Big win for Sony...

[skim36]

If you move over to TigerDirect.com, there's a news story there that says Warner Bros has officially chosen Blu-Ray exclusively.  Warner was the last company standing on the fence as it were.  As a result, HD-DVD has pulled out of the CES, story here:

http://news.tigerdirect.com/2008/01/05/hd-dvd-not-in-the-party-mood-for-ces-withdraws-event/

[odysseyroc]

If HD-DVD goes away, then it becomes Blu-Ray vs SD DVD. Winning the HD format war may mean nothing, since most people don't seem to care about it at all.

[Lakersfan]

All I'm waiting for is the player that plays DVD, Blue-Ray, and HD-DVD... Once that happens, then I'll look into buying one.

[AtomSmasher]

All I'm waiting for is the player that plays DVD, Blue-Ray, and HD-DVD... Once that happens, then I'll look into buying one.

They've been making players that can do that for a while now.

[Malenko]

All I'm waiting for is the player that plays DVD, Blue-Ray, and HD-DVD... Once that happens, then I'll look into buying one.

They've been making players that can do that for a while now.

for at least a year.

 I chose HD DVD because it was a cheap addon for my 360; its sonys fault there is a format war in the first place, and I dont want a PS3.  Companies choosing one format over the other, when they dont have to (ie sony pictures group pretty much has to support blu-ray), is a bad business move; you're alienating 1/2 of your potential customers.

[pointdablame]

Yeah this is pretty big news.  I actually hope it leads to a definitive winner in the HD format wars... its getting really, really old.  HD still makes up a small portion of DVD sales as mentioned so this wouldn't be the end-all win for Blu-Ray, but at least there'd only be on HD format competing.

[ChadTower]

I really don't care.  I buy few DVDs of new content anyway.

[shmokes]

I hope BluRay wins.  I plan to get a PS3 in the distant future, and as much as it's not going to happen any time soon it will still almost surely be my first HD player.  For obvious reasons, if my HD player will only play one format I want it to be the format that won the war.

[ChadTower]

If the PS3 is as good a DVD player as the PS2 is you'll be better served to use it to hold up a wobbly table.

[tommy]

If the PS3 is as good a DVD player as the PS2 is you'll be better served to use it to hold up a wobbly table.

It's pretty sad when a consoles secondary use becomes more of a story then the actual propose it was made for.

[ChadTower]

It's pretty sad when a consoles secondary use becomes more of a story then the actual porpoise it was made for.

fixt, tommyfin

[ahofle]

Sweet, now we can start paying $30 for a copy of Rush Hour 3.

[Grasshopper]

I hope BluRay wins.  I plan to get a PS3 in the distant future, and as much as it's not going to happen any time soon it will still almost surely be my first HD player.  For obvious reasons, if my HD player will only play one format I want it to be the format that won the war.

Well as long as dual format players become cheap (which they almost certainly will), it's probably better if there isn't a clear winner, at least from the consumer's perspective. But if there has to be a winner, then I'd have a slight preference for HD DVD simply because I've heard that Blu Ray's DRM system is harder to crack.

God how I loathe DRM.

[97thruhiker]

Well I will continue to buy/rent standard DVD's for a long while because I'm satisfied with the picture using my upconverting DVD player.  I have a 47 inch LCD TV and love watching HDTV on it.  The picture I get from my upconverting player looks extremely close (almost undectable) to what I get in HD service from Directv.  Why pay a couple of hundred dollars for a player that may make the picture a tad better (as well as the discs costing much more).  I could care less about "special features" so that argument fails with me also as this new format touts more of these options.  The only thing about the new format discs that care about at this point is backup storage of all of my movies/tv shows that I rip into digital format to play on my portable player as 4.7gigs is actually getting quite small.

[shmokes]

If the PS3 is as good a DVD player as the PS2 is you'll be better served to use it to hold up a wobbly table.

It's pretty sad when a consoles secondary use becomes more of a story then the actual propose it was made for.

Yeah, cos the fact that PS2 is a ---smurfy--- DVD player is much more of a story than, say, the fact that PS2 is the most successful videogame console of all time.   

[tommy]

I'm talking about the PS3.

[SavannahLion]

So when can we count on our disc rights being revoked?

[Samstag]

So when can we count on our disc rights being revoked?

Not until I stop paying for my Netflix account, I'm guessing.

[shmokes]

I'm talking about the PS3.

Heh . . . well the post you responded to was talking about the PS2.  We don't have any indication so far that the BluRay drive in the PS3 is shoddy.  BTW, you're kidding yourself if you think there's really a huge number of people who bought the PS3 primarily because they wanted a BluRay player.  Those people exist, don't get me wrong; and a lot of people who bought the PS3 are happy that it doubles as a BluRay player and use it as such.  But they the VAST majority of PS3 owners bought it to play PS3 games on it just like they did with their PS2s. 

[ark_ader]

I thought you can image the blueray disc via linux........

[AcidArmitage]

i dont trust sony.... not one bit 

[tommy]

I'm talking about the PS3.

Heh . . . well the post you responded to was talking about the PS2.  We don't have any indication so far that the BluRay drive in the PS3 is shoddy.  BTW, you're kidding yourself if you think there's really a huge number of people who bought the PS3 primarily because they wanted a BluRay player.  Those people exist, don't get me wrong; and a lot of people who bought the PS3 are happy that it doubles as a BluRay player and use it as such.  But they the VAST majority of PS3 owners bought it to play PS3 games on it just like they did with their PS2s. 

I think you still got me wrong.    I was saying that it's sad that the PS3 is not really being talked about because of games or gaming and the big news is only about the DVD wars that would benefit the PS3. That would be the secondary use I was speaking of and it's getting more attention than what the PS3's real purpose is, playing games on the thing.

I guess I shouldn't have quoted chad in my original post, that's where I lost you I think. 

[shmokes]

Well . . . I understand you, but I disagree.  BluRay winning the format war (probably) is big news for the PS3, but it ain't the only thing PS3 has going for it.  PS3 having an arguably stronger library than Wii is certainly noteworthy.

[SavannahLion]

I thought you can image the blueray disc via linux........

That should be interesting to read up on. I wasn't aware any of the distros had BluRay support.

If that's true, then that would be BluRay's only saving grace in my book.

[shmokes]

I'm under the impression that BluRay has been completely cracked.  AnyDVD (an awesome program, BTW) claims that it strips the copy protections from both BluRay and HD DVD on the fly.

[SavannahLion]

I'm under the impression that BluRay has been completely cracked.  AnyDVD (an awesome program, BTW) claims that it strips the copy protections from both BluRay and HD DVD on the fly.

I've heard about the work with HD DVD and how it was cracked, but apparently I haven't kept up with the cracking scene on BluRay. That's just down right ---smurfing--- awesome! I've got to research it tonight.

[tommy]

Well . . . I understand you, but I disagree.  BluRay winning the format war (probably) is big news for the PS3, but it ain't the only thing PS3 has going for it.  PS3 having an arguably stronger library than Wii is certainly noteworthy.

 

Right now, as far back as the PS3 is to the pack, the best they can hope for is their DVD winning the war. Something being talked about as far as Sony goes is better then nothing, as it is now. I think that's about all they have right now. Any win is a win for a console in deep ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.

This is still sad.

[patrickl]

Any win is a win for a console in deep ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.

This is still sad.

How is the PS3 a console in deep ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---? The Wii is indeed a bigger sales hit, but the PS3 is selling at the same rate as the Xbox 360 (if you compensate for the difference in release date). In fact the PS3 sells at the same rate as the PS2 did from it's introduction. You'd probably have called the PS2 a console in deep ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.

[ChadTower]

There are HD rips all over the internet... not sure if they're coming from HD DVD or BluRay, but it's high profile stuff.  The 6 Star Wars movies just hit the net in full 1080p, for example, ripped in H.264.

[big daddy]

Also looks like Paramount is about to jump
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/09/sony.digitalmedia

its sonys fault there is a format war in the first place

absurd

If the PS3 is as good a DVD player as the PS2 is you'll be better served to use it to hold up a wobbly table.

The PS3 was better (and cheaper) than most of the standalone players at one point (I don't know if that is still true).  Take a look through around AVSforum and you'll find a lot of videophiles who bought a PS3 strictly because of how good the blu-ray player was.

To all those talking about expensive media, how no one is interested in HD anyway, etc....you guys need to come out from under your rock.      This IS the next-gen format, with billions at stake.   There's a reason these major studios were slugging it out for this. 

Prices will come down, people will adopt, $ will be made.  It's all a given.  For all you anti-sony guys, buckle up and enjoy the ride.

[odysseyroc]

Also looks like Paramount is about to jump
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/09/sony.digitalmedia

Paramount is denying that they are jumping. Of course that could change tomorrow, but as of right now they say they are staying with HD-DVD.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aZzib5lwheBc&refer=asia

The PS3 was better (and cheaper) than most of the standalone players at one point (I don't know if that is still true).  Take a look through around AVSforum and you'll find a lot of videophiles who bought a PS3 strictly because of how good the blu-ray player was.

To all those talking about expensive media, how no one is interested in HD anyway, etc....you guys need to come out from under your rock.      This IS the next-gen format, with billions at stake.   There's a reason these major studios were slugging it out for this. 

Prices will come down, people will adopt, $ will be made.  It's all a given.  For all you anti-sony guys, buckle up and enjoy the ride.

PS3 is the player to get, mostly because it's the only current player that will be upgradeable to the 2.0 profile and BD Live. If I were buying a BD player right now, there is no doubt it would be a PS3.

It's not a given that Blu-Ray is going to become the standard. Right now if you added up everything that both HD formats combined have sold, it's not even a drop in the bucket of what SD DVD sells. Add that to the fact that a good upscaling DVD player is good enough for most people and audio system that takes advantage of lossless audio is going to set you back about a thousand bucks, and you can see why there is so little demand for a next-gen format right now.

[shmokes]

To all those talking about expensive media, how no one is interested in HD anyway, etc....you guys need to come out from under your rock.      This IS the next-gen format, with billions at stake.   There's a reason these major studios were slugging it out for this. 

Prices will come down, people will adopt, $ will be made. 

I wouldn't be so sure.  The leap from DVD to BluRay or HD DVD is not nearly as dramatic as that from VHS to DVD.  People are very happy with the DVD, and the picture quality, even on 1080p TVs is very good.  Of course the studios are going to release content for the new format and try to encourage people to adopt it.  It means loads and loads of repeat sales.  How many movies do you own on DVD that you already purchased once before on VHS?  Studios get to sell you the same product twice when you decide to move to a new format, but still want to own your favorite movies, or maybe want to experience them in higher quality.

However, as I said, the jump from DVD to HD media is not nearly so dramatic.  DVD is already digital, ditches rewinding, has interactive menus, lets you jump to any chapter, digital surround sound, and it represented a HUGE, VERY NOTICEABLE picture quality improvement, immediately obvious to a casual observer.  The HD formats have really only given us a better picture, and the average consumer was not dissatisfied with the one they were already getting from their DVD players.

If you ask me, BluRay will win in a two-way battle against HD DVD, but in a three-way battle, DVD will never be defeated by either format.  At best we will probably get discs that will play in both DVD and BluRay players.  The technology that truly succeeds DVD will probably not be physical media at all, but rather digital delivery/storage.

BluRay will be moderately successful, but we're not going to see DVD disappear in the next ten years, and you can only imagine what we will have in terms of internet pipelines, media centers, streaming media, movies-on-demand services from the likes of Blockbuster/Netflix ten years from now.

[ChadTower]

For many people the leap from VHS to DVD was more about audio and 5.1 than it was ever about picture quality.  Sure, you could get a better picture, but many of the early adopters were jumping on digital audio, Pro Logic, and 5.1.

There isn't nearly that type of audio jump in the new formats, so that must be considered as well.  5.1 to 7.1 isn't all that different.

[somunny]

I see an external Blu-Ray drive in the 360's future...

[shmokes]

I doubt it.  By the time it's even something that would be on MS's radar stand-alone players will probably be under a hundred bucks already.  Why bother with an add-on?

[Samstag]

I doubt it.  By the time it's even something that would be on MS's radar stand-alone players will probably be under a hundred bucks already.  Why bother with an add-on?

They've already announced an interest in it.

Considering that standalone Bluray player prices haven't budged much even while competing with $100-200 HD players, I think we're still a long way from seeing those players at what I would consider reasonable prices (sub-$100).

[somunny]

I doubt it.  By the time it's even something that would be on MS's radar stand-alone players will probably be under a hundred bucks already.  Why bother with an add-on?

You don't think they pay attention to market trends?  My guess is that they do.

[shmokes]

Of course they do.  Which is why they'll note that expensive add-ons for consoles are almost always complete failures in the market.  Previously Sony had a $500-$600 machine that was a very good BluRay player, while the next cheapest BluRay player was $1000+.  So MS said, "Well . . . if you want to spend as much money on a 360 as you will on a PS3, our player can play HD discs too."  The existence of the HD DVD add-on, in fact, probably had a negligible effect on Xbox 360 sales, but . . .

At any rate, just like the PS2's DVD playback functionality has been a moot point for years, once BluRay players drop to sub-$100 (by Christmas '08), nobody is going to really care that their $350 PS3 (assuming another price-cut) can play BluRay.  And MS is sure as hell not going to release a peripheral that almost nobody will buy so that they can keep up with a PS3 feature that nobody really cares about anymore.

[SavannahLion]

From what I recall, the HD-DVD add-on sales did pretty well on its own. Microsoft probably would have sold just as many even if it didn't have the 360 tie-in.

Come to think of it. I don't think I have personally seen any HD-DVD actually attached to a 360 in anybodies home. 

[shmokes]

Doesn't the HD DVD addon rely on the 360 for processing?  Surely the thing can't stand alone as its own player . . .   

[SavannahLion]

Doesn't the HD DVD addon rely on the 360 for processing?  Surely the thing can't stand alone as its own player . . .   

Apparently, it relies on a computer, it doesn't necessarily mean that the computer used for processing needs to be a 360. I might be wrong, but I believe that's how the HD encryption was broken. Somebody hooked up the HD drive to their PC and used a USB sniffer to collect then analyze the packets.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that the 360 HD-DVD drive is a standalone unit. I was just saying that I've yet to personally see anyone actually use the HD-DVD attached to their 360, instead of attaching it to their PC.

[shmokes]

Ah ha. 

In any case, I doubt they'll release a BluRay drive for the 360.  I'm pretty sure that the only reason MS got into the HD DVD market in the first place was the prospect of pushing HD DVD to a win in the format wars.  If they had succeeded, it would cause Sony billions of dollars, and could very well be a death blow to the PS3.  Sony would suddenly have a videogame machine priced a couple hundred dollars more than it needed to be, solely for a feature that was now entirely useless.  I really doubt that the HD DVD add-on drive generated a significant amount of profit (if any).  MS merely wanted to do what they could to help that format, and in the process hurt their competitor in the videogame business.  A BluRay add-on drive for 360 wouldn't hurt Sony (if anything it would put money into Sony's pockets by encouraging people to buy BluRay hardware and movies). 

[ChadTower]

If Sony owns the BluRay patents, and it would require a Sony license to release a BluRay drive, M$ will not be releasing one.  The market is irrelevant.

[somunny]

If Sony owns the BluRay patents, and it would require a Sony license to release a BluRay drive, M$ will not be releasing one.  The market is irrelevant.

Thank you, Mr. Borg.

[patrickl]

It's funny how noone ever seems to realize that Philips is part owner of the CD, DVD and Blu-ray rights. Somehow only Sony gets mentioned for this.

[shmokes]

Even Sony owned the rights exclusively, they'd be happy to grant MS a license.

[ChadTower]

Even Sony owned the rights exclusively, they'd be happy to grant MS a license.

Not if they were so erect for a Blu-Ray/PS3 win that they were willing to take the type of hit we've already been talking about...

[shmokes]

I think they just would.  They know that MS releasing a BluRay add-on for the Xbox 360 is going to have less of an effect on them as MS's HD DVD add-on -- which is to say it would have less of an effect than virtually no effect at all.  The only effect that the drive would have on Sony is that one of Sony's arch competitors is now endorsing a Sony technology, and some of MS's customers would now be buying BluRay movies.  I just don't see it.

[AtomSmasher]

It looks like Warner Bros. switching to BluRay only has sealed the deal for the end of the HD wars. 

http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9856126-1.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=Crave

The most damning aspect of these numbers is that they do not include the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on drive--only standalone players. We previously thought HD DVD's only road to victory was by selling tons of cheap standalone HD DVD players, so the fact that relatively expensive Blu-ray players are starting to sell makes it seem like this format war has been officially declared over--by the consumers.

[shardian]

Of course Sony would grant MS a license for Blu-ray. It would serve to undermine HD-DVD anyways. They'll have to anyways when blu-ray drives become available for pc's.

[RetroACTIVE]

I have a PS3 and have been playing around with Blu-Ray movies...

The biggest problem with any HD format is the original print.... Honestly, with my 1080p TV and 1080p upconverted original DVDs... there is not that much of a difference.  In some cases HD movie is actually worse because the mastering process reveals lots of flaws....  My guess... and I'm not an expert, it would be very costly for motion picture studios to scrub original movies to get them to the wow point.  So its going to take a while for this format to s  l  o  w  l  y... replace DVD.  So for that reason I tend to agree... not really a "replacement" format, its a complement, that may ultimately replace standard DVD but not like what happened with VHS to DVD.

FWIW: when your talking about movies from today forward... thats a different story... those Blu-Ray movies do look fantastic.

[shardian]

I have a PS3 and have been playing around with Blu-Ray movies...

The biggest problem with any HD format is the original print.... Honestly, with my 1080p TV and 1080p upconverted original DVDs... there is not that much of a difference.  In some cases HD movie is actually worse because the mastering process reveals lots of flaws....  My guess... and I'm not an expert, it would be very costly for motion picture studios to scrub original movies to get them to the wow point.  So its going to take a while for this format to s  l  o  w  l  y... replace DVD.  So for that reason I tend to agree... not really a "replacement" format, its a complement, that may ultimately replace standard DVD but not like what happened with VHS to DVD.

FWIW: when your talking about movies from today forward... thats a different story... those Blu-Ray movies do look fantastic.

Something else will come along bigger and better well before Blu-ray can supplant DVD.

[RetroACTIVE]

Something else will come along bigger and better well before Blu-ray can supplant DVD.

You got it...

[shmokes]

I doubt there will ever be a physical format that supplants BluRay.  Digital Distribution is where it's at beyond BluRay, IMO.  Beyond that any physical media transporting your movies will probably be devices you personally put the movie on after downloading it, like an iPod or memory card.

[skim36]

I have a PS3 and have been playing around with Blu-Ray movies...

The biggest problem with any HD format is the original print.... Honestly, with my 1080p TV and 1080p upconverted original DVDs... there is not that much of a difference.  In some cases HD movie is actually worse because the mastering process reveals lots of flaws....  My guess... and I'm not an expert, it would be very costly for motion picture studios to scrub original movies to get them to the wow point.  So its going to take a while for this format to s  l  o  w  l  y... replace DVD.  So for that reason I tend to agree... not really a "replacement" format, its a complement, that may ultimately replace standard DVD but not like what happened with VHS to DVD.

FWIW: when your talking about movies from today forward... thats a different story... those Blu-Ray movies do look fantastic.

Agreed, the new movies look awesome.  But saying the old movies don't?  Depending on who releases it I guess.  I have a blu-ray copy of A Clockwork Orange that looks like it came out yesterday.  Looks absolutely beautiful.

[somunny]

I doubt there will ever be a physical format that supplants BluRay.  Digital Distribution is where it's at beyond BluRay, IMO.  Beyond that any physical media transporting your movies will probably be devices you personally put the movie on after downloading it, like an iPod or memory card.

I couldn't disagree more with your opinion.  IMO, there will always be consumers like myself, who enjoy collecting and building a library of retail releases.

[AtomSmasher]

Looks like Netflix is going to phase out their HD DVD's by the end of the year and will be exclusively BluRay after that.

link

[skim36]

Not only Netflix, Here's a link showing Best Buy is phasing out their HD-DVD line.  There's also a link on the site showing HD-DVD's response.

*Edit... I guess Best Buy is recommending blu ray, they will continue to stock HD-DVD for the customers that want them.

http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzA2MTksLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE=

[pointdablame]

the HD DVD camp's latest press releases don't even put the positive spin on this stuff like they've been trying to do.  It's really only a matter of time now.

I'm hoping this means stores will blowout the HD DVD stock for next to nothing so I can get some more   

[odysseyroc]

the HD DVD camp's latest press releases don't even put the positive spin on this stuff like they've been trying to do.  It's really only a matter of time now.

I'm hoping this means stores will blowout the HD DVD stock for next to nothing so I can get some more   

Don't forget the people who are panic selling stuff on ebay. Hopefully we'll be able to get stuff for $10 shipped pretty soon.

[shmokes]

IMO, there will always be consumers like myself, who enjoy collecting and building a library of retail releases.

You'll still have a library.  It'll just be stored digitally.  I'm telling you, when it stops making financial sense to distribute them physically, they will distribute them digitally.  Look where computer technology was 10 years ago when the DVD came out (I really don't know when the DVD came out, but . . .)  Now give BluRay 10 years.  You really think it's going to make sense financially to incur the costs of manufacturing the physical media, of paying for the shelf space in warehouses and retail shops?  We're all going to be sitting on 100Mb/sec connections to the internet -- likely faster.  We'll be able to stream HD movies at the touch of a button, and we'll be able to choose from libraries of 10,000, rather than what is sitting in our personal libraries.  Of course, we'll still have personal libraries, but the average person doesn't want to deal with pulling a disc from the shelf and putting it in, when she could just select the movie from a menu and it starts playing immediately. 

Even if there is the odd consumer here and there that would prefer physical media, that consumer will be forced to adapt when the realities of the market make physical distribution unrealistic.  Those realities are fast approaching.

[ahofle]

That's just silly to even suggest the end of physical media in 10 years.  There are still many people using dialup out there.  Hell there are still people without computers.  Not to mention people that do have computers that are too slow/obsolete to be used to stream or play digital content.  Besides, "Video on Demand" has been around for ages -- and I've never seen it having any impact on DVD sales.  It's unfortunate that we seem to be getting to the point in home audio/video where there is a huge disparity between your below average consumer and above average consumer.  That is why I can't see digital media streaming really replacing the "cheap player + physical media that you own" model.

In addition, I highly doubt that any of the movie production companies will be interested in pursuing streaming content that can be stored easily to make your own library.  They are always pushing for renting over owning.  Look at the pathetic attempts of Divx and more recently those lame DVDs that 'expired' after a few viewings.  Until high speed internet is given out for free and streaming players exist for the cost of a cheap DVD player, I doubt you'll see the end of physical media.  Just my opinion anyway.

[Dartful Dodger]

I thought that way 5 years ago, but now I don't think it's going to happen.

Back then the internet was making huge leaps, and I assumed I wouldn't be programming exes for CDs anymore because 650MB could be downloaded instantly.

Currently we programming on DVDs.  We just bought a Bluray writer because one of our clients has a project that's too big for a DVD.  

I think we'll always have some form of storage for our media.  Media storage devices are getting bigger faster than downloading speeds.

Think of how quickly you could fill up your Tivo, imagine how large of a Tivo you'd need to record every movie you'd ever want to own.

If they had 1,000,000GIG devices, we'd find a way to fill them.

[somunny]

IMO, there will always be consumers like myself, who enjoy collecting and building a library of retail releases.

You'll still have a library.  It'll just be stored digitally.  I'm telling you, when it stops making financial sense to distribute them physically, they will distribute them digitally.  Look where computer technology was 10 years ago when the DVD came out (I really don't know when the DVD came out, but . . .)  Now give BluRay 10 years.  You really think it's going to make sense financially to incur the costs of manufacturing the physical media, of paying for the shelf space in warehouses and retail shops?  We're all going to be sitting on 100Mb/sec connections to the internet -- likely faster.  We'll be able to stream HD movies at the touch of a button, and we'll be able to choose from libraries of 10,000, rather than what is sitting in our personal libraries.  Of course, we'll still have personal libraries, but the average person doesn't want to deal with pulling a disc from the shelf and putting it in, when she could just select the movie from a menu and it starts playing immediately. 

Even if there is the odd consumer here and there that would prefer physical media, that consumer will be forced to adapt when the realities of the market make physical distribution unrealistic.  Those realities are fast approaching.

It's a good theory but I think the main problem with it is that you are minimizing the collectors' role in all of it.  People buy dozens, even hundreds of movies and keep them on a shelf somewhere.  Maybe they display them.  These are "average" people, not videophiles.  How many people do you know who have more than 50 dvd's.  I know a lot.  You don't have to be a movie buff to be a collector.  You just have to like buying ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.

I think the point I'm really trying to make is that most people - the vast majority - like to get something tangible for thier money.  This is an expectation that's not going to simply evaporate over the course of a few years. 

If they make digital media free, or next to it, well...  that's another story.

If they had 1,000,000GIG devices, we'd find a way to fill them.

When I bought my first PC in 95-96, it had a 1GB drive.  I upgraded from an 850mb.  I thought, "How will I ever fill this up?" 

[shmokes]

That's just silly to even suggest the end of physical media in 10 years. 

I agree.  Thank god that's not what I said.  I said that the successor to BluRay would be digital delivery.  I said that there would not be a physical medium that would supplant BluRay that movies would be sold on.  I did not say that people will have stopped using physical media altogether 10 years from now.  They won't.  Not all of them.  But the ones who are still using physical media will just be using BluRay.  People who switch away from BluRay will switch to digital downloads.  Those will be your options.  The vast majority of the market will be ready.  It won't make financial sense to try to market a new physical format when 90% of the moving to digital downloads and most of the rest are people who are perfectly happy with BluRay and probably scared of new technologies.

[Dartful Dodger]

People who switch away from BluRay will switch to digital downloads.  Those will be your options.

I thought the same thing about DVDs 5 years ago.

It's not just the internet connection and media storage technology that dictates what we need. TVs will have a higher resolution and special features will be a required extra for movies too, all of which will require a larger file size.

Looking at reviews for some of the current games, a common issue critics have is the loading time for some of these games.  If a gamer today isn't going to sit 10 seconds for a game to load, someone who wants to watch a 30 gig movie isn't going to wait minutes for that movie to download.

Even now when people download ripped DVDs, they don't make partitions on their hard drive to store the movie, they burn it to DVD.  People, even technically advance people, want a hard copy.  If the state of the art people of today want hard copies, why would the average Joe of tomorrow want a digital copy?

[shmokes]

Because you can buy a 650 GB hard drive today for just over $100.  Just a couple years ago, that was a good price for a 250 GB drive.  In five years the drives that come with your computer will be 6 TB.  People burn the computer to a DVD to save space, or to make the movie portable, not so they can have something physical that they can touch, with the title of the movie scrawled on the top in felt pen.

[Dartful Dodger]

People burn the computer to a DVD to save space, or to make the movie portable, not so they can have something physical that they can touch, with the title of the movie scrawled on the top in felt pen.

Exactly.  I don't think they want to have all these DVDs, they have to have all these DVDs.

5 years ago it took a lot of work to fill a DVD, now any good movie is put on 2 or more DVDs.  The more space available, the more space that will be used.

At the beginning of last year my office bought a 1000gig shared hard drive for the office to use for our current projects.  We use to have a 20gig and it was fine, but every once in a while we'd have to do an emergency backup and delete.

Our TI guy spent yesterday backing up files because there wasn't enough room to copy 50 megs of audio onto it.

It took a year for us to fill 1000gigs, when we were use to working with 20gigs.  When it’s there the space will be used.

Another thing is it’s easier to store a folder full of disposable DVDs on the book shelf than it is to store a device that could be rendered useless if it’s not locked up somewhere.  If your kid gets a hold of the folder at most half of your DVDs are destroyed, if your kid gets a hold of your storage device, they are all destroyed.

I’m not saying that a new format for DVDs is going to replace the Blueray.  But they will need to be contained on something.  I use to get audio books from my public library the books on CD would play in my car stereo, but the newer audio books are on self contained mp3 type players.  I can’t drive with them because they require head phones.  Maybe that’ll be the new media, easier to store than DVDs and right now you can buy a 1 gig flash card for 16 bucks, like you said the prices are just going to keep on dropping.

[shardian]

People burn the computer to a DVD to save space, or to make the movie portable, not so they can have something physical that they can touch, with the title of the movie scrawled on the top in felt pen.

I prefer to have physical discs to browse than just a HD full of stuff. It is what we grew up on, so it is more natural. Same thing with console games, music CD's, etc. Seeing the physical cases/media always brought me a rush. Seeing a screenshot of a movie/game/cd is just not the same, experience wise. Now the next generation won't have that as much since they grew up on iPods.

[SavannahLion]

For a lot of people, I think the whole buy-a-bigger-hard-drive-fill-it-up-buy-a-bigger-hard-drive lemniscate fulfills a deep seated pack-rat nature present in a lot of people. Seriously, given a full hard drive, just how much of that data do people actually access on a regular basis? monthly? yearly? ever?

People burn the computer to a DVD to save space, or to make the movie portable, not so they can have something physical that they can touch, with the title of the movie scrawled on the top in felt pen.

I prefer to have physical discs to browse than just a HD full of stuff. It is what we grew up on, so it is more natural. Same thing with console games, music CD's, etc. Seeing the physical cases/media always brought me a rush. Seeing a screenshot of a movie/game/cd is just not the same, experience wise. Now the next generation won't have that as much since they grew up on iPods.

Same here. The WiiStore is a neat concept and a great way to introduce a new generation to older games, but I still like the feeling of browsing through a nice big collection of older game titles on a physical medium.

[shardian]

I'd say this battle is over. Walmart has officially sided with Blu-Ray and will phase out HD-DVD by June.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/15/technology/wal-mart_blu-ray/index.htm?cnn=yes

[ChadTower]

I've never understood why one has to die.  What the eff does it matter if there are two formats?  Some people will buy one, others the other. 

[shardian]

I've never understood why one has to die.  What the eff does it matter if there are two formats?  Some people will buy one, others the other. 

Retailers don't want to purchase and stock two different formats of the same product.

[ChadTower]

Retailers don't want to purchase and stock two different formats of the same product.

I can buy multiple brands of underpants in several styles and shapes.  I have both Hot Wheels and Matchboxes.  My wife has 658 different brand bottles of shampoo.  Go to Walmart and there are 25 TVs of nearly identical function from 15 different brand names in every size.

Two formats of DVD are supposed to be any different?

[shardian]

Two formats of DVD are supposed to be any different?

Yep.

[ChadTower]

I just thought of something.  Can you even watch a Bluray disc on a regular TV?  Does the standard Bluray player downconvert the signal if necessary?  Or will it point at you, laugh, and call you Magoo?

[Daniel B.]

Most bluray players will downscale (sometimes...to 480p!) if you aren't using a hdcp token compliant hdmi cable.

[ChadTower]

Most bluray players will downscale (sometimes...to 480p!) if you aren't using a hdcp token compliant hdmi cable.

So does that mean they have component outputs?  I haven't seen many SD TVs with HDMI inputs.

[Dartful Dodger]

I have both Hot Wheels and Matchboxes.

There are other miniature replica car brands, but those brands don't have the rights to replicate any of the models of the big car companies.  I guess that's why you don't own any of those brands.  I guess that's why the stores you shop at don't carry any of those brands.

Walmart sells those brands of cars.  I guess Walmart thinks people are willing to pay 20 cents for a Forb or a Chavy toy car, but not willing to pay 20 bucks for a Transmorphers HD-DVD.

[ChadTower]

Walmart sells those brands of cars.  I guess Walmart thinks people are willing to pay 20 cents for a Forb or a Chavy toy car, but not willing to pay 20 bucks for a Transmorphers HD-DVD.

The people who make DVDs don't own the movies either.  They license the titles.  the license could easily be sold to anyone who wants to make a DVD.  The only reason it is not is that everyone wants to force market exclusivity.  Meanwhile, we have to put up with a holy war over whether the disc is blue or grey and has this logo or that logo.  I personally don't give a crap either way.  Put them both in the store, I say.

[shmokes]

I can buy multiple brands of underpants in several styles and shapes. 

Those things are different.  They don't create market confusion and uncertainty (which lowers overall sales -- just look at all the people waiting on the sidelines for the war to end).  You're not going to buy Fruit of the Loom and get it home only to realize that your package is only compatible with Hanes.  Also, you have to remember that it's not just the consumer that is influencing these decisions.  Two formats means much higher costs for studios in terms of manufacturing (two different production facilities) and retail shelf-space (gotta buy shelf-space twice, but you don't double your sales). 

[shardian]

If M$ would have integrated the HD-DVD player with the 360, I think this would have actually been a war instead of a skirmish.

[Daniel B.]

Most bluray players will downscale (sometimes...to 480p!) if you aren't using a hdcp token compliant hdmi cable.

So does that mean they have component outputs?  I haven't seen many SD TVs with HDMI inputs.

Chad, I have yet to try a blu-ray on my ps3, and I haven't taken a look at the specs on other standalone players. Hopefully someone else can chime in on this.

[ChadTower]

You're not going to buy Fruit of the Loom and get it home only to realize that your package is only compatible with Hanes.

You are overestimating the consumer.  We're talking Walmart shoppers.  Why do you think Fruit of the Loom sells more than Hanes?  These people shop underpants by flavor.

[DaveMMR]

Retailers don't want to purchase and stock two different formats of the same product.

I can buy multiple brands of underpants in several styles and shapes.  I have both Hot Wheels and Matchboxes.  My wife has 658 different brand bottles of shampoo.  Go to Walmart and there are 25 TVs of nearly identical function from 15 different brand names in every size.

Two formats of DVD are supposed to be any different?

Yes, very different.  When you're buying Shampoo, Underwear, etc. you can theoretically stick to one brand or, on a whim, try a different brand (for example, if on sale).   You don't need "special hardware" to buy everyday products from a different manufacturer than you are used to.   On the other hand, do Blu-Ray player owners walk into a store and buy a movie on HD because the HD version's on sale?  No, of course not.  That would be silly.  Why would a store carry something if they can't sell it, no matter what? 

[ChadTower]

On the other hand, do Blu-Ray player owners walk into a store and buy a movie on HD because the HD version's on sale?  No, of course not.  That would be silly.  Why would a store carry something if they can't sell it, no matter what? 

You'd better let cell phone companies know about that.  I had no idea PC software wasn't usable on the Mac!  Is this why my PS2 games don't fit in the Gamecube?  I never could figure that one out.  All of these compact flash cards won't fit in my Sony camera!  OMG!

There are plenty of electronics that come in multiple formats that are not compatible with each other.  DVD is not different in any way.

[shmokes]

Those are all good points, and I guess I'd say that a movie player falls somewhere in between your shampoo/underwear example, and the Mac/PC example.  A DVD is a much more mass-market device than a flash card, and even much more than a video-game in terms of the amount of time you'll use the game and how much you'll pay for it. 

Personally, I'm happy for there to be only one format.  It would be totally lame to need two players in order to watch every movie.  It would suck to say, "Man, I really want to see There Will be Blood, but I've got BluRay and it's only coming out on HD-DVD."  Maybe having only one format means that Sony will be able to charge higher royalties than they would with competition in the market, but that con, for me, is outweighed by the pros.

[DaveMMR]

On the other hand, do Blu-Ray player owners walk into a store and buy a movie on HD because the HD version's on sale?  No, of course not.  That would be silly.  Why would a store carry something if they can't sell it, no matter what? 

You'd better let cell phone companies know about that.  I had no idea PC software wasn't usable on the Mac!  Is this why my PS2 games don't fit in the Gamecube?  I never could figure that one out.  All of these compact flash cards won't fit in my Sony camera!  OMG!

There are plenty of electronics that come in multiple formats that are not compatible with each other.  DVD is not different in any way.

You're not understanding.  If a product is on a store shelf that can only be used on a proprietary piece of hardware and/or service, it's because their is sufficient demand for said item.  There's a reason I can't walk into a major chain store and buy albums on vinyl and cassette instead of only CD (actually I wish I could). 

Enough people own Macs that a store can stock their software (although it's much less space than PC software).  Same thing goes for Gamecube and PS2 games.  If the user-base for any piece of hardware (Gamecube, Blu-Ray, etc.) or service (Verizon Wireless, Sprint, etc.) is sufficient, you will be able to find their products.  The opposite is also true... which is why it makes no sense to put HD-DVDs on the shelf.

[ChadTower]

You're not understanding.

Do not mistake my disagreement with lack of comprehension.  That's just arrogant.

You're telling me that people wouldn't love to have only one format of media for digital cameras?  Are people really demanding proprietary memory cards?  Or are they buying them because they are the only ones that work with the camera they bought?

[AtomSmasher]

You're telling me that people wouldn't love to have only one format of media for digital cameras?

Hasn't the SD card become the standard format for digital cameras to use?     Every camera that I've own in the past 5 years and every camera that everyone I know owns uses SD memory.  I'm sure there are some that still use proprietary memory cards, but not very many anymore.

[Hurray Banana]

Looks like Toshiba have thrown the towel in.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSL1627196120080216

[shmokes]

Memory cards are different anyway.  99% of camera owners buy one memory card for their cameras at the time they purchase their cameras and they promptly forget about it.  The differing memory card formats cause hardly any inconvenience to the consumer at all.  In spite of that, of course, the market has chosen an unofficial standard with the SD card.  There are others out there, of course, but . . .

At any rate, like I say, it's totally different.  It would only be an apt comparison if you went to take a picture of your kid at his football game only to have your camera flash a message at you saying that only memory sticks are compatible with football games.  But then when you had a camera with a memory stick you were confronted with a message saying that memory sticks are incompatible with birthday parties.

I think there is merit to both sides of the argument.  On the one hand we get competition, theoretically bringing prices down, on the other hand we have convenience and simplicity.  In the case of a media format for watching movies, I'll take the convenience.  I don't think the competition brings much to the table in this market, but keeping track of which format each movie is released on is a pain in the ass, and having to miss a bunch of movies you really want to see (or own two different players) is an even bigger pain in the ass.

[DaveMMR]

You're not understanding.

Do not mistake my disagreement with lack of comprehension.  That's just arrogant.

You're telling me that people wouldn't love to have only one format of media for digital cameras?  Are people really demanding proprietary memory cards?  Or are they buying them because they are the only ones that work with the camera they bought?

I apologize if I came off arrogant.  Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.  But somehow my original point was lost somewhere in the shuffle of this discussion.  You were originally saying how we can have different brands of underwear, toothpaste, toy cars, etc. , so why not DVD formats. 

We all love having choices (well, in theory).  But it makes no sense for a big store to lose money stocking a proprietary format on the off chance the statistical minority will come in and buy it.   The studios aren't backing HD-DVD as much as Blu-Ray and they're going to stop selling players at major outlets, so it makes little financial sense to stock the discs.

I wasn't trying to turn this into "right, wrong, pro, con" discussion.  Just pointing out that it was an "apples/oranges" comparison.