Study: even at $199, consumers still don't care about Blu-Ray
Analysts have been claiming for the last couple of years that Blu-Ray would reach ubiquity when players hit the sub-$200 price range. Except now we're there and people still don't really care about Blu-Ray:
A study recently released by ABI Research indicates that 47 percent of holiday buyers expect to decrease their spending from previous years and a comparatively low 40 percent expect to spend the same amount. Specifically on the Blu-ray front, the research found that only 8 percent of holiday buyers were considering the upgrade to a Blu-ray player, despite the fact that prices have reached the sub-200 dollar sweet spot.One of the biggest problems? The cost. Even though the Blu-ray players have dropped in price, in order to actually get the benefit of Blu-ray you need to own an HDTV, which is still a very expensive investment (though Sharp has unveiled an HDTV with a Blu-ray recorder built in). Then when you consider that each Blu-ray movie costs about double the price of a DVD the numbers don't add up in Blu-ray's favor.
Of course, the cost wouldn't be as much of a problem if the perceived value of Blu-ray was higher. Unfortunately for Blu-ray, most people still don't see the change in quality between DVD and Blu-ray to be significant enough to be worth the cost.
You know, despite having a 50 inch HDTV, I don't really have much interest in Blu-Ray either. Physical media has become positively antediluvian in my mind. I really do think streaming television is going to be the dark horse that wins the race: it won't really be high-def for years to come, but it'll be high-def enough for most.
Could it be a Blue Christmas for Blu-Ray [PC World via Gizmodo]
the latest
latest episodes
Perhaps because the MPAA / studios also jacked up the price of the movies to $40+ each? When really DVD should have gone the way of VHS years ago -- sold in grocery stores for $5 each, while Blu-Ray gets priced at former DVD levels -- $15-20 each.
Oh, not to mention that the DRM is such a pain in the ass that even non-geeks bother to figure out how to bittorrent 720p matroska files instead. It's the classic argument that "piracy" is easier than DRM, so people will "pirate".
Blu-Ray is effectively still-born as a mass-audience consumer product. It's only real role is to be the point of distribution that Chinese or Russian rings run AnyDVD on and release as 720p mkv files. The only legitimate alternatives are either the HD videos for the Apple TV or iTunes, but even those are rotting away with Blu-Ray inspired DRM of HDCP, or just record the 1080i HDTV streams with EyeTV.
Totally agree with your diagnosis, Drs. John & Zuzu. I don't have any interest in a physical media format at this point. Streaming, on-demand, and 720p downloads work fine for my HD needs on my old 42" 1080i panel.
Almost every BluRay disc I try to play takes me at least 15 minutes to load and get past some sort of firmware problem. Its so annoying that I try to avoid watching BluRay as much as possible, and instead turn to streaming movies.
Who can argue against a huge, on-demand always ready digital library of streaming movies? I can't find enough space (or money) to keep around stacks of DRM BluRay discs anyway.
This situation is magnificent! The greed of the studios is finally choking the industry. I stopped buying music when they killed the original Napster, and never regretted it. Too bad the entertainment industry never realized it exists to serve the customer. If bands and labels are so concerned about rights, they can buy their music from each other and use their extra CDs and DVDs as frizbees, bookmarks or wall decorations. I have better things to do with my money!
I rather like my $25 DVD player. My TV is twenty years old. I can't find the energy to care about blu-ray, $199 or not.
I don't know about all of you, but there is something about having all my movies, compressed and lower quality by the way, in a very easily corrupted, virused, often-made-obsolete at a far greater pace digital format.
I also like the idea of, I don't know, watching a movie whenever I feel like it- not just when I have access to the internet.
In other words- there is something about owning a hard copy of an item that makes it feel more secure. Sure, a fire or robbery could easily produce the same result- but what is more common?
While I agree that these companies need to stop with the DRM crap, I disagree with the overall sentiment concerning Blue-Ray. Sure the general public have not caught on yet due to the overall price margin for taking advantage of it's quality in a broken economy, but I myself think it would be a shame if Blue-Ray went the way of Laserdisc.
I still have hopes for it- mostly because when I buy something I like to know that it's MINE, and not dependent on the flaky whims of the internet or personal computers.
Then again, who knows, maybe DRM takes that away- in which case maybe it isn't Blue-ray we should be poo-pooing, but that stupid concept.
@Marsattacks - You make some good points. Here are my counterpoints.
1) I have plenty of downloaded content, including the entirety of Planet Earth, in 1080p. It's not compressed and lower quality. Sure, if you stream from NetFlix you won't be getting HD, but you can find HD if you want it. As far as only being available when you have internet... well, cable TV channels are only available when you have cable TV access. I don't see how this is any different, other than the lack of infrastructure.
2) Corrupt files and viruses... that's a molehill mountain if I've ever seen one. Digital music files have the same potential issues but that doesn't stop anyone from using them. In the early days there was good chance you'd get a shitty transcoded-to-hell mp3 on napster. Now, people know better. If the industry embraced digital distribution of movies as certain parts of the music industry have, you'd see these problems ride off into the sunset just as quickly.
3) As far as shelf life before obsolescence, it's rather insignificant when you are talking about software. I can play Commodore 64 games on my laptop. Try to find someone with an 8-track player and you'll see where I'm going with this. What good does that DVD player do you when your whole collection is Blu-ray?
4) You say having a physical copy "feels" more secure. I feel the opposite way. I can't encrypt a closet full of porn so kids don't find it. My files will last as long as my backups and hard drives last. A CD can rot to the point of unusability in 3 years, or get stepped on and lost. I still have all my old papers from school 9 years ago even though I've moved 6 times since then.
Physical media is dead, it's just that digital media (for movies, at least) hasn't come fully to life.
@ Pork
"I have plenty of downloaded content, including the entirety of Planet Earth, in 1080p. It's not compressed and lower quality"
Um, an hour of uncompressed 1080p is about 500GB. But, Blu-Ray's not uncompressed, either.
You are quite right. I should've said it's no more compressed than the other available options. A blu-ray disc holds what, 50GB? The copy of Planet Earth I have is twice that.
Having a hundred plus movies that each take up 50gb is still a bit much for current hard drives. But they will probably catch up long before I would be likely to own 100+ Blu-Ray discs. I've only got five or six right now, to my 100+ regular DVD collection. The barrier for me is movie cost. I'm just not as likely to spend $25 on a movie as I am to plunk down $10.
When BD movies regularly get to $10, then we'll talk!
@marsattacks (in view of Pork's comments) -
4a) "A physical article is more secure..." - that argument was thoroughly killed 10 years ago, when commodity hard drives hit the multiple-gigabyte range.
People don't really buy DVDs for the actual disc or packaging, but for the content. Damage to the single physical article may damage or destroy the content. But if the content is purely digital and un-DRMed, it can be replicated easily, and a damaged container - perhaps of HUNDREDS of movies - can be quickly and cheaply replaced.
5) Content is only "obsolete" if a new version has VERY significant value-add.
DVD made VHS obsolete because it had MANY advantages: phenomenally better quality; instant skipping; less physical wear; interactivity; etc. The advantages were obvious.
By contrast, Blu-Ray offers only a minor quality improvement over DVD... which many customers don't even notice! That's a far cry from "obsolescence" - and no amount of studio hype or advertising can change that fact. There's *certainly* not enough added value to warrant a re-purchasing of large libraries of DVDs.
6) "virused..."
Video is not a program - it's CONTENT. It's not executed; it's only rendered. It can only contain a virus if the renderer is insecure.
7) "corruptible..."
"Corruption" = video that used to be fine, but no longer plays well.
A non-DRMed video ripped out of a DVD (with protection DeCSS'ed out, or simply emulated around) will play anywhere, any time, for the indefinite future.
The DRM in Blu-Ray is a lot more vicious, and it's more difficult (or, at least, less routine) to work around. The potential for corruption here - of not being able to play a DRMed Blu-Ray disc on a particular machine - is high... or, at least, much higher than zero!
- David Stein
I can't tell that I'm missing anything while watching a DVD. I need to spend 2500 US plus another 40 per movie so I can see where the makeup artist missed the hobbit's ear? I can eat for five months on that money.
@ DCulberson - Can you see a noticeable difference when you watch the blu-ray discs? I haven't been able to see a difference in quality but I really haven't looked that closely (which I suppose means that blu-ray isn't for me).
@ Pork Musket
About a year ago I picked up a PS3 and gaining a BluRay player was just a pleasant side effect. For the vast majority of what I've watched, BluRay/DVD makes very little difference.
There have however been a couple movies (Planet Earth, 300, Casino Royale...) where I found the super hi-def image to be legitimately cool.. Planet Earth especially. But I wouldn't go out of my way for it.
Pork, I can notice a difference, but it's usually due to the higher quality transfers that were used. For example, both my standard DVDs of Fifth Element and Blade Runner were horrible, horrible transfers. The Blu-Ray versions that I bought (shortly after getting a PS3, so it was my new-gadget-lust stage) were significantly better transfers so I think that's the main difference.
If I had a reference type theater setup, I'm sure it would be better. But my current setup is using an 800x600 presentation-grade projector with a low contrast ratio and high brightness, so the blacks are pretty gray.
The DRM is a hassle, but for most users, if you can put in the disc and it plays via a cable, that's not the real problem.
The real problem for the industry is that upconverting DVD players are way cheap and very nice, and Blu-Ray discs are still overpriced. 1-2 years from now when the Blu-Ray players are $79 and the discs are $15, people will start to switch en masse, or at least when their current players crap out.
1-2 years from now people will have access to cheap streaming services and they won't give a crap about physical media. At least I hope.
Also, most people really don't care about seeing their movies in hi-def, hi-res or anything close to that.
People basically want a clean/stable picture. That's the number one problem VHS an even Beta had but DVDs solved that. And cable alone—without anything fancy—is like heaven to most folks who were used to fighting with rabbit ears and static.
The only people I know who have Blu-Ray or HD-DVD setups are (sorry to say) the geekiest of geeks. Most other people don't care too much.
Kind of like camera megapixels: Past 6 megapixels, few people know, care or understand the difference.
Streaming may be an upcoming and profitable business but recall that here in the US, the broadband penetration (and even the quality of the wiring) varies widely. We have every part of the spectrum, between " very modern", "the internet as it was 10-15 years ago", and "internet? what's that?", and I'd bet the distribution would likely be a bell-curve placing our penetration and connection quality, on average, about a decade behind other major consumer nations.
There are still fairly populous areas of the country where you can't even get internet access except with a costly satellite plan... and indeed a majority of the low-density residential areas here seem to have quite subpar options for broadband.
Hell I'm in a major LA suburb and not only is the local broadband woefully slow (HD video? Netflix barely lets my DSL stream video at all)... there's also no infrastructure in place to upgrade to something faster, and no current plans by any provider to install that infrastructure.
Streaming content is obviously limited by people's ability to access it. Here in the US, that's a pretty significant hurdle. Physical media will continue to be a viable industry until such a time as the vast number of people unreachable by streaming content providers are given a cost-effective alternative... which could easily be a decade or more away.
I think the real reason why people like me won't "upgrade" to a higher definition format is simply that they see Blu-Ray as being more of a hassle than the DVD, not less. Despite all the talk of quality, it should be obvious by now that quality doesn't matter if you are only interested in watching the movie once or twice.
CD's beat out records and tapes because they became more comfortable to use, not because they brought more clarity. The same for DVD's beating tapes: one of the biggest selling points was that the darn things were easier to pop in and watch without having to rewind, and you could skip ahead if you wanted. Of course, studios then began to shoot themselves in the foot by insisting on forcing the viewer to watch their nasty accusation ads, and even the most mild-mannered consumer begins to wonder about ripping.
Will Blu-Ray become the 12" laserdisc of our era, the eight track tape? I am beginning to think so, as consumer-level streaming in high definition quality has the potential of more comfort than a DVD. I could even see the USB stick replacing the disc, as it has a convenient form factor and scales better to the content.
Are comedies funnier in HD?
If a movie is any good then you will enjoy it whether it's blu-ray, dvd or vhs (or a 100ft wide cinema screen) - it will drag you in and make you forget there's even a screen in front of you.
Sure, your special effects laden popcorn will look more detailed, but... i dunno, getting excited about how many pixels a movie has is completely missing the entire point IMHO, in the same way that extreme audiophiles often seem forget that theyre actually supposed to be listening to music, not distorion levels.
All other things being equal then HD is the obvious choice. But all other things are NOT equal:
* Massive outlay for new player & TV
* Price gouging on blu-ray releases - what is the justification for this?
* DRM headaches and incompatabilities abound. Hmmm, i'm paying extra and in return i'm getting more hassle? That's an... interesting business model.
i'm a graphic designer, so i should care about picture quality, but i find that for almost everything, DVD is good enough and steaming TV is adequate, if not perfect.
and if i have to deal with DRM on blu-ray, then i probably can't be bothered for a while until the discs become cheap enough that the studios don't care
Blu-Ray is for High Definition Nerds. There I said it. I'm not taking it back. People who think that being able to see Viggo Mortesen's nose pores on their Blu-Ray version of "Lord of the Rings" think that movie quality only has to do with pixel density and whatever is sold on the back on a Blu-Ray box. There used to be things about plot, character development, dialogue: available on any format, containing a good movie.
Eventually, we should wise us and realize that releasing new formats every five to ten years is just a business gimmick and we would be better off placing our money elsewhere.
I refuse to pay twice as much for a movie that may or may not work with my tv/surround/player combo. I had a player for a couple hours. After spending over an hour with upgrades so I could watch a movie I decided it wasn't worth the effort and took it back.
Downloadable video is where it's going to be anyway...
This kind of bandwagon Luddite reaction to the technological wondrousness of Blu-ray depresses me on a gadget blog. High definition video beats the hell out of standard defintion, and most of you poor folk are American with 3:2 pulldown, impossibly awful NTSC. Being raised on PAL, I cringe when I see NTSC in action.
I think that people are forgetting how expensive DVDs were at launch and how resistant everyone was to them.
I'm probably a unique case, but due to being broke for the early years of DVD, and also due to my fastidiousness, I never saw the point of buying anything less than a cinema-quality copy to archive. So I didn't buy any DVDs, I rented. Some Blu-ray transfers leave much to be desired, certainly, but the 1080p resolution, lossless audio, and 24Hz frame rate reproduction are all I could ask from a digital film medium. Watching 2001 and the Road Warrior on Blu-ray - both excellent transfers - were entirely satisfying filmic experiences to me.
As for streaming video, one day, when everyone has a direct-to-source optical fibre connection or whatever standard betters that, it will happen, and we'll be free of physical media, but for now I have one of the highest affordable data limits in my country (Australia) and it would only cover one Blu-ray disc download per month. In my old country, one disc would chew up over two years' allotment.
The price of Blu-ray is a sore point. It's disgustingly expensive. But, I really only have a few movies I want to own and watch repeatedly, and there's so little currently available, I'm hardly spending a lot of cash on the format. And if DVD's current supermarket bargain basket ubiquity is anything to judge by, then a future of cheapie HD video awaits us.
Oh, and the DRM is horrid. But it will be beaten. Count on it. If a system can display the data, then someone can record it. Fortunately I've had no issues, but then I can't think of anything much more compact than a BD that I could rip the films to at full quality (and quality is why I buy the format), so all it means to me right now is that I have to buy the discs rather than download (which I couldn't even if the films were available on P2P) and watch them on my PlayStation.
As for whining about Laserdisc, when I was a kid, it was something of a privilege to be invited to your parents' bachelor friend's house to see them in action, considering how awful VHS was, even when it was all that was available.
I still buy CDs (although I rip them for convenience - LAME VBR) and I'm okay with that. When the acoustic mangle that is MP3 is finally completely replaced by better lossless formats like FLAC and we have pocket media players with enough memory to hold my collection, all I will have to do is re-rip to upgrade.
Long-live high fidelity. When Blu-ray or better quality is conveniently available sans discs, I will gladly embrace that standard, for now it's the best and I like it.
I would like to quote myself from April 2005, on the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD "format war" (lol then, lol now):
'This is all such bullshit anyway. Whatever is "chosen" will go the way of the laser disk if it's released any time in the next 5+ years. The majority of people have no reason to buy all their movies all over again. For 99% of the population, DVD works just fine. Most people don't even have the hardware to make DVDs look/sound as good as they can.
The greater storage space will be great for video games, but is essentially useless for movies. Sure, more space = higher def, but as I said before, this really only makes a difference to the hardcore A/V people. Movie studios WILL NOT use the extra storage space for more content. What to people expect? The ability to buy all 15 seasons of the Simpsons on one disk for $20? Give me a break that will never happen.'
source: http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?id=9928916