Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04:19 AM
I mean, I still buy all my stuff or rent it off of netflix, yet... why do the Hollywood Execs insist on punishing me and other honest people like me who still get all of our stuff through legitimate channels with horse shit like this?!? Don't they want my money? Why is it that the asshats that make these rules and policies can't see that stuff like this only punishes the honest people STILL buying their stuff through their dated and archaic distribution channels they're desperately trying to prop up?...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a service like Netflix instant streaming help stem the tide of pirated material way better than the IRAA or any sort of write protection for DVDs or Blu Rays ever could? Isn't everything headed to the super connected cloud anyways over the next couple of years, and wouldn't this be a big part of that? Wouldn't it make a more sense in the immediate future to stream all of our HD movies on our phones instead of say carrying around hundreds and hundreds of gigs of movies on a phone? Oh, and Netflix is already monetized! It's not like they're creating some new (FREE) awesome web only based service only to pull the rug out from under us at the last minute (looking at you Hulu). I dunno, but to me Netflix instant streams reeks of common sense, and IMHO is a quick easy way to monetize an item quickly losing it's value among the masses (as is most other forms of digitally attainable media) by quickly helping acclimate the masses to the idea of streaming everything instead of physically owning it (read: pirating it)?!?...
Dear Hollywood Execs, I really want to give you my money, REALLY, but when you do stuff like this it only makes me want to punch you in the baby maker. Please change your ways, cause I need better instant stream movie choices than the straight to video crap that is mostly currently available on Netflix. Kthanks!
P.S. want more proof as to why it's in your best interest to speed this up, rather than slow it down by dragging your feet? Just look at the Record Industry...
12:24 AM
I understand concerns over being paid for your IP, but the window system just gives rise to more pirating. Instant Netflix and Hulu made a (more or less) honest man out of me. They should think about that.
01:15 AM
[tangent]
I think the movie industry, while still fairly dinosaurific, is quite a bit more progressive in their thinking wrt new media than the music industry. We have more video at our fingertips than we could have imagined just a decade ago. It's got to be difficult for the old school execs to let even a little bit of their grip off of the control of the data (from their perspective) for fear of letting the genie out of the bottle.
However, I think quite a few of them (especially the TV folks) realize that the genie was released a long time ago and are trying to get a handle on how to best monetize easy access to their content.
Especially when considering that their content is a hell of a lot more expensive to produce than the music industry's. I know, it's dangerous to compare different artforms, but geez most of the entire music industry is vaporware. The music is secondary.
And while Hollywood produces a ton of crap, there is a lot of art and real work that goes into a movie. The relative amount of work that goes into an album is a let less (note I'm not comparing artistic value or worth here, just the volume of work, both artistic and otherwise).
[/tangent]
02:15 AM
Because if they can't make me that offer, they need to realize that the pirates already have, for free. I realize this concept would really piss cable companies off, but I'm not paying $70+ a month for the ten cable shows I want to watch. I'd also gladly drop $30/season for premium content like Dexter or Bored to Death. Hell, I already did this for Venture Bros Season 4, and I could have watched it for free on adultswim.com.
12/29/09
12/29/09
12/29/09
12/29/09
12/29/09
12:33 AM
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
[xbmc.org]
IMO it's hard to compete with Debian + Openbox when it comes to speed and stability. I'll take longer to configure then Win7 but it's worth it.
12/28/09
However on my AMD HTPC system, ubuntu is way better.
12/28/09
12/29/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
Look for the 3610 to pop up on Newegg again with the newly included VESA mount and SKU AR3610-U9022 - Old one was R3610-U9012.
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/24/09
12/23/09
Yeah, BD players drop because, who wants to replace all their DVD collections?
PS. Dear BluRay makers, most of those with disposable income, are losing the war with their vision anyway...
12/23/09
Compared to VHS, DVD is compact, has better resolution, easier to fast forward, no need to rewind, has extra features, durable, etc.
With BD, what do you get besides HD? I don't that HD alone is a strong sell, especially when some things are less enjoyable to watch in HD.
IMO, BD and physical media are doomed.
12/23/09
12/23/09
The first is simply cost. To jump to BR, you need not only the player and expensive movies, but a TV that can take advantage of it. Right now, a TV of that caliber, is simply too expensive.
The second reason is, I believe, an unsung reason why others haven't upgraded yet as well. People are more tech savvy now and they know that A) the next technology is right around the corner, even if they don't know what it is yet, and B) you need to have that TV right in front of your face to get the benefit of it. Sometimes it's simply not convenient to sit so close to the TV. I had to forsake getting a coffee table because there would be no way to sit as close as I would need to to enjoy the benefits of the BR resolution.
12/23/09
I have now been called up to go and set up 4 different systems including a Blu-ray player. The first question each time was, "Will my DVDs work on this Blu-ray player?". They know almost nothing, like the majority of the American population. The next technology is going to be a little while away at any rate.
12/23/09
You think you need a Kuro to be able to take advantage of blu-ray? ugh....
//A) the next technology is right around the corner, even if they don't know what it is yet,//
You are right, that is a dumb reason, it has nearly taken 8 years since blu-ray was first announced for blu-ray players to get reasonably affordable enough for mainstream consumption, are you really going to hold off another 8+ years for Blu-ray's successor? (And if you say streaming is blu-ray's successor, it's still probably going to take 8 years or so to be able to handle the bandwidth necessary to stream at Blu-Ray quality video, and that's if the ISPs and the MPAA don't get their way.
//B) you need to have that TV right in front of your face to get the benefit of it//
How close do you honestly think you need to sit to a HDTV?
12/23/09
The Hangover Unrated on blu-ray- $19.96
The Hangover Unrated on DVD- $24.96
Sure, if you compare these movies to the stripped down versions of the DVD then they are usually $3 or 4 cheaper on DVD, but that wouldn't be a fair comparison.
As for the players, the chart shows that these prices aren't unheard of for the amount of time blu-ray has been around. You can go get a $78 blu-ray player right now if you want a cheap one.
You can purchase a 50" HDTV nowadays for less than you could get a 32" HDTV just 4 years ago. Price is not that big of an issue anymore. Hell, most stores don't even carry non-HD televisions anymore so once your TV breaks, you are almost forced to upgrade to an HDTV.
If you need to sit with your nose to the TV to see the difference between blu-ray and DVD you need to get your eyes checked.
12/23/09
12/23/09
A) Yes, 8 years if you've been following BR since its inception. How many average consumers do you think actually have done that? From their perspective it's been only a couple of years.
B) This close: [hdguru.com]
12/23/09
12/23/09
My TV is a 42" LCD with full 1080P and HDCP from 4 years ago, and it cost $2500 back then and would cost about $400-500 today. I've watched bluray on it and it totally shows off how good bluray is over DVD. It doesn't have the fancy 120hz/240hz, nor the contrast ratio or response rate of LCD TVs today, but it doesn't need them as the picture still looks amazing. Hell I play games (at the full 1920x1080) from a gaming PC and xbox360 and they look amazing too.
The successor to bluray isn't around the corner. Much further, as the economy can't handle a new tech. And when the new tech comes around, it won't be streaming/downloading. Streaming/downloading has quite a few problems. One problem being bandwidth. Not nearly enough of the USA has the bandwidth to handle streaming HD content, or download it within reasonable time, for that to replace bluray (in the USA that is, other countries may differ). And that won't be solved any time soon. Another problem would be internet downtime. Imagine you decide to watch a movie only to find your internet connection isn't working, so now you can't watch a movie. And since you have no movies on a physical media, you can't just pop one into a player.
Sitting close to the TV can be answered as someone mentioned earlier, with the idea that you need your eyes checked. Sure its more obvious when you get closer to the TV, but from even 10-15ft back I can still tell the difference between a DVD and a bluray movie. And beyond visual difference, the audio of bluray movies is noticably better than DVDs (same movie, both 5.1, I've tested it with Transformers 2 and a few others).
I COULD see downloading movies as a future solution similar to MP3s, but even with iPods and MP3s being so popular, CDs are still a popular form of media for music. People still like having a physical media, something they can touch and look at. Plus downloading costs as much as the physical media. For movies it also would take longer to download and takes up way more space per movie, which mean you then have to buy larger harddrives. Buying larger harddrives means you need to pay someone to install it. Thats 2 extra costs just to avoid buying a bluray player (I won't count the TV as an extra cost since if your TV is broken you pretty much have to buy an HDTV, and if you don't have an HDTV you are going to just keep buying DVDs). Instead I could see movies being a download right alongside bluray/DVD much like CDs with MP3s. And we're already heading in that direction (iTunes, digital version included with bluray/DVDs, XboxLive and PSN movies, etc)
PS - Sorry for rambling.
12/23/09
You don't need 1080p to see a difference between blu-ray and DVD. That said, a 50" can be purchased for about $600. Even a 32" TV will still be in optimal range from 9' away, which is hardly sitting on top of the TV. The chart you showed is just the optimal optimal distance. The optimal distance ranges from 1.5 - 3x the screen size, meaning that if you were to get said 50" from earlier in the comment you could sit 150" away, by no means sitting with your nose to the screen. If you aren't looking for a big screen, you can get a fairly decent 32" for less than $400.
12/23/09
12/24/09
Honestly, I don't think bluray will be as successful as DVD, but it'll gain a large enough audience to keep being produced right alongside DVD.
And btw, thanks for the comment approval
12/24/09
Anyone skipping on Blu-ray because something else is "right around the corner" is a fool.
And no, buying into Blu-ray need not be expensive. A new TV is NOT necessary. Sure, you won't be able to see the HD picture, but you may still be able to enjoy HD audio, and you definitely would be able to appreciate other features (like the high bitrate picture that gives virtually no visible compression artifacts). So you could pick up a 80 dollar Magnavox playerand start buying BDs instead of DVDs. Then all you'd need to do is stick to buying BDs that aren't overpriced and your 80 dollar investment will pay for itself. For example, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince just came out. If you wanted to buy the 2 disc DVD, you'd be spending 20 bucks or more for it. But if you got the fully featured (and then some) BD edition, it could be had for as cheap as 15 bucks. Get enough deals like that, and it can definitely be worthwhile to go BD without even having a HDTV.
12/24/09
This is not just something I randomly pulled from my head to make some zany point. Go talk to people. It's a bundled "idea" of technology just like how you buy a computer and a few months later it's already obsolete, same with an mp3 player, cars, etc.. People don't view "technology" as individualized products with unique technological aspects generally. They look at technology as "Technology" an all encompassing set of rules almost which, to them, seemingly guarantees obsolescence in a short time.
12/24/09
//must not have family coming to them for tech advice. My mom and step dad asked me that exact question, my dad and step mom asked me that exact question, my grandma asked that same question.//
Just because you are asked for advice alot doesn't mean your advice is sound. It's more likely it's because asking you for help is cheap and it doesn't come with a sales pitch.
Anyway it seems that your family lets you off the hook easily. If I tried to use the 'next tech is just around the corner' argument, I would be probably be asked: 1. What is this technology? and 2. How long is it going to take for it to reduce in price enough for me to afford it? and 3. Will it be worth that amount of time to wait for it to lower in price? (In other words, it the opportunity cost worth it?)
I noticed that you never actually said what you thought this supposed new technology was, so please enlighten us to your answers to those 3 questions.....if you can.
12/24/09
12/24/09
You didn't say it directly yourself, but your original post sure seems to make it clear that you agree with the folks "who know that the next technology is right around the corner, even if they don't know what it is yet", as it's one of your reasons in your original post of why you personally are sticking with dvd.
Now you seem to be implying that you don't agree with that statement and never did, which leads me to ask then why is it one of your reasons for sticking with dvd? Do you have so little self confidence that you have to rely on your less knowledgeable relatives for your purchasing decisions?
12/24/09
12/23/09
12/23/09
12/24/09
12/23/09
Suck it bluray.
12/23/09
12/23/09
12/23/09
1) movie enthusiasts of today
2) movie enthusiasts of yesterday
3) general movie watcher
For the general movie watching group, they could care less about PQ, AQ & extras. these are the people who are the in mainstream and are the ones pushing the marketing for quick distribution methods, via VOD, netflix or iTunes/Amazon.etc.
feed and move on to the next movie
the movie enthusiasts of today wants the highest PQ AQ when viewing it at home. they host movie watching night hoping to amaze people with their equipment.
these people are the ones pushing this type of technology in the industry. James Cameron and IMAX are godsends for us
the movie enthusiasts of yesterday does not care about new tech. Generally refuse to adopt new tech because of heavy investments in their DVD collections. still willing to purchase movies, but only on their legacy format.
personally, i think if you're a movie enthusiasts you'd want to see the movie as gloriously as it was meant to be. short of having your own projection room, having a blu-ray and 1080p projector comes close to that environment.
on a side note: im a fan of criterion and what they have done to bring old movies to the new format.
12/23/09
So the true MOVIE lover does not discount any format. It's the TECH lover that says blu-ray only for me.
12/23/09
12/23/09
Seriously, you should have to have a license or something to use Excel. I wouldn't even accept a graph this unclear in an English class.
12/23/09
12/23/09
Anything you download/stream, whether it has 1080 progressively scanned lines or not, will either be less than 10Mbps or will take a crapload of time to download and/or bandwidth. (Which in the US is not a winning formula because our bandwidth growth is rather stagnant compared to other industrialized nations...I presume until they can figure out how best to screw us with our Internet addictions).
Just an example: A 720p @4Mbps download from iTunes is about the same perceived quality as a Standard Def DVD despite more pixels.
I also don't believe people need to "replace" their entire DVD collections with Blu-Ray. In my opinion most titles are perfectly suitable to watch in lesser forms such as HD downloads and DVDs. Some of the recent Blu-rays I own are Transformers, Star-Trek, G.I. Joe, The Dark Night, etc... I won't buy a comedy on Blu-Ray... to me it's a waste. I don't need to see the pores on Will Ferrell's face. I'll just download it from iTunes, or equivalent and focus on the comedy of which is the intention of the film anyway.
No, I think until our bandwidth catches up to stream Blu-Ray type performance for most everyone, it will be best to use a mix of all three mediums. (As sucky as that sounds)
12/23/09
12/23/09
12/23/09
Beyond that its an incredibly solid digital media device from other aspects as well (divx/avi/wmv support, digital distribution, etc) and failure rates on the PS3 are fairly low (probably better then the cheapo BDs out there).
Not to say people shouldn't be buying budget BDs, it will likely serve the needs of a lot of people.
12/23/09
I would agree only one the point if the person has no, zero, 0%, no interest in ever playing a PS3 game, then yes a Blu-ray standalone will work just as good and better. If they even think someone might want to play a PS3 game, then the PS3 games + Blu-ray economic option points all directions to PS3, it still gives you many advanced options high end players only give such as scaling FPS to 24FPS multiple. With built in wifi, ability to stream from computers, which you won't find on many players.
12/23/09
All I can tell you is that when my PS3 became part of that 11%.... rather than pay $150 for what by most reports is a temporary fix, I paid $190 for a brand new standalone. Load times are just as fast. Firmware updates are just as timely. It was much easier to get working with my Harmony remote. It bitstreams the HD formats. I just wish I'd gone standalone in the first place.
12/23/09
Of course you could buy the harmony adapter thing and get it to work...
12/23/09
12/23/09
12/23/09
"$20 for a movie?!?!?!?! Noooooo!
What's that? Why yes I did spend $1500 on my TV. Yes, I do have an $800 surround sound system. Hm? Oh, my cable is about $100 a month. What's your point?"
12/23/09
Yes, Blu-ray players are dirt cheap, and that is why they are selling better than DVD players have in comparable years:
[www.storagenewsletter.com]
No question the manufacturers are not as excited about having to compete at low prices, but I am not certain I buy the statement that everyone is losing money (except Sony's PS3, of course). If you have a source for that, I would love to read it.
I also question the statement that we are watching BR movies less than DVD. Yes, Blu-ray players (like the PS3) often given multiple methods of movie watching - but I do not necessarily conclude that we are watching less Blu-ray content than DVD content in a comparable year. We have Netflix now that has dramatically expanded our movie (and BR) viewing time. Remember that in the early days of DVD we were watching movies on VHS still and going out to the movies more. If there are numbers showing that we are all watching less BR content in a comparable year to DVD, I would love to see that - but I am not certain that is true.
That said, BR players are damn cheap.
12/23/09
12/23/09