Count me in!

I've been kicking around the idea of dropping NetFlix for a while now, as I've sort of replaced it with Redbox. This seems like it may be the news to push me over the edge. I'm sure there aren't a ton of other people who will follow my lead, probably not even enough to put a dent in any "exclusivity" money they got from Microsoft, but this really bothers me. I've been a paying customer of Netflix for a long time, and I pay the same amount as everyone else. Why shouldn't I be able to get the same service that others are getting? I can understand why game makers might choose one side or another (even though I don't like it), but NetFlix really should only be interested in getting their product to as many people as possible.

And if HD-DVD had won, there would be people today posting "HD-DVD won because of backroom deals, not because it was better". Remember, they tried just as hard to win the format war by subsidizing players at an unsustainable level along with paying Paramount a large chunk of cash to be exclusive, among other things.

Both sides had their own advantages and flaws, but BD won and it doesn't matter how. I really don't think the landscape would be all that different had HD-DVD won. We'd still be in a major recession that would be limiting the sale of players and discs. People still wouldn't want to pay any premium over DVD, regardless of the fact that the premium was slightly smaller than on BD. There would still be those that would say that SD is "good enough". And there would still be the camp that swears that internet streaming will kill discs before they get a chance to overtake DVD.

Well, we won't get to see it at the 2010 NBA All-Star game. It's being played at the new Cowboys stadium.

Boz, did you completely disregard the data in that article (and my post)? Approximately $20 billion was spent on music in 2008 and $2.9 billion of that was on digital music. That's 15%. The vast majority of the other 85% was spent on CD's. I have no idea where you get the idea that CD's are getting killed. iTunes was introduced over 8 years ago now, and was preceded by several other online music options. In what amounts to a decade, digital downloads of music still haven't cracked the 20% barrier. Why will digital downloads/streaming of movies grow so much more quickly than music has?

I haven't heard one word about Wal-Mart or any other retailer dropping CD's. Best Buy still has racks and racks of them every time I go in.

As for people watching "16.8 billion videos" online in April, the majority of those were viewed on YouTube and were most likely of the homemade video variety...not the kind of videos that would be competing with optical media.

Also, I wouldn't expect to see the CFO of NetFlix say anything less than how streaming represents a big opportunity over discs by envelope. Obviously one of the biggest costs that NetFlix incurs is postage...something that would be easily rectified if everyone stopped renting movies by mail. I'm sure the execs at NetFlix are just about wetting their pants over the possibility, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Bozster, we all get it, you aren't a believer in BD. I have no idea what makes you think that streaming/subscription services will be destroying BD in 5 years though. How long has downloading/streaming music been in the mainstream now? Coming up on 10 years? And for almost as long people have been saying that it will replace compact discs. Yet here's a stat for you...digital music sales totaled $2.9 billion in 2008, but that still only represents 15% of the total. Here's a link to the story in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25music.html

A huge chunk of that other 85% (approximately $17 billion) went to CD's. If digital downloads of music haven't even come close to overtaking physical media in this amount of time, why would anyone think that digital movies are going to do it that quickly? And this is considering the fact that a vast majority of homes already have access to internet that's fast enough to download an album in a few minutes or less. That same capability is not as widely available for movies, much less HD movies. Also, do not discount the need for people to actually be able to hold on to the things they pay for. Most people do not want to spend money on something as intangible as a digital file that can be damaged or lost with a hard drive failure, or something that could have it's license revoked rendering it useless.

Guys, I understand you'll never be convinced that BD is any more than a niche product, but it's a bit disingenuous to try to compare the 1Q09 BD sales to the combined HD optical disc player sales in 1Q08. HD-DVD was already DOA in the first quarter of 2008 and all retailers were dumping their remaining players at fire sale prices. That's not a sustainable business model.

I'm not totally sold that BD is going to be as mainstream as DVD is, but I'm also not ruling it out at this point either. It definitely seems to be getting a little bit of traction.

I hope they're Monster cables....kidding!

St. Clair, a boycott was my first thought too, but unfortunately I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm betting that once TWC rolls this out we'll see announcements from Comcast or AT&T stating that they're going to do the same thing. Eventually they'll all be charging for "unlimited" plans and we won't have any alternative. These companies are starting to realize that they've got us by the coax. So many people are so entrenched on the internet that they know they can charge more and people will pay it. Our only hope will be for the government to look into price fixing/collusion between the companies and that'll take years.

Or, Squiggle, you could stop being a condescending dope and answer the question that was asked of you. It seemed fairly simple. Your original post was scattershot at best. You brought up HD-DVD and your post clearly insinuates that it was the "non-dud". So, do you think it would be doing better than BD if it had won? If so, why? It was already floundering in sales. BD didn't win because one company decided it was the better format. It won because it had the sales momentum in 2007.

Comparing one week in 2009 to one week in 2008 is pointless and I'm not sure why the Videoscan numbers are released that way. Especially in the movie business where one week can have a blockbuster release, the next week nothing, and never the same new releases twice. If there's no major movie released on BD the second week of December 2009 (when The Dark Knight was released in 2008), you're going to see a major drop in revenue from the same week the prior year. Does that mean that BD is failing? No, in fact by that time I'm fairly certain that year-to-date BD revenue will be ahead of where it was at that time last year. Year-to-date revenue is the number that needs to be compared.

That said, I don't have the YTD comparison numbers to look at, but since when is a 50 to 60% revenue growth rate unacceptable? I could understand if we were talking about comparing to hundreds of dollars in sales in 2008, but we're talking about millions. Besides that, everyone knows that disc revenue is driven by new releases, not catalog titles. The two weeks in February 2008 and 2009 had no new releases of any consequence. So that 50 to 60% was driven by catalog titles only which are normally a minor player. Let's see what happens when the first big blockbuster discs of 2009 start showing up. BD will not be judged a success or failure based on your unrealistic expectations.