The Future of HD-DVD Formats

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Black Locust, Jul 28, 2004.

  1. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    Here's an article from a recent issue of "Video Store Magazine." I
    thought she made some pretty good points.

    'High Def Cannot Hope to Match the Surge of DVD'

    by Stephanie Prange, executive editor

    Now that some of the bluster over the competing high-def disc formats
    has died down, I wanted to point out a few other hurdles that may keep
    any future disc format from recreating the growth wave of DVD. The stars
    aligned for DVD in a way that future cannot possibly match. Assuming the
    industry does agree on a common format and then times it well without
    stepping on the current DVD surge, it will never have the advantage of
    building a sellthrough market the way DVD did. Before DVD, consumers
    couldn't own every title when it came out. Most titles were priced for
    rental on VHS. Indeed, a case can be made that sellthrough pricing was
    more important to DVD's wide and impressive adoption than the better
    picture and audio. The increased value of a DVD was a no-brainer for
    consumers. It sported better quality and it was available at a low
    price, while most titles in the established format were not. We will
    never see that again. High-def will not undercut the price of DVD the
    way DVD trumped the price and sellthrough availability of VHS. Likely,
    it will cost more, which would be an impediment to it's mainstream
    adoption. DVD also had a size advantage over the prevailing format that
    the proposed high-def formats will not. The little disc was a
    lightweight compared to the VHS cassette. That meant it could be mailed
    cheaply and shelved more efficiently. It also spawned internet sales and
    rentals. If DVD hadn't been so easy to mail, Netflix would never have
    gotten off the ground. If the DVD had not been so compact, the TV-on-DVD
    genre -- in which whole seasons can be put in a boxed set the size of
    one two-hour VHS cassette -- would never have emerged as one of the
    hottest in the business with millions of sales never imagined on VHS.
    Again, the proposed high-def formats won't have a physical size
    advantage over DVD. The discs may hold more, but they won't fit any
    better on consumers' or retailers' shelves. They may hold a few more TV
    episodes on a single disc, but the difference in saved space won't match
    the spread between DVD and cassette. Let's talk extras. DVD had them.
    Cassettes, for the most part, didn't. That was another big advantage DVD
    had. The proposed high-def formats will offer more extras, but does the
    public really want them? DVD producers will tell you they can do a lot
    with extra space -- improve the picture or audio, add more branching and
    more documentaries, etc. -- but I question whether that will be enough
    to convince consumers to switch formats. While TV's advance into high
    definition may push consumers and the industry into a new format, it
    simply won't have the pull of DVD. The high-def disc may prove to be a
    very good followup to DVD, but it just won't be the same. I don't think
    we will ever see the likes of DVD in the packaged media realm again.
    --
    BL
     
    Black Locust, Jul 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Black Locust wrote:
    > Here's an article from a recent issue of "Video Store Magazine." I
    > thought she made some pretty good points.


    Excellent article, and her points are valid. While I love High Def myself,
    I won't be jumping and throwing away the vast majority of my DVD
    collection just because a bigger badder video format is on the market.
    Most of the DVDs I own now will still look and sound great 10 years
    from now, since the mastering process has gotten to the point of where
    even a lowely 480i DVD still looks great on a HDTV.

    Thanks for the article Black Locust. :)

    --
    Brian The Demolition Man Little
    TNAImpact.com Columnist & Message Board Mod
    Want "Fullscreen DVDs"... Buy VHS and get your
    filthy hands off of my Widescreen DVD! Widescreen.org
     
    Brian The Demolition Man Little, Jul 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Black Locust

    Galley Guest

    On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:01:58 -0600, Black Locust <> spewed
    forth these words of wisdom:

    >Here's an article from a recent issue of "Video Store Magazine." I
    >thought she made some pretty good points.
    >
    >'High Def Cannot Hope to Match the Surge of DVD'
    >
    >by Stephanie Prange, executive editor
    >

    <snip>

    She hit the nail on the head with that article! :)

    --
    "I'm not a cool person in real life, but I play one on the Internet"
    Galley
     
    Galley, Jul 28, 2004
    #3
  4. Black Locust

    luminos Guest

    Surely the people here don't think DVD format will last beyond 10 years as
    mainstream. Nor regular 4:3 TVs. Not a chance.
     
    luminos, Jul 28, 2004
    #4
  5. I disagree with one point in this article, I think better picture and
    sound is what made DVD a success, other niceties like compactness just
    helped grease the wheels, so to speak.

    Also, is the author saying high-definition optical disc movies will
    fail? I disagree, I think that the worst-case-scenario is a LD-like
    niche market, which I can live with. She also ignores what's going to
    happen with all these people buying big-screen HDTVs and noticing
    regular DVDs just don't have the same sharpness and detail of HD
    pictures, and deciding they want better.

    --

    "The world cares very little about what a man or woman knows; it is what
    a man or woman is able to do that counts."

    --Booker T. Washington
     
    Grand Inquisitor, Jul 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <>,
    "luminos" <> wrote:

    > Surely the people here don't think DVD format will last beyond 10 years as
    > mainstream. Nor regular 4:3 TVs. Not a chance.


    Surely you didn't think VHS would last 27 years did you? Somehow it has
    and even STILL, has not yet fully succumb to the DVD revolution(though
    it's well on it's way). All of the major movie studios are still
    producing VHS versions of all their titles despite the fact that they
    see a less than 10% profit on them. Surely you didn't think CD's would
    be the format of choice 20 years after it's inception? Shouldn't
    DVD-Audio have killed it off by now? Yet DVD-Audio has not even punt a
    dent in it like so many "experts" predicted it would. To say the current
    DVD format will not last beyond 10 years is nothing but pure
    speculation. The fact is that with the exception of Betamax, all home
    video formats have lasted a minimum of 20 years or longer. The original
    author cited numerous reasons why the current DVD standard will be
    around for many years to come. And there many other reasons beyond
    those. For one thing, HDTV hasn't even STARTED to become accepted by the
    mainstream yet. The penetration rate of HDTV thus far is greatly
    exaggeriated by many posters in this group. I don't know if all the
    regulers here are filthy rich, but most of us cannot afford HDTV's. I
    work for 7 bucks an hour and couldn't even dream of owning a full blown
    home theatre system. The prices on HDTV's are going to have to drop
    dramatically before they can even begin to replace analog televisions.
    DVD players didn't go mainstream until they hit the $100 mark. Also,
    I've watched regular DVD's on a several HDTV's and I've found the
    picture to be more than acceptable. And yes, I am picky and can spot
    defects on anything placed infront of my eyes. Those who demand
    something better this early in DVD's lifecycle are obviously just
    "bored" of DVD and looking for an excuse to kill it off prematurely
    because they have lots of cash to burn.
    --
    BL
     
    Black Locust, Jul 29, 2004
    #6
  7. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <EDONc.35099$>,
    Grand Inquisitor <> wrote:

    > I disagree with one point in this article, I think better picture and
    > sound is what made DVD a success, other niceties like compactness just
    > helped grease the wheels, so to speak.


    She said that a case can be made that the low price sellthrough
    availability of all DVD releases and it's compact size played a bigger
    role in it's success than the picture & sound quality. She didn't say
    those were the only reasons it succeeded. Obviously, if DVD looked and
    sounded no better than VHS, it would have failed before it even hit
    store shelves.

    > Also, is the author saying high-definition optical disc movies will
    > fail? I disagree, I think that the worst-case-scenario is a LD-like
    > niche market, which I can live with. She also ignores what's going to
    > happen with all these people buying big-screen HDTVs and noticing
    > regular DVDs just don't have the same sharpness and detail of HD
    > pictures, and deciding they want better.


    She never said they would fail. She said the 'predictions' that a
    high-def disc format will dominate the home video market within a few
    years and competely kill off regular DVD's is speculation and grossly
    exaggerated. You've still got losers out there VHSing it in the year
    2004 because, well, they still can thanks to the unwillingness of
    Hollywood to yet completely pull the plug on the ancient technology and
    rental stores still willing to stock it(they're obviously gearing up to
    do so, but the fact remains you can still go to blockbuster and rent a
    shitty video tape of a major new release movie like we all used to do in
    1985). If you can't even get these morons to buy a $50 DVD player, how
    in the blue are you going to get them to buy a $2000 HDTV and some
    incredibly expensive high-def disc player(be it blu-ray or whatever)?
    The looming potential format war is a very real possiblity that could
    completely kill off the high-def formats and the owners of 10 grand home
    theater systems in this group need to accept this fact. Reality is most
    people are still more than happy with current DVD technology. It's
    mostly just the 5 HDTV owners (note: this is sarcasm. i know there is
    more than that...) out there that are demanding a high-def format be
    available now and regular DVD start going the way of VHS even though the
    format is only 8 years into it's lifecycle. As far as I'm concerned, the
    mere prospect of another format shouldn't even considered until VHS is
    completely dead and buried. You're talking about introducing a 3rd
    generation technology before the 1st generation technology has even bit
    the dust. We should take things one step at a time. Wait until Hollywood
    pulls the life support on VHS. Then let DVD live out a longer more
    natural lifecycle and then we can start working on an eventual
    replacement for DVD. Just my opinion of course.
    --
    BL
     
    Black Locust, Jul 29, 2004
    #7
  8. Black Locust wrote:
    >>I disagree with one point in this article, I think better picture and
    >>sound is what made DVD a success, other niceties like compactness just
    >>helped grease the wheels, so to speak.

    >
    >
    > She said that a case can be made that the low price sellthrough
    > availability of all DVD releases and it's compact size played a bigger
    > role in it's success than the picture & sound quality.


    Yes, and I think that case would be wrong. Picture and sound were the
    two main factors in the success of DVD. Remember, it wasn't cheap to
    begin with, it was a niche format like LD. After it became popular,
    *then* supply increased and price lowered.

    > She never said they would fail. She said the 'predictions' that a
    > high-def disc format will dominate the home video market within a few
    > years and competely kill off regular DVD's is speculation and grossly
    > exaggerated.


    A straw man argument, because I don't see anybody saying that. I
    haven't even heard electronics companies saying that, but I could be wrong.

    Whether or not Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is next, and whether or not they become
    profitable, and whether or not they un-seat DVD, DVD *will* be un-seated
    and probably faster than VHS was.

    Look at how popular TV DVD sets are, imagine buying a single season,
    with extras, on one disc, that would be very attractive even to
    customers who don't give a fart about HD and firewire and LCoS.

    > You've still got losers out there VHSing it in the year
    > 2004 because, well, they still can thanks to the unwillingness of
    > Hollywood to yet completely pull the plug on the ancient technology and
    > rental stores still willing to stock it(they're obviously gearing up to
    > do so, but the fact remains you can still go to blockbuster and rent a
    > shitty video tape of a major new release movie like we all used to do in
    > 1985). If you can't even get these morons to buy a $50 DVD player, how
    > in the blue are you going to get them to buy a $2000 HDTV and some
    > incredibly expensive high-def disc player(be it blu-ray or whatever)?


    Because prices will fall faster. I remember even in the mid-nineties
    no-frill VCRs going for almost two hundred bucks. Blu-Ray players will
    be expensive initially but will fall in price even faster than HDTVs
    themselves.

    > The looming potential format war is a very real possiblity that could
    > completely kill off the high-def formats and the owners of 10 grand home
    > theater systems in this group need to accept this fact.


    I don't buy a format war, I think Blu-Ray's lead is too substantial.
    The studios prefer its superior encryption scheme, and with piracy
    becoming rampant even in markets where it was previously unheard of to
    the mainstream population, studios will go with better encryption over
    HD-DVD's lower initial investment. Blu-Ray has other perks, Sony says
    they have hundreds of titles ready to be released in HD, it is
    technically superior, and they don't need the approval of a consortium
    to release it (by not using the term "DVD").

    > Reality is most
    > people are still more than happy with current DVD technology. It's
    > mostly just the 5 HDTV owners (note: this is sarcasm. i know there is
    > more than that...) out there that are demanding a high-def format be
    > available now and regular DVD start going the way of VHS even though the
    > format is only 8 years into it's lifecycle.


    You're forgetting Japan, which has had HD available to consumers since
    the 80s, and even had a spate of pseudo-HD LDs. Not to mention that
    there are millions more HD sets in the US than there were just a year or
    two ago, it's taking off fast.

    > As far as I'm concerned, the
    > mere prospect of another format shouldn't even considered until VHS is
    > completely dead and buried. You're talking about introducing a 3rd
    > generation technology before the 1st generation technology has even bit
    > the dust. We should take things one step at a time. Wait until Hollywood
    > pulls the life support on VHS. Then let DVD live out a longer more
    > natural lifecycle and then we can start working on an eventual
    > replacement for DVD. Just my opinion of course.


    Nah, I see Blu-Ray being released in one or two years and surviving as a
    niche market for another four or five years until having mainstream
    success like DVD does now.

    --

    "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
    a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
    causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
    yet been written."

    --Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology
     
    Grand Inquisitor, Jul 29, 2004
    #8
  9. Black Locust

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Black Locust wrote:
    > Here's an article from a recent issue of "Video Store Magazine." I
    > thought she made some pretty good points.
    >
    > 'High Def Cannot Hope to Match the Surge of DVD'
    >
    > by Stephanie Prange, executive editor
    >
    > Now that some of the bluster over the competing high-def disc formats
    > has died down, I wanted to point out a few other hurdles that may keep
    > any future disc format from recreating the growth wave of DVD. The
    > stars aligned for DVD in a way that future cannot possibly match.
    > Assuming the industry does agree on a common format and then times it
    > well without stepping on the current DVD surge, it will never have
    > the advantage of building a sellthrough market the way DVD did.
    > Before DVD, consumers couldn't own every title when it came out. Most
    > titles were priced for rental on VHS. Indeed, a case can be made that
    > sellthrough pricing was more important to DVD's wide and impressive
    > adoption than the better picture and audio. The increased value of a
    > DVD was a no-brainer for consumers. It sported better quality and it
    > was available at a low price, while most titles in the established
    > format were not. We will never see that again. High-def will not
    > undercut the price of DVD the way DVD trumped the price and
    > sellthrough availability of VHS. Likely, it will cost more, which
    > would be an impediment to it's mainstream adoption. DVD also had a
    > size advantage over the prevailing format that the proposed high-def
    > formats will not. The little disc was a lightweight compared to the
    > VHS cassette. That meant it could be mailed cheaply and shelved more
    > efficiently. It also spawned internet sales and rentals. If DVD
    > hadn't been so easy to mail, Netflix would never have gotten off the
    > ground. If the DVD had not been so compact, the TV-on-DVD genre -- in
    > which whole seasons can be put in a boxed set the size of one
    > two-hour VHS cassette -- would never have emerged as one of the
    > hottest in the business with millions of sales never imagined on VHS.
    > Again, the proposed high-def formats won't have a physical size
    > advantage over DVD. The discs may hold more, but they won't fit any
    > better on consumers' or retailers' shelves. They may hold a few more
    > TV episodes on a single disc, but the difference in saved space won't
    > match the spread between DVD and cassette. Let's talk extras. DVD had
    > them. Cassettes, for the most part, didn't. That was another big
    > advantage DVD had. The proposed high-def formats will offer more
    > extras, but does the public really want them? DVD producers will tell
    > you they can do a lot with extra space -- improve the picture or
    > audio, add more branching and more documentaries, etc. -- but I
    > question whether that will be enough to convince consumers to switch
    > formats. While TV's advance into high definition may push consumers
    > and the industry into a new format, it simply won't have the pull of
    > DVD. The high-def disc may prove to be a very good followup to DVD,
    > but it just won't be the same. I don't think we will ever see the
    > likes of DVD in the packaged media realm again.


    Not much to disagree with here. I myself will switch over when things
    become standardized and affordable, but I doubt I'll be selling off my
    current DVD collection to replace with HD discs. I'll just collect new
    titles in HD as they come out, and supplement my current collection with
    them. I suspect the majority of DVD collectors will do something similar.

    For the average consumer, who isn't as obsessed with quality as some of us,
    they may not make the switch at all. There will need to be compelling
    reasons that, as this author points out, probably won't exist, especially if
    prices remain high.

    HD-DVD may be the new laserdisc to DVD's VHS, if that makes sense. ;)

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Jul 29, 2004
    #9
  10. Black Locust

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Grand Inquisitor wrote:
    > I disagree with one point in this article, I think better picture and
    > sound is what made DVD a success, other niceties like compactness just
    > helped grease the wheels, so to speak.


    I think all those factors played a part, but the author made a good point as
    to how much grease the non-quality factors applied.

    > Also, is the author saying high-definition optical disc movies will
    > fail? I disagree, I think that the worst-case-scenario is a LD-like
    > niche market, which I can live with.


    No, I think the author was just saying that it's not bound to take off the
    way that DVD did. I agree with your prediction that HD-DVD is going to be a
    laserdisc-like niche market, at least for the time being.

    > She also ignores what's going to
    > happen with all these people buying big-screen HDTVs and noticing
    > regular DVDs just don't have the same sharpness and detail of HD
    > pictures, and deciding they want better.


    This is a good point also. If HDTVs finally take off, HD-DVD will probably
    follow suit for this very reason. However, that's a very big "if". Right
    now, HDTV appears to be as much of a niche market as laserdisc itself, and
    there's no reason to think that's going to change any time soon.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Jul 29, 2004
    #10
  11. Black Locust

    Guest

    I wonder, would it really be so bad if there is a 'format war'? Then
    there will be competition on the basis of quality and value, and the
    best one can win. And besides, DVD players become so small and cheap, if
    there were 2 formats, you could just buy both an HDDVD and a Blu-Ray player.
     
    , Jul 29, 2004
    #11
  12. Black Locust

    poldy Guest

    In article <ce9n54$vks$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:

    > This is a good point also. If HDTVs finally take off, HD-DVD will probably
    > follow suit for this very reason. However, that's a very big "if". Right
    > now, HDTV appears to be as much of a niche market as laserdisc itself, and
    > there's no reason to think that's going to change any time soon.


    HDTVs have an installed base probably greater than LD ever reached.
    Plus it's growing at high double-digit rates. You can buy entry-level
    HDTV screens for well under $1000.

    Plus, DVD actually helped sell a lot of HDTV sets.

    Virtually all big-screen sets are HDTV-capable.

    And if HD-DVD or Blue-Ray only achieves the success of LD, than they
    will be failures. LD was supported essentially by one company while all
    the major hardware makers are lining up for one format or another.
     
    poldy, Jul 29, 2004
    #12
  13. Black Locust

    poldy Guest

    In article <ftXNc.37$>,
    Grand Inquisitor <> wrote:

    > The studios prefer its superior encryption scheme, and with piracy
    > becoming rampant even in markets where it was previously unheard of to
    > the mainstream population, studios will go with better encryption over
    > HD-DVD's lower initial investment. Blu-Ray has other perks, Sony says
    > they have hundreds of titles ready to be released in HD, it is
    > technically superior, and they don't need the approval of a consortium
    > to release it (by not using the term "DVD").


    Actually both look like they're going to use AACS, which is in the
    process of being finalized.

    They will use unique disc IDs and they will be able to track how many
    times a particular disc has been viewed. Watch out, this could mean
    licensing rights scheme way more onerous than DivX ever dreamed of being.
     
    poldy, Jul 29, 2004
    #13
  14. Black Locust

    Mike Kohary Guest

    poldy wrote:
    > In article <ce9n54$vks$>, "Mike Kohary" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> This is a good point also. If HDTVs finally take off, HD-DVD will
    >> probably follow suit for this very reason. However, that's a very
    >> big "if". Right now, HDTV appears to be as much of a niche market
    >> as laserdisc itself, and there's no reason to think that's going to
    >> change any time soon.

    >
    > HDTVs have an installed base probably greater than LD ever reached.
    > Plus it's growing at high double-digit rates.


    Is that right? What's the reference?

    > You can buy entry-level
    > HDTV screens for well under $1000.


    I have watched prices drop rapidly, near $1000 (but I haven't seen a set for
    under, though I'm sure they exist). Still, I know exactly one person who
    owns one - just one. And I know a lot of people.

    > And if HD-DVD or Blue-Ray only achieves the success of LD, than they
    > will be failures. LD was supported essentially by one company while
    > all the major hardware makers are lining up for one format or another.


    I think HD-DVD can do much better than laserdisc, and didn't mean to compare
    the two formats in literal raw numbers. But it wouldn't surprise me if it
    remains a niche market to DVD's mainstream market for some time to come.

    Of course I could be wrong.

    Mike
     
    Mike Kohary, Jul 29, 2004
    #14
  15. Grand Inquisitor wrote:
    > Picture and sound were the two main factors in the success of DVD.
    > Remember, it wasn't cheap to begin with, it was a niche format like LD.
    > After it became popular, *then* supply increased and price lowered.


    Eh? While it certainly started out as a niche format in terms of
    popularity, DVD was indeed cheap to begin with: far cheaper than LD ever
    was. Prices continued to drop as the format got a foothold in the market,
    but they never approached the stratospheric levels found on LD or
    rental-priced VHS.

    Example: I bought my first DVD, _Blade Runner: Director's Cut_ (at full
    list price, I'm sorry to say), on 12 February 1998, which was well before
    DVD hit the consumer mainstream. Full list price was $24.95... but the LD
    of the same title listed for 49.98.

    And one of the reasons I piled up DVD purchases so fast -- and continue to
    do so to this day -- is that I can't shake off the knowledge that even an
    expensive DVD is cheap by the standards of the LD market. (Remember the
    bare-bones pre-THX _Star Wars_ trilogy letterboxed LDs, at $69.98 per
    film?)

    doug

    --
    "Interrupting my train of thought, lines of longitude and latitude
    Define, refine my altitude..."
    --Wire
     
    Douglas Bailey, Jul 29, 2004
    #15
  16. Black Locust

    Black Locust Guest

    In article <ftXNc.37$>,
    Grand Inquisitor <> wrote:

    > Yes, and I think that case would be wrong. Picture and sound were the
    > two main factors in the success of DVD. Remember, it wasn't cheap to
    > begin with, it was a niche format like LD. After it became popular,
    > *then* supply increased and price lowered.


    Then don't you think LD would have been a success since it sported
    better picture & sound than VHS? I hate to say it, but Joe Six Pack
    doesn't care much about quality. People like this used VHS for 20 years
    and hardly even noticed how terrible it looked and sounded. They bought
    into DVD for other reasons.

    > A straw man argument, because I don't see anybody saying that. I
    > haven't even heard electronics companies saying that, but I could be wrong.


    Huh? There are posters in this very thread saying that's what is going
    to happen.

    > Whether or not Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is next, and whether or not they become
    > profitable, and whether or not they un-seat DVD, DVD *will* be un-seated


    I'm not denying that. Of course DVD will be replaced. No technology will
    last forever. I'm just saying it's not going to be unseated as fast as
    some people think it will.

    > and probably faster than VHS was.


    Absolutely not. DVD's record breaking success makes the VCR revolution
    look like it never even happened. DVD has far more going for it than VHS
    ever did and it's much cheaper to manufacture to boot. I honestly
    believe it will live a longer life than VHS did.

    > Look at how popular TV DVD sets are, imagine buying a single season,
    > with extras, on one disc, that would be very attractive even to
    > customers who don't give a fart about HD and firewire and LCoS.


    I don't find that attractive. Most shows will already be on DVD by then.
    I have no interest in buying the show all over again just so I can have
    the entire season on 1 disc. This is my primary problem with HD-DVD. I
    refuse to buy everything I own all over again just so I can have it in
    fucking "true high-def" with a few more bonus features. Maybe you have
    this kind of money to burn, but I sure as hell don't.

    > Because prices will fall faster. I remember even in the mid-nineties
    > no-frill VCRs going for almost two hundred bucks. Blu-Ray players will
    > be expensive initially but will fall in price even faster than HDTVs
    > themselves.


    But it will cost some people thousands to replace their collections with
    the new discs.

    > I don't buy a format war, I think Blu-Ray's lead is too substantial.
    > The studios prefer its superior encryption scheme, and with piracy
    > becoming rampant even in markets where it was previously unheard of to
    > the mainstream population, studios will go with better encryption over
    > HD-DVD's lower initial investment. Blu-Ray has other perks, Sony says
    > they have hundreds of titles ready to be released in HD, it is
    > technically superior, and they don't need the approval of a consortium
    > to release it (by not using the term "DVD").


    I don't know. It seems to me that both groups are determined to release
    their product. If this happens, both formats will end up on the shelves
    at the same time and confuse consumers irregardless of which format has
    the most support.

    Also, aren't blu-ray discs housed in a caddie? This would mean that DVD
    actually has a size advantage over it!

    > You're forgetting Japan, which has had HD available to consumers since
    > the 80s, and even had a spate of pseudo-HD LDs. Not to mention that
    > there are millions more HD sets in the US than there were just a year or
    > two ago, it's taking off fast.


    Japan and America are 2 different markets and should not be treated the
    same. If Japan want to burn all their DVD's and proclaim "Blu-ray
    forever!", that's fine by me. My only concern is with the US market.

    > Nah, I see Blu-Ray being released in one or two years and surviving as a
    > niche market for another four or five years until having mainstream
    > success like DVD does now.


    I agree with the first part, but I see it being more like 10 years
    before it gains mainstream succcess.
    --
    BL
     
    Black Locust, Jul 29, 2004
    #16
  17. Black Locust

    Smaug69 Guest

    Grand Inquisitor <> wrote in message news:<ftXNc.37$>...
    > Black Locust wrote:
    > >>I disagree with one point in this article, I think better picture and
    > >>sound is what made DVD a success, other niceties like compactness just
    > >>helped grease the wheels, so to speak.

    > >
    > >
    > > She said that a case can be made that the low price sellthrough
    > > availability of all DVD releases and it's compact size played a bigger
    > > role in it's success than the picture & sound quality.

    >
    > Yes, and I think that case would be wrong. Picture and sound were the
    > two main factors in the success of DVD.


    Picture, sound and price were the big three reasons.

    > Remember, it wasn't cheap to
    > begin with, it was a niche format like LD. After it became popular,
    > *then* supply increased and price lowered.


    Were you even around back in 1997 and 1998? DVD WAS cheap right out of
    the gate compared to Laserdisc. I got my first 3 DVDs for $70 at Best
    Buy. Those would have cost me at least $120 on Laserdisc. And it was
    only a niche format at the beginning because it had just come out. It
    got popular very quickly.

    > Nah, I see Blu-Ray being released in one or two years and surviving as a
    > niche market for another four or five years until having mainstream
    > success like DVD does now.


    It never will. Nothing will ever have the mainstream success that DVD
    has had.

    Smaug69
     
    Smaug69, Jul 29, 2004
    #17
  18. Black Locust

    Tarkus Guest

    On 7/29/2004 1:41:02 PM, Smaug69 wrote:

    > Picture, sound and price were the big three reasons.


    Don't forget convenience, e.g., size, random access, no rewinding, etc.,
    to say nothing of durability.
    --
    "Don't touch that please. Your primitive intellect wouldn't understand
    things with alloys and compositions and things with ... molecular
    structures."

    Now playing: "Audioslave Hammerstein 03 - Light My Way"
     
    Tarkus, Jul 29, 2004
    #18
  19. poldy wrote:
    > Actually both look like they're going to use AACS, which is in the
    > process of being finalized.
    >
    > They will use unique disc IDs and they will be able to track how many
    > times a particular disc has been viewed. Watch out, this could mean
    > licensing rights scheme way more onerous than DivX ever dreamed of being.


    That's not the way IGN described it in their long article about Blu-Ray.

    --

    "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
    a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
    causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
    yet been written."

    --Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology
     
    Grand Inquisitor, Jul 30, 2004
    #19
  20. Douglas Bailey wrote:
    >>Picture and sound were the two main factors in the success of DVD.
    >>Remember, it wasn't cheap to begin with, it was a niche format like LD.
    >>After it became popular, *then* supply increased and price lowered.

    >
    >
    > Eh? While it certainly started out as a niche format in terms of
    > popularity, DVD was indeed cheap to begin with: far cheaper than LD ever
    > was.


    Uh, the cheapest DVD player available in the early days was four hundred
    bucks, same as the cheapest LD player. In case you didn't notice, I
    *did* mention that the price came down as it got more popular.

    > Example: I bought my first DVD, _Blade Runner: Director's Cut_ (at full
    > list price, I'm sorry to say), on 12 February 1998, which was well before
    > DVD hit the consumer mainstream. Full list price was $24.95... but the LD
    > of the same title listed for 49.98.
    >


    You're talking about discs themselves? I wasn't. The cost of the
    player is the first obstacle to adoption.

    > And one of the reasons I piled up DVD purchases so fast -- and continue to
    > do so to this day -- is that I can't shake off the knowledge that even an
    > expensive DVD is cheap by the standards of the LD market. (Remember the
    > bare-bones pre-THX _Star Wars_ trilogy letterboxed LDs, at $69.98 per
    > film?)


    I remember Criterion and Criterion-like sets, for a single movie, going
    for well over a hundred bucks.

    --

    "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom,
    a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural
    causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not
    yet been written."

    --Hubert P. Yockey, Journal of Theoretical Biology
     
    Grand Inquisitor, Jul 30, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. serge

    DVD Formats

    serge, Aug 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    459
    Kenny
    Aug 10, 2003
  2. Phil Riker

    HD-DVD and DVD's future

    Phil Riker, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    68
    Views:
    2,638
    John DeGroof
    Sep 28, 2003
  3. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    6,142
    Allan
    Jul 15, 2005
  4. Jonathan Walker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    591
    Peter
    Aug 26, 2007
  5. helena68
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,495
    popularscan
    Nov 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page