AACS issue forces HD-DVD & Blu-ray launch delays

[dvdguy4]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060214-6182.html

For those interested in buying hd-dvd or blue ray. It might be only a month or two but whose to say something else won't pop up.

[Dv8ted2]

This stuff is starting to sound like vaporware. It has all the signs.

[MikieV]

I'm still surprised that they haven't taken advantage of these delays to start getting the word out on the "HDCP Fiasco".

Why do they keep burying their head in the sand about that?

Don't they realize it will do no good to release either format if any of the early adopters are blind-sided by lack of HDCP in their existing systems?

[AlecWest]

It could be worse than that. Both HD-DVD and BluRay formats depend upon the popularity of HDTV. I heard two recent statistics:

1) 85% of all televisions manufactured today are HDTV televisions.

...but...

2) 85% of all televisions owned today are not HDTV televisions.

Perhaps Joe Consumer is trying to send a message to television manufacturers and the manufacturers aren't listening. It's possible.

FWIW, the Matsushita-Kotobuki plant in Vancouver, Washington, made the decision last year that HDTV was the wave of the future. Production of all non-HDTV televisions ceased, they retooled, and have only released HDTV televisions since then (under a whole host of brand names). The problem? No one is buying them.

On January 30th, the plant closed its doors and laid off all employees except for a skeleton crew of temps completing orders already paid for. My ex-wife was one of those laid off employees. And once the orders already paid for are delivered, even the temps will be on the unemployment line.

The HD-DVD/BluRay format war is shaping up to be a deja vu of the Discrete/SQ quadraphonic stereo format war of the 1970s ... with both formats competing to a phantom market that will never materialize (except in a niche market of videophiles).

[InXess]

1) 85% of all televisions manufactured today are HDTV televisions.
...but...
2) 85% of all televisions owned today are not HDTV televisions.

perhaps Joe Consumer is waiting for SillHigherDefTV and StillBetterDVD player. I have a feeling that they don't switch formats fast enough. Gets really boring...

well, how about a player with a subregion setting limited to one county (or state maybe...)

[Bob W]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060214-6182.html

For those interested in buying hd-dvd or blue ray. It might be only a month or two but whose to say something else won't pop up.

I believe this is old news and less than a week after the delay they had a working agreement so both formats could move forward. Anyway HD-DVD movies will start showing up March 23 and the first HD-DVD players from Toshiba will be available a week later. Blu-Ray will be about two months behind. Since I don't care for the idea of being forced to have a player connected so that it can ask for permission for a movie I paid for I won't be buying into it.

[AlecWest]

I have a feeling that they don't switch formats fast enough.

I have a feeling that they can't switch formats fast enough ... which is why my ex and at least 105 of her coworkers are drawing unemployment now.

I was talking to my landlord yesterday. She showed me a newspaper ad she'd been looking at. She was thinking of getting an HDTV and asked for my opinion on which one to get. I told her to put aside the cost of the TV for the moment and consider other matters.

First, I told her about a friend of mine who bought an HDTV but failed to purchase the "extended" warranty. When the TV died (standard warranty still in force), he figured he might have to pay for some of the repair charges out-of-pocket but was willing to. However, when he called up the service department, they told him this - to bring in the TV and, if the problem was caused by a manufacturing defect, they'd replace it. But if (in their opinion) it was not, they would not repair it. They told him "repair" work is only covered under the "extended" warranty ... and that their policy was not to repair units that weren't covered. In essense, they told him to just go out and buy a new TV. There aren't too many HDTV repairmen out there just yet. But, even the ones that are out there might be "under contract" with manufacturers ... and must adhere to their policies.

So, I told her the first thing she should consider is the extra cost of extended warranty protection. Then, I told her she'd have to upgrade her cable to digital cable with the special HDTV box. If she didn't, she'd only be able to see standard definition TV on her television. And if she did upgrade, her cable bill would nearly double.

Then I told her to assume she bought the TV, the extended warranty, and the double-priced cable service ... and asked her to look at the availability of HD programming in our area in Comcast's online guide (ahem, sound of crickets, hehe).

She threw the newspaper ad away.

[cd090580]

Remove AACS from video and all will be perfect and no delay due to those fu***** protections

[AlecWest]

Since I don't care for the idea of being forced to have a player connected so that it can ask for permission for a movie I paid for I won't be buying into it.

Yup ... there are just too many variables in the HDTV realm right now - including the media constraints put upon the consumer. I suspect there are a lot of consumers out there metaphorically making an unfriendly hand gesture toward the HD industry ... be it media, or hardware. I sincerely feel that the future of HDTV (near future, anyway) will be in a small niche market of videophiles who want the best mousetrap. But Joe & Suzy Sixpack, the mainstream consumer, remain unconvinced (and just as poor as they were, if not poorer, than the day before HD goodies were marketed).

If I'm wrong ... and if HDTV truly does become the wave of the future ... my future will probably be spent in my local library and not in front of a box. Or, I may rediscover (ahem) radio.

[MikieV]

I sincerely feel that the future of HDTV (near future, anyway) will be in a small niche market of videophiles who want the best mousetrap.

Since "consumer" HD-camcorders are starting to appear [Sony's recently announced HC-3, with HDMI output-jack] - that could be one fragment of the niche market, people with HD-camcorders.

I just made the switch from my ancient 25" CRT-monitor to a 30" HDTV Wide-screen CRT - because we wouldn't afford LCD or plasma.

I was surprised Comcast [Portland, OR] allows the "Clear QUAM" programming through on basic cable - so we get OPB's HD channel that way.

HD looks good, but not good enough to pay Comca$t Digital Cable prices.

Now, I'm re-discovering what it is like not to be able to time-shift - since I have no way to record HD, yet.

Even better, the cheapest way for me to record HD:
http://www.miglia.com/products/video/tvminihd/index.html
Would only let me watch the HD on my Mac, not my HDTV.

If I was a masochist, I could down-convert and burn to standard DVD - then buy an up-converting DVD player to display pseudo-HD on my HDTV. 8)

[thecoalman]

Perhaps Joe Consumer is trying to send a message to television manufacturers and the manufacturers aren't listening. It's possible.

I don't hink they are trying to send a message but just can't afford them. Profits are in the multitudes and the multitudes can't afford $1000 bucks for a TV. Until the prices drop below the $500 for a decent size set then no one is going to buy them.

Along with the other problems you mention such as little programming it's going to be a while before these sets or something similar become mainstream... They will at some point.

Take a look at how long it took for DVD to become popular, it was on the market for years before it became mainstream.

[AlecWest]

I was surprised Comcast [Portland, OR] allows the "Clear QUAM" programming through on basic cable - so we get OPB's HD channel that way.

HD looks good, but not good enough to pay Comca$t Digital Cable prices.

Ahhh, you're in my neck of the woods (Portland). If a person likes to watch nothing but sports or artsy specials, I suppose HDTV might be worth the price ... assuming they had the income to afford it. But so far, that's just a niche.

BTW, besides my ex being laid off and her company getting out of the HDTV business, I heard another more "local" note. Quite recently, I got a mailing from Comcast. They're offering a 3-month deal (half-price) for digital cable upgrade ... which, in essense, is still $5 more per month than I'm paying now for basic cable. I'm seeing these offers more often than I used to see them. And, there may be a reason for it.

A couple of months ago, I called them out to my house to deal with an "issue" (eg., squirrels eating the cable, hehe) and asked the installer for his insights on HD programming ... like when Comcast is going to widen their offerings. He reminded me that Comcast offers nothing in and of itself ... that they're dependent on the networks to offer the programs. And the networks are, in some cases, backing away from HD. It's the old story of three-steps-forward followed by three-steps-back. Why? Nobody's buying the equipment.

It's kind of a catch 22. The industry doesn't want to invest too much in HD until the public accepts it more ... but the public doesn't want to invest too much in HD until the industry accepts it more. In any case, the cable guy told me that the attrition rate for digital subscribers is high ... that the number of new digital subscribers they get is almost equal to the number of people who have digital and "unsubscribe" from it. In short, at least in Portland, even digital cable is just holding its own. This may be due to competition from dish scenarios, in part. But, it could also be indicative of what the public wants.

Three years ago, I bought my current TV - a 27" Curtis-Mathes - for a whopping $149.00 from KMart. Most of my neighbors have similar sets or smaller sets than mine (probably for around the same price). When I hear people say, "Once HDTV prices get under $1,000, things will start to change," I shudder. Heck, even $500 is more than I or my neighbors are willing (or able) to pay. And then, on top of the price of the box (and extended warranty protection), they have to factor in a 100% price increase of cable costs, etc. It's a tough sell ... especially with the level of programming available.

I still remember being an owner of both SQ & discrete 4-channel stereo equipment ... griping about the lack of LP records in the format after buying high-priced "wave of the future" equipment. What I see in the HD realm now is exactly the same.

[edDV]

I was surprised Comcast [Portland, OR] allows the "Clear QUAM" programming through on basic cable - so we get OPB's HD channel that way.

HD looks good, but not good enough to pay Comca$t Digital Cable prices.

Ahhh, you're in my neck of the woods (Portland). If a person likes to watch nothing but sports or artsy specials, I suppose HDTV might be worth the price ... assuming they had the income to afford it. But so far, that's just a niche.

BTW, besides my ex being laid off and her company getting out of the HDTV business, I heard another more "local" note. Quite recently, I got a mailing from Comcast. They're offering a 3-month deal (half-price) for digital cable upgrade ... which, in essense, is still $5 more per month than I'm paying now for basic cable. I'm seeing these offers more often than I used to see them. And, there may be a reason for it.

A couple of months ago, I called them out to my house to deal with an "issue" (eg., squirrels eating the cable, hehe) and asked the installer for his insights on HD programming ... like when Comcast is going to widen their offerings. He reminded me that Comcast offers nothing in and of itself ... that they're dependent on the networks to offer the programs. And the networks are, in some cases, backing away from HD. It's the old story of three-steps-forward followed by three-steps-back. Why? Nobody's buying the equipment.

It's kind of a catch 22. The industry doesn't want to invest too much in HD until the public accepts it more ... but the public doesn't want to invest too much in HD until the industry accepts it more. In any case, the cable guy told me that the attrition rate for digital subscribers is high ... that the number of new digital subscribers they get is almost equal to the number of people who have digital and "unsubscribe" from it. In short, at least in Portland, even digital cable is just holding its own. This may be due to competition from dish scenarios, in part. But, it could also be indicative of what the public wants.

I'm not getting your distinction of "digital cable" (e.g. three digit Comcast channels) and HDTV.

Are you really saying that the 524x480 MPeg2 channels aren't yet catching on in Portland? In the advanced Comcast markets the number of analog channels will soon be down to the locals and maybe 10-15 generics like CNN, FoxNews, CNBC, QVC and ESPN.

The reason is the poor performance of analog cable channels on modern TV sets (especially progressive LCD and various HDTV). More specifically, the poor performance comes from analog half of the new generation cable tuners. Comcast wants to abandon NTSC analog to the gov't mandated "basic cable" obligation. The same channels will be replicated in digital MPeg2 and the next gen cable tuners will completely ignor the remaining analog channels. This will simplify the cable tuner and improve quality for those using newer TV sets. Nobody will have to touch NTSC if they use the cable box.

The "digital" customer also benefits with more channels. Depending on the local technology each abandoned analog channel frees space for 6-10 SD digital channels or 1-2 HDTV (one today 2 possible). And this is with MPeg2 technology.

So expect analog channels to fade to black around 2010 if local governments go along with it. A cable box or a digital cable ready TV will be required for everyone.

[Skith]

They're offering a 3-month deal (half-price) for digital cable upgrade ... which, in essense, is still $5 more per month than I'm paying now for basic cable. I'm seeing these offers more often than I used to see them. And, there may be a reason for it.

Yeah, the deal lasts 3 (or x months) then the full price kicks in. You often have to sign a contract for a years service, or some such deal, as well. It's an attempt to draw and hook in new subscribers. The companies often impose penalties for cancelled contracts. (So don't expect much of a refund).

Three years ago, I bought my current TV - a 27" Curtis-Mathes - for a whopping $149.00 from KMart. Most of my neighbors have similar sets or smaller sets than mine (probably for around the same price). When I hear people say, "Once HDTV prices get under $1,000, things will start to change," I shudder. Heck, even $500 is more than I or my neighbors are willing (or able) to pay. And then, on top of the price of the box (and extended warranty protection), they have to factor in a 100% price increase of cable costs, etc. It's a tough sell ... especially with the level of programming available.

I personally don't know anyone who would spend more than $300 on a TV, and that is even pushing it, let alone the high costs of a box, subscription, and additional hardware. Average consumers may think HDTV looks nice, but it is just not a priority in terms of where they want to spend their money.

[AlecWest]

I'm not getting your distinction of "digital cable" (e.g. three digit Comcast channels) and HDTV.

Well, what I'm saying is that for most people, digital cable is the next step up from basic analog cable. That, in and of itself, is nearly twice the price of basic cable in the Portland market. Go beyond that step to HDTV and you're starting to talk about serious money to get whatever programming happens to be available. Currently, in Portland, digital cable subscribership is not increasing ... just holding its own. And so far, the only people who go the next step up to HDTV are a niche crowd of relatively affluent videophiles ... not the mainstream consumer.

As I understand it, when the traditional channels go dark, cable companies plan to market or rent converter boxes to change digital signals into analog. So, the analog TV user will not be without programming (unless their current mode of reception is by antenna).

BTW, in my local area, I only know two people who own HDTV sets. One of those sets died during the initial warranty period and the manufacturers' policy only allows for repair work on sets with extended warranty protection. They would replace it, however, if they determine it suffers from a manufacturing defect. Haven't talked to him in a while to see what they found. The other guy I know has a super-thin wall-mounted HDTV. But after he got it, he realized he couldn't afford the cable package needed for HDTV. So, he's currently limited to watching standard definition TV on a bigger-than-normal screen.

I'm sure there are more HDTV owners out there locally. But, I don't know too many rich people.

[edDV]

I'm not getting your distinction of "digital cable" (e.g. three digit Comcast channels) and HDTV.

Well, what I'm saying is that for most people, digital cable is the next step up from basic analog cable. That, in and of itself, is nearly twice the price of basic cable in the Portland market. Go beyond that step to HDTV and you're starting to talk about serious money to get whatever programming happens to be available. Currently, in Portland, digital cable subscribership is not increasing ... just holding its own. And so far, the only people who go the next step up to HDTV are a niche crowd of relatively affluent videophiles ... not the mainstream consumer.

Around here (N. California) Comcast basic analog cable starts at $9.95, full analog is $46, full analog +basic digital is $56 and HDTV adds $5 to that. Total $61+taxes.

If you have your own QAM tuner, you can get local HDTV channels with the full analog package (filters out).

As I understand it, when the traditional channels go dark, cable companies plan to market or rent converter boxes to change digital signals into analog. So, the analog TV user will not be without programming (unless their current mode of reception is by antenna).

Any cable box outputs analog today and will in the future. Next phase the box will be needed to receive what is now full analog.

[InXess]

In my view, since there are 3 formats cable signal is sent (analog, digital and HDTV) it creates a perfect situation for cable companies to blur the picture. Most subscribers are fairly illiterate when it comes to new technologies and getting a straight answer from a cable company may be a challenge. Their goal: up-sell, up-sell, up-sell. By mixing different packeges and technologies combined with their internet offerings they entangle customers in such a complicated mess then no wonder some are totally confused. Basic offerings are shrinking. More and more bundled packages arrive. Everything is now "premium" or "ultimate" or HiDef. At some point I had high hopes about power-lines as a delivery medium. That could potentially balance the market since no hydro company would pass-up such opportunity. No way. Cable is still a king and due to current market trends you may only expect higher prices. Imagine: full cable service such as mine is now over 200 CAD. 10 years ago it was in 60's.
I have all channels from all time zones available here. Do I need it, probably not but that's where Cable wants you to be now. Look at the same ailing companies then that are flourishing now. They have all sorts of income and technology improvements opens new doors for them daily. And this is not likely to change anytime soon.

[edDV]

I see the challenge coming from another player or 2 or 10.

Senario 1: Telco (e.g. new AT&T) could stream to a home server. This could be a cable like service or VOD. A huge company like the new AT&T could get access to the programming.

Senario 2: A Netflix like service offered with IP delivery to a home server.

Many other ways to skin the cat.

[InXess]

OK, but over what? the only medium with high transfer capability that comes to mind is... what? CABLE. More bandwidth = higher user fees = high invoice for you to pay monthly.

[edDV]

OK, but over what? the only medium with high transfer capability that comes to mind is... what? CABLE. More bandwidth = higher user fees = high invoice for you to pay monthly.

SBC (now AT&T) is moving fiber closer to the home. Depending on the area they have fiber just as close as Comcast and have the same pole access to run coax or fiber to the home.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/46397

And then there is wireless.

The only thing that keeps price reasonable is more competition.

[MikieV]

Around here (N. California) Comcast basic analog cable starts at $9.95, full analog is $46, full analog +basic digital is $56 and HDTV adds $5 to that. Total $61+taxes.

If you have your own QAM tuner, you can get local HDTV channels with the full analog package (filters out).

About the same, here in Portland, OR.

I recently purchased a Sony HDTV with ATSC tuner, Cablecard slot, HDMI & Clear QUAM tuner - hoping to avoid any "HDCP fiasco" issues by getting a set which supports everything but 1080p - but paying a lot more than I wanted to... [$850, which meets the "less than $1k" test, but is still ridiculous]

Even with $14 basic cable, the digital & HDTV from the local stations comes through - or at least the HDTV from OPB [public broadcasting]

I'm glad I don't have to use an anntenna to get the local stations, but I was surprised I have to use Titan TV's website to find what is on, since the local paper and TV Guide don't show what is on for other than analog i.e. local PBS [Oregon Public Broadcasting] uses analog channel 10, runs 1080i HDTV on 10.1, and 480i on 10.2.

digital 10.2 used to mirror analog 10 - but is now running a lot of "Create" programming - cooking, crafts, etc.

So, OPB is broadcasting three different program lineups - but the local guides only list one. Leaving me to download weekly schedules from the station's website, or check Titan's listings.