I was shocked by this announcement, but apparently more than 15 months after the official demise of HD-DVD, there are still more HD-DVD players than Blu-ray players in the wild. And HD-DVD discs are still outselling Blu-ray discs.
A poll from Harris shows that 11% of Americans own HD-DVD players, while only 7% own Blu-ray players. Consumers are buying approximately 6 DVDs every six months, and 0.7 HD-DVD discs, and 0.5 Blu-ray discs in the same time period.
For a format that has been dead for 15 months, it is absolutely shocking that there are more HD-DVD players out there than Blu-ray players. Blu-ray no longer has a like-format disc-based competitor. Its primary competitor now is electronic download, provided by iTunes or video-on-demand services provided by Cable, Satellite, game console, and Internet companies.
The poll also shows that 93% of those that do not own Blu-ray players are not likely to buy one in the next year.
On another note, the Blu-ray folks recently announced that they intend to support a feature called Managed Copy, which would allow you to copy your movies onto a computer so you can play them without the disc. This feature will require new players to work and will also not be compatible with existing discs (yet another hardware upgrade required). Movie studios have to sign on to support the feature as well, but I don’t believe many, if any, will do that. Managed Copy, incidentally, was planned into HD-DVD from the beginning and should the format have survived existing discs would have worked with new players adding this feature.
I’m beginning to wonder if Blu-ray really is going to ever catch on. People are moving toward digital downloads more and more, and our Internet connections are getting faster and faster, making it easier and easier to download those movies. Many carriers are now offering connections fast enough to start watching even high definition movies almost instantly, taking away a lot of incentive for people to invest into Blu-ray.
Personally I do buy some Blu-ray discs, but I also still buy HD-DVD discs because they’re cheap (around $4-6 now). I’ll only buy Blu-ray if they include a DVD copy of the movie in the package, or it is a movie I already own on DVD. I’m not willing to buy something ONLY on Blu-ray because if I did it would mean I wouldn’t be able to play it in a lot of places I watch movies. I’m also very much put off by the high prices of the discs. Generally I have a $20 ceiling on what I’ll pay for a Blu-ray disc, with only very rare exceptions to that policy.
6 comments:
Wow, really? 30 gigs vs 50 gigs... HMMMMMMM....
You really can't compare the two, and you are a fool for trying. I have yet to see a HD DVD yet. Not at gaming stores, big chain stores, electronic stores; nothing. HD DVD failed, miserably. Without Blu-ray, I wouldn't have been brought Metal Gear Solid 4, or at least as it was released, because after all, Hideo said he was worried about the 50 gig limit. Hey, guess what, 50 gigs of storage is better than 30 gigs of storage. ^_^;;;;;;;;;;;
You can't make the claim that because companies don't need to adjust their current technologies in reproduction of these medias for said format as a bonus, unless the difference is negligible. I don't think 20 gigs is negligible. Perhaps you do?
Anybody writing a game that requires 50 GB of space isn't using their space efficiently.
As far as movies go, 30 GB is *WAY* MORE than enough for very high quality MPEG 4 video. I'd do the math for you, but you sound like someone who isn't willing to listen to logic, so I won't bother.
You missed the entire point of the post, though. The point was that HD-DVD outsold Blu-ray in 2008. And I was surprised by that. I was also shocked that 93% of people surveyed who do not own Blu-ray are not interested in buying a player in 2009.
The other point was that HD-DVD was better designed from the beginning. The size difference, which for movies is negligible, is the only thing that they could have done better from a technical point of view. Everything else about the format was better planned than Blu-ray. With the fourth version of the Blu-ray spec on its way, it still doesn't have all of the features that were designed into version 1.0 of HD-DVD. Now that Blu-ray doesn't have an optical disc competitor in the western hemisphere it doesn't have much incentive to try and fix its limitations.
Are you suggesting that having multiple media formats is more efficient? How awesome would it be to have two burners in my computer? Yes, yes! Surely the added weight to my laptop would be justified by having two burn options, a low density one and a higher density one. Perhaps standard video & audio may never need to exceed the 30 gig limit of HD DVD. But what is the purpose of having both formats? Why have two separate formats when only one is needed?
I think the media wars are stupid. I'm sick of going to the store and seeing 500 different variations on flash media sticks because some startup company wanted you to buy their POS camera or music player, only to then force you to buy a flash media stick designed by them that only varies in appearance sake only, with very very very few design differences. IT IS POINTLESS! They are backing you into their corner, REQUIRING that you buy their media without 3rd party support, leading to increased cost to the consumer for no reason at all. Point is, we don't need both. Blu-ray has higher storage capabilities and truly thats all that matters. You mentioned that 93% of people that don't already own blu-ray don't intend to buy it. You go on to mention that their are features that HD DVD had that blu-ray still does not in your reply to my comment. What features are you talking about? Are they the ones that those 93% wouldn't even notice were missing? I can't think of much more you could want on a movie disc aside from the media itself and extras like commentary or bloopers, ect. Please to explain what features you are desiring in a blu-ray player that the HD DVD solved.
And perhaps HD DVD players/disc outsold blu-ray because the technology dropped off the face of the earth? Places like BestBuy and likewise chain stores sold them at super reduced rates to get rid of what they had. Idiot lemmings saw these prices, understood that it was an improvement on what they already had, and weren't told by employees' what they were getting themselves into because they wanted out from under what they had. Makes sense to me.
I don't want two formats any more than anyone else. I think the wrong one won out. Instead of competing on technical capabilities and which one would be better for the consumer, the competition ended up being decided by back alley deals and throwing money at content providers. Blu-ray is less consumer friendly (is my player compatible with features on this disc? will the firmware ["the what????"] have to be updated to work with my disc?) I also really liked that many HD-DVDs were available with a DVD version on the reverse side so they could be played in the DVD players we already have scattered around our homes, in laptops, cars, and bedrooms. Not all of those are going to get replaced with BD players overnight.
HD-DVD from the very beginning had the features that Blu-ray has added with Bonus View and BD-Live. Those are interactive features that people tend to like. So, yes, those are features that the masses might care about. I suspect more than 7% of the population likes having bonus features on their movies. With the 1.0 spec of Blu-ray there wasn't much that was possible for implementing those bonus features; it was pretty similar to DVD, which was limited. Features like picture-in-picture and quizzes and games weren't really possible with the first version of BR, but were with HD-DVD. Support for online updates didn't exist until the third release of BR either. HD-DVD didn't have to adjust the spec to add those features that consumers want and are using; they were there from day one.
I don't think BR was very well thought out. So here we are about to adopt a fourth version of the standard (adding managed copy, which HD-DVD had provisioned from the outset). And now all of the players that have been sold to date will not be able to take advantage of any of the features being added. With software that isn't such a big deal. But when the hardware requirements change over time. Other than the PS3, no other 1.0 or 1.1 player can implement the features added to 2.0. And when you're buying you have to be conscious of what spec a given player is designed for. The average consumer doesn't care and doesn't track those kinds of things. I would be that if you were to ask the average consumer if they knew what Bonus View and BD Live were, that more than 90% would have no idea. That doesn't make for a very consumer friendly environment.
Sure a lot of the HD-DVD player and software sales last year were due to the technology being discontinued. But that doesn't detract from the experience. In fact, in some ways it makes it better. I have picked up about 30 HD-DVD discs at $3-5 each, and, guess what, those titles look just as good as they do on Blu-ray. And I was able to get the high end player (which does the best DVD upscaling I've ever seen) for just $129. Even 18 months later nobody can have that same experience with Blu-ray.
continued...
...
There are other issues too. Neither standard was developed with any future compatibility in mind. Neither supports 3D video (without coming out with yet another version of the spec). Neither supports resolutions other than 720x480, 1280x720, or 1920x1080 at 16x9 or 4x3. If they had been better thought out, support for other resolutions and aspect ratios should have been designed in from the beginning. (Virtually no movies come in either size; 1.85:1 is as close as we get, but even those must be cropped for BR/HD-DVD). But even though neither was super well designed, BR was rushed and brought to market prematurely.
In my mind the 30/50 GB argument is moot. For movies 30 GB is plenty. For computer data usage, 50 GB isn't enough. (When was the last time you used a computer with a hard drive smaller than 50 GB?) For games, honestly, if they're taking 50 GB, it would have fit in 30 GB without too much difficulty or compromise. But either one is too big. With the market moving toward downloadable games, 50 GB would be too much for most people to handle. Making a game that requires 50 GB of storage is almost irresponsible. Remember 20 years ago when games fit in 16 KB on a cartridge, and they were (arguably) just as fun and addictive as they are today? Yes, the additional storage we have now gives a more immersive and rich experience, but it, in and of itself, certainly isn't necessary to produce something that is fun to play.
Now there is something we can agree on. I do think it was irresponsible, at best, to not include the ability to integrate new features into these devices. You mention the Playstation 3, Sony's current answer to the next gen console. I happen to own a Playstation 3. I will not have any trouble updating because of the PS3 ability to download firmware updates; I will not likely be affected by the changes that are made. Most other blu-ray players wont be so lucky. However, that is the issue; the device that plays back the media it is given. They were not designed with improvements in mind. No expansion slots, no software updates, nothing. That speaks more of those that set out to sell the public their spin on the idea than it does of the media itself. I do disagree, however, that every niche needs to be dealt with upon first release, but I think everyone can agree that they should at least have the ability to upgrade without purchasing a brand new system. Software updates, firewire/USB/expansion slots are the answer to that however.
Neither HD DVD or Blu-ray were the "final" solution to all those problems or future ones to come at a later date. The manufactures are at fault for not implementing some form of flash storage or other adjustable BIOS cache that could be updated in the future. While the features you describe may not be part of the initial Blu-ray release specs, I would be willing to bet there were features that Blu-ray had that perhaps HD DVD did not. Even if that isn't the case (I never kept track), surely down the line, had the format survived, HD DVD players would have came across the same issue; features the "archaic" machines didn't provide.
Also, I'd like to add, along with never having seen a HD DVD, I have likewise never seen anyone of any level of mental maturity browsing the "quizzes" and "games" portion of DVDs or any other form of "entertainment" outside of the movie itself or making of it. Captions are nifty, commentary is sometimes cool, but only 10 year olds play with those silly games that play out in short clips or frames. At best they are a distraction from the movie as a whole, and are intended to "add value" to the package, making people feel as if they have purchased something of meaning, when in reality they will likely never know the contents of those so called bonus features.
I still have my SNES, Nintendo, Sega, Dreamcast, and N64. Nostalgia is what brings be back to them occasionally. I enjoy being immersed in what these improvements have made seem more real. The bar gets continually set higher and higher, and I don't see anything wrong with that.
Post a Comment