray doesn't make the jump from DVD worth it needs to either stop writing for CNET or start embracing hidef. Good grief, get some glasses or get a real tv.

Streaming is so uncool - low quality, delivery takes longer than netflix by mail and requires more equipment costs. And how many movies can you download before the cable company starts to throttle your connection?

[ofmyony]

If you got a fast internet connection, check out Crackle.com and watch some of their movies in HD. I think you will enjoy the quality.

[ZetaZeta_]

Have you tried streaming movies in a car?

[wmclover]

Streaming movies from Comcast, Hulu, Dish and Netflix is a nice and convenient experience. However, watching and listening to a Blu-ray movie on my 50" HDTV with a high quality sound system is a "fantastic" experience. I will always choose Blu-ray over streaming. It is just a better and richer experience.

If you have a 1080p HDTV, I believe Blu-ray is the only way you can receive full 1080p resolution. It is also the only way you can get lossless quality sound.

As far as portability is concerned, Blu-ray drives in your laptop are under $100, and you can play your discs on your laptop or any HDTV system with a HDMI input via a $7 HDMI cable.

The price of excellent Blu-ray players is in the $200 range and going lower, and the additional rental cost of a Blu-ray disc on Netflix ($2+/mo) or Blockbuster (zip) not a barrier.

Someday, the music industry will discover there is a market for music discs that provide high quality DVD lossless sound to distinguish its product from free MP3 downloads.

[BIGELLOW]

For those that don't think portability (or being able to watch one's entire Blu-ray library on a smaller screen) has any credibility in the market, you are ignoring the fact that people don't want to buy the Blu-ray version of a movie IN ADDITION TO the DVD version. They want to pick one or the other. Either their whole library will be Blu-ray, or their whole library will be DVD.

I am all for Blu-ray and we have one Blu-ray player hooked up to the one and only big screen TV in our home. However, we also have a portable DVD player for road trips, and a DVD player hooked up to all other televisions. If I am buying a Disney movie that the kids will want to watch in their room, I will buy DVD. If I am buying a movie that I feel might be watched on a road trip, I will buy a DVD. When I am buying a movie that I am confident the kids will not want to watch in their own rooms, and that will not be watched portably, I will get it on Blu-ray.

So, yes... portability is a factor which prevents me from buying some Blu-rays. I know I won't experience the additional quality on a smaller screen, but that's not the point. I want the higher quality when I put that same disc into my Blu-ray player hooked up to my big screen TV, but I don't want to be permanently tethered to that big screen TV. I want options. Digital Copy is great, but not every movie features it... and in some cases, it's an extra $5 or so for the disc which contains Digital Copy.

So, until we have a portable Blu-ray player for road trips... and until the cost of Blu-ray players is low enough (and the economy improves enough) that we can justify replacing every DVD player we have accumulated over the years with a Blu-ray player, we will not be buying every movie we wish to add to our entertainment library in the Blu-ray format.

[brightstarbeing]

I love how every piece this guy does he has to put his own little editorial comments in. Stick to the news, dude. Besides, Blu-Ray is much more relevant thatn you give it credit for. I would say that the onlt thing "Holding it back" is player price and people like you.