US News: 7 Reasons to forget Bluray

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,486
520
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
Here you go one for the HD DVD guys :D... While the XstreamHD looks promising, we wont know anything until we actually gets into beta. But as far as everything else, come on! He sounds like he's dreaming.. Here is the article

7 Reasons to Forget Blu-ray - Dave's Download (usnews.com)

When Sony's Blu-ray and Toshiba's HD DVD launched their fight two years ago, high definition was spotty even in network prime-time shows, and only a few cable channels offered HD versions. Nobody thought about downloading an HD movie over the Internet. How times have changed. Sony's Blu-ray now faces stiff competition for HD dollars:

XStreamHD: Satellite networks DirecTV and Dish Network are fast adding high-definition channels to their services. XStream says it will launch later this year and promises an even better video experience, with full 1080p images and 7.1 surround sound coming directly into the home. The box will cost $400 plus rental/purchase charges, and we've yet to see which and how many movies XStream will offer. But even if XStream doesn't succeed, Blu-ray faces stiff competition in the added offerings from DirecTV and Dish.

Toshiba: You didn't think Toshiba was going away, did you? Toshiba and many competitors make standard DVD drives that do a good job of converting yesterday's disks to nearly high-definition resolution. The drives can be found at well under $100, in contrast to the cheapest Blu-ray drives, which run $300 on sale. Blu-ray will find it tougher to supplant standard DVDs than those disks did in replacing videotape. Many consumers will be happy to keep their current disk library with a good upscaling drive.

Comcast: The cable provider is leading its industry's efforts to offer more movie titles on demand, saying it hopes to have 6,000 a month available by year's end. Half of those would be available in high definition. Comcast is also adding HD channels and has reportedly said it could eventually offer hundreds. But that would mean a breakthrough in cable tech; today's coax systems limit most cable providers to a dozen or two HD channels.

Verizon: High-def content is a key motivation for Verizon and AT&T to spend billions of dollars to upgrade their systems for new television services. Verizon is running fiber optic cable to homes that can probably carry as many HD channels as Verizon can buy, including any that start offering movies in the top 1080p resolution that now only Blu-ray can produce. Verizon says it hopes to soon offer 150 HD channels. But so far, the telcos are offering only a few dozen channels in a lineup similar to those of most cable providers.

Vudu: This $300 box is the best dedicated device yet for downloading video from the Internet. Vudu has an innovative remote and software that makes video simpler to play than even Blu-ray, which means having to get and insert a disk into a player. On the downside, Vudu works just in homes with top-speed Internet access. Also, it so far offers fewer than 100 HD titles, the quality doesn't match Blu-ray's, and rentals are available only for 24 hours once they start playing.

Apple TV: This $230 box is fast becoming the best of the digital media adapters, which include Microsoft's Xbox 360 and are designed to link the TV to computers and the Internet. The latest Apple TV version can now function without a PC, enabling direct downloads from Apple's iTunes store and access to YouTube videos, among others. The iTunes store has only about 100 high-def titles available—and like Vudu, the quality doesn't match Blu-ray's, and rentals are available for just 24 hours once they start playing.

WNBC: Yes, the lowly antenna is more of a competitor than it was two years ago. The late-night shows have all gone high def, as has most prime-time and news programming. And while broadcast stations can't deliver 1080p as can Blu-ray, the HDTV delivered over the air is crystal clear—and cost free.
 
Here you go one for the HD DVD guys :D... While the XstreamHD looks promising, we wont know anything until we actually gets into beta. But as far as everything else, come on! He sounds like he's dreaming..

All this stuff is old news.
 
All this stuff is old news.

It takes a while for it to reach all the way up to mainstream media. :rolleyes:

In spite of everything he says and the prospects for future development, BD will still be the format of choice for folks who like to own and share and enjoy extra features for the favorite movies in HD. Online downloading, PPV, cable/sat, premiums, On Demand in SD, while certainly taking a bite (or nibble) out of DVD rentals, and to a lesser degree purchases, are a long ways off from making movies on disc obsolete.
 
Not sure why folks underestimate downloading, the telcos and the cablecos are getting systems in place. But as he mentioned and I personally believe is BD biggest menace is upconverters. When they get down to current DVD players prices J6P will be more then happy to re-enjoy their entire movie library in near HD quality. And if the reviews from Toshiba's cell based upconverter are great those things will spread like the flu.
 
Originally Posted by navychop
Funny how for some people, upconverted DVD wasn't good enough- until HD DVD bit the dust. Then suddenly, high def doesn't matter, the old stuff is just fine.


:haha

All you do is remove one of the 7 above and add BD in. You now have seven reasons to forget the particular format you removed. Give that guy the "captain obvious" award
 
and correct me if im wrong but don't most cable companies most cable companies already have more then 24 hd channels? I know I have 45 with cablevision.
 
I have a cheap RCA unconverting DVD player that I paid 30 bucks for. I'm very happy with its performance. I've been waiting for the format war to end to buy a Blu-ray/HD-DVD player. Now that it's over, I think I'll still wait a little longer. Maybe I'll just buy a more expensive upconverting DVD player and pay maybe...60 bucks. $60 just seems a little better than $300. I guess until the price really comes down on a Blu-ray player, I won't be buying one.
 
Funny how for some people, upconverted DVD wasn't good enough- until HD DVD bit the dust. Then suddenly, high def doesn't matter, the old stuff is just fine.

Actually, in my case, it went more like this:

I bought an HDDVD player for that fantastic $98 deal back in November. I bought two HDDVDs and rented several more. I watched many of my older DVDs upconverted. I could see that HDDVDs looked better than upconverted SD DVDs. But they didn't look so much better that it affected the overall movie watching experience. So I started buying more SD DVDs and didn't buy any more HDDVDs. And at that time HDDVD was still very much alive.

Now HDDVD is dead. Doesn't matter to me too much, as subsequent to buying that HDDVD player I learned that real HD disks just aren't worth the extra money to me. I was initially enthused with HD but later learned that this feeling was really an unfounded infatuation, not a true love.

So at one time I did not think upconverted SD DVD was "good enough", but now I do. I came to that conclusion well before BluRay won. I am very happy with my $98 upconverter for now. Once BluRay movie prices come down I will of course reevaluate. I would say the same thing had HDDVD won - remember I had already stopped buying HDDVDs.

I say to BluRay (and also to HDDVD): "You have a nice product. Bring the cost down and maybe I'll consider buying it." The only reason I bought the HDDVD player was because it was actually cheaper than the Oppo upconverter I was looking at at the same time. I may be a bit sad over HDDVDs loss because HDDVD was closer to getting "cheap enough" than BluRay is. I think the higher entry price to get into BluRay will keep more people away from HD than if HDDVD had won. However, at this point I really wonder if either BluRay or HDDVD really had a chance against upconverted SD DVD. And with satellite, cable and OTA starting to come on strong with HD it makes it even tougher on any HD disk format. I don't consider downloads to be a major problem at this time. The mainstream will not be adopting that any time soon.
 
Last edited:
Interesting- another way of looking at it. But I think the BDA will be producing incentives beyond just price to get people to move to Blu-ray. The only question is, what will those incentives be? I started a thread on this, speculating on what the BDA could do to get folks to spring for the bucks to move to Blu-ray.
 
Another slanted article... if he would have just titled it 7 other things to think about, and changed the wording a bit, it would be fine... but he's obviously got another "agenda," pushing people to products that aren't any more finished than BD is.
 
Anyone who offers a alternative is slanted. What a joke.

BD is a perfect creation from above.

Everything else is crap.

If anyone has another opinion attack their wording, blah blah blah
 
I agree that this is really slanted, but...

Most people see a difference in upconverted DVDs. They also see an improvement in HDM, but not enough to justify the price.

Heck, most DVD players are connected via RF inputs. People understand turning on the player and going to channel 3. As long as they get an image, they are happy. They didn't go to DVD because of quality, they went there so they didn't have to rewind.

There is also the problem that a number of HDM releases have been done with less than stellar transfers, thus making them no better than upconverting.

Given the attitude of J6P, I am still betting that HDM is a solution in search of a problem. Translation: niche.
 
Anyone who offers a alternative is slanted. What a joke.

BD is a perfect creation from above.

Everything else is crap.

If anyone has another opinion attack their wording, blah blah blah

Actually, I have seen nothing wrong with offering other options when they're presented in an unbiased fashion, and I have said so on more than on occasion in this forum.

Anything titled "7 reasons to forget [insert anything here]" is obviously slanted. Not that I expect you to realize that, since you'd be calling it FUD were it coming from the other side.
 
Frankly, the people who bought an HD-DVD player for $98, got some free discs and then bought 1 or 2 more...those people are not Blu-Ray's target customer at this point in the product life cycle.

I've said it before and i'll say it again: stand alone BD players will be less than $300 by this Christmas and less than $200 by Christmas '09. If that's not cheap enough for you then don't buy one.

To the article in the original post: yes, blu-ray will not have the same popularity that dvd had due to other HD content but anyone who thinks it will be forgotten is delusional.
 
Actually, I have seen nothing wrong with offering other options when they're presented in an unbiased fashion, and I have said so on more than on occasion in this forum.
Anything titled "7 reasons to forget [insert anything here]" is obviously slanted. Not that I expect you to realize that, since you'd be calling it FUD were it coming from the other side.

You can call it what you want, but have you noticed no matter which national publication releases an article related to BD, someone scared BD will fail accuses the article of being slanted, bias, improperly worded or something? Have you noticed???



Frankly To the article in the original post: yes, blu-ray will not have the same popularity that dvd had due to other HD content but anyone who thinks it will be forgotten is delusional.

1. In addition to other HD content there is:
2. 70% of homes don’t own HDTV’s.(biggest hurdle)
3. Much smaller difference between HDM vs DVD then VHS vs DVD.
4. Near HD content(upconvert), cell based upconverters on the way.
5. Very expensive, now with no incentive to lower prices.
6. Incomplete product, even 1.1 players sold today have no guarantee they won’t be obsolete soon.

It may not be forgotten but it appears destined to be a niche product.
 
You can call it what you want, but have you noticed no matter which national publication releases an article related to BD, someone scared BD will fail accuses the article of being slanted, bias, improperly worded or something? Have you noticed???





1. In addition to other HD content there is:
2. 70% of homes don’t own HDTV’s.(biggest hurdle)
3. Much smaller difference between HDM vs DVD then VHS vs DVD.
4. Near HD content(upconvert), cell based upconverters on the way.
5. Very expensive, now with no incentive to lower prices.
6. Incomplete product, even 1.1 players sold today have no guarantee they won’t be obsolete soon.

It may not be forgotten but it appears destined to be a niche product.

From my perspective, stand alone price is way too high right now but even more importantly:

7. New releases on BD are more expensive than same title on DVD.

That will keep more people from adopting BD than an eventual $200 player.
 
I've said it before and i'll say it again: stand alone BD players will be less than $300 by this Christmas and less than $200 by Christmas '09. If that's not cheap enough for you then don't buy one.
I don't understand why so many people want the Blu players to be around the same price as SD players. Don't we pay a premuim for HD content? Why should people expect otherwise with Blu-ray? STOP BEING SO CHEAP!
 
Don't we pay a premuim for HD content?
Small improvement = small premium. Small improvement != big premium. HD is an improvement over upconverted SD DVD. The amount of improvement is not worth the cost of the premium to many people.
STOP BEING SO CHEAP!
Stop being so wasteful - hang onto your money for more important things. :rolleyes: ;)
 
I don't understand why so many people want the Blu players to be around the same price as SD players. Don't we pay a premuim for HD content? Why should people expect otherwise with Blu-ray? STOP BEING SO CHEAP!

Knock yourself out and buy overpriced hardware and software.

I'll wait until the price on both drops or the next HD format is released....
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)