Comments on: Blu-ray market share on the decline?

Blu-ray players may have fallen to the $200 mark, but according to new sales numbers from Nielsen VideoScan, its market share in the video disc market has slumped in the past week.

[zizzybaloobah]

You said it yourself in the article - most consumers are satisfied with the quality of DVD's and therefore won't be in a hurry to repurchased their titles in Blu-ray. DVD to Blu-ray isn't the same level of innovation and convenience that VHS to DVD represents. Even if sub-$100 players and cheap discs become available, I still doubt consumers will be replacing their entire DVD collection.

[notgonnatellya]

Zizzy, you're nuts. At this point in the life of the DVD Format, players were MORE EXPENSIVE, with FEWER SALES. I'm not saying that BluRay will always outpace DVD, but up to now, it has. I remember those early days, and most people didn't have a DVD player until 2001 or 2002 (which was year 4-5 in that format's life). The disk prices are currently higher, and that is of some concern, but the fact that it's mostly HT enthusiasts buying Blu Ray is pretty much what we saw at this point in the life of DVD. In Jan. 99 I spent 300 for a cheap DVD player and then started looking for a homet heater Receiver and speakers.

One thing that hasn't changed is that just like then, the press was stating that the new technology wasn't likely to replace VHS. And like now, Blockbuster had a very limited selection of titles for the new format.

[notgonnatellya]

Ooops...forgot to mention quality. From a quality point of view, the improvement in image is greater with Blu Ray is at least as much as the improvement from VHS to DVD. If you were just counting pixels, it'd clearly be more. Go back and look at an old copy of the Contact DVD (once considered a high quality transfer), and you'll see a lackluster picture.

Compare that to Blu Ray or HD DVD, and there's no comparison. Now some of the more recent DVD's have been much better, but the quality of BR titles will get better as the tech matures and those involved become more experienced.

[ddanckaert]

If my experience is any indicator, I want to own well-produced (meaning, not a crappy port) the eye/ear candy movies that I really like (Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc) on Blu Ray. I've got a PS3 and the bluetooth remote (which, frankly is the best Blu Ray player out there given its price point and the fact that it can be easily updated over time), and I do rent titles from Blockbuster in the new format when possible. Consider the profound ignorance of 99% of the population when it comes to changing technologies and firmware updates... The PS3 takes care of most of that.

Yes, I've downloaded HD movies for renting, but even with my "premium" Comcast Internet service, it takes several hours. In other words, downloading HD is stupid until we're getting 100MBps (and I'll bet that's a decade away--most likely only going to happen through servies like FIOS). I hear those "experts" saying that folks with download rather than buy discs---well, what dreamworld are they living in? I live in a major metro area and have better Internet options than most of the country.

Blu Ray will become the defacto standard over the next three years as people buy HDTVs and their existing DVD players bite the dust.

[Hanoveur]

Buying a PS3 just to play Blu-Ray discs is like buying a Ferrari to listen o the car stereo.

PS3 is a PS3..its not called "Blu-Ray Player" and the fact you have to navigate menus to get to the disc-watching part of this console is not going to win over people who would rather just pop the disc in and watch their movie.

"You mean I have to pay FOR THE REMOTE SEPERATELY?! What I have is just fine..."

[Stormspace]

I just spent money on a surround sound system with an upconvert DVD less than a year ago. I'm not planning to go out and buy blu ray just because it's marginally better on my 42" plasma. And for everyone else out there I doubt they are going to see the difference on anything smaller.

High prices for Blu-Ray and a short supply of new titles due to the writers strike may very well cause this format to go the way of laser disk. Expect Blu-ray to be dead this time next year or see tons of old titles being released to spur interest in this marginal upgrade.

[ddanckaert]

By the way, that utterly stupid title "Blu Ray market share on the decline" is obviously designed to draw eyeballs. But the question it prompts is: Ok, Blu Ray loses market share to what? DVD? Not. Downloads? Not. Come on CNET... get real.

[mmntech]

I really fear the day when physical disc media is replaced by downloads since it would give the studios unprecedented control over what you watch and how you can watch it. We're already seeing it with Sony's Playstation Video Store and the like. I like owning something physical since we know hard drives crash and flash drives get fried. At least with Blu-ray, if my player breaks, I can just buy a new one and not have to re-purchase (or should I say re-rent) my film collection. That's the flaw with digital downloads. More often than not, they tie your media to a single device.

I've owned a Playstation 3 for a year now. I've only ever bought two BD movies for it. Price is the major sticking point. In Canada, they still cost nearly twice as much as the DVD version. While I do like lossless audio and the higher res picture, I just can't justify paying the higher price for not that much gain. I certainly can't justify replacing my entire DVD collection with Blu-ray. Another advantage to DVD is that I can rip movies to my portable media player, which is still legal here.

[swshop]

I'll convert to Blu-ray when I can get a player for less that $150. But it still won't make me purchase the movies. I'll just rent Blu-ray, as I do with DVDs now. I'd be more interested to see share figures for the rental market.

[umbrae]

If MS releases a 360 BR addon, I will get another 360 (for the TV room) and the addon but I will not replace my library. In fact, I would probably buy DVDs instead of BR which would be my main Rental item.

Discs are too expensive and I really do not like BR technology. Fact is, upscaled DVDs look really good. I am the only one in the family without glasses, and I am the only one that sees a difference. When you are talk $9-15 verses $35-40 in most cases the lower price will win.

Until BR match DVD prices and players are $100 or less, DVD will remain King. This is why HD-DVD was better because in the long run that price mark would be met faster, and there was no sacrifice in quality.

[fschoonbaert]

I have been a fan of Blu-Ray for a while (I have 2 Blu-Ray players), but regardless I am not buying many Blu Ray titles. I therefore don't think that the cost of the Players is a big issue. The main reason why I don't buy Blu-Ray titles are:

1. The cost is still unaccpetbly high. May are still retailing at 35 Euro ($50) or more, while the equivalent DVD can be purchased for one third of the price.
2. Most Blu-Rays seem to have opted for teh 24:9 widescreen ration and have blocked the ability to zoom in on the picture, so oa 16:9 TV you have to suffer the top and bottton black bars that I absolutely hate. In fact I often find that an upscalled DVD in full scree gives me a more pleasant picture than the Blu-Ray HiDef version.
3. Region coding. I travel a lot and can buy DVD's anywhere since my DVD player is multi-region. Any Blu-Ray I buy can only be used if it is region B compatible. Meaning I can't buy any of them in the USA. Furthermore even though I am Dutch many of my friends are Russian speakers and then need region C for the Russian language, while we live in region B where this langauage is not available.

So until the Blu-Ray stops trying to tell us HOW and WHERE we should watch the movies, introduces reasonable prices and leaves us alone to enjoy the content I don't think Blu-Ray will become a major player.

What do they care HOW we watch the discs as long as we pay for them

[hotchkikr]

*woot*, *woot*! I just bought a computer with a DVD drive, I hope bluray dies because it is proprietary and pricey. And I like downloading movies more anyways, it beats having to carry DVDs onto the train!

[planblove]

Blu-Ray just needs a little more time in my opinion. DVDs were in the market about 3-4 years before it really took off and we're only in the 2nd year (about to go into the 3rd) of Blu-Ray. Once more HDTVs are in homes and people start to get into Blu-Rays technical advances over DVD it will eventually grab hold though I think it will take a little longer for Blu Ray than it did for DVD. Its just a like a baby, you have to learn to crawl before you can walk and right now, Blu-Ray is still crawling. But it'll eventually start walking, give it time.

[MickBurke]

Is this post a joke? Do you know nothing about the market or technology?

You think that because the market share is down for one week, and because teenagers would rather download over compressed videos to watch on their ipod, that blu-ray is in danger?

And why do people need to replace their entire collection?!?! DVD is good, but when new titles are being released on a superior format, which actually takes advantage of that 60' HDTV someone just bought, why are they not going to get it? Because the player cost $250?

This kind of crap belongs on formarwarcentral, not on CNet.

[renGek]

The whole concept of another proprietary format is silly. Media be it HD or any future version can be processed by your computer so why not just use it to play back content? Because the industry is a sham bent on making you buy the same movies over and over in different formats.

If the industry were to dedicate themselves to integrating your PC to living room, you can use your pc seamlessly as a tool to your TV. An HD movie 'can' be downloaded within 2 hours. (even if it take 6 hours isn't that still faster than netflix) If it takes longer, then probably comast is your provider and throttling your connection or the service hasn't dedicated their network for that type of download. But bottom line is, you can do it nicely if given the chance. You won't notice the difference of playing back the movie from your pc to your tv, vs. blu-ray player to tv etc.

[Haysoos]

Your comment is "silly". Your idea is the same approach that sony had with blu-ray, try and force the market to what you want as opposed to meeting market demand as it stands. People want a physical copy. I know tech savvy people that hate watching videos online or downloading videos. What if your internet connection is down? Do you think I should be holding 3gig movies on my hard drive then? It doesn't make sense on the large scale, regardless of whatever sense it makes to you.

Also, I've never been strong armed into buying a movie on DVD that I already own on VHS. I still watch my VHS tapes. Now I did buy American Beauty on DVD because the tape was old, worn and full of static. But if the DVD wasn't out, I would have had to buy it on VHS again, and deal with it wearing out.

I also love how you point out how your model fails (slow connection), but you just gloss over. I almost feel like you were about to say "Get a better connection, n00b". Like I said, just because it works for you doesn't mean it'll work for everyone. People like physical copies of media...

[Carlox1]

im not sure but i guess the video downloads havent the same quality because this downloads are in a compresed fomat(like mp4) and even compressed they took a long long time downloading, and bluray its the best native quality, besides the market its not only america, so there are several contries that doesnt have fast internet connections and dont even have internet. also this year most of the pcs and laptops are coming with blu-ray. anyway buy a ps3 it is ready for downloading too

[Haysoos]

Knew this would happen and it's why I've been boycotting Sony since the whole blu-ray vs. hd-dvd thing started. It's betamax vs. VHS all over again, except sony unethically forced blu-ray adoption through manipulating the representation of market demand. They did this by putting bluray drives in the PS3, which some would argue is for more storage space for games, but thats wrong. Yes, it is a beneficial bonus, but think about why bluray beat HD-DVD: Sony could claim every PS3 sold as an active bluray player. Because of this, they were able to make the movie industry believe that there was a large base of bluray users, but the movie industry neglected to realize that most ps3 owners bought it to play games and would not be buying blu-ray discs at all. So they tricked the movie industry into thinking there are more active blu-ray players out there than there really is, and they tricked gamers into helping them fight an unethical war.

Which boils down to why Blu-ray? Because sony wants to shove their products down your throat. It has nothing to do with storage capacity or load times, or even HD video, its simply because sony refuses to use any existing media unless it has to (VHS, CD). But remember, they tried to remake the CD with their Minidisc standard. They have 5 different memory cards, when most companies just pick SD or CF and thats that.

HD DVD, if it had made it to this point, would have greater adoption. It's cheaper, cheaper to make, cheaper players. It really was the next logical step simply because it WASN'T the biggest or the fastest. It was, overall, the best bang for the buck, and when it comes to replacing media standards, the one with the best cost effectiveness is gonna beat out the biggest, top of the line, expensive stuff. But, Sony cheated the system, lied to customers and partners, had their way, and the only people to benefit so far? Sony.

it's never to late to boycott an unethical, amoral company that tries to force the market, and it's consumers, to it's will.

[MickBurke]

Oh for the love of God get over it! BD is just better. Not every one is too cheap to buy into new technology, or so poor mouthed that they feel the need to try to shove 30 gig of data onto a DVD. HDDVD was made by and large from OLD (DVD) Technology. That's why it was cheaper.

HD DVD died because more people bought Blu-Ray because it had more going for it, DESPITE the fact that it was Sony's product.

Toshiba Paid paramount to drop BD support with the BIGGEST title of the year, and it didn't help HDDVD because it was an inferior product.
Toshiba dropped their prices to $100 and it didn't help hddvd because it was an inferior product.

Just because you buy into the 'sony is evil' drivel and were tricked into buying a $99 HDDVD player, don't take it out on the rest of us.

And if anyone wants the facts of BD market share, instead of sensationalist reporting from haters, see with your own eyes:

http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/VideoScan/

In April of this year share was 4 and 5 %, over august and September it has averaged 9%. That looks like double to me. Doubled in just 5 months? Yea, frightening decline.

Remember, when you see a 'news' story, with a question mark? at the end of the title; IT's NOT REALLY NEWS.

[minhtule]

u sound like a sore loser and a sony hater.. come on hddvd is dead, time for u to move on.. u tell me can a hddvd disc store 500gig of data.. yes bluray is expensive atm, what do u expect is a new format.. 3 or 4yrs down the track it would be cheap for everybody to buy, think what u can do with a 500gig blank disc for data storage,atm the highest resolution tam is 1080p hell if we ever get to 4000p resolution,bluray can acommodate for it.. the longer a format is around the better is for the consumers..

[BluFan]

The market as a whole is always going to fluxuate in sales figures; especially given that they're directly proportional to the quality of the products that come out at any given time. I promise you this won't be the case once Iron Man and Dark Knight come out on Blu-ray... It's all apart of the growing pains for a new format. I've actually been working with Warner Home Video and know they're really backing it, so regardless of how sales fluxuate, they'll continue to push for it.

[stampy932]

as someone mentioned, unless download speeds for everyone start to come close to blu-ray sustained bit rates of 20Mbps, then blu-ray will have a niche and almost be required for those with very large TVs - to maintain the quality of picture

[DCBRONCO]

Blu-ray is going to die. Hide this information from David Carnoy though. You might have put him on suicide watch if he sees this.

[Scott Gardener]

Let's not forget perhaps the most essential step towards adoption of Blu-Ray: the titles actually being available. New movies, yes. Everything else, sorta-kinda-maybe. Old independent films: out of luck. It's going to be ages before "The Company of Wolves" makes it out to Blu-Ray. As for the 80s music Georgio Moroder version of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis," I'm still waiting on the frigging DVD.

[Mac n Trekker]

As long as Blu-Ray has hours and hours of special features, and down load services DON'T, I won't be a 'down-loader'.

[Wes#1]

What a dumb headline... as if the sky is falling because ONE researcher reports a ONE week decline. And if sales of ketchup declined last week, should we surmise that people are no longer interested in it?