Comments on: DVD will fail? Sounds a lot like Blu-ray

DVD is a huge success now, but back in 1996 there were plenty of critics who argued that the format would fail. And interestingly, many of the same arguments are being used against Blu-ray today.

[another_techguy]

You forgot to mention the availability of downloadable and DVR content.
Also, your argument about the Picture quality is not entirely correct. VHS to DVD was a big leep in quality and easily visible to eyes. But DVD to Blue-ray difference is not as great!!!

[compudoc318]

if you dont notice the diff between blu ray and dvd, get a better blu ray player and a 1080p tv, the diff is night and day, everyone whos seen mine says what a huge difference it is!

[DeathReaper88]

I'm just curious, are you considered to be legally blind? If so there is no need to be ashamed, they do make glasses that help alot with that, or if you have no vision I'm sure Fido does a great job of leading you around. But you probably shouldn't be giving your opinion on matters that have to do with having good eyesight. The difference between VHS and DVD, while noticable, is very slight to say the least. In either case you cannot see make-up flaws on the actors when watching the film. On Blu-Ray you most definately can, with the exception of a few of the earlier movies hen the art was still being learned of course.

[CptGreedle]

Most people who claim Blu-ray is not a significant increase in quality are not looking at a TV se up right. If you want to see the difference, you should look at a TV that is using an HDMI cable, 1080p, 46" or larger screen, and 7.1 surround sound. When compared to a standard DVD, it really is night and day. Even against an "upsampled" DVD, Blu-ray is still much better.

[robertjkeil]

My 70-year-old grandfather couldn't believe the difference when he saw my HDTV hooked up to Blu-Ray versus his HDTV hooked up to DVD. The difference in sharpness is huge. If you don't see it, I suggest a trip to the eye doctor.

[nfrankli]

I'm not optimistic about Blu-Rays chances... To me its a race between downloads/PPV getting quality that is significantly better than current DVDs, versus BluRay getting enough players into peoples homes. BluRay currently has an image quality advantage but it won't for very long. If they can get players installed before they lose that battle they may be the last physical media format, but if they are too slow it will have been DVD.
BluRay has to get the price at $150-200 this holiday season if they want to be relevant. At that price many people would consider replacing their DVD player.

[CptGreedle]

Blu-ray won't have the image quality advantage for very long? What makes you think that?
Perhaps the facts should be put into this. The average downloaded movie is between 1 and 2 GB. That includes the highly compressed 5.1 surround sound and 720p image that most offer. Even if they were to offer 1080, the size would still be less than 8 GB (which would fit on a DVD). Blu-ray often has movies where the movie itself takes up 30-40 GB. This includes the 7.1 HD surround sound, the 1080p video at a lower compression right, the high bandwidth rate, and the option for subtitles and languages.
Add in the fact that Blu-ray supports picture in picture, far more extras, online content, and more!
And yes, the prices got down to $128 during the holidays.

[Stormspace]

Before DVD the only form of copy protection was macrovision and it wasn't very effective as people could still copy a movie relatively easy if they didn't mind the fading images. DVD introduced an even greater form of copy protection in the form of css. IMHO if percieved video priracy wasn't as great as it was at the time DVD would never have been introduced. As it was DVD, and now Blu-Ray are being pushed for their superior copy protection measures, not for the improved quality. Improved video quality, extras, and storage space are all excuses for the movie industry to push more complex copy protection on the consumer while at the same time counting on a segment to repurchase their favorite movies.

Blu ray may eventually supplant DVD as the video format of choice, but it has nothing to do with studios wanting better content for us or with making money selling back titles and everything to do with limiting our choices in playback devices.

[Mac User Too]

It doesn't matter what the 'critics', pundits or bloggers write about Blu-Ray. It also doesn't necessarily matter if Blu-Ray is the better format (Beta?). What matters is what the customers purchase. With this type of technology, there is a critical number of player devices that need to be sold that, once that number is reached, enough people follow to make it a success (at the expense of competing formats). Just as the propensity for legally-purchased downloaded music has shown, consumers are not compelled to own a physical copy of something that is digital. If Blu-Ray can convert enough users from standard (upconvert) DVDs prior to legal downloads becoming prevalent, then it will be a success. If not, it will just be an interesting chapter on the way to the inevitable conclusion of a world of downloads and cloud computing.

[adam2099]

As for extras, their point is that LD showed that only a small subset of people wanted them? I can understand that most people don't care about extras, but the LD buying population was never more than a "small subset" of the movie buying public. Might as well say water is wet.

As for streaming (or non-physical) media replacing physical media, people know what happens when data backups go wrong. Yes, my DVDs and BDs take up a lot of room, but I don't have to worry about my server going south and my backup being corrupt, either.

[Jahntassa]

You also forgot "The players are a lot more expensive for the return". With the PS3 being the decided favorite of the Blu-ray players, you have to shell out, what, $400 for it? Plus the fact that the thing may not fit into everyone's entertainment center. (Can't put something on top of it? Arg!)

Then there's the pricing. DVDs have always been more than VHS, but you do get a lot more for the buck. With Blu-ray, what additions do you get, higher definition?

Which brings us to the largest argument. "What quality difference?"

While nobody can argue that Blu-ray isn't superior to DVD as far as sound formats and video quality, the vast majority of consumers can most likely say they don't see the difference, or not own the equipment to fully experience the difference. DVD wasn't a jump to high-def, it was the same format as VHS, not requiring new equipment beyond the player to fully enjoy.

[noiro]

I purchased an OPPO 980-H DVD Player that has up-convert on it and I must say I am very pleased with it. Because of that purchase I will probably not consider a Blu-Ray for a long long time. In general, I like new gadgets and purchase way too many of them. If you have a HD TV and an OPPO, you have something that is so comparable to Blu Ray, you will not see any need for one, just like me. Thanks OPPO for putting out the greatest in DVD Players! And no, I don't work for OPPO :)

[robd11]

The real reason why blue-ray will NOT fail is:
1. All new HDTVs for sale are 1080p. Only idiots and poor people buy smaller than 50".
2. You really can tell the difference between an upconverted DVD and a 1080p blueray disk on a 50"+ 1080p HDTV. And the studios will improve the bluerays movies for optimum viewing on a 50"+ 1080p TV.
3. It really will come down to viewers demanding a native 1080p experience. That will also make the broadcaster move to 1080p from 720p/1080i today.

[Jimlex]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree a bit. I don't think there are enough people who can tell the difference between upconverted DVDs and Blu-Ray. Let alone, enough people who can even afford to buy a huge HDTV in the economic times we're living in. I know I can't and i have a tech job, even.
At this point in time, I don't think there is a large enough demand for high definition TVs that really need Blu-Ray to look good. Most will be happy with regular or upconverted DVDs.

[andrewrm]

Give me a break. I'm not poor and I'm not an idiot. I live in a space that doesn't work for anything bigger than 42". Go back under that geeky rock your cralled under.

[AmrcnHstryX]

idiots and poor people? being a little bit pompous dont you think?

[sntholiday]

So I must be an idiot because my living room is not big enough for a 50" HDTV. I would rather spend the money on a better sound system anyway.

[viper396]

"Only poor people and idiots buy less then 50""??....my aren't you an arrogant, self-indulgent, @hole. Bet you also drive around in a huge Pickup or Humvee trying to overcompensate for all your shortcomings.

[Jimlex]

I think there is a difference between the argument of VHS vs DVD and DVD vs Blu-Ray. First off, the VHS tape was bulky and easily got eaten up in the overly complicated VCR while DVDs are much less easily destroyed in your average working DVD player. There was also the added benefit of being able to start a movie from any point without having to rewind it.
The differences between DVD and Blu-Ray are negligible. Yes, increased video quality. Yes, there's more storage space on a Blu-Ray disc. But, those things are a much smaller jump in advantage over those that the DVD brought over VHS.
It's not like you're getting all that much more by buying a movie on Blu-Ray that you already had on DVD, unless you really care about those few extra things. The jump from VHS to DVD was tremendous.
So, all in all, I think the Blu-ray critics (me being one of them) have pretty sound arguments. Besides that, why do we even need a new disc format? Do people need that much behind the scenes footage that it won't all fit on a DVD anymore?

[cj-kent]

"The jump from VHS to DVD was tremendous. " The jump from DVD to VHS was a very difficult sell for me to my wife. She simply couldn't see the difference. I heard that a lot from a lot of people. It sounded eerily like what I'm hearing now. As the format continues to build momentum the differences between DVD and Blu will become much more apparent to more people. These conversations will be looked back on with humor. If anything people will be MORE likely to adopt Blu-ray because they've already experienced the DVD revolution back in the late 90's.

[Fat_Whillie]

Blue-Ray is here to stay. Wil it be adopted a quickly as DVD? No. Right now the cost-benefit ratio is way, way too high. Player, TV and surrond processor. Also, as some have pointe dout BDVD to BR is notthe quality/content "quantum leap" that VHS to DVD was. Of course is also about studios make more money off of,now, non-profitable and/or low sales volume titles. I don't begrudge a company trying to increase it's income. I personally won't move to BR yet, I refuse to pay $20.00+ for a DVD (I won't pay over $14.99). As for streaming and downloading. What happens to that side when people have movie collections on their hard drives that number in the hundreds and the drive crashes? POOF, they are gone. Consider that most people don't back up their computers on a regular, or any, basis. I'm one of them :0)
and msot users won't go out and buy a multi terrabyte backup solution.

Jimlex - yes there are those of us out there want more behind the scenes and the making of. I have been know, as have people i know, to purchase a DVD based solely on the "extras" content.

Blue-Ray is here to stay, deal with it. Upgrade as you see fit, you are not being forced to make the switch. I supose we will ahve the same discussion when media content is trasmitted directly into our brains.

[AnthonyNYC]

Hey that's not a bad idea!
Transmit the movie directly into our thoughts, bypass the optical system by tapping into the nervous system directly. Cool!
And at the same time, we won't need mullion dollar movie studios either, as we could use the same technology in reverse to record and make movies from very creative people as they dream, then sell them.
Sony should spend their billions working on that instead of BluRay.
:)

[Fat_Whillie]

Jimlex -
I agree totally with your response to Robd11

[NYYRule]

I think blu-ray will eventually be successful, but there are arguments that you missed.. I won't repeat what is said above, but most consumers don't understand technology or even know what HDTV really is..what they care about is how much does something make their lives simpler. DVD's did that not having to rewind/fast forward to find a spot in the tape you want to watch, and you don't need to rewind before returning to Blockbuster or whatever rental store. Blurays don't have any advantage like that for the consumer, they are not any easier to use than a dvd, and most people don't even understand the whole PQ difference between 1080p and 480i/p, which is, I think, the biggest draw to blu-ray.

I think eventually it will be successful, however it will be slow. As consumers in the technology age (generation Y and, whatever the new one is called.. i I think?) that were born into a world with technology get real jobs and have the money to splurge on blu ray players and ps3's, they will buy blu rays, especially because once they become more commonplace, the price will drop, just like DVD's did. Along with that, by that point the number of moves on BD will increase, so consumers will have more to choose from. Once that happens, they will begin to takeoff.

[solvback]

Come on CNET you guys can't thank of any thing better to write about? If you believe people will switch because DVD is old technology? You really need to get out some. I just had a debate about why Archos 605 does more than the Ipod. They don't care about the features. (record TV, web and wi-fi)

[BIGELLOW]

It's funny that people are still talking about specs and benefits and whether or not people will notice, etc, etc... What they fail to recognize is it is all about marketing. The iPod was not a "better mp3 player"... in fact, most iPod purchasers don't know what an mp3 is. People bought iPods because they were told, through marketing, that it was the "in thing"... that it was the future. Only the rare hi-tech geek and early adopter will compare specs and decide what makes sense to them. The majority of the people will simply buy what they think they are supposed to buy.

So, in droves, people are switching to Blu-ray... not because they have to... not because they need to... and not because they are making a comparison to DVD and are choosing Blu-ray... they are buying into Blu-ray because they believe it is the future, plain and simple. They heard there was a "war" between HD DVD and Blu-ray and Blu-ray won. They don't perceive that there is a "war" between DVD and Blu-ray (or even downloads, to which the average consumer is still mostly afraid of)... they see DVD as being old, even if it is still acceptable. They want to make sure they don't keep buying into something that is likely on its way out from just being in the market for too long. They see more and more movies being released on Blu-ray and they anticipate that, eventually, movies will stop appearing on DVD. They don't want to end up replacing their library after-the-fact, when it is too late... so they are starting to build their Blu-ray libraries now, in preparation for the future.

So, the intellectuals can debate all day long as to whether Blu-ray will succeed or not... in the end, it will... because the majority of the purchasers are not intellectuals. They are just the average consumer. They just want to buy the next thing... the iPod... the Blu-ray player... etc...

Video downloads are here to stay... but they aren't going to completely replace physical media for another 5-10 years. This means that Blu-ray is going to plant itself firmly into the ground... and then, within 5 years, you will see Blu-ray players capable of streaming/downloading movies. The transition between Blu-ray physical format and streaming/downloading will come in the form of Blu-ray players about 5 years from now.

Then, about 5 years after that, people will be less concerned over whether or not their set-top-box will support physical media anymore... it will all be about files and streaming. The reason this is going to take longer in the United States is due to the poor broadband infrastructure in the U.S., the high costs for bandwidth, and the new attempts by ISPs to charge more for extra bandwidth usage (from movie downloads and streaming.)

[nikhil.j]

Hats off bigellow, your's was the most sensible comment out of all.

I am not an average consumer, but even i tend to think i need to be future proof and go for the latest.
I don't think any of us will have any complains about the present technology until a new one comes around, which we are made to believe will make our lives better.
Its the fear of being left behind, being 'OUTDATED' which pushes us to be 'UPDATED'.

Anyway we are all the victims of it, and i think we will be for a long time to come.
So again, history will repeat and Blu-Ray will succeed...

[robertjkeil]

There are already blu-ray players out now that can store downloaded/streamed movies. By Xmas 2009 I predict MOST blu-ray players will have that... and they will cost $99.

[make_or_break]

Um...who cares? Why the heck do people want to tie themselves to that boob tube of theirs, albeit in 72 inch diagonal, 1080p form? Pretty only goes so far for me, especially if I'm expected to pay a premium for the so-called (ahem), 'privilege' of sparkling my retinas with hi-def ecstasy. Yeah, that's reason enough to tie myself to the telly, captive and awaiting for the onset of Alzheimer's to hit.

I dunno...if you've seen a movie once, does it really benefit your life to see it again...and again?

[robertjkeil]

make_or_break: Your commont shows that you are not the target buyer for Blu-ray, DVD, or any home video for that matter. If you don't care about watching movies at home why are you even reading this article or posting here?

[LenVine]

I suspect that people who say Blu-ray is not much better than DVD are not watching Blu-ray on top quality equipment that can display a 1080p picture, and probably aren't connecting their equipment with HDMI cables, to get the absolute best picture.
I have seen people connect their DVD player to their TV with RCA cables, like they did to hook up their VCR to their TV, and are doing the same to hook up their HDTV, simply because nobody has told them the importance of true digital connections like HDMI.
I watch Blu-ray discs in my Playstation 3, projected by a 1080p Bravia HD projector, onto a 90" wide 16:9 projection screen, and the results are awesome.
True cinema quality High Definition.
I find it hard to watch Standard Definition after that.

To me, Blu-ray is far superior to DVD.

Len Vine
Toronto

[palbanes]

Very true for a limited number of people. The fact is for people with less than 50" (or is it 52" ) screens won't be able to see the difference between 1080p and 720p/1080i.

Correct me if I am wrong, which i have been in the past :-), most HD TV's are too small to even notice the advantage of 1080p.

Of course audio quality is superior on bluray, but again, most people are not going to notice the difference. I have decent equipment and I can tell, but most people won't.

--Peter A

[ILibao]

I think this article's analysis is very simplistic. The biggest difference between VHS and DVD, IMO, was the the VHS was sequential and DVD was random access. Everyone knows that consumers hated fast forwarding to a certain spot in the program which could take minutes. The DVD shrank it to seconds. I think this specific trait caused a lot of consumers to rebuy movies which he/she owned already on tape. Furthermore, I own an HDDVD (yeah), Blu Ray, and 1080P TV, and I don't necessarily think the picture quality if significantly better than a DVD. It is better though. One last thing, the main issues are pricing and other technologies like streaming video. Why were these issues not discussed? I think this article is very elementary and really does discuss the foundation of the issues facing Blu Ray.

[myles taylor]

Really it's a race with bandwidth and disk space. People like their media at their fingertips; they don't like going to the store and getting a disc and they don't like swapping out discs. I know I don't. Right now there are millions of people who's internet connections are too slow to download HD movies to their TVs and there isn't enough content out there. But as someone who works for an ISP, I know that before too long, the bandwidth will be there and the storage space will be there as well, in an ever increasing smaller package. Bluray might have it's day in the sun, but I think the sunset will come a lot sooner than it did for DVD.

[aki.daddy]

Cnet is so green. They recycle articles by giving them a new title. Great job cnet!

[Toosimple]

The writer of this article (Matthew Moskovciak) missed a few crucial points that some of the commentators have already ponted out.

1) When it was VHS vs. DVD, there were ONLY those 2 options. And, like many here have pointed out already, DVD was a MAJOR LEAP for the industry and the consumer alike. The ability to get to any chapter of the movie by navigating with the remote, the storage space difference, not having to worry about the tape getting caught in the player etc... (although there is a "scratch" issue now)

2) Because, as mentioned, there are other media types available, such as hard drives and many different types of flash memory (which, by the way, get cheaper every week), it is more likely that people will turn there. For those who argue about hard-drive crashing, let's not forget that 1) DVD's can get scratched so badly that they can become unplayable - especially when you have children at home. 2) When you legally purchase a movie online, you should have unlimited access to it, because it is already on your account's profile that you purchased it. (So you can re-download it) 3) You can always have 2 hard drives (they are dirt cheap anyway), and back everything up twice. 4) Hard drives, in my experience, don't crash that often. And, when they do crash, they can many times be recovered easily, especially considering that they would be connected to a TV and not a computer.

With modern compression types such as .MKV using H.264, you can rip a high def 1080p movie into 8 GB or a 720p into 4 GB and then people REALLY won't notice the difference between that and BLU-RAY (talk about people not noticing between DVD and BLU-RAY!)

That means that with a 2TB hard drive, (which will probably be in the $100 - $150 range within the next year or two) you can store around 250 1080p movies or 500 720p movies. and with newer, larger hard drives becoming available, you can probably expect to see in the near future 10 or maybe even 20 TB.

Also, with a hard drive attached to your TV, you can navigate through your 500 movies by simply using the remote!

3) With internet piracy growing rapidly, the industries need to compete by finding a way to make movies available to people fast and easy, as well as very cheap. (Netflix has started that with their new ROKU).

$400 for a BLU-RAY player is far too much, and so is $30 for a DVD. If the player costs $100 and the DVD $5 people might reconsider.

Ultimately, however (also, as some commentators have already pointed out) if the companies market BLU-RAY properly, and make people feel as if "they need it", that will get it into housholds worldwide.

[AnthonyNYC]

Well I agree with you and that last part about getting it into households world wide, sales in japan are good I hear and Europe but then again our dollar has lost 30% its value to the euro, so BluRay isn't as expensive to them, is it?
And to us, it is 30% more so 60% swing there, US economy not ready for BluRay pricing from Japan at all.