I know many stores no longer even stock SDTVs where I live. That said I dont exactly live in rural America.
I guess a lot of people also buy them cause they are flat.
One day a couple months ago, my mom went to sam's club to buy toilet paper, she bought toilet paper alright, and a 32" 720p lcd, my mom barely knows how to use a computer or a cellphone. She got it because it had a decent price and was pretty.
Saturday, my wife bought me a 40" 1080p Sony Bravia. The first thing we did was to hook up my 360 Elite and HD-DVD add-on and watch Serenity. I suddenly got a whole new desire to load up on HD movies. Oh well. As long as I have Serenity in a HD format, that's all I need. I guess I'll have to get a PS3 at some point, though.
So, to sum up: only 1 in 3 people have HDTVs even after they've been on the market for more than a decade (and have been at a mass market price level for 3 or 4 years). Of those, 1 in 4 don't get HD content and don't give a shit about it.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The stats that you rattle off only tell a part of the story. And "coincidentally" only back the side that seems to imply that HD/HDTV is overblown, not popular, etc. Sure, HDTV has been slow to grow for the decade it's been out. But that's pretty much expected, when sets cost thousands of dollars initially. Not to mention that resolution-hell (EDTV vs 720 vs 1080, etc.) caused a lot of confusion in the marketplace.
However, I'd be more interested in seeing what the recent growth rate for HDTV is. I can completely understand it's slow growth in the past, but what about today? The HDTV standard is pretty much locked now at 1080p, costs continue to drop, there's a ton of competition in this space, more and more retailers are cutting back (if not eliminating) their stocks of SDTV units, etc.
North American high-definition television sales grew about 60% to 10 million units in the fourth quarter
Last week, the Consumer Electronics Association said U.S. customers bought about 2.4 million HD TVs for the Feb. 3 Super Bowl
So, if HDTV growth now is doing well, and continues to accelerate, does it matter much that it's taken a while to get there? I'd say ... not really.
Again, the problem has never been selling the TVs. HDTVs are big and flat and pretty and they don't sell non-HDTVs in big sizes anyway.
The problem is HD CONTENT. People take those flashy big screen HDTVs and hook them up to their DVD player and ignore any "HD" features, if they even know about them.
PS - I can tell you right now, HUGE HUGE numbers of those HDTVs bought before the Super Bowl will be returned the week after.
PS - I can tell you right now, HUGE HUGE numbers of those HDTVs bought before the Super Bowl will be returned the week after.
Didn't all stores put an end to that by instating rules like "If you bought this TV close to the day of the SuperBowl you completely relinquish your right to return it"?
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
PS - I can tell you right now, HUGE HUGE numbers of those HDTVs bought before the Super Bowl will be returned the week after.
Didn't all stores put an end to that by instating rules like "If you bought this TV close to the day of the SuperBowl you completely relinquish your right to return it"?
Unfortunately, no. Not at the Best Buy I worked at, at least.
If the companies backing Blu-Ray want to increase their market penetration, they need to team up with Cable and Sat. providers to educate those customers on how to take advantage of their sets. HDTV are getting into a lot of homes, but HD programming isn't. This is mainly because customers don't know they need special cables and need to tune in to specific channels.
At my previous job (which had nothing to do with A/V equipment, but took me into a lot of peoples' homes), I would always come in and find them watching SD channels on their HD sets, and it was usually a channel offered in HD. Since I couldn't resist, after we were done with our actual business, I would offer to take a look at their setup. 60% of the time, the cable box was hooked up with composite. The other 40% though? HDMI or component. All I had to do was change the channel. In those instances, the usual response was, "Wow!" followed by, "I didn't even know I had those channels," or, "It's like I got a whole new TV."
A lot of Joe Consumers can tell the difference, but nobody showed them.
If they can improve HD education, it could lead to more people adopting HD formats, and therefore, boost Blu-Ray sales.
PS - I can tell you right now, HUGE HUGE numbers of those HDTVs bought before the Super Bowl will be returned the week after.
Didn't all stores put an end to that by instating rules like "If you bought this TV close to the day of the SuperBowl you completely relinquish your right to return it"?
Unfortunately, no. Not at the Best Buy I worked at, at least.
So I wonder if this means in the future we're going to see "gimped" DVDs. Where they release both a DVD and a Blu-Ray version, but certain things will be left out of the vanilla DVD version and you can only get them on Blu-Ray...
If the companies backing Blu-Ray want to increase their market penetration, they need to team up with Cable and Sat. providers to educate those customers on how to take advantage of their sets. HDTV are getting into a lot of homes, but HD programming isn't. This is mainly because customers don't know they need special cables and need to tune in to specific channels.
At my previous job (which had nothing to do with A/V equipment, but took me into a lot of peoples' homes), I would always come in and find them watching SD channels on their HD sets, and it was usually a channel offered in HD. Since I couldn't resist, after we were done with our actual business, I would offer to take a look at their setup. 60% of the time, the cable box was hooked up with composite. The other 40% though? HDMI or component. All I had to do was change the channel. In those instances, the usual response was, "Wow!" followed by, "I didn't even know I had those channels," or, "It's like I got a whole new TV."
A lot of Joe Consumers can tell the difference, but nobody showed them.
If they can improve HD education, it could lead to more people adopting HD formats, and therefore, boost Blu-Ray sales.
They need to simplify everything. Nobody, even tech people like me, want to deal with 50 different cables and dozens of different resolutions. Set some fucking standards people.
Make HDMI the standard, drop the price on the cords and start pushing that shit hard. It's simple, it's easy, it's 1 FUCKING CORD, it's time to jump on this bandwagon, it's a winner.
1080p. Pick a resolution and run with it.
People don't wanna have to do research just to understand how to hook up their TVs.
If the companies backing Blu-Ray want to increase their market penetration, they need to team up with Cable and Sat. providers to educate those customers on how to take advantage of their sets. HDTV are getting into a lot of homes, but HD programming isn't. This is mainly because customers don't know they need special cables and need to tune in to specific channels.
At my previous job (which had nothing to do with A/V equipment, but took me into a lot of peoples' homes), I would always come in and find them watching SD channels on their HD sets, and it was usually a channel offered in HD. Since I couldn't resist, after we were done with our actual business, I would offer to take a look at their setup. 60% of the time, the cable box was hooked up with composite. The other 40% though? HDMI or component. All I had to do was change the channel. In those instances, the usual response was, "Wow!" followed by, "I didn't even know I had those channels," or, "It's like I got a whole new TV."
A lot of Joe Consumers can tell the difference, but nobody showed them.
If they can improve HD education, it could lead to more people adopting HD formats, and therefore, boost Blu-Ray sales.
They need to simplify everything. Nobody, even tech people like me, want to deal with 50 different cables and dozens of different resolutions. Set some fucking standards people.
Make HDMI the standard, drop the price on the cords and start pushing that shit hard. It's simple, it's easy, it's 1 FUCKING CORD, it's time to jump on this bandwagon, it's a winner.
1080p. Pick a resolution and run with it.
People don't wanna have to do research just to understand how to hook up their TVs.
Amen!
(Fuck if they standardized HDMI, and marketed as "One cable to do it all..." and then bundle it with Lord of the Rings, they'd sell through them like hotcakes, and the general public will FINALLY understand what HD is all about!)
Oh and FUCK DirectTV and their shitty ass pseudo-HD!
And how do you make Joe Consumer re-buy all of his DVD movies in Blu-Ray format? Buying new movies as Blu-Ray instead of DVD is one thing. Replacing your old collection is another.
I don't think the increase in sound and picture quality is enough to do it.
Bingo.
Who said anything about re-buying. I don't know about you guys, but my dvds looks pretty damn good upscaled in my ps3. I have a 42' 1080p Bravia and it looks fantastic. You shouldn't have to re-buy everything unless you are a crazy person with too much money. But now that BD has won, why not just buy all future movies on BD and be done with regular DVDs all together, unless a movie is only released on dvd for some reason.
Bretzy on
Even tho I seek perfection, I wear my scars with pride.
Again, the problem has never been selling the TVs. HDTVs are big and flat and pretty and they don't sell non-HDTVs in big sizes anyway.
The problem is HD CONTENT. People take those flashy big screen HDTVs and hook them up to their DVD player and ignore any "HD" features, if they even know about them.
PS - I can tell you right now, HUGE HUGE numbers of those HDTVs bought before the Super Bowl will be returned the week after.
Well I was more focused on the HDTV sales issue. I agree that getting people to actually watch things in HD is another challenging step. That said, at least more and more people now have the capability to do so.
The HD content problem is mostly an education issue. It doesn't help that many people still think that DVD = HD. It's not, but to most people, it's damn close even quality-wise. The jump from SD to HD television is a lot more apparent though. The problem there is the cost and getting the infrastructure ready. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of cable TV channels, but only a relatively small percentage of them are in HD. It's getting better though. I just saw a message from Comcast saying that they are finally adding in channels like Food Network, Discovery, Sci-Fi, and HGTV in HD. (DirectTV had those channels months ago)
Also, maybe I'm biased, but I think sports continue to be a huge factor in HD adoption for guys. Yeah sure, a lot shmucks will do the whole "return the HDTV after the Super Bowl", but certainly there are a lot of guys (like me) who love the look of football in HD. I think you'll see a similar bump for the Olympics later this year as well. Honestly, it was watching the Redskins and my Hokies in HD that made me yearn for HD long ago ...
Now that HD-DVD is gone, anyone who thinks blu-ray will not eventually take over as the primary format for consumers is delusional. It's not going to be instantaneous but it will happen.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The stats that you rattle off only tell a part of the story. And "coincidentally" only back the side that seems to imply that HD/HDTV is overblown, not popular, etc. Sure, HDTV has been slow to grow for the decade it's been out. But that's pretty much expected, when sets cost thousands of dollars initially. Not to mention that resolution-hell (EDTV vs 720 vs 1080, etc.) caused a lot of confusion in the marketplace.
However, I'd be more interested in seeing what the recent growth rate for HDTV is. I can completely understand it's slow growth in the past, but what about today? The HDTV standard is pretty much locked now at 1080p, costs continue to drop, there's a ton of competition in this space, more and more retailers are cutting back (if not eliminating) their stocks of SDTV units, etc.
North American high-definition television sales grew about 60% to 10 million units in the fourth quarter
Last week, the Consumer Electronics Association said U.S. customers bought about 2.4 million HD TVs for the Feb. 3 Super Bowl
So, if HDTV growth now is doing well, and continues to accelerate, does it matter much that it's taken a while to get there? I'd say ... not really.
Exactly how much do you think HDTV sales could have changed in the last two months? People who aren't in the industry like to think there are sudden explosions in sales of things like TVs, but it just doesn't work that way.
The Nielsen research I cited was released in December. That's pretty darn recent and reflects trends right up to the present day. In fact, I even added 3% to their total installed base to account for a (very optimistic) estimate of how the percentage might have changed in the past two months.
Besides that, you're kind of missing the point of why I posted those numbers in the first place. I'm not trying to discount HDTV as overblown (I do custom HT installation for a living, so I'd be in trouble if it were), and I'm not focusing on the total installed base: it's the numbers related to HD content that are more interesting, and tell you more about the importance of HD content to consumers.
MegaMan on
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
Again, the problem has never been selling the TVs. HDTVs are big and flat and pretty and they don't sell non-HDTVs in big sizes anyway.
The problem is HD CONTENT. People take those flashy big screen HDTVs and hook them up to their DVD player and ignore any "HD" features, if they even know about them.
PS - I can tell you right now, HUGE HUGE numbers of those HDTVs bought before the Super Bowl will be returned the week after.
Well I was more focused on the HDTV sales issue. I agree that getting people to actually watch things in HD is another challenging step. That said, at least more and more people now have the capability to do so.
The HD content problem is mostly an education issue. It doesn't help that many people still think that DVD = HD. It's not, but to most people, it's damn close even quality-wise. The jump from SD to HD television is a lot more apparent though. The problem there is the cost and getting the infrastructure ready. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of cable TV channels, but only a relatively small percentage of them are in HD. It's getting better though. I just saw a message from Comcast saying that they are finally adding in channels like Food Network, Discovery, Sci-Fi, and HGTV in HD. (DirectTV had those channels months ago)
Also, maybe I'm biased, but I think sports continue to be a huge factor in HD adoption for guys. Yeah sure, a lot shmucks will do the whole "return the HDTV after the Super Bowl", but certainly there are a lot of guys (like me) who love the look of football in HD. I think you'll see a similar bump for the Olympics later this year as well. Honestly, it was watching the Redskins and my Hokies in HD that made me yearn for HD long ago ...
The capability is fairly irrelevant at this point. Apathy and his running-mate Misinformation are winning by a wide margin here.
Blue-Ray will become standard when it's the same price to hook up as DVD and it's just as easy.
And how do you make Joe Consumer re-buy all of his DVD movies in Blu-Ray format? Buying new movies as Blu-Ray instead of DVD is one thing. Replacing your old collection is another.
I don't think the increase in sound and picture quality is enough to do it.
Bingo.
I have like 500 DVD's and as soon as I have an HDTV I'll just be buying Blu-Rays. I'm not gonna replace my collection. Like do I really need a copy of Bio-Dome in Blu-Ray? No, I don't. Noone does.
Now that HD-DVD is gone, anyone who thinks blu-ray will not eventually take over as the primary format for consumers is delusional. It's not going to be instantaneous but it will happen.
I don't think it's delusional. Granted, I still think it's going to happen, but this is not like the transition from tapes to CDs, or VHS to DVD. Blu-ray's main competition is going to be with DVDs and with online distribution.
DVD - Still "good enough" for many people, especially when upscaled. Also, Blu-ray doesn't really bring many added features. For example, DVD gave us easily skipping to different chapters in a movie, whereas VHS did not. Blu-ray gives us more space to fit on one disc, but "lack of disc swapping" is not a huge advantage.
Online distribution - For many people (note: I didn't say all!), having HD content in a distributable form provides a lot of new features and functionality. In some formats, such as On Demand for cable, it's almost instantaneous thanks to streaming. It's becoming more portable to other form factors, such as the video iPod or Zune. In some ways, it's arguably cheaper. No need to buy a standalone player that only plays physical media. Your 360 or PC or AppleTV can play HD content, as well as do other things for you as well.
I think those are two big competitors to Blu-ray, and that's what people have been discussing in this thread. I do think that in the long, long, long term, Blu-ray will be the de-facto physical format for consumers, but I'm not sure if it will be the primary format.
my thoughts exactly now i want to hear from dreamworks/paramount/universal so i know when i can get some of the greatest movies of the year on Blu-ray. a DVD looks like shit on my 47in 1080p TV something i was not expecting when i made the purchase last week, but makes sense.
There's something wrong with a component in your HT system or your TV, then. There's no reason for a DVD to look bad, it should look no worse than on a regular TV and, if your DVD player is an upscaler, it should look better.
a DVD 480i, stretched to 47in. if the TV was 32in or something it would look fine, however its not, and like a large SDTV the quality has been stretched and looks shitty. there is a huge difference between the two. its like TV in 480i (basic) and HD channels, again a huge difference. i use my ps3 as an upscaler, so no its not that.
Don't sit 3 ft from the screen, Jack. Also, DVD res > NTSC res.
JCRooks hit the nail on the head, I think. I liken BR to Super Audio CDs in that they will be a temporary niche market until content and network owners figure out how they want to charge us for online distribution.
And lastly, I think everyone here is overlooking the obvious advantages DVD has over BR. Namely that it easily ripped and compressed in order to port all my movies and shows into a mobile digital format. This is why I personally prefer DVD to BR or HDDVD.
Online distribution will probably put rental stores like Blockbuster out of business (not too hard, since those places are in bad enough shape as it is), and I think Netflix will eventually drop mailing discs from their list of services. Joe Consumer won't mind paying for a digital rental. But I think they'll have a problem with paying for a purchase and not have anything physical to show for it.
This is the part where you point at how many songs iTunes has sold, and tell me I'm stupid.
Online music downloads are unique in that it gives consumers the peace of mind of filling their mp3 players legally, as well as allow them to cherry pick their favorite songs off of albums. "Why spend $13.99 on this CD when I can buy the 3 best songs on it for $2.98?" If iTunes forced customers to buy full albums, sales would be no where near as good as they are now, because if they have to pay the same price anyways, they might as well get the disc.
Online music downloads are unique in that it gives consumers the peace of mind of filling their mp3 players legally, as well as allow them to cherry pick their favorite songs off of albums. "Why spend $13.99 on this CD when I can buy the 3 best songs on it for $2.98?" If iTunes forced customers to buy full albums, sales would be no where near as good as they are now, because if they have to pay the same price anyways, they might as well get the disc.
This is dead on true for me. I'm 29 though, maybe the younger generation won't mind not having the media in a non-digital format.
Joe Consumer won't mind paying for a digital rental. But I think they'll have a problem with paying for a purchase and not have anything physical to show for it.
I will always have a problem with digital rentals as long as they have that stupid 24 hour time limit once you start the movie.
Honestly though, I would rent more movies off of XBLM if I didn't have to buy MS Points or whatever they're called. Games? Whatever. But if you want me to drop $5 on a whim for an HD rental don't make me go through the hassle of buying a preset amount of point when I only need 400 to get what I want.
Anyways, thats another thread.
I have an HD-DVD player. I'm pretty upset I'm on the loosing side, but I'm just glad its over. I really didn't think one format was better then the other in quality. I think once I break down and get a BR player of some sort (get on it MS) I'm going to pretty much stop buying regular DVD's unless thats the only format I can get a movie I want. I really don't care about the general consumer veiw of the HD format. I have Planet Earth on HD-DVD. Thats all the convincing I ever needed to buy an HD player.
I know that since I hooked up XBMC I have zero intention of watching films off a disc ever again.
I buy DVDs, rip them, and store them (alphabetically) for safekeeping. It is awesome to have a library of Films, TV series and downloaded content all at the click of a menu on my Widescreen TV downstairs.
When I can afford to (not for 2/3 years probably) I will acquire whatever hardware is required to do the same thing with HD content. The idea of using discs for videos feels archaic to me when affordable solutions for streaming video exists.
Online distribution will probably put rental stores like Blockbuster out of business (not too hard, since those places are in bad enough shape as it is), and I think Netflix will eventually drop mailing discs from their list of services. Joe Consumer won't mind paying for a digital rental. But I think they'll have a problem with paying for a purchase and not have anything physical to show for it.
This is the part where you point at how many songs iTunes has sold, and tell me I'm stupid.
Online music downloads are unique in that it gives consumers the peace of mind of filling their mp3 players legally, as well as allow them to cherry pick their favorite songs off of albums. "Why spend $13.99 on this CD when I can buy the 3 best songs on it for $2.98?" If iTunes forced customers to buy full albums, sales would be no where near as good as they are now, because if they have to pay the same price anyways, they might as well get the disc.
I'm not convinced about digital distribution...at least, not for the near future.
For one thing, the infrastructure's not really in place. Cable and satellite providers are already struggling to find enough bandwidth on their systems to distribute more than a few dozen HD channels, and their VOD offerings are both thin and not of the best quality, due to hefty compression. Eventually things will get better, especially with more fiber optic networks becoming available, but I think it's realistically still many years from being technically viable.
For another thing, music lends itself far better to digital distribution than movies do. People will listen to music pretty much anywhere: on a stereo, on their computer, on portable devices, etc. However, movie-watching is strongly tethered to the living room. Since HTPCs haven't caught on, that means a digital distribution medium for home video pretty much has to be tied to some sort of set top box, so it won't have quite the ease of setup and use that iTunes has. Some companies are coming out with devices to accomplish this (i.e. Apple TV), but we have yet to see that "it" product.
Also, network bandwidth is a problem. Downloading a song is a question of seconds. Downloading an HD movie, even with a broadband connection, is a question of tens of minutes or even hours.
Lastly, people see movies as more of a commodity than music, and I think they do largely still prefer to have that physical copy and an (at least perceived) "ownership" of their films. The problem with digital distribution is that studios often try to place too many limits or controls on content, and people will continue to be resistent to such efforts.
MegaMan on
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
Online distribution will probably put rental stores like Blockbuster out of business (not too hard, since those places are in bad enough shape as it is), and I think Netflix will eventually drop mailing discs from their list of services. Joe Consumer won't mind paying for a digital rental. But I think they'll have a problem with paying for a purchase and not have anything physical to show for it.
This is the part where you point at how many songs iTunes has sold, and tell me I'm stupid.
Online music downloads are unique in that it gives consumers the peace of mind of filling their mp3 players legally, as well as allow them to cherry pick their favorite songs off of albums. "Why spend $13.99 on this CD when I can buy the 3 best songs on it for $2.98?" If iTunes forced customers to buy full albums, sales would be no where near as good as they are now, because if they have to pay the same price anyways, they might as well get the disc.
I'm not convinced about digital distribution...at least, not for the near future.
For one thing, the infrastructure's not really in place. Cable and satellite providers are already struggling to find enough bandwidth on their systems to distribute more than a few dozen HD channels, and their VOD offerings are both thin and not of the best quality, due to hefty compression. Eventually things will get better, especially with more fiber optic networks becoming available, but I think it's realistically still many years from being technically viable.
For another thing, music lends itself far better to digital distribution than movies do. People will listen to music pretty much anywhere: on a stereo, on their computer, on portable devices, etc. However, movie-watching is strongly tethered to the living room. Since HTPCs haven't caught on, that means a digital distribution medium for home video pretty much has to be tied to some sort of set top box, so it won't have quite the ease of setup and use that iTunes has. Some companies are coming out with devices to accomplish this (i.e. Apple TV), but we have yet to see that "it" product.
Also, network bandwidth is a problem. Downloading a song is a question of seconds. Downloading an HD movie, even with a broadband connection, is a question of tens of minutes or even hours.
Lastly, people see movies as more of a commodity than music, and I think they do largely still prefer to have that physical copy and an (at least perceived) "ownership" of their films. The problem with digital distribution is that studios often try to place too many limits or controls on content, and people will continue to be resistent to such efforts.
It's too bad search is still disabled. I've argued many, many times before in the past why I think online distribution is going to be succesful in the long-term. Yet a lot of people, for some reason, think that the current status quo is going to be all we're going to experience ever, when it comes to media. That type of thinking is what has doomed portions of the music industry (notably the record labels and distributors, not necessarily the artists themselves).
I won't go into my argument again ... because I have a GDC plane to catch, but to summarize: there are certainly a lot of challenges now facing online distribution of video. But companies are already working on it, such as improving infrastructure, customer education, and usability. And more and more companies are competing in this space, which drives innovation, while also lowering prices. These are not small fry companies either: Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, NBC, etc. While there will always be people that want a physical copy of their movies, there will also be plenty of people that do not ... or at the very least, want both!
Online distribution will probably put rental stores like Blockbuster out of business (not too hard, since those places are in bad enough shape as it is), and I think Netflix will eventually drop mailing discs from their list of services. Joe Consumer won't mind paying for a digital rental. But I think they'll have a problem with paying for a purchase and not have anything physical to show for it.
This is the part where you point at how many songs iTunes has sold, and tell me I'm stupid.
Online music downloads are unique in that it gives consumers the peace of mind of filling their mp3 players legally, as well as allow them to cherry pick their favorite songs off of albums. "Why spend $13.99 on this CD when I can buy the 3 best songs on it for $2.98?" If iTunes forced customers to buy full albums, sales would be no where near as good as they are now, because if they have to pay the same price anyways, they might as well get the disc.
I'm not convinced about digital distribution...at least, not for the near future.
For one thing, the infrastructure's not really in place. Cable and satellite providers are already struggling to find enough bandwidth on their systems to distribute more than a few dozen HD channels, and their VOD offerings are both thin and not of the best quality, due to hefty compression. Eventually things will get better, especially with more fiber optic networks becoming available, but I think it's realistically still many years from being technically viable.
For another thing, music lends itself far better to digital distribution than movies do. People will listen to music pretty much anywhere: on a stereo, on their computer, on portable devices, etc. However, movie-watching is strongly tethered to the living room. Since HTPCs haven't caught on, that means a digital distribution medium for home video pretty much has to be tied to some sort of set top box, so it won't have quite the ease of setup and use that iTunes has. Some companies are coming out with devices to accomplish this (i.e. Apple TV), but we have yet to see that "it" product.
Also, network bandwidth is a problem. Downloading a song is a question of seconds. Downloading an HD movie, even with a broadband connection, is a question of tens of minutes or even hours.
Lastly, people see movies as more of a commodity than music, and I think they do largely still prefer to have that physical copy and an (at least perceived) "ownership" of their films. The problem with digital distribution is that studios often try to place too many limits or controls on content, and people will continue to be resistent to such efforts.
It's too bad search is still disabled. I've argued many, many times before in the past why I think online distribution is going to be succesful in the long-term. Yet a lot of people, for some reason, think that the current status quo is going to be all we're going to experience ever, when it comes to media. That type of thinking is what has doomed portions of the music industry (notably the record labels and distributors, not necessarily the artists themselves).
I won't go into my argument again ... because I have a GDC plane to catch, but to summarize: there are certainly a lot of challenges now facing online distribution of video. But companies are already working on it, such as improving infrastructure, customer education, and usability. And more and more companies are competing in this space, which drives innovation, while also lowering prices. These are not small fry companies either: Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, NBC, etc. While there will always be people that want a physical copy of their movies, there will also be plenty of people that do not ... or at the very least, want both!
Might your position on online distribution be related to this? :P
lol, nice. Yeah, I just saw that myself. Yes, things like that are an example as to why all the doom-and-gloom regarding online distribution is rather silly right now.
Sure, check back in a few years ... maybe the whole thing will be like the dot-com bust where all these companies poured time, money, and infrastructure into things that went no where. But I think it's a bit early to be calling it now, when the online video industry is just getting started.
I think perceived ownership is the biggest hurdle to digital distribution. I think its largely a generational problem. As kids today grow up with different ideas and attitudes about ownership, we'll see a bigger shift away from physical media (plus, by then, they'll have worked out a lot of the current issues).
That being said, that's not going to be any time soon, at least not soon enough to be an issue for DVD or Blu-Ray.
It's too bad search is still disabled. I've argued many, many times before in the past why I think online distribution is going to be succesful in the long-term. Yet a lot of people, for some reason, think that the current status quo is going to be all we're going to experience ever, when it comes to media. That type of thinking is what has doomed portions of the music industry (notably the record labels and distributors, not necessarily the artists themselves).
I won't go into my argument again ... because I have a GDC plane to catch, but to summarize: there are certainly a lot of challenges now facing online distribution of video. But companies are already working on it, such as improving infrastructure, customer education, and usability. And more and more companies are competing in this space, which drives innovation, while also lowering prices. These are not small fry companies either: Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, NBC, etc. While there will always be people that want a physical copy of their movies, there will also be plenty of people that do not ... or at the very least, want both!
Please note that I did say things will improve infrastructure-wise. I think that's obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with technology. What I said is that I'm not sold on it for now. The issue here as it relates to Blu-ray is: will the hurdles to digital distribution be removed in time to forestall the rise of a new physical format, or will consumers be ready to upgrade before DD is ready? My answer is that I think DD has too far to go, and its time (if it comes) will come after another iteration of physical media.
MegaMan on
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
Can someone link some of the studies on HD content adoption? I remember one about people buying HDtvs to watch DVDs and such, but Google is being a bitch and I'm not finding them.
One more post before I'm really off to GDC (and yes, I'm curious as to all the announcements that are going to be made there!)
<rant>
One of my pet peeves is the term "digital distribution" versus "online distribution". As you can see in my posts, I use the latter. "Digital" can refer to anything. DVD and Blu-ray are digital formats, as the data is stored in 0s and 1s. This is versus something that's truly analog, such as VHS. What most people are referring to when they say digital distribution is getting it online.
Granted, it's all a matter of semantics. You can say that when you pick up a DVD at a store, it's an "analog" action ... versus getting it downloaded digitally. But I think that's a stretch.
purchasing downloaded movies would be a great option as long as the price was right and it allowed for backup devices to archive the data
There's no problem with it as long as it's just an option. The fear some of us have is that movie studios would love to make rentals the only option to view movies, and eliminate the "purchase" option altogether. Digital (sorry, online) distribution makes it possible for them to do this.
MegaMan on
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
purchasing downloaded movies would be a great option as long as the price was right and it allowed for backup devices to archive the data
There's no problem with it as long as it's just an option. The fear some of us have is that movie studios would love to make rentals the only option to view movies, and eliminate the "purchase" option altogether. Digital (sorry, online) distribution makes it possible for them to do this.
I doubt that will ever happen. Ever. People will always want to own a copy of their favorite movie. I, for example, will always own a copy of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas no matter what the format. If they ever took away that option I would probably resort to pirating (edit that out if its inappropriate).
Posts
One day a couple months ago, my mom went to sam's club to buy toilet paper, she bought toilet paper alright, and a 32" 720p lcd, my mom barely knows how to use a computer or a cellphone. She got it because it had a decent price and was pretty.
Again, the problem has never been selling the TVs. HDTVs are big and flat and pretty and they don't sell non-HDTVs in big sizes anyway.
The problem is HD CONTENT. People take those flashy big screen HDTVs and hook them up to their DVD player and ignore any "HD" features, if they even know about them.
PS - I can tell you right now, HUGE HUGE numbers of those HDTVs bought before the Super Bowl will be returned the week after.
Didn't all stores put an end to that by instating rules like "If you bought this TV close to the day of the SuperBowl you completely relinquish your right to return it"?
Unfortunately, no. Not at the Best Buy I worked at, at least.
At my previous job (which had nothing to do with A/V equipment, but took me into a lot of peoples' homes), I would always come in and find them watching SD channels on their HD sets, and it was usually a channel offered in HD. Since I couldn't resist, after we were done with our actual business, I would offer to take a look at their setup. 60% of the time, the cable box was hooked up with composite. The other 40% though? HDMI or component. All I had to do was change the channel. In those instances, the usual response was, "Wow!" followed by, "I didn't even know I had those channels," or, "It's like I got a whole new TV."
A lot of Joe Consumers can tell the difference, but nobody showed them.
If they can improve HD education, it could lead to more people adopting HD formats, and therefore, boost Blu-Ray sales.
At this point, it's a fucking yearly ritual.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
They need to simplify everything. Nobody, even tech people like me, want to deal with 50 different cables and dozens of different resolutions. Set some fucking standards people.
Make HDMI the standard, drop the price on the cords and start pushing that shit hard. It's simple, it's easy, it's 1 FUCKING CORD, it's time to jump on this bandwagon, it's a winner.
1080p. Pick a resolution and run with it.
People don't wanna have to do research just to understand how to hook up their TVs.
Amen!
(Fuck if they standardized HDMI, and marketed as "One cable to do it all..." and then bundle it with Lord of the Rings, they'd sell through them like hotcakes, and the general public will FINALLY understand what HD is all about!)
Oh and FUCK DirectTV and their shitty ass pseudo-HD!
Who said anything about re-buying. I don't know about you guys, but my dvds looks pretty damn good upscaled in my ps3. I have a 42' 1080p Bravia and it looks fantastic. You shouldn't have to re-buy everything unless you are a crazy person with too much money. But now that BD has won, why not just buy all future movies on BD and be done with regular DVDs all together, unless a movie is only released on dvd for some reason.
Well I was more focused on the HDTV sales issue. I agree that getting people to actually watch things in HD is another challenging step. That said, at least more and more people now have the capability to do so.
The HD content problem is mostly an education issue. It doesn't help that many people still think that DVD = HD. It's not, but to most people, it's damn close even quality-wise. The jump from SD to HD television is a lot more apparent though. The problem there is the cost and getting the infrastructure ready. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of cable TV channels, but only a relatively small percentage of them are in HD. It's getting better though. I just saw a message from Comcast saying that they are finally adding in channels like Food Network, Discovery, Sci-Fi, and HGTV in HD. (DirectTV had those channels months ago)
Also, maybe I'm biased, but I think sports continue to be a huge factor in HD adoption for guys. Yeah sure, a lot shmucks will do the whole "return the HDTV after the Super Bowl", but certainly there are a lot of guys (like me) who love the look of football in HD. I think you'll see a similar bump for the Olympics later this year as well. Honestly, it was watching the Redskins and my Hokies in HD that made me yearn for HD long ago ...
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Exactly how much do you think HDTV sales could have changed in the last two months? People who aren't in the industry like to think there are sudden explosions in sales of things like TVs, but it just doesn't work that way.
The Nielsen research I cited was released in December. That's pretty darn recent and reflects trends right up to the present day. In fact, I even added 3% to their total installed base to account for a (very optimistic) estimate of how the percentage might have changed in the past two months.
Besides that, you're kind of missing the point of why I posted those numbers in the first place. I'm not trying to discount HDTV as overblown (I do custom HT installation for a living, so I'd be in trouble if it were), and I'm not focusing on the total installed base: it's the numbers related to HD content that are more interesting, and tell you more about the importance of HD content to consumers.
- Albert Einstein
The capability is fairly irrelevant at this point. Apathy and his running-mate Misinformation are winning by a wide margin here.
Blue-Ray will become standard when it's the same price to hook up as DVD and it's just as easy.
I have like 500 DVD's and as soon as I have an HDTV I'll just be buying Blu-Rays. I'm not gonna replace my collection. Like do I really need a copy of Bio-Dome in Blu-Ray? No, I don't. Noone does.
I don't think it's delusional. Granted, I still think it's going to happen, but this is not like the transition from tapes to CDs, or VHS to DVD. Blu-ray's main competition is going to be with DVDs and with online distribution.
DVD - Still "good enough" for many people, especially when upscaled. Also, Blu-ray doesn't really bring many added features. For example, DVD gave us easily skipping to different chapters in a movie, whereas VHS did not. Blu-ray gives us more space to fit on one disc, but "lack of disc swapping" is not a huge advantage.
Online distribution - For many people (note: I didn't say all!), having HD content in a distributable form provides a lot of new features and functionality. In some formats, such as On Demand for cable, it's almost instantaneous thanks to streaming. It's becoming more portable to other form factors, such as the video iPod or Zune. In some ways, it's arguably cheaper. No need to buy a standalone player that only plays physical media. Your 360 or PC or AppleTV can play HD content, as well as do other things for you as well.
I think those are two big competitors to Blu-ray, and that's what people have been discussing in this thread. I do think that in the long, long, long term, Blu-ray will be the de-facto physical format for consumers, but I'm not sure if it will be the primary format.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Don't sit 3 ft from the screen, Jack. Also, DVD res > NTSC res.
JCRooks hit the nail on the head, I think. I liken BR to Super Audio CDs in that they will be a temporary niche market until content and network owners figure out how they want to charge us for online distribution.
And lastly, I think everyone here is overlooking the obvious advantages DVD has over BR. Namely that it easily ripped and compressed in order to port all my movies and shows into a mobile digital format. This is why I personally prefer DVD to BR or HDDVD.
This is the part where you point at how many songs iTunes has sold, and tell me I'm stupid.
Online music downloads are unique in that it gives consumers the peace of mind of filling their mp3 players legally, as well as allow them to cherry pick their favorite songs off of albums. "Why spend $13.99 on this CD when I can buy the 3 best songs on it for $2.98?" If iTunes forced customers to buy full albums, sales would be no where near as good as they are now, because if they have to pay the same price anyways, they might as well get the disc.
This is dead on true for me. I'm 29 though, maybe the younger generation won't mind not having the media in a non-digital format.
I will always have a problem with digital rentals as long as they have that stupid 24 hour time limit once you start the movie.
Honestly though, I would rent more movies off of XBLM if I didn't have to buy MS Points or whatever they're called. Games? Whatever. But if you want me to drop $5 on a whim for an HD rental don't make me go through the hassle of buying a preset amount of point when I only need 400 to get what I want.
Anyways, thats another thread.
I have an HD-DVD player. I'm pretty upset I'm on the loosing side, but I'm just glad its over. I really didn't think one format was better then the other in quality. I think once I break down and get a BR player of some sort (get on it MS) I'm going to pretty much stop buying regular DVD's unless thats the only format I can get a movie I want. I really don't care about the general consumer veiw of the HD format. I have Planet Earth on HD-DVD. Thats all the convincing I ever needed to buy an HD player.
SSB code- 0216-0856-6886 PM me so I can add you
I buy DVDs, rip them, and store them (alphabetically) for safekeeping. It is awesome to have a library of Films, TV series and downloaded content all at the click of a menu on my Widescreen TV downstairs.
When I can afford to (not for 2/3 years probably) I will acquire whatever hardware is required to do the same thing with HD content. The idea of using discs for videos feels archaic to me when affordable solutions for streaming video exists.
I'm not convinced about digital distribution...at least, not for the near future.
For one thing, the infrastructure's not really in place. Cable and satellite providers are already struggling to find enough bandwidth on their systems to distribute more than a few dozen HD channels, and their VOD offerings are both thin and not of the best quality, due to hefty compression. Eventually things will get better, especially with more fiber optic networks becoming available, but I think it's realistically still many years from being technically viable.
For another thing, music lends itself far better to digital distribution than movies do. People will listen to music pretty much anywhere: on a stereo, on their computer, on portable devices, etc. However, movie-watching is strongly tethered to the living room. Since HTPCs haven't caught on, that means a digital distribution medium for home video pretty much has to be tied to some sort of set top box, so it won't have quite the ease of setup and use that iTunes has. Some companies are coming out with devices to accomplish this (i.e. Apple TV), but we have yet to see that "it" product.
Also, network bandwidth is a problem. Downloading a song is a question of seconds. Downloading an HD movie, even with a broadband connection, is a question of tens of minutes or even hours.
Lastly, people see movies as more of a commodity than music, and I think they do largely still prefer to have that physical copy and an (at least perceived) "ownership" of their films. The problem with digital distribution is that studios often try to place too many limits or controls on content, and people will continue to be resistent to such efforts.
- Albert Einstein
It's too bad search is still disabled. I've argued many, many times before in the past why I think online distribution is going to be succesful in the long-term. Yet a lot of people, for some reason, think that the current status quo is going to be all we're going to experience ever, when it comes to media. That type of thinking is what has doomed portions of the music industry (notably the record labels and distributors, not necessarily the artists themselves).
I won't go into my argument again ... because I have a GDC plane to catch, but to summarize: there are certainly a lot of challenges now facing online distribution of video. But companies are already working on it, such as improving infrastructure, customer education, and usability. And more and more companies are competing in this space, which drives innovation, while also lowering prices. These are not small fry companies either: Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, NBC, etc. While there will always be people that want a physical copy of their movies, there will also be plenty of people that do not ... or at the very least, want both!
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
All prices in US Dollars.
1. Blu-Ray Movies retail for $20 but are only sale for $12-$18 the week they come out.
2. Seasons of TV shows on Blu-Ray cost between $40-$80.
3. A good player can be had for less than $150.
It's gonna be quite some time, at least another three years before all of those happen.
Might your position on online distribution be related to this? :P
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=50757
lol, nice. Yeah, I just saw that myself. Yes, things like that are an example as to why all the doom-and-gloom regarding online distribution is rather silly right now.
Sure, check back in a few years ... maybe the whole thing will be like the dot-com bust where all these companies poured time, money, and infrastructure into things that went no where. But I think it's a bit early to be calling it now, when the online video industry is just getting started.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
That being said, that's not going to be any time soon, at least not soon enough to be an issue for DVD or Blu-Ray.
Please note that I did say things will improve infrastructure-wise. I think that's obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with technology. What I said is that I'm not sold on it for now. The issue here as it relates to Blu-ray is: will the hurdles to digital distribution be removed in time to forestall the rise of a new physical format, or will consumers be ready to upgrade before DD is ready? My answer is that I think DD has too far to go, and its time (if it comes) will come after another iteration of physical media.
- Albert Einstein
<rant>
One of my pet peeves is the term "digital distribution" versus "online distribution". As you can see in my posts, I use the latter. "Digital" can refer to anything. DVD and Blu-ray are digital formats, as the data is stored in 0s and 1s. This is versus something that's truly analog, such as VHS. What most people are referring to when they say digital distribution is getting it online.
Granted, it's all a matter of semantics. You can say that when you pick up a DVD at a store, it's an "analog" action ... versus getting it downloaded digitally. But I think that's a stretch.
</rant>
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
I don't see the problem
purchasing downloaded movies would be a great option as long as the price was right and it allowed for backup devices to archive the data
There's no problem with it as long as it's just an option. The fear some of us have is that movie studios would love to make rentals the only option to view movies, and eliminate the "purchase" option altogether. Digital (sorry, online) distribution makes it possible for them to do this.
- Albert Einstein
I doubt that will ever happen. Ever. People will always want to own a copy of their favorite movie. I, for example, will always own a copy of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas no matter what the format. If they ever took away that option I would probably resort to pirating (edit that out if its inappropriate).
edit: beat
SSB code- 0216-0856-6886 PM me so I can add you