Sony release next generation Blu Ray player

[Rouxenator]

Rouxenator: even though I've been warned to not engage with you, I'd like to point out that you're basing your argument on the hypothesis that the life or ending of a format depends on how easy it is to [-]pirate[/-] copy. Please show me the consumer trends you allegedly used in your research when you make these blanket statements...

My word ! My reputation precedes me I'm flattered

Tell you what, you come with the research and evidence to debunk my observations and then we talk again ?

I really cannot see how you can argue against consumer needs - what they like will float, else it will become another ATRAC/SACD/DVD-Audio/Betamax. They like ease of use (CD over tape/LP and DVD over VHS) and they also like control (duplicating and copying) that is what MP3 and MPEG4 are becoming more popular.

And be honest, how many CD-Rs do you think are traveling around in cubby holes at this very moment ?

As they saying goes, If they can burn it, they will come.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Rouxenator : You are the one claiming the consumer trends, therefore you need to provide them.. not the other way around.

As for your basic argument, it is flawed...

Things like SACD etc etc didn't get traction because they were not adopted by the industry as a whole and therefore there wasn't a great amount of content on the formats.

BR will succeed dvd eventually, it is a given.
And the average consumer does NOT burn DVD's... CD's yes.. but DVD's no.
and no, it didn't take consumers 25 years to get on the MP3 bandwagon... it only started gaining traction with the geek market in the mid 90's.. and then wider consumer acceptance in about 2000. MP3's solve one issue, but people still buy CD's when mp3's are so widely available now, how does that fit into your theory?

BR is leaps and bounds better than DVD, on top of the picture and sound quality, there is better extra content on the disc, the systems are able to get later and more up to date content off the internet, without needing to overload the internet connection streaming the movie.

 

[Rouxenator]

Rouxenator : You are the one claiming the consumer trends, therefore you need to provide them.. not the other way around.

It is based on observation, you are welcome to tell me where I observe incorrectly - but I think my observation is pretty spot on.

Things like SACD etc etc didn't get traction because they were not adopted by the industry as a whole and therefore there wasn't a great amount of content on the formats.

But it was better than CD, as BD is better than DVD. So being better does not cut it alone.

BR will succeed dvd eventually, it is a given.

Yes - but it will take a lot longer than you think. Who is going to fork out R4k for players when they already have digital video players ?

And the average consumer does NOT burn DVD's... CD's yes.. but DVD's no.

Remember, I said ease of use AND control. People bought CDs since the early 80's when there was no recorders for them - that is the ease of use factor. Same goes for DVD. But once they could burn their own, the control factor, the format got even more support. Oh, and show me a writer these days that does not write all DVD formats and CDs. People make more videos using digital device and it ends up on DVD somewhere.

and no, it didn't take consumers 25 years to get on the MP3 bandwagon... it only started gaining traction with the geek market in the mid 90's.. and then wider consumer acceptance in about 2000.

25 years since CD came out mainstream got into MP3 (like my parents). 1981~2006. Sure MP3 has been in use 1990s by geeks

MP3's solve one issue, but people still buy CD's when mp3's are so widely available now, how does that fit into your theory?

I said they are only beginning to embrace MP3 now, not abandon CD.

BR is leaps and bounds better than DVD, on top of the picture and sound quality, there is better extra content on the disc, the systems are able to get later and more up to date content off the internet, without needing to overload the internet connection streaming the movie.

So was SACD and DVD-Audio.

 

[kingmonty]

My word ! My reputation precedes me I'm flattered

Tell you what, you come with the research and evidence to debunk my observations and then we talk again ?

If you make the claims (which you are), then you should provide the evidence to back it up, no?

I really cannot see how you can argue against consumer needs - what they like will float, else it will become another ATRAC/SACD/DVD-Audio/Betamax.

I think you're confusing consumer for industry. If the industry adopts a technology, then it will be used by consumers. Betamax/VHS was the perfect example (perhaps now pipped by HD-DVD and BR). Industry (i.e. film studios and other content creators) adopted one or the other, resulting in one or the other prospering.

They like ease of use (CD over tape/LP and DVD over VHS) and they also like control (duplicating and copying) that is what MP3 and MPEG4 are becoming more popular.

You're arguing in circles here. The fact is this: CD was adopted over tape because of superior sound quality. Heck - one of the benchmarks of sound quality today is "CD Quality". In fact, it was far easier to duplicate a tape than it was to duplicate a CD (anyone with a double tape deck could quickly copy a tape - but a CD you needed a computer and some expensive equipment to do so), so that aspect of your argument is nullified. DVD also replaced VHS because of improved quality in addition to the ability to get surround sound. Video tapes were not re-useable to the degrees DVD was. DVD offered superior quality, and once the players became cheap (I remember seeing DVD players in Pick 'n Pay for R250 a few christmas seasons back) they became widely adopted. Not only has the players become cheaper, even the media is available for anything from R10 to R500. Just like DVD replaced the video tape by being a superior and industry adopted standard, Blu-Ray is certain to become the norm for the next decade or so. It's already killed its main rival.

And be honest, how many CD-Rs do you think are traveling around in cubby holes at this very moment ?

This certainly doesn't prove the trend of the consumer. The fact is that music sales on CD is still a mammoth industry, and will remain so for years to come - as it is still the most adopted standard in the music industry all over the world. MP3 and other digital audio players are slowly making inroads into that market share, but it won't kill it for some time yet.

As they saying goes, If they can burn it, they will come.

The saying is actually "If we build it, they will come".

 

[ToxicBunny]

The one very big aspect of your argument relating to SACD and DVD-Audio is the industry adoption.

The ENTIRE industry has adopted BR, slowly yes, but they have adopted it.

DVD-Audio and SACD were not adopted by the industry as a whole and were thus doomed to fail from the start.

 

[Rouxenator]

If you make the claims (which you are), then you should provide the evidence to back it up, no?

Firstly, my word is law, I need no evidence. Secondly I observed consumer trends - pretty bulletproof unless my observation is inaccurate in which case you are welcome to make yours.

I think you're confusing consumer for industry. If the industry adopts a technology, then it will be used by consumers. Betamax/VHS was the perfect example (perhaps now pipped by HD-DVD and BR). Industry (i.e. film studios and other content creators) adopted one or the other, resulting in one or the other prospering.

Industry has adopted many things that just do not sell. It dies.

You're arguing in circles here. The fact is this: CD was adopted over tape because of superior sound quality. Heck - one of the benchmarks of sound quality today is "CD Quality". In fact, it was far easier to duplicate a tape than it was to duplicate a CD (anyone with a double tape deck could quickly copy a tape - but a CD you needed a computer and some expensive equipment to do so), so that aspect of your argument is nullified.

I said ease of use AND control. CDs are a lot easier than tapes and LPs. It is more compact than LPs and offers access to any part of it, not sequencial like tapes. Plus it is digital and the quality is better, well spotted, but I never argued against that. Control over the format came later with writers.

DVD also replaced VHS because of improved quality in addition to the ability to get surround sound. Video tapes were not re-useable to the degrees DVD was. DVD offered superior quality, and once the players became cheap (I remember seeing DVD players in Pick 'n Pay for R250 a few christmas seasons back) they became widely adopted. Not only has the players become cheaper, even the media is available for anything from R10 to R500.

True, there was a lot of reasons to jump to DVD from VHS, see my CD statement above.

Just like DVD replaced the video tape by being a superior and industry adopted standard, Blu-Ray is certain to become the norm for the next decade or so. It's already killed its main rival.

No, longer. Consumers already have their collection digitized. BD is not that big a jump from DVD as DVD was from VHS. BD will eventually become more popular or just fade away as it is superseded by something better.

This certainly doesn't prove the trend of the consumer. The fact is that music sales on CD is still a mammoth industry, and will remain so for years to come - as it is still the most adopted standard in the music industry all over the world.

Yes, despite the fact the SACD and DVD-Audio is superior to it. Same goes for BD.

The only chance BD has with consumers is if it gets alot cheaper, basically making DVD look very unattractive. Apart from that it is good for about 25gb of backup space. End of story.

 

[kingmonty]

Your arrogance is amusing. Good day.

 

[Rouxenator]

Thanks. We'll talk again when BD fails to make it or has been superseded by something better.

It's backup media fodder - nothing more.

 

[HBee]

I remember when mp3 came out, I had an impressive 80meg drive and a 386dx 25 pc.
I could store mabey 10-20 songs and software for ripping was lacking as well as cd burners. mp3's had to be split over several stiffies. Playing them also took a large chunk out of the processers power.

The same goes for DVD a decade later.

Until consumer harware evolves to a point that makes "manageing" a standard feasable it will not make a big impact.

CD was different. The ease of skipping to your favourite song and the great sound coupled to the small form factor and the greater robustness was a deal made in heaven.

BD I think will fail as consumer hardware has already surpassed it and it is still going nowhere. By the time big tv's in the home is a norm something better will have arrived.

 

[Rouxenator]

I remember when mp3 came out, I had an impressive 80meg drive and a 386dx 25 pc.
I could store mabey 10-20 songs and software for ripping was lacking as well as cd burners. mp3's had to be split over several stiffies. Playing them also took a large chunk out of the processers power.

The same goes for DVD a decade later.

Until consumer harware evolves to a point that makes "manageing" a standard feasable it will not make a big impact.

CD was different. The ease of skipping to your favourite song and the great sound coupled to the small form factor and the greater robustness was a deal made in heaven.

BD I think will fail as consumer hardware has already surpassed it and it is still going nowhere. By the time big tv's in the home is a norm something better will have arrived.

My thoughts exactly. Besides, your average Joe will be more than happy if his Divx Player/DVD-Recorder can upscale his DVDs onto his new LCD.

Just a small correction, it was impossible to do anything meaningful with MP3s on a 386. You would not be able to play it, and if you compressed it a single file would take hours.

I had a 486DX2/66 with 8MB RAM and a 420MB HDD. I could play MP3s (at 99% CPU usage) only if they were sampled at half quality (22Khz) using Winamp 1.00

 

[BluFan]

This argument yet again huh... Ok, well let's look at this a bit further.

I'm working with Warner Home Video on some blu-ray projects and have been completely immersed in the tech, news, and market trends; so let me add my .02 here...

First, BR, contrary to what it's reletively small marketshare may suggest, has actually been increasingly more rapidly than HDTV adoption (which is a necessary component to blu-ray as SD TV's make the tech pretty much moot). Only about ~12% of US households have HDTV's, whereas blu-ray has about 8%. While that may appear to be pretty small, remember that HDTV's have been around a lot longer (and weren't stifled by a format war). Also, I'd argue that 12% adoption rate is also small overall, however, I don't think anyone is arguing that HDTV's will be repleaced any time soon. HDTV's are becoming the standard to anyone looking to buy a new television. Therein, HD content is the ultimate future of programming.

With that in mind, let's look at the HD mediums: blu-ray, solid state drives, and streaming/downloadable content. Pound for pound, solid state/flash memory is considerably more expensive than BR discs and far less scalable. Simply put, I wouldn't expect to see 25 and 50gb flash drives for the single digit prices that BR discs go for any time soon.

Next is downloadable content. Now I know this varies depending on where in the world you are, but in US markets, broadband prices and speed are simply not at a level which would make this relevent. While many households have finally adopted broadband, they still don't have the bandwith, the space, or the tech to make streaming and downloading high definition content to watch on their TV's, a realistic competitor.

Finally, you have blu-ray. A true HD format that is not only scalable, but comparatively speaking, cheaper than the rest. You can argue the DVD vs. Blu-ray price difference all day long; but the fact remains that DVD has hit the wall and blu-ray is only just getting started. People aren't just going to give up on high definition, especially as more and more people buy HDTV's and want to see what they can really do. Sure you'll always have people who think that DVD is "good enough" but to say there isn't a noticable different is just flat out incorrect.

 

[PeterCH]

First, BR, contrary to what it's reletively small marketshare may suggest, has actually been increasingly more rapidly than HDTV adoption (which is a necessary component to blu-ray as SD TV's make the tech pretty much moot). Only about ~12% of US households have HDTV's, whereas blu-ray has about 8%. While that may appear to be pretty small, remember that HDTV's have been around a lot longer (and weren't stifled by a format war).

You forgot to mention that HDTVs have been declining in price over the last few years. That is also a major reason why they are on the uptake, now
that they are cheap(er) while before they were very expensive. Only two years ago it was impossible to find a Full HD set in South Africa, ok full HD panasonic Plasmas cost R120.000. A 720p plasma 3 years ago would cost you
R45.000 while EDTV plasmas went for R25.000-30.000.



In contrast full HD projectors have remained very expensive. A full HD projector at this stage would retail for about R95.000. We can see that despite the increase in BD people are not scooping up HD projectors but
are mostly buying sub-R15K HDTVs (both 720P and 1080P).

Cheap prices mean LCD and plasma growth:
HDTVs are set to grow to 241.2 Million units by 2012.
http://www.isuppli.com/newsdetail.aspx?id=19663

With that in mind, let's look at the HD mediums: blu-ray, solid state drives, and streaming/downloadable content. Pound for pound, solid state/flash memory is considerably more expensive than BR discs and far less scalable. Simply put, I wouldn't expect to see 25 and 50gb flash drives for the single digit prices that BR discs go for any time soon.

You missed one. Yes D-VHS. D-VHS provided 1080i HD video plus one
was able to record HD source. Despite this, and the availability of 1080i
HDTV services, even the Japanese 1035i analog HD service in the early
90's - HD sets were few, most likely because they were very expensive.

Sure you'll always have people who think that DVD is "good enough" but to say there isn't a noticable different is just flat out incorrect.

The major reason for having HD is to achieve a huge picture, which has the sharpness of current SD signals. Yes, its cute to have an ultrasharp picture on a small HDTV, but you have to sit within 3 screen heights to resolve the picture with your retinas. The major benefit is to achieve a HUGE screen - a home theatre look and cinema experience, for that a super expensive projector is needed OR a HDTV set of 60 inches and more, depending on
room size - both of those are still very expensive. The price for a Pioneer
Kuro plasma at 55inches full HD was about R100K this month.

BD while pretty is not revolutionary for small set sizes. To achieve the full HD
glory a big screen, which takes the full horizontal field of view is necessary or at least that's the idea behind HD. HD in smaller screen sizes is pretty, and being able to see individual hair follicles on an actors face or make out the writing on a newspaper lying on a table in a movie scene are groovy but
not worth the need to have a new format released for - unless one considers
that BD is a great gimmick to re-sell the same DVD content again (at inflated prices)

 

[vodacom3g]

In contrast full HD projectors have remained very expensive. A full HD projector at this stage would retail for about R95.000.

Closer to R40K for 1080p 3-chip, but still expensive. 720p around R20K for a 3-chip projector.

A few observations;

- Those who say BR is not worth it have not seen it on a proper setup. Period. Get a decent 1080p display with a BR player over HDMI and set it up and actually LOOK at the thing. Your SD setup will look like someone wiped Vaseline over the screen.

- Previous formats failed because there were always a format war of some sort. Nearly had this with HD-DVD / BR. But the war is over.

- Costs will come down. I paid R25K for my first CD burner and used to charge R500 to make one CD for people. (circa 1993)