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
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
I'll start by acknowledging the fact that yes indeed digital streaming media is truly the future of entertainment. Eventually most games and movies will be available to download or stream and so basically nullifining the need for a quantifiable product. Nonetheless, this is how blue ray wins, and in fact will succeed over all its preceding formats (records, tapes, laserdiscs, and cd's [arguable]). Blu-ray has come at a time, mostly by luck, where no company in thier right mind would attempt to create a new media format. This is due in part to the looming future of streaming. Most intelligent companies have the foresight and respectively already begun investing in such infostructures. Sony has inadvertently positioned itself as, what it appears to be, the company with the final universal tangible media storage disk. As there will always be a need (and desire) for hard copies Blu-ray will promise enough data storage for the average consumer, just the type who fit into the preceding categories. Over the next decade during the HD transitions, and media streaming market changes Sony will continue to bask in its Blu-hue aura of glory. It will be them laughing all the way to the bank, and frankly when you do well by making a good product - cheers to you. #laserdiscs
@Michai: So true, you have some excellent points. I would also add that Blu-ray hits at a time when everyone can see that streaming is the future of media, but also at a time when the infrastructure is simply not in place to allow this.
There will need to be a large increase in bandwidth (both per-user and overall backbone) or a large increase in the processing power possessed by the average consumer (to decompress more intensive compression) before streaming can compare in quality with physical media. #laserdiscs
@hihai411: because, as you said, dvd's did well. Blu ray is destined to flop like laser disc because there is a foreseeable better alternative RIGHT NOW. Digital downloads are obviously going to be the future of movies just like music is and many people are reluctant to purchase blu rays because of that. #laserdiscs
@crsrc: Digital downloads (seems like a repetitive term) are still a ways off from being even close to the quality of blu-ray. They COULD be good enough, but then they're 10-30GB, assuming h.264 compression at 1080p.
That having been said, I download 1080p movies from time to time because free "good enough" is better than $30 "perfect". #laserdiscs
@rootyb: Been to Costco lately Rooty? People don't get much more "normal" then that. Well, maybe at Walmart or Target they do, which are both selling the Special Edition of Star Trek on Bluray for 24.99, btw. #laserdiscs
@rootyb:
Fuck the quality argument. Rent bluray for quality, I *buy* bluray for the extras, which you won't find in a digital download from torrents. Take Star Trek, for instance... the extra features packed into that set were better then the movie itself, and worth the 25 bucks I put down.
One last thing, "normal" people wouldn't know how to use a torrent if you wrote them a step by step guide with fancy pictures. While it's popularity has increased, it's still considered fringe.
@Cash907Censored: Oh, I agree entirely on the special features argument. I still buy blu-rays, and the biggest reason is for awesome special features like on the Star Trek release.
For movies I only have a passing interest in, though, I'll download before I rent, mostly out of laziness. I hate having to return movies.
@rootyb: That's generally how I roll too. I download them months before they come out, and if they are worth a flip, I'll either rent or buy them when they are released, only because quality work should be rewarded.
for those pointing to streaming, i think you're forgetting that 43% of americans don't have broadband, and what we can stream now is nowhere near the quality of a blu-ray.
Gizmodo turned into a total bar fight over this last year at about this time.
I still think Blu-ray will never reach the saturation that DVDs had achieved. Not only that, it's true replacement will arrive in 2-3 years with widespread acceptance with on the third to fourth year. And yes, I subtracted the past year from when I said it a year ago.
*** Dusty goes back inside to watch the hornet's nest from the safety of his home ***#laserdiscs
@DustyButtâ„¢: I agree that Blu-ray won't get the saturation of DVD, but I really, REALLY doubt another format is going to replace it in the next five years. Sony built a lot of "headroom" into Blu-ray, so by adding more layers (which will require newer players probably), they could bump the capacity to 75 GB or even 100 GB.
After the grueling multi-year death-match between HD-DVD and Blu-ray, I just don't see movie studios and consumers sitting through that again. #laserdiscs
For a short time a few years ago, I was obsessed with CED movies & players. CEDs were a competing tech that came out about the same time, had lower quality than Laserdiscs and cost less then video tapes at the time.
CEDs are intriguing because they are actually movies recorded on vinyl discs. So the novel, forgotten technology appeal it off the chart. #laserdiscs
Not only do I still have a LD player, it's still hooked up. Best thing was that these came out while VHS was 'Priced-To-Rent'; $95 for Hunt for Red October on VHS Vs. $30 on LD. #laserdiscs
no no, it's just that my sarcasm checker utilizes my funny detector in order to verify the presence of sarcasm. i looked into it, and my funny detector - working fine. it didn't go off for obvious reasons. #laserdiscs
Oh... and blue ray is stupid. I suspect it to never really gain a serious foothold on society. We stream HD now. SD cards are getting cheaper... who wants freaken disc? #laserdiscs
@Bruce Landwaster: Well, it'll be quite a while before we can stream at anywhere near Blu-Ray quality. The average home doesn't have a 48 megabit internet connection (the maximum bitrate Blu-Ray can use including both video and sound) #laserdiscs
@Dreamwriter: The average home also lacks the AV setup that would make the difference particularly noticeable. If you've got a nice home theatre setup, then sure blu-ray makes sense. But for most of us, it loses when you account for cost and convenience. #laserdiscs
Criterion Inc sounds familiar though so they must still be around? I don't know where I saw their name though, maybe it's an unrelated company. #laserdiscs
Laserdiscs were awesome. Especially when my parents would buy stacks of them for their Vietnamese Karaoke Parties.... I think I'm gonna cry... #laserdiscs
Your BR to LD comparison would probably be off. Way off.
Although LaserDiscs were not in nearly as many homes as VHS, they WERE in a lot. LDs were available for the entire 1980s and MOST of the 1990s. Thousands upon thousands of titles were available, and in the seventeen plus years they were available, I am sure many consumers bought them.
I dont know the numbers either - but I would be that total LD sales far outnumbered BD sales as of current.
As for the size, yes, DVDs are smaller - 5 inches as opposed to 12 - but bear in mind there were also 5" laserdiscs, which held a smaller amount of video, as well as 8" discs.
The 12" discs were basically the size of a standard LP record - which took a lot less space than a VHS tape in a clamshell. So to compare it to DVD, yes, it was bigger - but space-wise, on your shelf, you held a LOT more discs to VHS tapes. Usually about 6 to 1.
Furthermore, LDs could do a lot more than current DVDs and even BRDs can do - for example, exact frame search. You could, on your remote, type in the exact frame number you wanted to see. It was perfect for examining special effects, animation, finding something or someone in a background that went by too qucikly and for finding lots and lots of errors and flubs.
LDs WERE the Blu-Ray of the 1980s and 1990s. DVDs exist SOLELY because of the LD, and MUCH respect is owed to that obsolete but INCREDIBLE technology. #laserdiscs
@Rob Shapiro: I only know one person who ever owned a Laserdisc player. I have three sets of parents who never knew Laserdisc existed. All three sets of parents have Blu-ray players. The entire world knows what Blu-ray players are. Last I looked, the number of Blu-ray player sales from point of entry to market was in-line with DVD player sales. (Comparing media sales is not valid since most everyone uses Netflix today.)
I do not know what the definition of "failure" is for a product, and if your point of comparison is media sales, then you could make a case that all physical media sales will be a "failure" in our future. If we are comparing media players, BR has already destroyed Laserdisc when we consider time on the market as well as consumer awareness. #laserdiscs
@Rob Shapiro: You, sir, are a diehard. I had LaserDiscs and they weren't that good. Better than VHS, but then again, everything was better than VHS. Blu-ray will die, sooner than later, killed by the Internet. #laserdiscs
@Jesus Diaz: No question that some day electronic delivery will replace all physical media. That said, was the iPhone 3G a failure because it has, essentially, been replaced by the 3GS? Technology is a funny thing to define "failure" since they all reach that point in a short amount of time.
HD-DVD, Betamax, Laserdisc and Minidiscs were all failures since they never hit mainstream popularity. One could make an argument that Blu-ray may already be too well known to be a "failure" compared to those formats. We all know a non-geek with a BR player, and that is unlikely with the formats above.
Perhaps BR will be a "failure" from the sense that geeks will start using some yet-unknown download option with BR quality video within the next five years. But, in my opinion, whatever is going to replace BR has not reached the market yet, so I believe it may be amusing to say it will fail - it is, at least, premature. #laserdiscs
@Monty: LaserDisc was a failure. It's adoption rate was abysmal, dwarfed by VHS to statistical rounding error.
Blu-ray is not much more important. It'll most probably die in the US before it ever gets to the size of the DVD market. DVD will be the last mainstream physical format. Samsung gives it five years. I agree with them. #laserdiscs
@Jesus Diaz: Okay, I appreciate your points. Just for the "I told you so" side bet here, we should set the exact definition for "failure". For example, let's say that BR capable players sold within five years of launch compared to DVD in the same time period? Fair? If BR has sold less players than DVD did in that time frame (which is coming up in 3 years or so?) - I will come on Gizmodo and take my humiliation like a man.I will mark my calendar right now. November 17, 2012. I am ready to be shunned by the geek community, if it is possible to be more shunned than I am today.
Firstly, LD wasnt a failure - it just lived its lifespan. All video formats will eventually be replaced. Yes, VHS was a MUCH bigger presence, but LD did very well.
The point I was making was that Blu Ray has not, as of yet, surpassed the sales that LD did in its seventeen years on the market.
That being said, I am IN the Blu-Ray industry - I want it to succeed, and am far more positive about BRs future than many others on this board. I suspect it will be around for about ten more years.
Blu ray has NOT come close to the DVD sales for point of entry. No where near.
And believe me, I wish it had!
As for BR 'destroying' LD, again, ot even close. Youd be surprised how many people have no idea what Blu Ray is, and how may more people have heard of it but really don't understand the difference between it and DVD #laserdiscs
@Monty: For what it's worth, wiki says, "A total of 16.8 million Laserdisc players were sold worldwide of which 9.5 million of them were sold by Pioneer.", and "the total number of Blu-ray Disc playback devices (both set-top box and game console) had reached 9.6 million by the end of 2008." (note - this sounds suspect, since there have been 27 million PS3 consoles sold to date).
CNET says, "first-quarter 2009 sales of stand-alone Blu-ray players (read: not including the PS3) in the U.S. surpassed 400,000 units.", and cepro.com says, "More than 3.3 million [stand-alone] Blu-ray players have sold through the first three quarters of 2009."
It's tough to find current figures for stand-alone players, but it sounds like somewhere near 10 million already, and if you count PlayStation 3 consoles (which all have BD players), then Blu-ray has already passed LaserDisc.
So - rather than shunned, maybe you'll be lauded as a tech visionary blog-commenter, hey? ;-) #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/18/09
There will need to be a large increase in bandwidth (both per-user and overall backbone) or a large increase in the processing power possessed by the average consumer (to decompress more intensive compression) before streaming can compare in quality with physical media. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
That having been said, I download 1080p movies from time to time because free "good enough" is better than $30 "perfect". #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
'I download 1080p movies from time to time because free "good enough" is better than $15 "perfect".'
Everyone happy? #laserdiscs
11/18/09
Fuck the quality argument. Rent bluray for quality, I *buy* bluray for the extras, which you won't find in a digital download from torrents. Take Star Trek, for instance... the extra features packed into that set were better then the movie itself, and worth the 25 bucks I put down.
One last thing, "normal" people wouldn't know how to use a torrent if you wrote them a step by step guide with fancy pictures. While it's popularity has increased, it's still considered fringe.
11/18/09
For movies I only have a passing interest in, though, I'll download before I rent, mostly out of laziness. I hate having to return movies.
11/18/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Gizmodo turned into a total bar fight over this last year at about this time.
I still think Blu-ray will never reach the saturation that DVDs had achieved. Not only that, it's true replacement will arrive in 2-3 years with widespread acceptance with on the third to fourth year. And yes, I subtracted the past year from when I said it a year ago.
*** Dusty goes back inside to watch the hornet's nest from the safety of his home *** #laserdiscs
11/18/09
After the grueling multi-year death-match between HD-DVD and Blu-ray, I just don't see movie studios and consumers sitting through that again. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
CEDs are intriguing because they are actually movies recorded on vinyl discs. So the novel, forgotten technology appeal it off the chart. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
fun fact, though: laserdiscs are analog. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
no way. they scratch easily and are really, really brittle, and will shatter if flexed or dropped.
compared to a VHS, they were pathetic in terms of physical integrity. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
no no, it's just that my sarcasm checker utilizes my funny detector in order to verify the presence of sarcasm. i looked into it, and my funny detector - working fine. it didn't go off for obvious reasons. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
[www.highdefdigest.com] #laserdiscs
11/17/09
Talk about eye candy! #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
Your BR to LD comparison would probably be off. Way off.
Although LaserDiscs were not in nearly as many homes as VHS, they WERE in a lot. LDs were available for the entire 1980s and MOST of the 1990s. Thousands upon thousands of titles were available, and in the seventeen plus years they were available, I am sure many consumers bought them.
I dont know the numbers either - but I would be that total LD sales far outnumbered BD sales as of current.
As for the size, yes, DVDs are smaller - 5 inches as opposed to 12 - but bear in mind there were also 5" laserdiscs, which held a smaller amount of video, as well as 8" discs.
The 12" discs were basically the size of a standard LP record - which took a lot less space than a VHS tape in a clamshell. So to compare it to DVD, yes, it was bigger - but space-wise, on your shelf, you held a LOT more discs to VHS tapes. Usually about 6 to 1.
Furthermore, LDs could do a lot more than current DVDs and even BRDs can do - for example, exact frame search. You could, on your remote, type in the exact frame number you wanted to see. It was perfect for examining special effects, animation, finding something or someone in a background that went by too qucikly and for finding lots and lots of errors and flubs.
LDs WERE the Blu-Ray of the 1980s and 1990s. DVDs exist SOLELY because of the LD, and MUCH respect is owed to that obsolete but INCREDIBLE technology. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
I do not know what the definition of "failure" is for a product, and if your point of comparison is media sales, then you could make a case that all physical media sales will be a "failure" in our future. If we are comparing media players, BR has already destroyed Laserdisc when we consider time on the market as well as consumer awareness. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
HD-DVD, Betamax, Laserdisc and Minidiscs were all failures since they never hit mainstream popularity. One could make an argument that Blu-ray may already be too well known to be a "failure" compared to those formats. We all know a non-geek with a BR player, and that is unlikely with the formats above.
Perhaps BR will be a "failure" from the sense that geeks will start using some yet-unknown download option with BR quality video within the next five years. But, in my opinion, whatever is going to replace BR has not reached the market yet, so I believe it may be amusing to say it will fail - it is, at least, premature. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
Blu-ray is not much more important. It'll most probably die in the US before it ever gets to the size of the DVD market. DVD will be the last mainstream physical format. Samsung gives it five years. I agree with them. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
You're wrong about a great many things.
Firstly, LD wasnt a failure - it just lived its lifespan. All video formats will eventually be replaced. Yes, VHS was a MUCH bigger presence, but LD did very well.
The point I was making was that Blu Ray has not, as of yet, surpassed the sales that LD did in its seventeen years on the market.
That being said, I am IN the Blu-Ray industry - I want it to succeed, and am far more positive about BRs future than many others on this board. I suspect it will be around for about ten more years.
Blu ray has NOT come close to the DVD sales for point of entry. No where near.
And believe me, I wish it had!
As for BR 'destroying' LD, again, ot even close. Youd be surprised how many people have no idea what Blu Ray is, and how may more people have heard of it but really don't understand the difference between it and DVD #laserdiscs
11/18/09
CNET says, "first-quarter 2009 sales of stand-alone Blu-ray players (read: not including the PS3) in the U.S. surpassed 400,000 units.", and cepro.com says, "More than 3.3 million [stand-alone] Blu-ray players have sold through the first three quarters of 2009."
It's tough to find current figures for stand-alone players, but it sounds like somewhere near 10 million already, and if you count PlayStation 3 consoles (which all have BD players), then Blu-ray has already passed LaserDisc.
So - rather than shunned, maybe you'll be lauded as a tech visionary blog-commenter, hey? ;-) #laserdiscs
11/17/09