LOL at the panic and immediate response from companies that get Blu money.
They might've been wrong about HD DVD, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Buu-ray attachment is poorly low even if Blu-ray does get to 15% of households by 2010. And there's very little chance there was a mistake there if you even take in consideration the possibility that some people might've mistaken upscaling DVDs with HD DVDs.
I'm not sure how many Blu-ray standalones are on the market now but PS3 in US is not even 9 million units and let's say 3-4 million standalones that's not even 10% of the US households and the attachment ratio for those numbers is actually pretty low today.
I don't really hate Blu-ray, what I do hate is constant BS assessments from BDA camp and their companies.
I'd advise them to stop counting and representing dreamy numbers and actually work on solving real issues with Blu-ray hardware and software.
Ask yourself this. How long did DVDs take to become popular? They were released in 1997. I was in high school then and hadn't heard anything about them until 1999. Even when I bought my first player 2 years after the format was out, no one in my family had one.
I do tend to agree a bit with this assessment regarding the BDA associationg being overly optomistic. I guess it probably comes down a bit to company pride. Everyone wants to believe the company they work for is pretty good at what they do, doing pretty well and is economically secure.
I sure as heck wouldn't want to work at a company that sucks at what they do, make a horribly overpriced product in an economic recession and feel unsure about my companies' economic future.
So sure. We'll just add all those PS3s. 21 million world wide I think Sony as touting or was it 24 million? as blu-ray players. See, that's a lot? If each one buys 2 blu-rays a year, we'll have 50 million sales. At $20.00 - $30.00 a movie, we'll say averaging $25.00, we'd have a billion dollars in sales. Its money in studio's pockets?
Let alone all those standalone players which probably would have a much higher yearly attach rate. With both standalone players becoming cheaper and ps3s become cheaper(or so analysts like Michael Pratcher suggest) before x-mas, you'll probably see an slow but gradual uptake of blu-ray players and sales. You just have to try not to factor in or try to ignore an economic depression.
It doesn't matter.. DVD's penetration and adoption rate is not comparable to Blu-ray because we live in a different age. When DVD was released it was so new, people were not getting it and it was much better than VHS. It was actually much more expensive too. $600 DVD player then and $600 Blu-ray today are way different. It was a small fortune back then. Today $600 it's still expensive but not as much as it was then, not to mention the fact that it doesn't improve as much as VHS over DVD.
Look at it realistically. Blu-ray is not revolution, it's an evolution and as such it shouldn't be priced through the roof and with holding a small premium over DVD it should be adopted faster because technology in general has advanced a lot more over the course of past decade.
But the reason it's not being adopted fast is price vs features. If your upscaling DVD player from a lower brand is $50, considering that a Blu-ray player is nothing more complex than that player but holds a slightly different laser, the lower brand BD player shouldn't be more then $75-$100. If a good brand name upscaling DVD player is $100, your brand name BD player shouldn't be more then $150-$200. Same goes with media. Blu discs shouldn't be more then $2-$3 premium over DVDs, yet they are.
All of this and the fact that studios want to use Blu-ray to make money to compensate for DVD loss is what causes issues with Blu-ray adoption.
All they have to do is price it normally and realistically and should buy. But today, there are more problems for adoption then just lowering prices if you wish to discuss it.
Mainly that people are not willing to spend a lot of money on buying discs. They want to rent because they've been collecting and spending insane amounts of money on discs for the past 10 years and they really see no benefit today to do that all over again. In addition, we have alternative means of getting content too. All this is playing a roll in adoption and rightfully so.
So no, DVD situation and Blu-ray state are really not similar at all. One builds upon the other but is in no means revolutionary as DVD was.
Not only that, I know people that don't have a clue how to plug in the Most basic equipment, much like the people that bought HD-DVD discs that thought they were some better version of DVD they could play on their DVD players, people that are asked the HD DVD question might have thought they meant playing a DVD on an HD-TV.
If you are average intelligence that means half the people you run into today will be dumber than you, but half will also be smarter than you, which is alot tougher for people to come to grips with, as everyone likes to think they are smart.
Most of the people taking these questionnaires don't want to look dumb, and I shouldn't have to explain my point anymore then that.
Bozster I don't know where you get your info but it's totally wrong. You cant compare DVD because it was so much more? Blu-Ray launched at compable pricing to DVD. It has also done as well as DVD up to the recession.
You claim to have nothing against Blu-ray but you cite total misinformation, and throw out a totay legitimate comparison -- one the industry is aware of even -- because it contradicts your incorrect statements.
Are you sure you're not below average intelligence? Because what you are referring to is not the "average" - it's the median. Being average doesn't mean being 50th percentile.
1. you think a BD drive that requires more stable mechanism, better error correction, newer tech laser head should cost the same as DVD drive? 2. you think a BD player which licensing cost more than DVD (about triple of DVD licensing, actually) will make the player only $25 more than a DVD player? The licensing alone is about $20 more than DVD!!!! 3. you think because the manufacturing cost of a chip is the same the R&D doesn't need to be recuperated? what kind of business model are you thinking? This is akin to saying photographer "A" uses the same set of equipment as photographer "B" therefore they both have to charge the same. Wrong! If B is far better than A, then B can charge much higher than A.
In the end... it's called business, not charity.
Do I like it? of course not! But as a photographer myself, I also don't want to be "forced" to charge $500 for a wedding just because the next photographer with the same equipment is willing to charge that low of a price. Hence my understanding of the business model.
Heck, they use the same bandwidh whether we subscribe to basic channel or premium channel, why then we should pay extra?
Nice try Bozster. The garbage you tried to use as a basis for your "my format didn't win" BS is shown for what it is...garbage, and you now try to put a new spin on it. Just let go...
"LOL at the panic and immediate response from companies that get Blu money."
At least they are getting paid to be industry shills. What's your excuse?
You can always depend on Bozster to use any and every story about HD as a springboard to launch yet another anti-blu-ray tirade. There is an old Shakespeare quote that seems approriate: "methinks the lady doth protest too much".
Lisa, I'm sorry I didn't "Internet-Lawyer" check my sentence. Here's some information regarding the word Average to help you better understand what I wrote, and what I meant.
Average: –noun A quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean: Her golf average is in the 90s. My average in science has gone from B to C this semester.
Arithmetic Mean: –noun Statistics. The mean obtained by adding several quantities together and dividing the sum by the number of quantities: the arithmetic mean of 1, 5, 2, and 8 is 4.
Now let's take a look at the word Median.
–noun 3. Arithmetic, Statistics. the middle number in a given sequence of numbers, taken as the average of the two middle numbers when the sequence has an even number of numbers: 4 is the median of 1, 3, 4, 8, 9.
So, though the Median is the middle number or average of 2 middle numbers in a series of numbers it may not represent the average, or mean, depending on the numbers in the series.
So, if peoples' Intelligence is rated and given a numerical value, some representing the highest and some the lowest, then the Average, though not the exact Median, might be what I was talking about, though honestly I hadn't applied that much thought to it at the time of writing.
So, perhaps I should have written an "about" or "most" in my sentence to be exact and clear regarding the complexities and variations possible in "running into other people throughout the day" for those trying to lawyer my post. However, I think you really have only strengthened what I wrote as your response reinforces my point regarding how people feel about not being that smart.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
LOL at the panic and immediate response from companies that get Blu money.
They might've been wrong about HD DVD, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Buu-ray attachment is poorly low even if Blu-ray does get to 15% of households by 2010. And there's very little chance there was a mistake there if you even take in consideration the possibility that some people might've mistaken upscaling DVDs with HD DVDs.
I'm not sure how many Blu-ray standalones are on the market now but PS3 in US is not even 9 million units and let's say 3-4 million standalones that's not even 10% of the US households and the attachment ratio for those numbers is actually pretty low today.
I don't really hate Blu-ray, what I do hate is constant BS assessments from BDA camp and their companies.
I'd advise them to stop counting and representing dreamy numbers and actually work on solving real issues with Blu-ray hardware and software.
Ask yourself this. How long did DVDs take to become popular? They were released in 1997. I was in high school then and hadn't heard anything about them until 1999. Even when I bought my first player 2 years after the format was out, no one in my family had one.
I do tend to agree a bit with this assessment regarding the BDA associationg being overly optomistic. I guess it probably comes down a bit to company pride. Everyone wants to believe the company they work for is pretty good at what they do, doing pretty well and is economically secure.
I sure as heck wouldn't want to work at a company that sucks at what they do, make a horribly overpriced product in an economic recession and feel unsure about my companies' economic future.
So sure. We'll just add all those PS3s. 21 million world wide I think Sony as touting or was it 24 million? as blu-ray players. See, that's a lot? If each one buys 2 blu-rays a year, we'll have 50 million sales. At $20.00 - $30.00 a movie, we'll say averaging $25.00, we'd have a billion dollars in sales. Its money in studio's pockets?
Let alone all those standalone players which probably would have a much higher yearly attach rate. With both standalone players becoming cheaper and ps3s become cheaper(or so analysts like Michael Pratcher suggest) before x-mas, you'll probably see an slow but gradual uptake of blu-ray players and sales. You just have to try not to factor in or try to ignore an economic depression.
It doesn't matter.. DVD's penetration and adoption rate is not comparable to Blu-ray because we live in a different age. When DVD was released it was so new, people were not getting it and it was much better than VHS. It was actually much more expensive too. $600 DVD player then and $600 Blu-ray today are way different. It was a small fortune back then. Today $600 it's still expensive but not as much as it was then, not to mention the fact that it doesn't improve as much as VHS over DVD.
Look at it realistically. Blu-ray is not revolution, it's an evolution and as such it shouldn't be priced through the roof and with holding a small premium over DVD it should be adopted faster because technology in general has advanced a lot more over the course of past decade.
But the reason it's not being adopted fast is price vs features. If your upscaling DVD player from a lower brand is $50, considering that a Blu-ray player is nothing more complex than that player but holds a slightly different laser, the lower brand BD player shouldn't be more then $75-$100. If a good brand name upscaling DVD player is $100, your brand name BD player shouldn't be more then $150-$200. Same goes with media. Blu discs shouldn't be more then $2-$3 premium over DVDs, yet they are.
All of this and the fact that studios want to use Blu-ray to make money to compensate for DVD loss is what causes issues with Blu-ray adoption.
All they have to do is price it normally and realistically and should buy. But today, there are more problems for adoption then just lowering prices if you wish to discuss it.
Mainly that people are not willing to spend a lot of money on buying discs. They want to rent because they've been collecting and spending insane amounts of money on discs for the past 10 years and they really see no benefit today to do that all over again. In addition, we have alternative means of getting content too. All this is playing a roll in adoption and rightfully so.
So no, DVD situation and Blu-ray state are really not similar at all. One builds upon the other but is in no means revolutionary as DVD was.
Not only that, I know people that don't have a clue how to plug in the Most basic equipment, much like the people that bought HD-DVD discs that thought they were some better version of DVD they could play on their DVD players, people that are asked the HD DVD question might have thought they meant playing a DVD on an HD-TV.
If you are average intelligence that means half the people you run into today will be dumber than you, but half will also be smarter than you, which is alot tougher for people to come to grips with, as everyone likes to think they are smart.
Most of the people taking these questionnaires don't want to look dumb, and I shouldn't have to explain my point anymore then that.
Bozster I don't know where you get your info but it's totally wrong. You cant compare DVD because it was so much more? Blu-Ray launched at compable pricing to DVD. It has also done as well as DVD up to the recession.
You claim to have nothing against Blu-ray but you cite total misinformation, and throw out a totay legitimate comparison -- one the industry is aware of even -- because it contradicts your incorrect statements.
We must be... on the... Internet! :p
-Pie
Mr_Fizzlepop,
Are you sure you're not below average intelligence? Because what you
are referring to is not the "average" - it's the median. Being
average doesn't mean being 50th percentile.
1. you think a BD drive that requires more stable mechanism, better error correction, newer tech laser head should cost the same as DVD drive?
2. you think a BD player which licensing cost more than DVD (about triple of DVD licensing, actually) will make the player only $25 more than a DVD player? The licensing alone is about $20 more than DVD!!!!
3. you think because the manufacturing cost of a chip is the same the R&D doesn't need to be recuperated? what kind of business model are you thinking? This is akin to saying photographer "A" uses the same set of equipment as photographer "B" therefore they both have to charge the same. Wrong! If B is far better than A, then B can charge much higher than A.
In the end... it's called business, not charity.
Do I like it? of course not! But as a photographer myself, I also don't want to be "forced" to charge $500 for a wedding just because the next photographer with the same equipment is willing to charge that low of a price. Hence my understanding of the business model.
Heck, they use the same bandwidh whether we subscribe to basic channel or premium channel, why then we should pay extra?
Nice try Bozster. The garbage you tried to use as a basis for your "my format didn't win" BS is shown for what it is...garbage, and you now try to put a new spin on it. Just let go...
"LOL at the panic and immediate response from companies that get Blu money."
At least they are getting paid to be industry shills. What's your excuse?
You can always depend on Bozster to use any and every story about HD as a springboard to launch yet another anti-blu-ray tirade. There is an old Shakespeare quote that seems approriate: "methinks the lady doth protest too much".
Lisa, I'm sorry I didn't "Internet-Lawyer" check my sentence. Here's some information regarding the word Average to help you better understand what I wrote, and what I meant.
Average:
–noun
A quantity, rating, or the like that represents or approximates an arithmetic mean: Her golf average is in the 90s. My average in science has gone from B to C this semester.
Arithmetic Mean:
–noun Statistics.
The mean obtained by adding several quantities together and dividing the sum by the number of quantities: the arithmetic mean of 1, 5, 2, and 8 is 4.
Now let's take a look at the word Median.
–noun
3. Arithmetic, Statistics. the middle number in a given sequence of numbers, taken as the average of the two middle numbers when the sequence has an even number of numbers: 4 is the median of 1, 3, 4, 8, 9.
So, though the Median is the middle number or average of 2 middle numbers in a series of numbers it may not represent the average, or mean, depending on the numbers in the series.
So, if peoples' Intelligence is rated and given a numerical value, some representing the highest and some the lowest, then the Average, though not the exact Median, might be what I was talking about, though honestly I hadn't applied that much thought to it at the time of writing.
So, perhaps I should have written an "about" or "most" in my sentence to be exact and clear regarding the complexities and variations possible in "running into other people throughout the day" for those trying to lawyer my post. However, I think you really have only strengthened what I wrote as your response reinforces my point regarding how people feel about not being that smart.
Thanks again.
Feel free to also look up "Gifted" at Wikipedia.