Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Study Finds Low Interest In Blu-ray

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the could've-told-you-that-already dept.

Media 895

PHPNerd writes "A new consumer survey recently released chronicles the woes of the winner of the hi-definition format war: nobody wants it. While consumers were very happy to embrace the DVD standard when it came about because it brought a huge jump in quality over VHS, the pros of switching to Blu-ray are not as obvious. From the article: 'In contrast, while half of the respondents to our survey rated Blu-ray's quality as 'much better' than standard DVD, another 40% termed it only 'somewhat better,' and most are very satisfied with the performance of their current DVD players." Another reason cited was that a Blu-ray investment also dictates an HDTV purchase, something consumers are reluctant to do.'" Maybe it's also that line-doubling DVD players can be had for less than a hundred dollars.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's being pushed anyway (5, Insightful)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513629)

If this is true, why is Wal-Mart pushing the Blu-Ray discs to the front of the electronics section? Because they're all going to push it on us anyway.

As I recall... (4, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513719)

DVD appeared to be pushed on us as well. But ... at least it had some merit to it!

Re:It's being pushed anyway (5, Insightful)

Sunshinerat (1114191) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513739)

It is pushed in front because the revenue is bigger. Simple economics.

Now, one thing I have learned in my life that at some point you do not need the best, biggest and hippest to [do your job|be happy].
Commercialism is for businesses not for consumers.

Re:It's being pushed anyway (1, Troll)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513803)

Vista is being pushed too.

How about that?

Re:It's being pushed anyway (4, Funny)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513873)

I also like apples and oranges. How about that?

Re:It's being pushed anyway (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514031)

My point is that it's supposed to be a new product that everyone is interested in. And yet not everyone is, because the hassles of 'upgrading' outweigh the benefits. It's obvious.

Although, I guess I did phrase that rather trollishly.

Re:It's being pushed anyway (5, Insightful)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513919)

It's being pushed, but people don't want it. They increased the price, added more invasive stricter DRM technology, and inserted unskippable commercials at the beginning of the discs. I'm sure tens of millions must groan, if not cursing out load, as their dvd skip, forward and menu buttons fail, as they are spammed with a commercial. That's gotta kill multiple future sales at the margin, every time.

Re:It's being pushed anyway (3, Interesting)

dashesy (1294654) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514077)

That is very true. Like many forums, TV is dead after being stuffed with Ad, SPAM, SCAM,... At least I want ad-free home entertainment, just to see the movie

Re:It's being pushed anyway (2, Insightful)

triathlon4life (1052424) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513991)

They are pushing this format because bluray 'won' the war of all wars, and it is the next logical marketing step to fleece us out of our money!

I would be curious to see if HDDVD would have won the 'war' if this survey would be any different. HDDVD was better priced...

-no im not ranting on old stuff, I'm just saying-

Re:It's being pushed anyway (2, Interesting)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514179)

As someone with no interest in Blue-ray, I can say it would not have mattered one bit to me if HDDVD won out.

Re:It's being pushed anyway (4, Interesting)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514001)

Of course they're going to push it on us. They want us to buy Blue-Ray players, and hopefully replace our DVD movie library with brand new Blu-Ray discs. That would bring in a lot of revenue.

But we consumers are not the mindless drones that marketing execs would like us to be. Usually when we buy something, it provides us with a benefit. In this case, the benefit isn't big enough to qualify.

DVDs have quick seek and are computer readable (with the right software). These two factors make them better than VHS. Blu-ray does not have anything comparable, and picture quality with DVD is more than adequate for more people.

I personally don't have much interest in it. (1)

IllGetYouAToe (1303241) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513637)

I'm a "techie," but I've seen Blu-Ray. The fact of the matter is, the quality difference isn't that great to me to worry with buying another player. It's going to take more of a leap in technology than Blu-Ray to get people to replace DVD players.

Re:I personally don't have much interest in it. (2, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513875)

Also a techie and also a flim fan. I find the difference quite noticeable and though new Blue-Ray movies are too expensive, I'm willing to buy my favourite ones second hand from Amazon. However, though I want Blue-Ray, I also want it to work. After battling with the crap that is PowerDVD on Windows or the frustration that is decrypting the discs on Linux, neither option appeals anymore and I'm just giving up on it. I'll take another look at the technology in another six months, perhaps. And if the situation for watching the bloody things on my computer (my main media centre) has improved, then I might start buying some again. (I currently have two). Its been a near complete waste of my time so far.

Re:I personally don't have much interest in it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24514055)

Thing is, DVDs did not only improve quality, but were also a helluva lot more convenient than VHS.

Smaller, no tape troubles, no rewinding..

To this, the new formats only add quality, which for most people is already quite sufficient.

Re:I personally don't have much interest in it. (5, Insightful)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514117)

Most of us don't even have hidef TVs. Without a high definition television, BluRay is worthless.

My TV is forty two inches, flat screen, only five years old. I paid a thousand bucks for it, and I'm not planning on replacing it any time soon. By the time I need a new TV, BluRay will be obsolete.

Personally... (5, Interesting)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513639)

I'm a HD fan - in fact, I rarely watch SD any more when it comes to OTA programming. I just don't seem to care much any more about HD over DVD quality programs. As the summary says, line doublers while they aren't great (nowhere close to 1080p quality) work 'okay'. I held off because of the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD battle, and that showed me that there really wasn't a need for either.

That, and the fact that many Blu-Ray discs take 90+ seconds to go from insertion to movie watching is just stupid. If I buy a copy of a movie I want to watch it, not play with it. A 'quick-play' mode (and note that I'm not even talking about watching mandatory trailer-crap, just getting the damn thing 'loaded') would dramatically increase the odds that I'd buy into it.

I'll probably pick one up when my current DVD player finally dies... but there's no compelling reason to do so before it does. And this from a self-confessed geek who at least used to have a ton of home theatre stuff.

HD rocks! (4, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513779)

I'm not a big fan of blu-ray. Just so long as my TV-and-Movie rips from TPB and the green demon keep coming in HD, I'll never bother getting a real Blu-ray drive. Why bother paying for a physical product, when you can pay (or not) for an electronic one? Especially when it is easier to find HD downloads than Blu-ray discs.

Re:Personally... (5, Interesting)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513813)

My main issue has been the 90+ seconds to load a movie - thats absolutely insane. I hate the normal trailer and flashy interface crap that is on standard DVDs...but unless I can pop in a DVD and run in a matter of seconds, then I am certainly not moving.

Is the quality better? OF COURSE! But then again...I have an upconvert player and it looks good too.


Re:Personally... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24513817)

You know I don't mind that people exaggerate thing online a bit but saying "many.. 90+ seconds.." is just a lie.

I can't name a single BD that I own that takes more than 30 secs from "cold boot" (As in turn on PS3, insert BD) to actually viewing the movie and that usually includes selecting subtitles if the system doesn't pick them automatically (which it usually does).

Re:Personally... (1)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513867)

That, and the fact that many Blu-Ray discs take 90+ seconds to go from insertion to movie watching is just stupid. If I buy a copy of a movie I want to watch it, not play with it.

I remember this at the beginning DVD as well. Previews you couldn't skip, desync'd audio/video, horrible transfers, players with 4-bit DAC's artifacting, ridiculous prices, et al.

I take it all in stride, and that's why the current doom / gloom has little effect on me. I remember when people were predicting that DVD was dead.

Re:Personally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24513895)

This was my reason to get a PS3, it loads instantly for me... A PS3 makes a decent home entertainment system. I also have the Xbox360 with the HD add-on, Microsoft dropped the ball on that by forcing it as an addon, since they wanted online distribution to win, I don't think they cared if it lost hddvd too much. They only supported the standard as it was anti-sony.

I personally believe Blueray is amazing for some films, I liken my Blueray purchases to my movie ticket experience. If it is movie ticket worthy then it is BlueRay worthy, if not DVD does just fine.

Re:Personally... (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513945)

I think that's the issue though; people WILL slowly migrate to blu-ray as they slowly replace their old TVs with HD ones, then their DVD players die. It won't be a big consumer rush, like they were hoping for.

I rent both regular DVDs and blu-rays, and both look pretty good on my 42" 1080p. I usually don't even notice after the movie starts, and then am reminded when the crystal-clear credits start to roll. Broadcast TV, however, looks terrible.

Re:Personally... (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514087)

Do they still do that mandatory trailer crap?

I remember years ago, being in the position where it was more convenient to rip my rental DVDs to my hard drive and decode than it was to just watch the disc, and thinking "Wow. People actually pay money for this, and they still get pushed around and made to watch corporate propaganda. This can't last long..."

Then I canceled the cable television, gave away my DVDs and DVD player, stopped renting and ripping and started watching nothing but commercial free torrents. Been quite happily living propaganda free for years now.

Seems to me that these days, media companies are all about taking advantage of ignorant boomers who don't know any better. I recon the market will die with them.

0 comments (1)

Create Account (1282794) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513645)

Slasdot survey reveals lack of interest about survey revealing lack of interest in bluray

Lack of HD TV sets would cause this as well (1, Troll)

Targon (17348) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513651)

If you don't have a HD capable display, then of course you won't see any benefit to Blu-Ray. Since many people purchased a 780p display as well, the advantages of Blu-Ray will also not be as obvious.

Then you also have the "female factor", where women typically do not care about an improved experience when watching TV, and things like surround sound also are not noticed. I am not saying that all women ignore the benefits of a higher quality display or sound system, but most women just don't pay attention to these things for them to care one way or the other.

Re:Lack of HD TV sets would cause this as well (5, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513917)

Let me fix this for you "female factor" should be replaced with "people who have a life". I don't understand how this gets attributed to females given that females are just as likely to blow large sums of money on trivial things, and ultimatly that is all this is.

I have a TV capable of doing higher than 480, I have an upconverting DVD player. I don't have a desire to spend $50 on a cable where a $5 cable will do just to get a better picture. I can make the picture and sound the most amazing quality, even better than the human ear/eye can distinguish. But so long as the content quite consistenlty sucks in the first place what is the point? I like shows with good acting, good story, good concepts, and quite frankly the quality of the picture/sound above reasonably clear has precious little effect. The only dramatic effect this has is on movies that tend to lack in every department other than visual and audio effects. The same way gameplay keeps turning out to be horrible in so many games while they have the latest super rendering mega fast pretty factor engine. I don't care how good it looks if the game sucks, and if it is a good game then stellar graphics are hardly my concern.

It was obvious from the beginning.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24513659)

... that HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray wasn't the next Beta vs VHS, but rather, the next Laserdisc vs CED.

Re:It was obvious from the beginning.... (1)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514057)

Mhmmm, was this you?

DVD is just a bad idea. It is being forced upon a uncaring and unwanted public and is an inferior product that simply isn't needed or desired. DVD exists only for one reason. Greed. Motion picture studios are always looking for a way to sell the same stuff over and over again and they think DVD is the answer. Electronics giants are always looking for the hot new gadget that will make consumers junk their existing products and they feel that DVD is the answer. Its not. Actually, it is an answer to a non existent question. A question that has never been and never will be asked.

That guy referenced Selecta too. The differences for DVD weren't clear either. The big sets weren't selling to the yet, just as HD doesn't really hasn't sold many now. The connections, av equipment, et al, were all behind the curve of DVD. People thought DVD looked worse, as a point of fact, especially if they bought a 4-bit DAC player.

Add in the fact that BR can play / upscale DVD's and prices are falling a hair faster than the original DVD players did, and the format will take over by manufacturer fiat.

line doubling? (4, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513661)

Q: What exactly is a line-doubling DVD player?
A: Progressive scan from an interlaced source. []

Hardly something that should be mentioned... you know, we've had progressive for quite a long time now, and from experience most DVDs are interlaced.

Re:line doubling? (3, Informative)

captaindomon (870655) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513911)

I think the posts talking about line doubling are actually referring to video scaling []

Re:line doubling? (3, Informative)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513971)

Almost all DVDs are progressive, not interlaced; they're usually soft or hard telecined, but the actual content is progressive. Native interlaced DVDs are reserved for things like concerts that were actually recorded with interlaced cameras.

Re:line doubling? (5, Informative)

Wordplay (54438) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514113)

I don't think you're on-target here. That is the classic use of the term "line-doubler," which is why the DVD players in question don't usually call themselves that. They're usually called "upconverting."

In this case, they're not deinterlacing a signal--i.e. combining an every-other-line-per-frame signal into an every-line-per-frame signal. Instead, they're interpolating a higher resolution signal from a lower resolution one. Specifically, they're taking a 640x480 signal up to a 1280x720 or 1920x1080 signal. That may include deinterlacing as well, if the original signal's interlaced and the output's progressive. And it's true that progressive-scan players also deinterlace. Nobody would call them line-doublers though, I don't think.

Thing is, your HD TV does this as well, assuming it takes a 480i/p signal. It has to in order to display that signal at the TV's native resolution of 720p, 1080i, or 1080p.

So the question of whether an upconverting player makes a damned bit of difference comes down to this: Who has the better upconverting algorithm, the TV or the player?

If you have a great TV and a crappy player, it's possible an upconverting player can hurt your picture, not help it. In that case, run the lower-res signal to the TV and let the TV upconvert. This is similar to how, in the early 90s, sometimes it was better to run composite video instead of S-Video from your Laserdisc player to your TV, because your TV did a better job of comb filtering than the player did.

My basic take on upconverters, assuming your TV isn't made by Coby or similar, is that if you get them for free in the DVD player, awesome. If not, don't waste your money.

Regarding DVDs, my experience is that most film-original DVDs aren't interlaced, and most/all video-original DVDs are.

nothingtoseeheremovealong (1)

sleekware (1109351) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513665)

Big deal, people will move up when they need the capacity, and when the price goes down...

Waiting for $50 players (4, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513673)

Given the huge price difference between an upsizing DVD/VHS player and a Blu-Ray player, and the higher cost of the movies on Blu-Ray...I am not surprised. My movies on DVD look just fine to me (upsized to my HDTV, no less). My surround sound didn't stop working with the invention of Blu-Ray, so they all sound just as great as 2 years ago.

I will wait for the $50 players to arrive.

Prices Don't Help (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24513687)

With players at $400 and discs at $30 a pop, Blu-ray is a lot less appealing, even for those with an HDTV. Plus, standard-def DVDs look remarkably good with upconverting players.

Re:Prices Don't Help (1)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513791)

I don't know about that. After watching some cult classics (Bladerunner, the Road Warrior) and animations, plus some action flicks, the Blu-Ray version rocks the socks off up-converted DVD (with a REON chip).

Re:Prices Don't Help (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514193)

and the reon chip is supposed to be top-notch. Perhaps the real problem is miscalibrated displays.

When Is Perfection Too Much? (5, Interesting)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513693)

I don't buy the conclusions of this article. There is a clear difference in quality with true HD versus DVD. But it's true that at some point, you can't tell the difference anymore, so nobody cares. Sort of like why does anyone want a 4 GHz Pentium processor for Microsoft Office, is that really useful?

The same will happen for HD for maybe 10 years: there will be only minor tweaks, prices will fall, but no new jump in quality. What I see (hope) as the next jump is "experience immersion". When I take a picture or short movie with my digital camera, I want the audience to fell exactly what I felt. When I hike a mountain at 5,000 meters, it's freezing, breathing is hard... I snapped a picture, but you can't see what experience it was. I'm willing to wait another 10 years, but this has to happen at some point. It's all about sharing our experiences, after all.

Alain -

Re:When Is Perfection Too Much? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513881)

No goatse experience immersion for me, thanks.

Re:When Is Perfection Too Much? (3, Insightful)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513987)

I agree with you, except for this:

Sort of like why does anyone want a 4 GHz Pentium processor for Microsoft Office, is that really useful?

It might come in handy for that idiot who keeps sending you doc files with 2 gigs of embedded pictures.

Bahh, the beginning of DVD was little different (5, Interesting)

Inglix the Mad (576601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513699)

People thought the same at the beginning of DVD, or worse.

DVD Will Fail []

Sony Hater (5, Interesting)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513701)

I'll admit it, I'm a Sony hater. Been bit too many times by their crappy proprietary media, computers, interfaces and software. It's plain old DVD for me for the foreseeable future. In my mind BlueRay==Sony.

Re:Sony Hater (0)

Eponymous Crowbar (974055) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513763)

Sony hates you, too. On the plus side, that could make you pretty popular around here!

Re:Sony Hater (0)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513793)

Right on.

Re:Sony Hater (4, Interesting)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514109)

My reason is simpler.

I can get DVDs for $4 to $6, sure, the new releases are still $20 to $25 on dvd, the blu-rays are all $35 and up. Sorry, but that's the equivalent of taking a family out to the movies. I can get 10 dvds for the price of one Bluray disk. Not worth it at all.

Re:Sony Hater (4, Informative)

corychristison (951993) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514115)

LG GGC-H20L + AnyDVD HD + Blockbuster is your friend. ;-)

Re:Sony Hater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24514135)

I actually agree with you with regards to Sony. But you know what? They actually seem to have gotten it right with the PS3. It's a beautiful piece of hardware that does what it does really well (play both HD and SD movies, and oh yeah, games too).

Re:Sony Hater (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514189)

I used to like Sony. I remember when the Trinitron was the gold standard of monitors and when the Walkman first came out. Unfortunately, you always had to put up with their attempts at gouging the consumer.

Now they still try to gouge, but they don't back it up with quality products. The heck with them!

DVDs already have the big improvements (4, Insightful)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513707)

For me, the big selling point for upgrading to DVD was the ability to skip around to different scenes quickly, no rewinding and features like playing commentary from the director and cast. Blu-ray adds better sound and picture, but unless you also upgrade your entire A/V setup these benefits just aren't there.

Well I have a HDTV and a PS3, and Blu-Ray Rocks (3, Interesting)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513723)

I have made the purchases of course, knowing that I would want to get an HDTV eventually, my wife and I went and bought a good one that should last us a while. We also got a PS3 after careful consideration, and I have to say the Blu-Ray movies are *much* better than regular DVD in my opinion. I don't regret either purchase to be honest, but they are expensive pieces of hardware at the moment I admit.

Of course once you are used to it, the difference is mostly noticeable when you go *back* to viewing regular DVDs or TV broadcasts. The difference between the Digital TV and HDTV while still noticeable is much less and much less noticeable.

I think its mostly that the cost is too high for most people to want to pay for. Geeks are probably more inclined to shell out for good equipment in the first place and I would expect them to be early adopters as a result.

Well I have a HDTV and a PS3, and Blu-Ray is meh (2, Informative)

metamatic (202216) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513989)

Got the PS3 for gaming, but thought since I had it anyway, I might as well upgrade to Blu-ray where available in my Netflix queue.

Compared to my upscaling DVD player with Faroudja chip, also connected to the HDTV via HDMI, the difference is really marginal.

Given the downsides that Blu-ray for me currently has working copy protection and region coding, I'm not buying any Blu-ray discs for the time being.

Re:Well I have a HDTV and a PS3, and Blu-Ray is me (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24514145)

You need to have your eyes checked. I have a DVD player with the Silicon Optix uprezzer (best there is). It is crap compared to a full HD BlueRay disc.

Quality is part of the problem (5, Insightful)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513729)

A lot of the problem comes from the fact that Blu-ray quality quite often sucks. This has nothing to do with the format, and everything to do with the mastering process. I have seen countless Blu-rays that hardly have enough detail to justify a DVD release, let alone anything in HD; some examples include Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, the latter of which was done as a film transfer... and had dirt all over the film and jittered throughout the entire movie, along with the film grain, which seemed completely out of place for an animated feature.

Its difficult to market a new format with better quality when in reality a large number of the discs are produced so badly that there's no reason to get them in place of a DVD.

Re:Quality is part of the problem (2, Insightful)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514191)

I've noticed the same thing, with HD-DVD. While HD can look great, it can also highlight flaws. In several different scenes in various movies, you can tell there's a problem with one of the cameras, because all of the shots coming from a certain position are noticeably grainier than the others, to the point where it actually looks worse (IMO) than it would on a DVD.

Price? (5, Insightful)

gutter (27465) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513735)

Maybe it's the fact that they want 25-30 fucking dollars for a movie that I can get for $12 on regular DVD?

I should be their target audience - I have plenty of disposable income, a 52" 1080p LCD, and a PS3, but I still don't buy much on blu-ray, cause it costs too damn much.

Make it a 20% premium, and I'll buy it, but 100% is absurd.

Re:Price? (2, Insightful)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514027)

Because you can't be modded +6, insightful, and because I don't want to be modded as "Redundant", I'll simply say


Thank you.

Re:Price? (3, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514105)

I'm in a similar position - I also should be their target audience, but in my case, though the cost is stupid for me also, the biggest factor is actually the DRM. I can actually get the movies I care about fairly cheaply second hand. But I've only bought two because the sheer agony I have endured in trying to get them to play on my computer system, is simply too much. And it makes me sincerely angry with the technology that people who simply download the films don't have the problems that I've had to go through trying to play my legally bought copies.

Video always loses to audio (4, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513749)

I still can't figure out why people are so fascinated with video: higher resolution, faster refresh rates, more colors, etc. Yes, visuals are very important. But, in my opinion, video is the least important feature in the chain when it comes to movies. Sports is another thing, usually, but I'd even wager that I could win a debate regarding video versus audio in even live sporting events.

Watch a great thriller: Hitchcock if you will. Turn off the audio and watch the movie. Turn off the video and watch the movie. Compare.

Now, watch it again with BETTER audio (subwoofers, clear highs, decent surround sound). Compare.

Radio still can thrill me with good audio productions. I still prefer most sporting events on the radio over the TV, personally, as one's imagination really builds a lot of emotional connection to the game.

Yes, high res is amazing, and it can be "lifelike" but without a good audio backend, it's trash. Instead of spending tons of cash on the best video chain, spend a bit firming up your audio system, including minimizing reflections in your theatre room, reducing vibrations of the floor or furniture, etc. It's a worthwhile investment, and you'll get great music quality, to boot.

Re:Video always loses to audio (1)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514043)

You really need both (audio and video) at an acceptable (and equivalent) quality level. HD (and blueray) will presumably increase market share as prices come down, but right now it fails a cost/benefit analysis.
I am lucky enough to have a decent 42" plasma, satellite digital TV (+DVD recorder) and a stonking audio set-up and it's bloody good, so no real desire to spend a fortune up-grading.
Also, at my age (dare I confess-52) I suspect both my sight and hearing are just a bit off their best and unlikely to improve, making the upgrade even less likely.
I'll wait for 3D I think.

Re:Video always loses to audio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24514097)

And one of the more under advertised features in blu-ray is the improvements to audio. Lossless Dolby and DTS and uncompressed PCM options are available offering a huge improvement over anything possible on dvd. Even compressed Dolby Digital and DTS sound better on blu-ray as much less compression is used (bit rate is almost double a typical dvd).

Re:Video always loses to audio (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514173)

I agree with this, but something to consider is that quality video is much more expensive than quality sound.
Quality video requires a new TV purchase and a new media player purchase. Quality audio is simply the speakers.
A HD TV runs in the thousands along with a bluray player in the hundreds, but as long as you're not going to exorbident lengths for sound, you can get a sound system for hundreds.
My sound system for my computer which I've also used for TV movie watching cost me only sixety dollars.
Granted it's not loud enough or perfectly defined enough to really be an audiophile's delight, but I have decerning enough tastes and it satisfies me.

But people def should think more about audio, I know "The Man Who Knew Too Much" would have been unbearable without sound ;)

Later (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24513751)

A few years down the line when Everyone has Big LCD's and needs Hi-def videos, then Blue-ray will shine, but currently DVD is the king, and everyone already have a $30 DVD player over the $500 for Blue-ray players.

BluRay? Not today... (4, Interesting)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513769)

I hardly watch television at all. Most of my video comes through youtube and similar sites. when I want to see a recent movie, I have the rental shop down the street. Does BluRay look better? Yes. Do I care? No.


Re: BluRay? Not today... (1)

Robert Goatse (984232) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513891)

Ouch, youtube video quality absolutely sucks. How can you possibly watch those steaming piles of dung for more than 2 minutes?

Just another disc (5, Insightful)

captaindomon (870655) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513783)

For most consumers, BluRay is just another kind of DVD that is more expensive, more confusing, and requires a new DVD player, when their own one works just fine, thank you. DVD was much better than VHS not because of quality, but because they lasted better and you didn't have to rewind and fast-forward them. The menu options are what caused the jump to DVD, not the quality. Mind you, this isn't my opinion, but it is the majority of consumers.

This generations laser disc? (4, Insightful)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513819)

I wonder how many people got burned last time by a format "leap" that really wasn't that awesome. I get the impression that people are holding off until Blu-Ray is the only game in town. For now if it doesn't offer a huge increase in quality why invest the money?

In two years there could very well be another dominant format (online digital downloads) which would mean all the Blu-Ray crap I buy now is part of an intermediary step in the digital evolution.

Re:This generations laser disc? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514023)

Consider that you can get a blue ray drive for a PC rip the content off to a in home server and play it back via a number of methods in everything from the original res down to ipod. The only optical media drive I've had in my entertainment center for the better part of a decade is a USB attached computer drive that automatically rips / converts / slices and dices whatever you put into it. The media cartels might not like it but physical media is dying as it's pointless. I would rather have my media collection live on a bunch of raid drive in the basement server and on backup tapes, than sitting in my living room. Though I also think TV's should be mounted behind a mirror rather than displayed.

Quality or not, the disc is why I don't care. (5, Insightful)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513831)

The quality of the program is largely irrelevant to me and many of my friends. Yes, it may be better quality, but I've been living off my home media server for several years now. I will never, ever, ever, ever go back to keeping physical media around. I can't stand it. I want all of my media available at any TV in my home and ready when I want it.

If I have to have a disc to keep track of, you can forget it. I don't want the technology. I want my media available whenever, wherever and HOWEVER I want to play it. Blu-Ray offers NONE of the those things (and to be fair, neither did HD-DVD) and THAT is why I won't ever be adopting Blu-Ray. The players can drop to $10 and I still wouldn't buy one, simply because I do not care. I realize that I'm not in the majority currently... but as time goes on, more and more people are going to get sick of carrying around physical media.

The popularity of MP3 players is a prime example... instead of toting around hundreds of CDs, why not just carry around one MP3 player. The same thing is happening with video, and the trend will only accelerate. The disc as a medium for entertainment is dying, if it's not dead already and only still twitching.

HD DVD is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24513843)

Frankly, Sony has screwed all the blu-wah fanboys by jacking up the price of their "favorite" toy once HD DVD stopped having new movies released. HD DVD owners get the nice benefit of high definition movies for prices equal or less than regular DVDs. Who in their right mind would pay the exorbitant cost of another failed Sony technology?

I am glad I did not get screwed by following Sony fanboys. So sad really. They thought they won but they really lost. And many of them still do not know it. It is like Microsoft releasing Vista to match a preset release date. If it ain't ready, don't release.

Today's consumers are smart enough to know DVD is a much better deal for the foreseeable future. If you want an easy, inexpensive upconverter just get the $40 Philips from Costco.

PS3 (1)

ninjapiratemonkey (968710) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513847)

With PS3s going for about the same price as any other BD player, that's what most people who care will end up getting.
Also, I bought a BluRay disc, just to see the picture difference. Yes, it is better quality, but not enough to be worth making the switch, or buying Bluray discs over DVDs. And you have to be pretty close to the TV to care about the small noticeable details.

Rotational Media is so 20th Century (4, Insightful)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513865)

The whole idea of rotational, optical media is outmoded. I should be able to take a flash drive (any flash drive) to Blockbuster and load on my drive a movie where I can play it anywhere. And the only reason to do that, is because we don't have a lot of bandwidth for real-time streaming of perfect quality.

Plastic media is prone to scratching, and carries with it some value based on on its manufacture, but the bits put on it. It is not reusable either.

High Def Video-on-Demand is also working to obsolete rotational disk, however the limitation is that movie inventories are limited. Given that inventories will increase, this will fix itself.

The only remaining space of rotational media is for portability, but flash drives can fit several movies. In addition flash drives are more rugged and portable than temperature and scratch-vulnerable rational media.

Blu-Ray won the war that never needed to be fought.

Maybe it's good enough. (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513869)

"Maybe it's also that line-doubling DVD players can be had for less than a hundred dollars."

True. Line-doubled DVD content played out via HDMI to a big LCD display isn't bad. There's a noticeable improvement when you go to an all-digital path to the display. As you'd expect, vertical edges get sharper. The transition from an analog video path to a digital one may provide more improvement than the next step of a data rate upgrade of Blu-Ray.

Audio formats better than CDs never caught on. DVD-Audio, at 96 kHz with 24-bit samples, solves the problems of CD-quality audio. With CD audio, soft passages may be only 4 or 5 bit audio, with the high bits all zero. That's quite noticeable. But only classical music has soft passages any more. Few people buy DVD-Audio discs. (Of course, they have DRM, which is another issue.)

Once Blu-Ray players drop to the point that they're no more expensive than DVD players, they will, of course, take over. But there's no big rush.

My reasons for why I dislike Bluray.. (5, Funny)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513883)

This is a little story on why I'm not buying anything Bluray anymore; not for a long time at least.

I just bought a decent porno video, bluray edition, and I was all excited. You know, it was going be more realistic with the high definition, and I had to take care of things before the girlfriend gets back home. I started it up, and let the dumb plot intro finish up, and I was immediately disgusted with what I saw when the camera zoomed up a little closer to the face of the woman as she was.. um... doing an oral presentation. Zits. Discusting zits. All over! "This wasn't on the DVD version!" I thought. What the hell? Later in the video I actually noticed more visible stretch-marks, and a scar on this once-attractive 22 year-old female.

Lesson learned: Save those VHS porn tapes men, for you will if not now, then in the future, miss the porno where the truth wasn't as vivid as it is now becoming. *shivers*

Re:My reasons for why I dislike Bluray.. (1)

johnjaydk (584895) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514111)

Oh boy. Why don't I have mod right now?

Informative mod if I ever saw one ;-)

Summary makes assumptions... (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513885)

...such as "consumers were very happy to embrace the DVD standard when it came about because it brought a huge jump in quality over VHS."

I'm not so sure that's the reason for consumer adoption - DVDs are more compact, less fragile, and you don't have to rewind them. I think it's all about convenience, not quality. Quality is just a bonus.

Nobody should care about landfillable media (5, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513893)

Landfill items like DVDs are dead, and broadband will kill them. Nobody should care about the next landfill item. I just recently bought a terabyte of storage for abotu $250. It connects via Ethernet--a stable standard that isn't going to change in any radical way. Same deal with USB, which is just as ubiquitous, and almost as stable.

Why should I build a big collection of toxic plastic platters when I can order what I want and put it on my little SAN?

Plainly, there are a lot of things that need to be worked out before everybody takes this path. The DRM people need to go away. Really. Just give it up already. We need broadband to become much more widespread.

OK, I know there is that desire to have the "physical item" for some people, and nicely printed liner notes and things like that. Fine. Send us that, maybe even include your latest landfill format disk as an option, but as far as getting excited about the little plastic platter is concerned... no. It's not exciting. It's just data, and everybody knows that.

Consumer perception (5, Insightful)

PingXao (153057) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513923)

The average moron doesn't think there's a difference between "widescreen" and "HD". One step above that - the informed consumer - might realize there's a difference but has a hard time telling the difference in quality between an anamorphic-widescreen NTSC SD picture and a true 1080i one. Above that, there is an even more technically inclined bunch of folks who couldn't tell 1080i from 1080p if their lives depended on it. At the very top you have the uper-videophiles who know what they're doing and what they're seeing, and can tell the difference. This elite group is like "the gamer" in the PC market. They know what they want and will pay to get it. Everyone else is happy with Intel's onboard graphics.

Add in the compression that some distributors put their signal through, and the difference between anamorphic widescreen and "real HD" becomes hard to distinguish even if you are able to discriminate between them.

I like what the survey results reveal. It tells me BR players and recorders will be coming down in price a lot faster than the manufacturers had hoped.

Hmm.... (4, Insightful)

bobwoodard (92257) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513925)

Maybe it's because the players start at ~$280 and the new release movies are ~$35?

Who would have thought... (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513937)

With a subprime crisis going, and from what I read recently the downturn in the economy now threatening to make it into a prime crisis as well, people aren't interested in expensive players and discs that require a home with room for a large TV? I have a HDTV and play HD content on it and think it looks great - but it's an expensive luxury. And it doesn't turn a soggy movie into a great one either. I think the change will still happen because it's easier for the whole supply chain to have one format, they can easily push DVDs to a "legacy" option if only they cut back on the margins.

Physical media is obsolete (0)

ObjetDart (700355) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513947)

There's a very simple reason why I will never buy a BluRay player. No matter how cheap they get, even if they were free I wouldn't want one. The reason is simple - I've moved past physical media. I don't use CDs. I don't use DVDs. Everything is ripped to a media server and controlled by a HTPC. I love being able to just sit down, bring up the movie directory, and click my way to a movie. The last thing I ever want to do again is fumble around with individual discs. So thanks to the DRM in BluRay, it's difficult or impossible to transfer your legally purchased HD movies to a hard disk. Way back in the day this was the case with DVDs as well, but thankfully free, effective DVD ripping tools are readily available now so it's no longer an issue. Maybe someday that will be the case for BluRays as well, but until then, no BluRay for me!

Personally it's the disc price for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24513967)

Personally it's the disc price for me, most titles run two or three times more, and worse you never see blueray titles on sale for really cheap.

Tack on the expensive player and lack of depth in the back catalog and you've got yourself a loser for the forseeable future in my book.

Well Duh (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513979)

I went out and bought an HD-DVD player when they where on sale. I got one $99.00 before Blue-Ray won.
It is a nice DVD player and the movies that I watch on it are also good. But when I bought it the check out person was shocked that I paid so much for a DVD player! I tried to explain HD to them and got a blank stare. People think that DVDs are HD!
Frankly DVDs look great on my HDTV. Not even the HD-DVDs but the regular ones.

Yep I have a feeling that if it wasn't for the PS3 that we would be looking at Beta V2.0
I have to wonder just how many none PS3 players are out there? It is hard to tell because from what I hear the PS3 is the best player.

DRM (5, Interesting)

Mascot (120795) | more than 6 years ago | (#24513985)

The day they remove the DRM is the day I buy Blu-ray. It's just not worth my money paying for something that's designed to make it as difficult as possible to view what I buy in the quality I paid for.

For the general population, I believe the reason many embraced DVD was the navigation. Instant chapter jumps, no rewinding. Yes, it had superior quality over VHS, but for anybody but the specially interested I don't think that was the killer feature.

Blu-ray? Its *only* offer over DVD is resolution/quality on HD TV sets. And to get that you have to accept DRM that effectively means you're allowed to watch your movies for as long as "they" decide you can.

Unfortunately, the masses didn't seem to learn much from the music DRM fiasko. But luckily Blu-ray lacks any kind of killer feature so it's not being accepted as quickly as it otherwise might have been.

I'll stick to my HD media jukebox and MKVs for now, thank you very much. I would have bought a Blu-ray player for that money if it weren't for the DRM.

Not just for movies (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514005)

I'm more interested in the writable blu-ray discs, which hold 25GB each @ $20 per disc. When or if(and that's a big IF) Blue-ray is widespread enough to where I can take a blu-ray disc to any friend's computer to be read, then it may be a viable competitor to other forms of storage. I don't see that happening for the reasons the article cited, and also the fact that it's...ugh...Sony technology. Additionally, why hasn't the optical disk form factor already been made obsolete! Motors and lasers are more likely to wear down and break, and they suck power like a moFo.

People still own TVs? (1)

Phred T. Magnificent (213734) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514013)

It's unlikely that I'll ever buy a blu-ray player, because I have no desire at all to own a TV (HD or otherwise) to connect it to.

Now, if my next laptop comes with a blu-ray burner, that's different. That I'd buy, if for no other reason than data backup.

"Enhanced for 16:9 Televisions" (5, Insightful)

jpatters (883) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514025)

The problem is not that 1080p is too small of an improvement, it is actually a vast improvement. The problem is that standard DVD has had more resolution than most people could see on their old sets. Specifically, when viewing a DVD that is "Enhanced for 16:9 Televisions" on a standard TV, the DVD player is discarding 25% of the resolution. It is surprising how much of a difference that makes. So what happens is that when people get their new HDTV set, the first thing they do is watch one of their existing DVDs and they see how much better it looks, and they are satisfied with that. That is enough of an improvement to wow them for the time being, especially since a Blu-Ray investment would cost them way more than the HDTV set did, considering that the player would be $400 and replacing a 20 movie library would be another $600. Blu-Ray players will have to get down to $100 and disks $15 before it will be a mainstream success.

Torrents (0)

Silverlancer (786390) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514029)

Part of the problem also lies in the fact that, this time around, the same people who are most likely to be the first-adopters (the geeks) are also the people who are most likely to torrent their Blu-ray movies instead of buying them.

They're not taking advantage of the format (3, Insightful)

rtechie (244489) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514049)

The biggest problem with Blu-Ray is they're not releasing compelling products. They're releasing a 2 hour movie that loads slower with very marginally better video (because they used the same masters for the DVD) and exactly identical audio (very few BDs have a true 7.1 mix) that costs more. Why the fuck would people want that?

The solution is to take advantage of the 50GB capacity and give people stuff they want. Like an entire TV season on a single disc. Collections of playable Java games. A search function in the menus (possible with BD!) for searchable clip segments. ex. type "little friend" into the menu of the Scarface DVD and you jump directly to the "Say hello to my little friend". Look at porn BDs to see what the studios should be doing.

Blu-ray is the next Laserdisc (4, Informative)

TWX (665546) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514051)

People might have been calling the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD the next VHS vs. Betamax, but I didn't see it that way.

Laserdisc has been around almost as long as consumer VHS. But, unlike when Disney and others dropped the cost of VHS movies to $20, Laserdisc stayed expensive, often $50 or more per title. Laserdisc remained a premium format, VHS became the common format, and VHS outsold LD in droves.

Fast-forward to 2000 or so, and DVD is the next hot thing. Laserdisc is still being made, but it's almost done. DVD companies use their brains, and realise that if they want to make DVDs replace VHS and not just replace LD that they need to make them cheap. Thus, the price was common originally around $30, then $20, then $16.99, with some titles as low as $5.00 new, on sale. Great! Those who never saw LD and only saw VHS see a significant quality improvement as they get to use most of their 525 scan lines, instead of about half of them, and with the prices being competitive they see no reason to keep buying those old tapes.

Jump to now. DVD is reasonably well established. DVD has replaced VHS like CD replaced cassettes. People know it, they like it. They see how nice it is, and how much it basically looks like regular broadcast TV, or Cable, or Satellite on their analog TVs, and how it looks pretty good on their digital TVs. Many people have amassed large collections of DVDs and the money spent in those purchases is fresh in the minds. Now, Sony wants everyone to buy an expensive player, expensive titles (twice or more the cost of DVDs), and all that they can really claim is that it's better looking. Trouble is, most of us still need analog converter boxes for HDTV, most of us still use composite cable or coax, and even those of us who are videophiles with huge collections don't necessarily see enough benefit to bother with the added expense. We have our consumer format in DVD and by all reaoning it's a great format with good quality. Why should we buy the elite format in Blu-ray when we've got something that already conveys the eye candy, and already has all of the special features, languages, multiple versions, and the like?

Yes, I actually do collect Laserdiscs. I collect DVDs. I don't see how my older projector will make any use of the new format, and as projectors are expensive, HDMI-capable receivers are expensive, HDMI cables in 50' lengths are expensive, and what I have works wonderfully, I don't see any need to upgrade to anything new until something that I already have breaks, and I mean something more than my DVD player chunking out. Even then, I might buy a Blu-ray player if my DVD player breaks, but that would only be for the ability to possibly play blu-ray discs, and as the standards for Blu-ray aren't finalized, I still don't see any advantage to buying a player that might be obsolete by the time I get around to buying titles in its format.

Blu-ray is the next Laserdisc, and the sooner that Sony realises this and markets it accordingly, the better it'll be for them and for the consumer.

Blu-Ray = cheaper DVD's for the rest of us (3, Insightful)

PseudoThink (576121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514071)

With Blu-Ray on the scene, I can buy regular DVD movies at Sam Goody (often used) at greatly reduced prices. And it's going to be a *long* time before Blu-Ray has the market penetration to replace DVD's entirely (if ever). For 95% of the movies I watch, I don't care whether it's in HD or not, the content transcends the resolution. For the regular standard-definition DVD consumer, Blu-Ray is the best thing that could have happened. You don't have to own a Blu-Ray player to love what it's done for the cost of owning movies!

PS - Have you seen how nice regular DVDs look when upscaled on a PS3? I'll look forward to that, if I ever choose to get myself one...

Obvious (1)

tbannist (230135) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514079)

Sometimes you really, really have to wonder. This article should be labeled "Economic Theory Still Valid". Increase the cost to entry and you decrease demand. As long a HD TVs are more expensive, Blu-Ray players are more expensive and Blu-Ray discs are more expensive, demand will be lower.

Of course, Blu-Ray isn't a revolutionary innovation (like DVDs were), it's an evolutionary improvement on the DVD. Eventually, prices will come down, and the media companies will stop price gouging for Blu-Ray discs. As prices drop, demand will rise slowly and inexorably. Give it a decade and almost everyone will have a BluRay player*.

* barring some revolutionary new technology in the mean time.

Other improvements drove DVD adoption (1)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514083)

There was a lot more than quality improvements that drove people to DVDs. I think if people were given a choice between VHS quality video with random access versus DVD quality video that still had to be rewound, people would go for the lower quality.

Now if Blu Ray eliminated all the mandatory warnings, commercials, etc and let you skip anything at anytime, they might see an uptake over DVDs. Otherwise, other than an improved image quality (that only matters if you ALSO buy a new TV), what's the point?

Blue Ray costs too much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24514085)

Blue Ray Discs Cost more to rent or to buy than the same DVD. This cost differential is not insignificant. Blue Ray will not be popular until it make financial sense. If Blue Ray and DVD cost the same people would migrate. Better is better. But as long as there is a cost differential people will make a choice and DVD is already to expensive for what you get.

I have a PS3 so I can play blue ray, and I have two flat screen HD TV's so I can see the difference but Blue Ray makes no sense at all to me given the cost differential and limitations on use. I seldom watch a movie more than once with a few exceptions. thirty + bucks for a one time show is not worthwhile I don't care what kind of quality you have..

Other factors, too... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514093)

There are a number of factors that I feel like may have hurt this format, too:

1) The name sucks. What the hell is a 'blue ray'? Why is that good to have in my living room? We went from VCR's playing VHS to DVD. Note the acronyms. Now 'Blu-ray' means what, exactly to my blue-haired grandmother? I feel like the name 'HD-DVD' had a FAR better chance of market adoption, as it is fairly obvious what that is compared to a normal DVD.

2) Too expensive for too few new features. The quality may or may not be a factor, but it isn't nearly enough. The jump from VHS to DVD had numerous advantages, and the cost wasn't all that ridiculous after the first year or so.

3) Can't record. People that don't use DVR's still use VHS (and more rarely DVD recorders) to time-shift content. Camcorders writing to DVD is another example. Burners exist. I think the consumer is aware that the use for a Blu-ray player is almost entirely limited to what you can buy on the shelves.

4) Redbox, etc. No Blu-ray options there. DVD only thus far. Some stores will have a section for HD rentals, but in my local area these sections are far, far smaller than the DVD sections.

Blu-Ray price point (1)

curunir (98273) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514095)

As someone who has taken the plunge and gotten an HDTV, it has been a really nice switch. The difference between SD and HD when it comes to satellite channels is pretty the point where I don't watch the SD channels anymore unless there's something I really want to watch which is only on an SD channel.

The problem with Blu-Ray is that the difference it offers from an upscaled DVD really isn't as dramatic as the difference between an SD channel and an HD channel. And that makes the price they're asking us to pay for both the players and the media way too high. Consumers are used to essentially getting technology progress for free...a Core 2 Duo costs roughly the same as a P4 did when it was top of the line. Yet Blu-Ray media is being sold for substantially more than DVD ever was. And when you consider just how many ways there are to get discounted DVDs, it makes the price comparison swing that much more in the favor of DVD.

The thing is, once you start using it, it is preferable. I use my PS3 to play Blu-Ray discs I get from Netflix and have so far been very happy with both the quality and the extras offered. But the key to my experience so far has been that Netflix sends me Blu-Ray discs at the exact same price as I would pay for the DVD version and I've purchased the least-expensive Blu-Ray player which is pretty much the only one that doesn't suck on a price-per-feature basis and is pretty much the only reasonably-priced one that will be reasonably forward-compatible with the rapidly-changing Blu-Ray spec. The spec has changed so often that most people that have bought stand-alone Blu-Ray players have been bit by the fact that discs using Blu-Ray profiles released after their players were released aren't entirely functional.

But expecting people to pay a hefty premium for a product that offers modest improvements isn't going to fly. If they stopped updating the Blu-Ray spec to allow player manufacturers a fixed target, it might enable them to drop the price of the players to the $200-$300 range and that, coupled with reducing the cost of discs to same price charged for the DVD version, would make Blu-Ray a lot more successful. But until they realize that their technology isn't worth the hefty premium they're attempting to charge for it, very few people will buy it.

Too hard to pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24514119)

No one will buy it until it's as cheap and easy to copy movies to physical blanks as it is for DVDs.

DVD Upconversion won the HD format war (1)

willbry (1209876) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514161)

There are many reasons why HD won't be embraced for years to come.

For instance, with digital television, it says right on the program "Broadcast in HD". Now, whether you have an HD receiver, or a digital converter box, you're seeing this message. The average Joe who just went from analog television to digital television converted to analog with a converter box thinks he's watching HDTV. After all, the image quality is so much better than analog television, he reckons it must be HD.

And cable/satellite providers are making it worse as well, advertising HDTV for programs that are barely standard definition.

And the average Joe has amassed a huge collection of DVD's over the past decade or so. Try to convince him to upgrade to all Blu-Ray movies to watch them in HD.

DVD Upconversion won the HD format war [] .

Oh, and I hate Sony.

Big difference equals big money (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514181)

I had the opportunity to watch a blu-ray disc on a $38,000 super crazy tv (only 42" or so), the crispness was incredible. However, you have to spend an insane amount of money to get the noticeable difference -- on the HDTV's at the mall, the HD content may look worse because the (cheaper) TV just doesn't render it that well or something.

story line vs. cool graphics (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#24514187)

I'll take a good story line on a worn-out VHS tape over a worn-out story on Blue-Ray any day.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?