Blu-ray prices go up following HD DVD's death

[edDV]

BlueRay vs HDdvd get all the news, becuase the war was classic and juicy. The real bread and butter contest is HDdvd/BlueRay vs DVD.

BlueRay is the wild card that won only the conference championship, But we only pay/remember who won the world series.

Not HDdvd/BlueRay vs DVD vs Download?
I think download will be the model that works if one wants HD. You rent it (with timeout) or you buy it.

[rhegedus]

I can't see ISPs being able to handle those sorts of sizes and speeds in real-time anywhere near the future.

[Conquest10]

I can't see ISPs being able to handle those sorts of sizes and speeds in real-time anywhere near the future.

Why not? I can view HD content anytime I want with OnDemand.

[rhegedus]

Sorry - not familiar with OnDemand. How does that work?

[edDV]

I can't see ISPs being able to handle those sorts of sizes and speeds in real-time anywhere near the future.

Non-Realtime from Netflix

Comcast is going to an IPTV model (fiber fed to local servers) for "OnDemand".
They're advertising great things to come soon. Now they have about ...

68 pay per view HD movies
23 free HD movies (210 free SD movies)
a couple dozen HD TV shows
plus HBO etc. have OnDemand movies and series.
-- hmm, 33 HD movies from Starz, 11 from Encore, 8 from Cinemax, etc.

There is more here than last month. Maybe this is what they were advertising.

[rhegedus]

w.r.t. purchased (as opposed to rented) downloads - where are they kept?

Is there a set-top HD or does it have to be downloaded each time i.e. streamed?

[Conquest10]

Sorry - not familiar with OnDemand. How does that work?

You press the OnDemand button on the remote and it takes you to a listing of programs you can view. Contains both SD and HD programing as well as SD and HD PPV. You select what you want to watch and it starts.

[edDV]

w.r.t. purchased (as opposed to rented) downloads - where are they kept?

Is there a set-top HD or does it have to be downloaded each time i.e. streamed?

I was speculating about download purchases (i.e. license for replayback of cache data similar to downloaded software). Netflix "Instant" is a near realtime movie experience (buffered by connection speed) over an internet connection. Here is their system requirements page. Top stream speed is around 2Mb/s for wmv.



Comcast "OnDemand" downloads movies to a local server which streeams at HD or SD to the set top box over a limited set of QAM channels. One can actually see neighbors "free" or "pay per view" programs if you scan QAM subchannels at the right rime.

[rhegedus]

Maybe I'm having a thicky moment but something doesn't make sense

How many people realistcally get 2MB/sec DL speeds?

[edDV]

Maybe I'm having a thicky moment but something doesn't make sense

How many people realistcally get 2MB/sec DL speeds?

2 Megabits/s WMV. This gets reduced at the send end based on connection speed. Their supplied player app sets a large buffer to allow for internet throughput variability. The player also reports remaining buffer content so that send speed can be regulated. You get an initial delay as your line is tested and the buffer is loaded similar to online Quicktime.

ADSL plans here allow 768Kb/s, 1.5Mb/s, 3.0Mb/s or 6Mb/s depending on what you pay.

Cable minimum is 3Mb/s but 6Mb/s up is now common. Cable has more restrictive total GB/mo. download restrictions.

[disturbed1]

The OnDemand would have to come from your cable provider. Most ISPs are wanting to go to packet shaping and bandwidth limiting because of websites like iTunes and YouTube. They're also trying to figure out a way to tax Apple and others for providing access to their service. The thinking is that Apple is making a ton of money because the ISP is allowing the user to access the website, and they want a share of pie. Right/wrong/indifferent, that's what it's coming to, look at Comcast and RoadRunner introducing hiddencaps and being sued for packet shaping. Nevermind the fact you are already billed a monthly fee for the service to begin with.

With DOCSIS 3.0 there is more than enough bandwidth to give you wet dreams. FIOS/FTTH/IPTV, what ever you want to call it, is available and in use in some major metros. Today's DOCSIS 2.0 and even 1.5 offers more than enough bandwidth for HD on Demand. The problem is wanting to pay qualified engineers to upgrade the backends to operate in a reliable manor.

The US, in terms of broad band and content delivery, is stuck in the 50's compared to other countries like China and Japan. Where the norm is 25mb/s not 2mb/s. Sweden also has many consumers that have 100mb/s service.

It's all about money and greed. The thing is, the movie industry wouldn't lose a dime if OnDemand provided what the technology was capable of. Sure we wouldn't need to go out and buy $300 STBs, but the amount of movie watching would increase dramatically. The studios would reap the rewards in license fees payed to them by the providers, and in the end, passed down to us.

[rhegedus]

ADSL plans here allow 768Kb/s, 1.5Mb/s, 3.0Mb/s or 6Mb/s

Cable minimum is 3Mb/s but 6Mb/s up is now common. Cable has more restrictive total GB/mo. restrictions.

I feel like I'n in the third world here (UK) - I pay $70/month for a 2Mb line with a 50gig cap

[edDV]

ADSL plans here allow 768Kb/s, 1.5Mb/s, 3.0Mb/s or 6Mb/s

Cable minimum is 3Mb/s but 6Mb/s up is now common. Cable has more restrictive total GB/mo. restrictions.

I feel like I'n in the third world here (UK) - I pay $70/month for a 2Mb line with a 50gig cap

I updated my previous response.

As for Comcast "OnDemand", the SD feeds are comparable to other SD QAM feeds or around 2-5Mb/s for 544x480i. HD looks to be around 12-16Mb/s 1080i. I can't get the direct digital feed out of the box, just analog component or HDMI.

My guess is they are saving bandwidth by sending 480i/1080i at 23.976 fps and frame repeating or adding pulldown in the set top box.


PS: Just to inform but not to make you feel bad. AT&T here charges

$25/mo for 1.5Mb/s if your line qualifies
$30/mo for 3.0Mb/s if your line qualifies
$35/mo for 6.0Mb/s if your line qualifies

Cable internet rates are typ $40-50

[terjeber]

I knew this would happen,without competition there is no incentive to lower prices.
I'm going to wait a couple of years before I buy a BD player(if at all),player and media prices better fall or Blu Ray is doomed.

I always find these comments interesting, not so much for the information they contain about the topic, but for how much they say about the poster. The DVD format has been the only (real, forget DivX - not the codec - it was doomed from day one) disk-based format for a long time. There has been no competition from competing formats. So, are you saying that there is no competition in the DVD market?

The idea that you need two formats to have competition is being repeated all over the net and it's so absurdly ludicrous that you have to wonder about the intellectual capabilities of the people voicing it.

There is a lot more competition in the Blu camp than there ever was in the HD DVD camp, and in fact, more than there was ever going to be. Toshiba was dumping their players at far below production cost, which means that the barrier to entry into the HD DVD hardware market was infinitely high. You would never be able to make money selling HD DVD hardware in competition with Toshiba since Toshiba was willing to lose $150 or more for each player they sold. At the moment you should be able to buy Toshiba HD DVD players, gut them for the laser and re-sell only the laser for profit (well, perhaps not quite, but close).

You don't need competing formats to drive prices down, competition within a format is plenty.

[orsetto]

In response to FulciLives, it ain't always about the money. Like you my income is somewhat "constrained", yet if I really wanted to I could "make" myself afford a setup similar to yours. So in my case, it ain't the money- its the *principle* of lame-ass Sony forcing this BluRay horror show down all our throats strictly by dint of leveraging themselves into near-bankruptcy. Make no mistake, BluRay "won" only because Sony was willing to circle the drain for a few years just for the bragging rights that they got a "lock" on next-gen DVD patents.

I respect your opinion, Fulci, always have, and your specific points are absolutely valid for where you're coming from. BluRay works for you and you're happy with it: that's great, I don't want to take it away from ya. But in the larger scheme Sony f*d us all over, because their protracted "war" with HD-DVD killed the momentum of HiDef discs RIGHT at the crucial turning point where marketing the things to consumers had a chance to be effective. That moment passed, because of Sony, and your lovely BluRay "Blade Runner" transfer will now likely end up being just another niche collectible. BluRay will drag on for years because after this mess no one will ever bother inventing another format (except maybe the wily Chinese with their Asia-specific HD-DVD variant: who knows where that will lead one day). Sony will have achieved "success" in a manner of speaking, but not in the way they really hoped.

Right now the only BluRay player worth a damn is the PS3, and so sorry but that does NOT cut it for the non-gamers. Believe it or not there are tons of us out here in video land that are baffled by the mass mania for games and we have not the slightest interest in owning a game console. Talk to us again when the BD format finally "locks" and a reliable, well-priced, decent dedicated BD player (with a remote) arrives on the scene. And while you enjoy your gorgeous BluRay "Blade Runner", take a moment to pity the poor souls who spent a years worth of beer money to buy the insanely expensive HD-DVD remasters of "Star Trek". Those discs will be hot collectibles for a year or two, then will be worthless once Sony re-issues them (if ever). Spending a lot of dough on ANY new format is a poor gamble unless you really have the money to burn.

BTW, love the Blade Runner set: I picked up the 4-disc standard-def DVD just to get my hands on the international edition you prize so much: I too missed the voiceover. Only I had a surprising reaction: after I played it once thru I found I really didn't like it anymore! The voiceover was more intrusive than I remembered from theaters in 1982, ditto the "happy ending". I hate to find myself in agreement with Ridley Scott, who can be a pompous ass sometimes, but I ended up preferring the Final Cut. Amazingly, one small change turned the tide for me: I prefer Batty calling Tyrell "father", it makes more sense to me than the original "F*kr". If I could just get rid of that damn unicorn dream, I'd have my perfect personal cut (Deckard is not a replicant, not in the novel and not in any way that makes sense in the screenplay: the original 1982 inference that the final matchstick unicorn was Gaff's ambiguous calling card works much better).

[terjeber]

The public didn't choose Blu-ray the movie industry did.

Well said, ejai. Especially the part about the public didn't choose Blu-Ray.

Two interesting statements. Both completely wrong of course, but interesting all the same.

So, how is it that "the public" didn't chose Blu-Ray? Was the fact that "the public" chose Blu-Ray movies over HD DVD movies 2-1 for the entire 2007 a result of Sony having all its employees out there buying movies? BTW, Sony doesn't own Blu-Ray any more than they own DVD.

The fact that stand-alone Blu-Ray players (not counting the PS3) out-sold HD DVD players with a decent margin in December of 2007 was also not a result of "the public"? Who was it buying those Blu-Ray players? If the public favored HD DVD, can you explain how Blu-Ray players at $500-$900 was outselling HD DVD players at $150 or so?

Perhaps you are one of those nuts who actually still believe Warner was paid by the Blu-Ray consortium to go Blu exclusive.

[terjeber]

I really don't understand all this nonsense.

I watched the Blu-Ray of BLADE RUNNER via my PS3 to my Hitachi 51" 16x9 WS Rear Projection CRT HDTV via HDMI in 1080i last week.

I cried it looked so good. Yes ... I cried. It was simply gorgeous. Stupendous. Magical.

I hear ya, Brother. The first time I watched Planet Earth using my PS3 on my new 52"KDL Sony LCD I almost shit myself.

Amen to that. The sour grapes you get from the people on this forum who clearly have 29" CRTs or smaller is a little pathetic. I mean, this is a video forum after all, not a "I can't afford a decent TV so I'll bitch about those who can" forum.

For anyone with a decent TV, the Planet Earth set is a brilliant place to start, and one good place to go is the "Shallow Seas" segment. Not just for the shark, but because this segment has a decent amount of up-scaled SD video. Yup, not all of Planet Earth is HD, some of it is SD. I always use this segment when showing HD, because when the viewers are sitting at an appropriate distance from the TV, the switching between SD and HD content on this segment becomes jarring. You see it immediately, and it is not all that nice.

Oh, and yes, I also cried during the Blu version of Bladerunner. This thing is astonishing. I've heard PQ is as good on I, Robot, so it has been ordered.

[edDV]

...
Amen to that. The sour grapes you get from the people on this forum who clearly have 29" CRTs or smaller is a little pathetic. I mean, this is a video forum after all, not a "I can't afford a decent TV so I'll bitch about those who can" forum.

But what about us somewhat poor users who have multiple HDTV sets but don't want to buy a BluRay player for each? Even if we did there would be a fight over the single BluRay disc or someone would scratch the damn thing.

[Conquest10]

Maybe I'm having a thicky moment but something doesn't make sense

How many people realistcally get 2MB/sec DL speeds?

As edDV said, its pretty common in the US to have speeds higher than that. Cable is stated to be 6MB but I think it depends on the area. In Chicago Comcast has gone all digital and since then I've gotten the sense that the speeds are faster.

[rhegedus]

Right now the only BluRay player worth a damn is the PS3, and so sorry but that does NOT cut it for the non-gamers.

Works for me. I've had one for nearly a year and own a grand total of zero games and I don't intend to add to that.

It is outstanding as a BD player and media centre.

[akrako1]

TG Daily has some nice graphs and charts at:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36428/113/



and

[/img]

[cracula]

Here's my take on this. If you're crying over the quality of a picture you may be more likely to spend a higher sum than the majority of the public. Just like groupies at concerts who pay ten times what the tickets are worth. If that's your thing, enjoy. Do what makes you happy. As for me I have a decent income, have a 65inch hdtv and two 50 inch hdtvs. I have a ps3(so i do have blu ray potential) and two hd dvd players. I will admit the picture is better than sdvd, but how much i'm willing to pay to get that quality is the issue. I chose hd dvd because it was at a price i could throw away. I bought a second one just for that very reason and have picked up at least fifteen movies for the price of what five blurays would cost. For me everything has a cost. The question is am i willing to pay it. When it comes to blu ray i have to say not now. To put it another way i could pay fifty dollars for a snickers bar, but why?

[rhegedus]

TG Daily has some nice graphs...

"Now, however, according to Pricegrabber.com's most recent information, the average price for Blu-ray hardware is around $400...."

And on Pricegrabbers own page you will find all the models cheaper i.e. $318 for the BD-1400P not the $374 in the article.

[DereX888]

I knew this would happen,without competition there is no incentive to lower prices.
I'm going to wait a couple of years before I buy a BD player(if at all),player and media prices better fall or Blu Ray is doomed.

I always find these comments interesting, not so much for the information they contain about the topic, but for how much they say about the poster. The DVD format has been the only (real, forget DivX - not the codec - it was doomed from day one) disk-based format for a long time. There has been no competition from competing formats. So, are you saying that there is no competition in the DVD market?
/.../

You don't need competing formats to drive prices down, competition within a format is plenty.

You're wrong, you do need it (and I, and everyone else).
Thats the "jungle law" of the market.
NO COMPETITION = MUCH HIGHER PROFITS
(and that means exactly that the consumers pay higher prices for the very same product/service).


As for"DVD competition" - may I remind you few things:

Initially it was said, that the newly released DVD movies will drop down to *below* $10/movie within 5 years since DVD's introduction to the market, it supposed to happen due to a way-way-way lower manufacturing costs of the discs (vs VHS tapes).
The year that supposed to happen was 2001 or 2002 (IIRC), while even now, in the year 2008, it is hard to find a movie made in this century for that price on a DVD-Video. The competing format of VHS is long gone and forgotten since about year 2001, yet the DVD-Video movies' prices are still the same as in 2001... Why do you think is that? Don't you see the relations between lack of competition and immediate 'stiffness' of the prices? Once the VHS competition was gone, their lower manufacturing costs of DVDs have become the higher profit margins instead of becoming lower prices for consumers (as it was said as one of the 'incentives' to force public to switch from VHS to DVD).
Thats how *always* it ends up, thats how always it has been, and how always it will be.
Business is business, not a charity (or "public affordability") market

One might argue about lower dollar value etc...
Yes, the dollar dropped down in its value since 2001, but in the same time the DVD manufacturing costs have dropped down even more (they are much lower now than it was ever predicted when DVD was introcuded - I guess they weren't so sure back then that the DVD format will take over the world so fast and so completely).


WIthout competition the 'free market' always steers from being "free" and we end up hearing about "price fixing schemes" and such. Always. Thats the nature of corporate greed.
I rather see competing formats on the market than see in the news that every few years someone is fined billions of dollars for monopolistic practices and alike, because even they were caught and pay the fine - I won't see a penny from it in my pocket; while with competition we feel it right away in our wallets thanks to lower prices
Best example: music industry. Has anyone ever seen a penny from the fines they paid for fixing CD prices, payolas and multitude of other illegal schemes? I didn't for sure, and I have many CDs... have you? And thats just one of many examples of lack of competition on the market we all chipped-in.

[terjeber]

I knew this would happen,without competition there is no incentive to lower prices.

You don't need competing formats to drive prices down, competition within a format is plenty.

You're wrong, you do need it (and I, and everyone else).
Thats the "jungle law" of the market.
NO COMPETITION = MUCH HIGHER PROFITS

So, when did you learn how to read? Yesterday? You don't seem to master it fully.

Initially it was said, that the newly released DVD movies will drop down to *below* $10/movie within 5 years since DVD's introduction to the market, it supposed to happen due to a way-way-way lower manufacturing costs of the discs (vs VHS tapes).

Was it said? I would like to see that. Also, $10 in 1995 is, if you say there is a 2% year-over-year salary increase, about $13 today. That is not including the fact that the dollar is in the toilet right now.

Now, the price of a DVD is almost 100% unrelated to the cost of pressing the DVD, so I am not sure how that is relevant.

WIthout competition the 'free market' always steers from being "free"

Well, firstly, the topic of this thread was the price of hardware, not of software. There was no HD DVD competition, but there is Blu-Ray competition. Can you explain to the ones amongst us without your "insight" how the Blu-Ray situation today is different than the DVD situation competition-wise? For hardware?

[cracula]

I knew this would happen,without competition there is no incentive to lower prices.

You don't need competing formats to drive prices down, competition within a format is plenty.

You're wrong, you do need it (and I, and everyone else).
Thats the "jungle law" of the market.
NO COMPETITION = MUCH HIGHER PROFITS

So, when did you learn how to read? Yesterday? You don't seem to master it fully.

Initially it was said, that the newly released DVD movies will drop down to *below* $10/movie within 5 years since DVD's introduction to the market, it supposed to happen due to a way-way-way lower manufacturing costs of the discs (vs VHS tapes).

Was it said? I would like to see that. Also, $10 in 1995 is, if you say there is a 2% year-over-year salary increase, about $13 today. That is not including the fact that the dollar is in the toilet right now.

Now, the price of a DVD is almost 100% unrelated to the cost of pressing the DVD, so I am not sure how that is relevant.

WIthout competition the 'free market' always steers from being "free"

Well, firstly, the topic of this thread was the price of hardware, not of software. There was no HD DVD competition, but there is Blu-Ray competition. Can you explain to the ones amongst us without your "insight" how the Blu-Ray situation today is different than the DVD situation competition-wise? For hardware?

Below is part of the article from the link that started this thread. Are the discs considered hardware?

"Besides Blu-ray player prices, going by this Punch Jump report, some Blu-ray disc prices have also gone up following Toshiba's ending of HD DVD. For example, on Amazon.com the popular Planet Earth Series on Blu-ray has gone up from $54.95 to $66.95 and Spider-Man Trilogy Blu-ray title has made a significant jump from $48.95 to $64.95. On the other hand, some retailers still have Blu-ray title promotions either offering discounts on select titles or free Blu-ray disc bundles with certain players."

[ejai]

The public didn't choose Blu-ray the movie industry did.

Well said, ejai. Especially the part about the public didn't choose Blu-Ray.

Perhaps you are one of those nuts who actually still believe Warner was paid by the Blu-Ray consortium to go Blu exclusive.

And you are one of the nuts that don't.

[ejai]

Blu-ray came as a package deal with the purchase of the PS3, I know no one who purchased a PS3 with the mind set that they were getting a blu-ray player. They purchased a game machine, blu-ray was not even a factor.

Also, the people who I know who have purchased a PS3 have not purchased one single blu-ray movie. They still buy dvds. Sales of blu-ray movies (at this time) is still extremely slow.

Big business has chosen the winner and is attempting to make the consumer pay for it.

[rhegedus]

So who bought all those BD disks then.....?

[DereX888]

Are the discs considered hardware?

Do discs play themselves without the hardware?