Is Sony intentionally trying to kill Blu-Ray?

[NinjaGnome]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Elitism is just mind boggling sometimes.

LOL. Yeah, the nerve of people that think they should get rewarded for their hard work and sacrifices.

Money doesn't mean you worked harder than someone who makes less.

You are economically ignorant as well. DVD's make more money in a year than Blu-Ray.

Blu-Ray wishes it had DVD's volume.

I don't care what they price it at. That wasn't the point.

THE POINT (which you ignore every time you read a post) IS:

If prices go DOWN, it is good for THE PUBLIC.

Please cut the bullshit. Don't give me this, "Money doesn't mean you worked harder than someone who makes less." I mean do I have to go point by point with you, or are you not smart enough to fill in the gaps? Jesus. Everyone knows there are exception to the rule. However, as a general rule, that is how it works. Capitalism at least. If you don't like it, well, I don't know what to tell you.

As for economics, don't even try it. I wouldn't say you are ignorant on the subject, I'd say you're just plain dumb. Blu-ray is still an evolving new tech. And with any new tech, the cost of manufacturing is high. However, Wal-Mart Joe doesn't see that. He just wants something cheap. And in order to meet the consumer's wants, a company will either have to take a loss on their equipment or cut corners by reducing the quality of the product. Either way it will bite them in the ass. So that leaves us right where we are at now, ~$300 Blu-ray players. If a company could offer it for less, they would. I said I would like for the prices to stay right where they are at now. That has NOTHING to do with what a company wants to do. Obviously it is in their best interest to lower prices, which they will eventually do. But as for now, it is what it is. And if you can't afford it, that's not my problem. I already have a Blu-ray player.

I would say that you are a troll that wants to bait people into an argument over nothing. Your elitism and fake sense of superiority provide nothing to the topic.

As for Sony, they will milk Blu-ray for as long as possible until they are extremely cheap to produce or people move on to HD content in some other form.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Let's see...blu ray sales took off after the PS3 came out in late Nov 2006 (a little over two years ago), and it is supposed to be outselling DVD already? how long did it take for DVD to overtake VHS? However long it took, I'm sure it was longer than 2 years and 3 months...

How long did it take for DVD player prices to go down anyway? I remember buying a Sony single disc player around 1999 for $450. I guess I should have been bitching to Sony back then that their player prices were too high...In any event, it looked like DVD turned out pretty well even though their prices were out of Joe Sixpack's budget when it first came out...

IIRC, my first DVD player was $300 in late 2001. It was a Sony 5 disc player. My second DVD player was $100 in mid-2003 (a Panasonic single disc player that replaced the Sony POS). Google says DVD rentals overtook VHS rentals in 2003; couldn't find any info about sales.

The advantages of DVD over VHS were more significant than the advantages of Blu-ray over DVD; that will have some effect on adoption rate.

when you were comparing VHS and DVD on the old 420 TV monitors, sure.

But when you compare BD with DVD on 108-p and even 720p, the differences are just as astounding. Oh...and the sound improvement is unmatchable.

Basically, the argument doesn't work b/c it mixes terms, and is not a controlled set-up. You are right, though: I'm sure BD vs DVD on a 420 tube would be completely identical. Then again...what's the point?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Naustica

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Let's see...blu ray sales took off after the PS3 came out in late Nov 2006 (a little over two years ago), and it is supposed to be outselling DVD already? how long did it take for DVD to overtake VHS? However long it took, I'm sure it was longer than 2 years and 3 months...

How long did it take for DVD player prices to go down anyway? I remember buying a Sony single disc player around 1999 for $450. I guess I should have been bitching to Sony back then that their player prices were too high...In any event, it looked like DVD turned out pretty well even though their prices were out of Joe Sixpack's budget when it first came out...

IIRC, my first DVD player was $300 in late 2001. It was a Sony 5 disc player. My second DVD player was $100 in mid-2003 (a Panasonic single disc player that replaced the Sony POS). Google says DVD rentals overtook VHS rentals in 2003; couldn't find any info about sales.

<The advantages of DVD over VHS were more significant than the advantages of Blu-ray over DVD; that will have some effect on adoption rate.

This is the biggest point besides the price IMO. The jump in convenience and picture quality of DVD over VHS was huge on any SDTV. Easy fast-forward and rewind and clear upgraded picture difference. Jump to DVD and Blu-Ray isn't as obvious. Sure Blu-Ray looks slightly better but at twice the cost? I haven't bought a Blu-Ray movie in two years I've owned PS3. I got 5 free promotional ones when I first bought the PS3. That was good enough for me. The difference in quality didn't "wow" me like I thought it would. However, PS3 game graphics did "wow" me over PS2, and I've bought several games since the difference is worth it even with the price increase in games. Same reason I bought $1500 Vizio plasma TV over $3000 Pioneer "Kuro" plasma TV. Sure the Pioneer might have slightly better PQ than the Vizio, but at 2x the cost? I'll take two Vizio instead please. I've Vizio plasma in my bedroom and the living room. I need to see clear difference to fork out the extra money.

Holy crap.

That's a boat-load of fail bolded right there.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Blu-Ray isn't majorly successful because many people don't care that much about picture and sound quality. 20 minutes into a movie, I forget if it's in 1080P or streaming in Flash.

This. Most of my collection is DVD anyway. IMO Blue-ray isn't good enough to justify replacing every title, and even if I only replace a set few, I'd still just be upgrading all over again when the next big thing comes out.

In short, unless it gets drastically cheaper, I'm waiting for the next (preferably non-Sony) generation.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Let's see...blu ray sales took off after the PS3 came out in late Nov 2006 (a little over two years ago), and it is supposed to be outselling DVD already? how long did it take for DVD to overtake VHS? However long it took, I'm sure it was longer than 2 years and 3 months...

How long did it take for DVD player prices to go down anyway? I remember buying a Sony single disc player around 1999 for $450. I guess I should have been bitching to Sony back then that their player prices were too high...In any event, it looked like DVD turned out pretty well even though their prices were out of Joe Sixpack's budget when it first came out...

IIRC, my first DVD player was $300 in late 2001. It was a Sony 5 disc player. My second DVD player was $100 in mid-2003 (a Panasonic single disc player that replaced the Sony POS). Google says DVD rentals overtook VHS rentals in 2003; couldn't find any info about sales.

The advantages of DVD over VHS were more significant than the advantages of Blu-ray over DVD; that will have some effect on adoption rate.

when you were comparing VHS and DVD on the old 420 TV monitors, sure.

But when you compare BD with DVD on 108-p and even 720p, the differences are just as astounding. Oh...and the sound improvement is unmatchable.

Basically, the argument doesn't work b/c it mixes terms, and is not a controlled set-up. You are right, though: I'm sure BD vs DVD on a 420 tube would be completely identical. Then again...what's the point?

I didn't even mention picture quality in my post.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Let's see...blu ray sales took off after the PS3 came out in late Nov 2006 (a little over two years ago), and it is supposed to be outselling DVD already? how long did it take for DVD to overtake VHS? However long it took, I'm sure it was longer than 2 years and 3 months...

How long did it take for DVD player prices to go down anyway? I remember buying a Sony single disc player around 1999 for $450. I guess I should have been bitching to Sony back then that their player prices were too high...In any event, it looked like DVD turned out pretty well even though their prices were out of Joe Sixpack's budget when it first came out...

IIRC, my first DVD player was $300 in late 2001. It was a Sony 5 disc player. My second DVD player was $100 in mid-2003 (a Panasonic single disc player that replaced the Sony POS). Google says DVD rentals overtook VHS rentals in 2003; couldn't find any info about sales.

The advantages of DVD over VHS were more significant than the advantages of Blu-ray over DVD; that will have some effect on adoption rate.

when you were comparing VHS and DVD on the old 420 TV monitors, sure.

But when you compare BD with DVD on 108-p and even 720p, the differences are just as astounding. Oh...and the sound improvement is unmatchable.

Basically, the argument doesn't work b/c it mixes terms, and is not a controlled set-up. You are right, though: I'm sure BD vs DVD on a 420 tube would be completely identical. Then again...what's the point?

I didn't even mention picture quality in my post.

Then what's the point of either format? Honestly, I like the extra content, but most will tell you that they could give a flip about it.

DVD became vastly more convenient, and that was a major improvement that carried over. Honestly though...it's all fluff.

The real difference came when VHS/Beta were introduced. Because, for the first time, there was this concept of "I can watch any movie I want at any time!" I know it's not what we're getting at with format improvement, but my point is that with the average movie-goer, the only real improvement past that phenomenal achievement is in the actual quality of presentation.

The thing about Blu Ray, as with DVD, is that each became a necessity as video projection technology improved. Bigger CRT, analog stereo, digital sound decoding= DVD. Higher resolutions, greater color accuracy and capability = BD.

Again, the improvement is just as significant when you're taking advantage of those differences that exist. Whether or not the ave consumer realizes it or not does not mean those differences are not there.

I can appreciate that, of course, and fully understand why they may think that such differences aren't nearly as great. And as I said earlier, plenty of average consumers have bought into HD sets yet still tune into SD broadcasts, leaving their HDMI inputs vacant, and proclaiming to their friends: "Behold! HD!!!!"

Of course they won't see these differences.

I'll admit that while the first few BDs I watched on my plasma were great, I still had that feeling that it wasn't HUGE. Sure, there are a few DVDs out there with superb transfers, and a few BDs that are obviously lackluster. But once you spend most of your home-viewing time with the library that BD now has, it really has become tough to watch a lot of DVD without cringing. Sad, I know...but the improvement is really staggering. Even broadcast HD is, more often than not, upscaled DVD quality. (literally, too. most of the programming on a lot of those cable HD channels are simply showing wide upscaled SD content, despite what the input signal on your set may tell you).

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
I didn't even mention picture quality in my post.

I posted a list a few posts after the post that you first quoted.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
I didn't even mention picture quality in my post.

I posted a list a few posts after the post that you first quoted.

and I read that list before my latest post, and summed up your list in my post with "fluff."

what are you getting at, again?

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Codewiz
My question is, why would anyone want blu ray right now? We are seeing that streaming media is the future. Instant gratification is the future. The only advantage blu ray currently holds is picture/sound quality. That will change over the next two years. So why would I want to invest in something that is going to be dead within 5 years. At least DVDs had a pretty darn good lifespan.

I do not believe the same will be said about blu ray.

I make enough money and made good choices to easily afford a blu ray player but as good ole JackBurden has said it is a luxury item for people who made good choices in life. I find that pretty much laughable. The irony is strong in that because I am pretty sure investing in a dying type of media is the epitome of making BAD choices in life.

Malarkey. streaming media will not touch quality BD media in at least 10 years, if ever. It just shows you have no experience with the format's capabilities.

BD quality is about 7-10x that of what broadcast HD gives you. Add to the monumentally inadequate download speeds to match a BD-quality presentation

streaming medias quality depends on the connection speed. If a person has FIOS or something faster, like what they offer in Japan. Hell they could technically stream IMAX quality video. Which would be even higher than 1080p. I have watched an HD-DVD rip streamed from my GF's house on her 15MB connection. Doubtful anyones vision would be good enough to have been able to tell a difference between the stream and the actual HD-DVD. Hell if hardware comes out that supports IMAX resolution (2040p? I know it's something like that lol) and FIOS becomes common place it will be well under 10 years before we see BD trumped by streaming media. I rip my HD-DVD's and compressed they're small enough to stream on a fast cable connection, and the quality is basically spot on.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Codewiz
My question is, why would anyone want blu ray right now? We are seeing that streaming media is the future. Instant gratification is the future. The only advantage blu ray currently holds is picture/sound quality. That will change over the next two years. So why would I want to invest in something that is going to be dead within 5 years. At least DVDs had a pretty darn good lifespan.

I do not believe the same will be said about blu ray.

I make enough money and made good choices to easily afford a blu ray player but as good ole JackBurden has said it is a luxury item for people who made good choices in life. I find that pretty much laughable. The irony is strong in that because I am pretty sure investing in a dying type of media is the epitome of making BAD choices in life.

Malarkey. streaming media will not touch quality BD media in at least 10 years, if ever. It just shows you have no experience with the format's capabilities.

BD quality is about 7-10x that of what broadcast HD gives you. Add to the monumentally inadequate download speeds to match a BD-quality presentation

streaming medias quality depends on the connection speed. If a person has FIOS or something faster, like what they offer in Japan. Hell they could technically stream IMAX quality video. Which would be even higher than 1080p. I have watched an HD-DVD rip streamed from my GF's house on her 15MB connection. Doubtful anyones vision would be good enough to have been able to tell a difference between the stream and the actual HD-DVD. Hell if hardware comes out that supports IMAX resolution (2040p? I know it's something like that lol) and FIOS becomes common place it will be well under 10 years before we see BD trumped by streaming media. I rip my HD-DVD's and compressed they're small enough to stream on a fast cable connection, and the quality is basically spot on.

Aye, good compression is key to speeding up Digital Adoption for movies.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Codewiz
My question is, why would anyone want blu ray right now? We are seeing that streaming media is the future. Instant gratification is the future. The only advantage blu ray currently holds is picture/sound quality. That will change over the next two years. So why would I want to invest in something that is going to be dead within 5 years. At least DVDs had a pretty darn good lifespan.

I do not believe the same will be said about blu ray.

I make enough money and made good choices to easily afford a blu ray player but as good ole JackBurden has said it is a luxury item for people who made good choices in life. I find that pretty much laughable. The irony is strong in that because I am pretty sure investing in a dying type of media is the epitome of making BAD choices in life.

Malarkey. streaming media will not touch quality BD media in at least 10 years, if ever. It just shows you have no experience with the format's capabilities.

BD quality is about 7-10x that of what broadcast HD gives you. Add to the monumentally inadequate download speeds to match a BD-quality presentation

streaming medias quality depends on the connection speed. If a person has FIOS or something faster, like what they offer in Japan. Hell they could technically stream IMAX quality video. Which would be even higher than 1080p. I have watched an HD-DVD rip streamed from my GF's house on her 15MB connection. Doubtful anyones vision would be good enough to have been able to tell a difference between the stream and the actual HD-DVD. Hell if hardware comes out that supports IMAX resolution (2040p? I know it's something like that lol) and FIOS becomes common place it will be well under 10 years before we see BD trumped by streaming media. I rip my HD-DVD's and compressed they're small enough to stream on a fast cable connection, and the quality is basically spot on.

Aye, good compression is key to speeding up Digital Adoption for movies.

Streaming requires bandwidth, and most of said bandwidth is controlled by the cable industry in the US. You guys are kidding yourself if you think that industry is just going to sit back & not find a way to get paid for your streaming.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
I didn't even mention picture quality in my post.

I posted a list a few posts after the post that you first quoted.

and I read that list before my latest post, and summed up your list in my post with "fluff."

what are you getting at, again?

You've repeated several times that the "average" consumer is clueless about video quality. They buy HDTVs but don't get HD sevice, and they don't know they're seeing an SD signal. So how can you not agree that Blu-ray adoption is slowed by the fact that it doesn't offer much more than superior video and sound quality? People did buy DVDs for the reasons I listed. Many people aren't buying Blu-ray because DVD is "good enough." I've seen the same sentiments expressed in many threads here.

 

[zebano]

Why should I buy a blue-ray player? I don't even have an HD TV.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: boomhower
I can live with $300 players but the $30 discs kill it for me.

:thumbsup: The only BluRay disc I own is the Band of Brothers set I got for $35 shipped on Amazon. Oh, and my player is a PS3 so it functions as a game console, BR player, and media streamer.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: zebano
Why should I buy a blue-ray player? I don't even have an HD TV.

You shouldn't

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TruePaige
But if the price goes down everybody can afford more...

See the win-win scenario there?

No, a win scenario is you making good decisions in life so you can afford luxury goods like a Blu-ray player. Not everyone deserves luxury items. A Blu-ray player isn't food. You don't HAVE to have it. Think of a nice Blu-ray player (or any other luxury item) as a reward for someone that made good choices in life. And if you didn't make good choices, you don't get rewarded. Sorry. Thank you for playing.

Your (flawed) assumption is that life is fair. It's not. Making good decisions is not synonymous with being wealthy. You can be the smartest, wisest person in the world and still be dicked over by life.

All you've said is that the fortunate deserve luxuries.

And came across as a total tool.

 

[abaez]

Funny when HDDVD died last year everyone said.. wait for thanksgiving/xmas for $100 players... riiiight.

I own a BR burner and hddvd reader and while I love it, I only buy the BR's for movies I absolutely love as they are still too expensive for movies you just happen to like.

 

[lokiju]

Originally posted by: middlehead
A lot of the problem is licensing. The primary developers of the BluRay standard still haven't incorporated a consortium to centrally license production. Anybody who wants to build devices and wasn't in the development to begin with has to license from every developer individually. Supposedly, this will be fixed soon.

This is no longer the case.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: abaez
Funny when HDDVD died last year everyone said.. wait for thanksgiving/xmas for $100 players... riiiight.

I own a BR burner and hddvd reader and while I love it, I only buy the BR's for movies I absolutely love as they are still too expensive for movies you just happen to like.

No one in their right mind would expect blu ray players to be regularly priced at $100 last year or even this year. The only people that were probably saying this were the disheartened HD DVD fan boys. IIRC, some places may have some black friday sales at that price.

I just bought a brand new Memorex player for $99 two months ago from some place that had a one day sale.

Text

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
I didn't even mention picture quality in my post.

I posted a list a few posts after the post that you first quoted.

and I read that list before my latest post, and summed up your list in my post with "fluff."

what are you getting at, again?

You've repeated several times that the "average" consumer is clueless about video quality. They buy HDTVs but don't get HD sevice, and they don't know they're seeing an SD signal. So how can you not agree that Blu-ray adoption is slowed by the fact that it doesn't offer much more than superior video and sound quality? People did buy DVDs for the reasons I listed. Many people aren't buying Blu-ray because DVD is "good enough." I've seen the same sentiments expressed in many threads here.

well...yeah. that's exactly what I'm saying. The ave consumer isn't buying Blu Ray b/c they think the SD signals that they view through their HD sets are actually HD. Therefore, when they compare this to DVD, they see an image just as good...hell, often better than this. They also assume that upconverting = HD, which is certainly not true.

Blu Ray being the HD format, why would they then see a reason to upgrade if they think the DVD and broadcast SD is actually HD? Also, the B&M stores displaying BD and HDDVD on 32-36" monitors is rather useless, wouldn't you say? Sure, you still get the great improvement with color depth, but the smaller you go, the differences b/w DVD and BD will certainly become less noticeable.

Again, the upgrade for each format is predicated by an upgrade in output technology. The bigger and more capable the TV, the higher quality sound output, then the need for new formats to provide the data that can take advantage of such things. It's certainly understandable that many will see no reason to upgrade when they're working with smaller monitors, but say you're projecting an image on a 110" screen, or even a 46", 50"+ panel...the difference is truly staggering, and that is where it matters.

It's far more complicated: ordering a service and hooking up your equipment is not what it used to be. Hell, I had to ask the comcast guy to give me an HDMI cable when he hooked up my HDR--they don't provide it. the PS3 only comes with COMPOSITE AV cables. ...ridiculous. No wonder people are confused:

"Hey, I pay you cable guys $16/month for HD, so therefore I'm getting HD, right?"

Not necessarily. Imagine those that still pay for HD, hook up their HDMI, yet still tune in to the SD signals....Even component cables are less capable than HDMI video-wise, so there are so many mroe layers for people to deal with than there used to be.

 

[mugs]

So you aren't disagreeing with me? Are you just talking for the sake of hearing yourself talk? Your rambling posts are painful to read, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to accomplish here.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: mugs
I didn't even mention picture quality in my post.

I posted a list a few posts after the post that you first quoted.

and I read that list before my latest post, and summed up your list in my post with "fluff."

what are you getting at, again?

You've repeated several times that the "average" consumer is clueless about video quality. They buy HDTVs but don't get HD sevice, and they don't know they're seeing an SD signal. So how can you not agree that Blu-ray adoption is slowed by the fact that it doesn't offer much more than superior video and sound quality? People did buy DVDs for the reasons I listed. Many people aren't buying Blu-ray because DVD is "good enough." I've seen the same sentiments expressed in many threads here.

i dont think so. the most clueless are probably hooked up to an antenna, and even a doofus gets hdtv signals that way by default.

theres alawys this line lf argument. granny cant program her vcr, what the heck will she do with a dvd player etc etc!!

those people are irrelevant.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: abaez
Funny when HDDVD died last year everyone said.. wait for thanksgiving/xmas for $100 players... riiiight.

I own a BR burner and hddvd reader and while I love it, I only buy the BR's for movies I absolutely love as they are still too expensive for movies you just happen to like.

i thoguht it was the opposite.
ppl were saying because there was no more competition, that bd prices were going to take longer to come down.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I'd rather have Blu-ray stay a niche with just enough revenue to keep the studios happy, but prices high enough that not every Joe Blow can have one.

I didn't read the whole thread so this may have been covered.

You don't get why people are attacking you, do you? Do yourself a favor - re-read what I quoted.

Do it again.

You aren't being attacked because of economics, or because blu ray is expensive as a new technology, or because you think "too bad for "joe blow", he can't have blu ray yet". You're being attacked because you said, plain as day, you WANT it that way. You WANT it to stay so that only people super-cool and rich and successful like you can have it. THAT is what makes you a douchebag. THAT is why everyone is calling you out on your douchebaggery.

Understand yet?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Give me a freakin' break, $300 is a decent price for a good quality Blu-ray player. If you can't afford it or it is more than you are willing to pay, that's YOUR problem. Sony doesn't need to appease the Wal-Mart shopper to have Blu-ray become successful. As a matter of fact, Blu-ray is doing damn fine as it is. And if you ask me, it is doing better than fine which is starting to piss me off. When new releases come out, the Blu-ray version is always sold out, while the shitty DVD version is available by the truck load. Yes they sell way more DVDs than Blu-rays, but however many Blu-rays they get in, they sell out. Great sign for Blu-ray, bad sign for me. I'd rather have Blu-ray stay a niche with just enough revenue to keep the studios happy, but prices high enough that not every Joe Blow can have one.

And let me tell you, that $79 Blu-ray player you found at Newegg doesn't play Blu-rays by itself. You'll need a PC and the HD software which will run you a tad over $79. Any other genius comparisons? :roll:

uh, yeah, they do need to appease the Wal-mart shopper. If you get walmart shoppers to buy your product you'll make a killing. Walmart probably sells more DVD's and CD's than Best Buy, Fry's and Circuit City(before they went tits up) combined.

I don't have any blu-ray to go with my 42" plasma because I can't justify paying $300 for a player, when a upconverted DVD on a $30 DVD player looks fine.
Oh, and if Blu-ray is doing so good why did sony have, what is it, 95% drop in profits last year?