Non-BB: Toshiba abandons HD-DVD

[Waldo]

In case you missed yesterday's news, Toshiba is calling it quits on the HD-DVD format, making Blu-Ray the winner of Format War Part Deux.

Hope you didn't buy one

[Noe]

In case you missed yesterday's news, Toshiba is calling it quits on the HD-DVD format, making Blu-Ray the winner of Format War Part Deux.

Hope you didn't buy one

The part that is somewhat disconcerting is the cost right now for a Blu-Ray player is way too high.  It will come down of course, in about two years.  The consumers who will spend that sort of cayshe on the player right now will be those with disposable income and... ahum... Limey.

[Waldo]

The part that is somewhat disconcerting is the cost right now for a Blu-Ray player is way too high.  It will come down of course, in about two years.  The consumers who will spend that sort of cayshe on the player will be those with disposable income and... ahum... Limey.

IIRC, the current price of the PS3 is fairly comparable to some of the fancier first-generation DVD players back in the day.  That is probably the route I'll take when prices start to drop.  Why spend $800 on a Blu-Ray player when you can spend $400 on a PS3?

[Noe]

IIRC, the current price of the PS3 is fairly comparable to some of the fancier first-generation DVD players back in the day.  That is probably the route I'll take when prices start to drop.  Why spend $800 on a Blu-Ray player when you can spend $400 on a PS3?

Per-zactly!  We were going to invest in a PS3 for that very reason.  A Blu-Ray player for dad, a game console for the kids, a photo manager for mom... everyone wins.  It's still a good idea even though we shelved the idea for now.

[JackAstro]

IIRC, the current price of the PS3 is fairly comparable to some of the fancier first-generation DVD players back in the day.  That is probably the route I'll take when prices start to drop.  Why spend $800 on a Blu-Ray player when you can spend $400 on a PS3?

I love my PS3, and it's great for a lot of things. However, I wouldn't recommend it as a cheaper alternative to a standalone blu-ray player, at least not for someone who wouldn't be using many features beyond just the player. You can get a standalone player for less, anyway, and the PS3 has some shortcomings compared to a dedicated player, not the least of which being how loud it is.

For anyone who intends to do more with it than just watch blu-ray discs, it's an incredible value. Photo and music server, internet appliance, stream media from your computer, linux box, etc, etc.

[HudsonHawk]

IIRC, the current price of the PS3 is fairly comparable to some of the fancier first-generation DVD players back in the day.  That is probably the route I'll take when prices start to drop.  Why spend $800 on a Blu-Ray player when you can spend $400 on a PS3?

I got a PS3 for Christmas, which is pretty cool, but I can't use the BluRay player, as the TV it's hooked to only supports 720p resolution.  It will only play on 1080.  Don't know if that's all BluRay players, but something to think about.

[Andyzipp]

FWIW, the price point on a brand new out of the box Sony Blu-Ray player is 399.99.  It's hasn't been 800.00 in a few months.

That was bestbuy.com.  I assume I could find something cheaper with minimal effort.

[JackAstro]

I got a PS3 for Christmas, which is pretty cool, but I can't use the BluRay player, as the TV it's hooked to only supports 720p resolution.  It will only play on 1080.  Don't know if that's all BluRay players, but something to think about.

HH, have you rifled through the settings on the PS3? I'm not sure where exactly to look, but I do know that Sony enabled 720p blu-ray playback on the PS3 last summer.

[Noe]

FWIW, the price point on a brand new out of the box Sony Blu-Ray player is 399.99.  It's hasn't been 800.00 in a few months.

That was bestbuy.com.  I assume I could find something cheaper with minimal effort.

Yeah, the second generation players are coming out now and are cheaper in comparison to the first generation, however they are more pricey than the HD models, almost triple in some cases.  Here is a consumer review of the second generation player from Sony I just read (and goes along with what I've heard):

Finally, a Blu-ray Player Reasonably Priced!

Strengths: Better price point, plays CDs, Dolby TrueHD

Weaknesses: No memory for resume when unit turned off, slow loading, no remaining time display

Summary: Sony has finally come out their second generation Blu-ray player at half the original price of the original! The BDP-S300 is priced at $499.00 (It's dropped further to the 389 dollar range or so) which looks like a bargain compared to their previous BDP-S1 model.

Besides the cost benefit, what else do you get with this player? Unlike the previous model the S300 can play CDs in addition to DVDs. This player has Dolby TrueHD capability installed. In addition, it seems to load slightly faster than the previous model.

Most of the weaknesses are shared by the previous model and Sony has not made any effort to improve on them. Specifically, when you turn the unit off, all memory has disappeared so that when to turn it on next time, you have to find where you left off. Very time consuming! A high-end product such as this should have memory for at least 6 discs.

The other complaint is that I would expect Sony to have a remaining time display in addition to elapsed time and total time displays. Sony offers this feature on most of its lower end DVD players, so why is this feature not possible on a high def player?

All in all, the BDP-S300 delivers what it promises. If it would correct some of these problems, it would be a first class product. The best improvement on this player is that Sony has reduced the price to make it affordable to more people wanting to get into Blu-ray technology.

[Ankh]

I got a PS3 for Christmas, which is pretty cool, but I can't use the BluRay player, as the TV it's hooked to only supports 720p resolution.  It will only play on 1080.  Don't know if that's all BluRay players, but something to think about.

That's an old limitation of the PS3 - that it would default to 1080i instead of 720p, and if 1080i wasn't available, it would drop to 480p. You shouldn't be seeing that problem anymore, especially with a new PS3.

The PS3 is the best option for a BR player right now - it is future proof to support BR 2.0, something which no current standalone player is capable of supporting.

The downside of the PS3 is that it does not decode 7.1 channel audio certain formats, nor can it bitstream them via HDMI to a receiver.

The other cheapest option for a BR player is to get a BR reader for your Vista PC, and then attach the PC to your computer. That's under $200. Audio for BR software on a PC is Dolby DTS 5.1 only, though.

[austro]

Yeah, the second generation players are coming out now and are cheaper in comparison to the first generation, however they are more pricey than the HD models, almost triple in some cases.  Here is a consumer review of the second generation player from Sony I just read (and goes along with what I've heard):

Finally, a Blu-ray Player Reasonably Priced!

Strengths: Better price point, plays CDs, Dolby TrueHD

Weaknesses: No memory for resume when unit turned off, slow loading, no remaining time display

Summary: Sony has finally come out their second generation Blu-ray player at half the original price of the original! The BDP-S300 is priced at $499.00 (It's dropped further to the 389 dollar range or so) which looks like a bargain compared to their previous BDP-S1 model.

Besides the cost benefit, what else do you get with this player? Unlike the previous model the S300 can play CDs in addition to DVDs. This player has Dolby TrueHD capability installed. In addition, it seems to load slightly faster than the previous model.

Most of the weaknesses are shared by the previous model and Sony has not made any effort to improve on them. Specifically, when you turn the unit off, all memory has disappeared so that when to turn it on next time, you have to find where you left off. Very time consuming! A high-end product such as this should have memory for at least 6 discs.

The other complaint is that I would expect Sony to have a remaining time display in addition to elapsed time and total time displays. Sony offers this feature on most of its lower end DVD players, so why is this feature not possible on a high def player?

All in all, the BDP-S300 delivers what it promises. If it would correct some of these problems, it would be a first class product. The best improvement on this player is that Sony has reduced the price to make it affordable to more people wanting to get into Blu-ray technology.

I picked up a BDP-S300 just before Christmas for just under $300 (it was on sale at A&B here in Austin). It's clearly using first-generation software because it's got a few glitches here and there, and it takes seemingly forever to boot up (well, it's more like 60 seconds, but it seems like forever).  But the picture is outstanding: 1080p native, out through HDMI to a 1080p native monitor, so it's really mesmerizing to watch. At the price I paid, it's pretty hard to beat. I expect that a year from now, these players will be at the magical $200 price point and most of the glitches will be gone. They'll really take off at that point, riding on the coattails of the digital broadcast switchover.

On a related note, I went and splurged on one of the new Logitech Harmony One remotes (I got tired of screwing around with 5 different remotes). That thing works great! Took about 45 minutes to set up (you gather up model numbers of all the equipment you want to control, write down info about what settings are required to play different sources, etc), and then go online to set up the common actions you want to perform (watch a Blu-ray disc, watch cable, listen to CDs, etc). Their wizard guides you through the steps of selecting the appropriate components, settings, etc, and then you download everything to the remote via a USB cable. When that's complete, there's a little touchscreen on the remote with buttons for "watch a Blu-ray disc", "watch cable", etc: everything you set up earlier. Hit the button, and it powers everything up in sequence, selects the appropriate sources on your receiver, monitor, and what not, and you're off to the races. All of the other control buttons worked on the first try for me (e.g., mute, jump to last channel, volume up/down, channel guide on cable box, etc). I haven't tried the more esoteric things such detailed video settings on my monitor so I don't know if they work or not, but I've got that set up already and don't have to screw with it, so I don't really care. But the beauty part is that my wife can now go upstairs, hit "watch a Blu-ray disc" and everything works. She really didn't want to have to understand all of the low-level stuff, and there's not really any reason she should need to.

[Astroholic]

I picked up a BDP-S300 just before Christmas for just under $300 (it was on sale at A&B here in Austin). It's clearly using first-generation software because it's got a few glitches here and there, and it takes seemingly forever to boot up (well, it's more like 60 seconds, but it seems like forever).  But the picture is outstanding: 1080p native, out through HDMI to a 1080p native monitor, so it's really mesmerizing to watch. At the price I paid, it's pretty hard to beat. I expect that a year from now, these players will be at the magical $200 price point and most of the glitches will be gone. They'll really take off at that point, riding on the coattails of the digital broadcast switchover.

On a related note, I went and splurged on one of the new Logitech Harmony One remotes (I got tired of screwing around with 5 different remotes). That thing works great! Took about 45 minutes to set up (you gather up model numbers of all the equipment you want to control, write down info about what settings are required to play different sources, etc), and then go online to set up the common actions you want to perform (watch a Blu-ray disc, watch cable, listen to CDs, etc). Their wizard guides you through the steps of selecting the appropriate components, settings, etc, and then you download everything to the remote via a USB cable. When that's complete, there's a little touchscreen on the remote with buttons for "watch a Blu-ray disc", "watch cable", etc: everything you set up earlier. Hit the button, and it powers everything up in sequence, selects the appropriate sources on your receiver, monitor, and what not, and you're off to the races. All of the other control buttons worked on the first try for me (e.g., mute, jump to last channel, volume up/down, channel guide on cable box, etc). I haven't tried the more esoteric things such detailed video settings on my monitor so I don't know if they work or not, but I've got that set up already and don't have to screw with it, so I don't really care. But the beauty part is that my wife can now go upstairs, hit "watch a Blu-ray disc" and everything works. She really didn't want to have to understand all of the low-level stuff, and there's not really any reason she should need to.

Had a logitech for almost two year.  If things get out of sync, the help menu will set you straight. The onle issue that I don't like is that it does not pass discrete codes. Best remote I have ever had.  I also have an IR repeater, because all of my equipment is in an antique hutch next to the fireplace.  The Plasma is over the fireplace.  I did all of the install myself, so it was done right.  Guess Blue-ray is next, but I will wait at least another year.

[HudsonHawk]

That's an old limitation of the PS3 - that it would default to 1080i instead of 720p, and if 1080i wasn't available, it would drop to 480p. You shouldn't be seeing that problem anymore, especially with a new PS3.

I'm still seeing it, and it's a new PS3 (got it for Christmas), so I'm guessing there's a setting or something?  The manual doesn't mention such a thing.  I just know that it says the TV resolution isn't compatible with PS3.

[Waldo]

FWIW, the price point on a brand new out of the box Sony Blu-Ray player is 399.99.  It's hasn't been 800.00 in a few months.

That was bestbuy.com.  I assume I could find something cheaper with minimal effort.

Newegg's most expensive Blu-Ray player is $800.  Obviously there are several cheaper than that, but whatever.

Had a logitech for almost two year.  If things get out of sync, the help menu will set you straight. The onle issue that I don't like is that it does not pass discrete codes.

The Harmony DOES use discrete codes.  In fact, my TV's factory remote doesn't use discrete codes even though the TV supports it (this especially sucked because my TV does not ignore unused inputs).  However, the Harmony knew the discrete codes and programmed most of them fairly painlessly.

I will say that its support of the codes is a little quirky and takes some trial and error in some cases.  For instance, my TV has two HDMI inputs ("Digital-In1" and "Digital-In2") but the Harmony is convinced that there is only one (just "Digital-In"), and the TV interprets it as a toggle between the two.  So going from my DVD on HDMI-1 to my cable box on HDMI-2 works, as does the reverse.  However, if I want to go from my Wii on Composite-4 to my cable box, I have to hit the activity button twice.  Similarly, if I watch a DVD, turn the TV off, and then turn it back on to watch a DVD, I have to hit the button twice.  (The TV is a JVC HD-52G787 in case anyone else has one and has figured this out.)

I will agree that the Harmony is the best remote ever.  I've almost convinced my wife that we need one for the TV/DVD/cable box in the bedroom.

[Matt]

I'm still seeing it, and it's a new PS3 (got it for Christmas), so I'm guessing there's a setting or something?  The manual doesn't mention such a thing.  I just know that it says the TV resolution isn't compatible with PS3.

Do you have it hooked up online?  It might be an update you have to download.  That's how the 360 works anyways.

[Waldo]

By the way...

the PS3 has some shortcomings compared to a dedicated player, not the least of which being how loud it is.

What kind of shortcomings?  The lack of a remote is not a factor since I would use our Harmony.

FWIW, we would probably use the various home media and Internet features of the PS3, but it would primarily be a Blu-Ray player.

[Gizzmonic]

HH,

Hook your PS3 up to the internet and go to town.  After you update, you should be able to watch Blu-Ray over 720p with no problem. 

Anyone else considering getting a Blu-Ray player consider this:

Instead of being a fixed standard like VHS or DVD, BluRay supports "upgrades."  So your BluRay 1.0 profile player might not support that new 1.5 or 2.0 profile disc. This is already causing compatibility problems with an early model Samsung player, leading to a lawsuit:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080211-samsung-sued-over-defective-first-gen-blu-ray-players.html

Consumers are going to have to get used to this new confusion.  As if the competing resolutions (1080p, 1080i, 720p) and connections (DVI, HDMI, component, Firewire) weren't enough for HD.  Before you buy, be sure and check the fine print on your Blu-Ray disc label and make sure it supports your profile number.  Technically, older players are supposed to be able to watch the important stuff (the video content) even if their player doesn't support the shiny new profile number, but it doesn't seem to be working that way outside the lab.

I predict the Blu-Ray standard will continue to be updated willy-nilly to add more useless, marketing-driven features like picture-in-picture for director commentary.  The PS3 is the most 'future proof' of any Blu-Ray player as it can download profile updates from the Internet.  Some other players support this feature as well, but with a smaller percentage of the market share, your player manufacturer may decide it's not worth their time (as Samsung did in the above story).  The PS3 is the only Blu-Ray player I would recommend at this time.

I got a PS3 for Christmas, which is pretty cool, but I can't use the BluRay player, as the TV it's hooked to only supports 720p resolution.  It will only play on 1080.  Don't know if that's all BluRay players, but something to think about.

[JackAstro]

By the way...

What kind of shortcomings?  The lack of a remote is not a factor since I would use our Harmony.

FWIW, we would probably use the various home media and Internet features of the PS3, but it would primarily be a Blu-Ray player.

The biggest for me is the noise - it's loud. It's also very hot if you have it in an enclosed entertainment center. The remote issue is another - I have a Harmony, but the PS3 is bluetooth, so you need to either get an IR adapter or use the bluetooth Sony remote.

The other big advantage that a dedicated player has is simplicity. The PS3 is a computer, and maintaining it and playing  discs is complicated, relative to hitting a power button, throwing in a disc and hitting play. It's nothing daunting for you at all, but it throws Mrs. JackAstro a bit, and my dad just grumbles at his like Abe Simpson shaking his fist at a passing cloud.

That said, as a media center, the PS3 is simply awesome. The blu-ray output is fantastic, upscaling of DVDs is so good that I've abandoned my DVD player, and it streams everything from my home network like a champ. I've also taken to ripping all of my DVDs to MP4s and storing the library on the PS3, which is nice.

[austro]

The biggest for me is the noise - it's loud. It's also very hot if you have it in an enclosed entertainment center. The remote issue is another - I have a Harmony, but the PS3 is bluetooth, so you need to either get an IR adapter or use the bluetooth Sony remote.

Good point about the bluetooth: the Harmony One remote only does IR, so if you need RF or bluetooth, it won't solve your problem.

[Matt]

I'm still not sold on Blu-Ray becoming the standard in the future.  It's great right now but I don't think physical media will be the standard 10-15 years from now.

[Lurch]

I'm still not sold on Blu-Ray becoming the standard in the future.  It's great right now but I don't think physical media will be the standard 10-15 years from now.

Agreed.  Thanks to improved compression algorithms and high speed Internet VOD is here as a fully viable solution.  I've been playing with the new release of it on DTV and it kicks serious ass.  They should be building their library so that soon they will have everything you could get through Netflix PLUS broadcast shows. Downside is for those that like to watch something many times or need portability and thus owning it is preferred.  Both should be addressed with additional technology in the near future.

[Gizzmonic]

Oh, and for you Harmony lovers on the board, check these out:

http://www.universalremote.com/product_detail.php?model=55

http://www.universalremote.com/product_detail.php?model=38

I like the Harmony but those of those kick the Harmony's butt (and the 850 is waaaay more expensive, but it supports RF as well as IR)

Good point about the bluetooth: the Harmony One remote only does IR, so if you need RF or bluetooth, it won't solve your problem.

[Andyzipp]

I'm still not sold on Blu-Ray becoming the standard in the future.  It's great right now but I don't think physical media will be the standard 10-15 years from now.

I bought a DVD player in 1998. I do not feel ripped off because I've got 10 years of service out of the technology.  Why would you feel differently about getting 10-15 years of use out of Blu-Ray players and media?

Do you also feel taken in by cassette tapes?

[Trey]

I bought a DVD player in 1998. I do not feel ripped off because I've got 10 years of service out of the technology.  Why would you feel differently about getting 10-15 years of use out of Blu-Ray players and media?

Do you also feel taken in by cassette tapes?

While I don't disagree (double negatives make you sound not dumb, I think) with your sentiment, I think we're a lot closer to VOD than 10 years.  I think it's more like 1-2.  I'm guessing it will take at least that long for Blu-Ray to really take over and start getting everything converted over.

[MusicMan]

While I don't disagree (double negatives make you sound not dumb, I think) with your sentiment, I think we're a lot closer to VOD than 10 years.  I think it's more like 1-2.  I'm guessing it will take at least that long for Blu-Ray to really take over and start getting everything converted over.

To me, that's not the point of Blu-Ray.  It's like saying that you should abandon vinyl because cassette tapes are available.  One has the advantage of portability; one is a far superior storage and delivery medium.

[Lurch]

While I don't disagree (double negatives make you sound not dumb, I think) with your sentiment, I think we're a lot closer to VOD than 10 years.  I think it's more like 1-2.  I'm guessing it will take at least that long for Blu-Ray to really take over and start getting everything converted over.

I wouldnt be building a huge personal library of Blu-Ray DVDs like many did with cassettes, vhs tapes, cds, dvds...

[Trey]

To me, that's not the point of Blu-Ray.  It's like saying that you should abandon vinyl because cassette tapes are available.  One has the advantage of portability; one is a far superior storage and delivery medium.

I think that VOD will trump blu-ray in all aspects within a year or two.  I guess that's what I'm saying.  Rather poorly, obviously.

Of course, how long have we heard about e-readers?

[Matt]

I bought a DVD player in 1998. I do not feel ripped off because I've got 10 years of service out of the technology.  Why would you feel differently about getting 10-15 years of use out of Blu-Ray players and media?

Do you also feel taken in by cassette tapes?

I don't feel taken in with Blu-Ray as I haven't boughten a player yet. I just feel by the time it gets any kind of substantial hold on the market that non-physical HD content will be more then viable.

[Ty in Tampa]

I doubt 1080p on-demand is around any nearby corner, at least one that's available everywhere and worth looking at.

[Waldo]

The remote issue is another - I have a Harmony, but the PS3 is bluetooth, so you need to either get an IR adapter or use the bluetooth Sony remote.

That blows.  Not necessarily a show-stopper, though.

That said, as a media center, the PS3 is simply awesome. The blu-ray output is fantastic, upscaling of DVDs is so good that I've abandoned my DVD player, and it streams everything from my home network like a champ. I've also taken to ripping all of my DVDs to MP4s and storing the library on the PS3, which is nice.

Can the PS3 rip DVDs natively?  I've always wanted to do that.

I'm still not sold on Blu-Ray becoming the standard in the future.  It's great right now but I don't think physical media will be the standard 10-15 years from now.

Even if Blu-Ray is only the standard for the next 5 years, I think it will have had a pretty successful run.

[Gizzmonic]

The problem with VOD is that the broadband companies are already experimenting with tiered pricing.  They want to charge the "leeches" that max out their internet connections all day more than the little old ladies who check their email twice a month.  Fine and good, except that if VOD takes off, everyone will be maxing out their internet connection all the time to rent/buy movies. 

The cable companies don't want competition from VOD. Time Warner has periodically dropped connections to the iTunes store for hours at a time, although they say it was an accident.  Without Net Neutrality, you will either be forced to your own cable company's VOD service or you can expect to pay through the nose to access their competitors' offerings.

Also, there's the matter of quality.  The 720p-compressed-to-all-hell "HD" content that Xbox360 and other online providers offer is a far cry from the minimally compressed 1080p quality of a Blu-Ray disc.  So until we all get fiber to the curb, Blu-Ray will have a quality advantage.  VOD will probably be more convenient and may even win in the long run, but it all depends on how friendly the broadband providers will be with their VOD competitors, and if legislators decide to mandate Net Neutrality or other ground rules.

Right now, DVD is Blu-Ray's worst enemy...and that's unlikely to change any time soon.

I think that VOD will trump blu-ray in all aspects within a year or two.  I guess that's what I'm saying.  Rather poorly, obviously.

Of course, how long have we heard about e-readers?

[JackAstro]

Can the PS3 rip DVDs natively?  I've always wanted to do that.

Not natively, no. But installing a linux distro on the PS3 is easy (and officially supported), so you could definitely do your ripping on the PS3 without too much trouble. I personally do it on my Mac and transfer the files over, because I'm lazy.

Speaking of, any Mac users with a PS3, get MediaLink right this second. It is your friend.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think that VOD will trump blu-ray in all aspects within a year or two.  I guess that's what I'm saying.  Rather poorly, obviously.

In fact, my reluctance to get either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD has been driven by the factors that (1) I've already got a massive collection of SD-DVDs, so I'm not going to replace them all, (2) I've got a DirecTV HD-DVR, so I record a lot of HD content that I can watch any time and, (3) perhaps most important, with the new software release on the Apple TV, I can stream HD movies and TV shows to my HDTV through iTunes. Apple's selection isn't huge right now, but that will change, and while the quality reportedly isn't quite as good as Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, it's still very good, and it's a more cost-effective alternative.

[Limey]

The part that is somewhat disconcerting is the cost right now for a Blu-Ray player is way too high.  It will come down of course, in about two years.  The consumers who will spend that sort of cayshe on the player right now will be those with disposable income and... ahum... Limey.

ETA:  Damn.  Wrote all this then read the rest of the thread.  Sorry for the overlap.
- Jose de Jesus Ortiz Limey



I've been drifting along using a standard DVD player that upscales 480p to 720p or 1080i.  It's pretty damn good (as is my HD cable box that does the same thing for non-HD broadcasts) but clearly just a stop-gap until the HiDef DVD war panned out.  Now that it has, I'll probably get one, but everyone should be aware that even this is just a stop-gap until digital "on-demand" services expand to make the need to purchase discs mute.

If you have digital cable, you have an on-demand service right now.  Mostly "low-def" offerings for now on a limited but rotating library.  But these will expand to add more movies and in high-def.  Apple TV, for example, has a deal with all the major (and most of the minor) studios in Hollywood to offer their catalogues - all in HD, all available for instant viewing on your giant HDTV.  Apple will even let you download the movie onto your laptop, iPod or iPhone to take with you on a trip.

If a Blu-Ray disc costs $30 to buy, and you can watch the same movie in the same movie on your Apple TV for $5/time, that means you can watch that movie six times before you're losing money.  Or, you can watch that movie twice, and watch other movies with the balance.  And once the service takes off and the prices come down, on-demand via Apple or anyone else will become the way to go.  No need to store all those DVDs, no need to have a separate player and everything available on every TV which multiplies the equipment savings.

So, Limey says, go ahead and get your Blu-Ray player.  I am.  But don't go crazy on re-purchasing your existing movies (save a few, very favourite ones) because you'll end up throwing them all away before you know it.  On-demand technology is already here and is already viable and available and cost-effective.  All it needs is to break the consumer fallacy that to "own" a movie you have to have it in physical form.

DISCLAIMER:  Broadcast HD and Apple TV is 720p max.  Blu-Ray is 1080p, which is superior.  However: (a) you'll need a 'uge TV to be able to tell the difference, and (ii) I expect that they'll up the quality of on-demand HD once 1080p becomes more widely taken up.

[Limey]

On a related note, I went and splurged on one of the new Logitech Harmony One remotes (I got tired of screwing around with 5 different remotes). That thing works great! Took about 45 minutes to set up (you gather up model numbers of all the equipment you want to control, write down info about what settings are required to play different sources, etc), and then go online to set up the common actions you want to perform (watch a Blu-ray disc, watch cable, listen to CDs, etc). Their wizard guides you through the steps of selecting the appropriate components, settings, etc, and then you download everything to the remote via a USB cable. When that's complete, there's a little touchscreen on the remote with buttons for "watch a Blu-ray disc", "watch cable", etc: everything you set up earlier. Hit the button, and it powers everything up in sequence, selects the appropriate sources on your receiver, monitor, and what not, and you're off to the races. All of the other control buttons worked on the first try for me (e.g., mute, jump to last channel, volume up/down, channel guide on cable box, etc). I haven't tried the more esoteric things such detailed video settings on my monitor so I don't know if they work or not, but I've got that set up already and don't have to screw with it, so I don't really care. But the beauty part is that my wife can now go upstairs, hit "watch a Blu-ray disc" and everything works. She really didn't want to have to understand all of the low-level stuff, and there's not really any reason she should need to.

I have one of these.  They rock!

[strosrays]

The problem with VOD is that the broadband companies are already experimenting with tiered pricing.  They want to charge the "leeches" that max out their internet connections all day more than the little old ladies who check their email twice a month.  Fine and good, except that if VOD takes off, everyone will be maxing out their internet connection all the time to rent/buy movies. 

The cable companies don't want competition from VOD. Time Warner has periodically dropped connections to the iTunes store for hours at a time, although they say it was an accident.  Without Net Neutrality, you will either be forced to your own cable company's VOD service or you can expect to pay through the nose to access their competitors' offerings.

Cable companies to try bandwidth caps

Time Warner singles out Beaumont, Texas.  The fuckers.  'Course, if it works here, Houston is likely next.

As a non-consumer of internet video, I won't be directly affected by this.  But if they are going to charge people for using over 5 gbs a month, then I think they should drop the rate for people who use a lot less.  Make the whole rate based on monthly use?  I am not sure about that. 

It would be a quick way to monitor internet use in the household.  The cable bill goes up $20.00 this month?  "Junior, get in here!  And bring your fucking laptop!"

[TheWizard]

Like others have stated, several articles I've read have stated that while Blu Ray won the battle, even Sony concedes that it sees it as as stepping stone to IPTV or VOD.  They've implied that Blu Ray won't have nearly the life that DVD had.  Not sure I believe that though, that everyone will become tech savvy enough to be using media transfered via high-speed data connections.

[Arky Vaughan]

Like others have stated, several articles I've read have stated that while Blu Ray won the battle, even Sony concedes that it sees it as as stepping stone to IPTV or VOD.  They've implied that Blu Ray won't have nearly the life that DVD had.  Not sure I believe that though, that everyone will become tech savvy enough to be using media transfered via high-speed data connections.

Most people seem to be able to use TiVo OK. Why would this be any different?

[TheWizard]

Most people seem to be able to use TiVo OK. Why would this be any different?

True, but while a lot of folks use TiVo or DVR, not everyone does.  What I mean is that I'm not sure I believe that Blu Ray will only have a lifespan of 5-10 years because everyone will be switching to IPTV or another similar form of media.  There will always be folks who would like to have a physical disc their media is on.

[Noe]

True, but while a lot of folks use TiVo or DVR, not everyone does.  What I mean is that I'm not sure I believe that Blu Ray will only have a lifespan of 5-10 years because everyone will be switching to IPTV or another similar form of media.  There will always be folks who would like to have a physical disc their media is on.

I set up our HDTV and all the peripherals (HDVD, HDTV Cable box, surround sound, etc.)  Of course, that meant that for now, I have five remotes.  My wife takes one look at all the remotes and all the connected items and then tells me "I just want to watch a video, I'm going into the game room to use the *old* system we had, it was much easier".

The boys, age 9 and 14... no problem.  I didn't even explain to them how to use the remotes.  The nine year old rented movies from the Library (a reward for his reading books from the same) and before I could teach him how to turn everything on, he had it lock and loaded and ready to go... in fact, he was watching his movie before I even got to the room to show him.

The older one just laughs saying "one day, we will get more sophisticated around here... for now, this will have to do!".  He's right of course, but if you were to ask my missus, she'd say give her the old analog system with a simple dvd hook up any day of the week.

[Astroholic]

I set up our HDTV and all the peripherals (HDVD, HDTV Cable box, surround sound, etc.)  Of course, that meant that for now, I have five remotes.  My wife takes one look at all the remotes and all the connected items and then tells me "I just want to watch a video, I'm going into the game room to use the *old* system we had, it was much easier".

The boys, age 9 and 14... no problem.  I didn't even explain to them how to use the remotes.  The nine year old rented movies from the Library (a reward for his reading books from the same) and before I could teach him how to turn everything on, he had it lock and loaded and ready to go... in fact, he was watching his movie before I even got to the room to show him.

The older one just laughs saying "one day, we will get more sophisticated around here... for now, this will have to do!".  He's right of course, but if you were to ask my missus, she'd say give her the old analog system with a simple dvd hook up any day of the week.

Invest in a Harmony.

[Gizzmonic]

ETA:  Damn.  Wrote all this then read the rest of the thread.  Sorry for the overlap.
- Jose de Jesus Ortiz Limey



I've been drifting along using a standard DVD player that upscales 480p to 720p or 1080i.  It's pretty damn good (as is my HD cable box that does the same thing for non-HD broadcasts) but clearly just a stop-gap until the HiDef DVD war panned out.  Now that it has, I'll probably get one, but everyone should be aware that even this is just a stop-gap until digital "on-demand" services expand to make the need to purchase discs mute.

If you have digital cable, you have an on-demand service right now.  Mostly "low-def" offerings for now on a limited but rotating library.  But these will expand to add more movies and in high-def.  Apple TV, for example, has a deal with all the major (and most of the minor) studios in Hollywood to offer their catalogues - all in HD, all available for instant viewing on your giant HDTV.  Apple will even let you download the movie onto your laptop, iPod or iPhone to take with you on a trip.

If a Blu-Ray disc costs $30 to buy, and you can watch the same movie in the same movie on your Apple TV for $5/time, that means you can watch that movie six times before you're losing money.  Or, you can watch that movie twice, and watch other movies with the balance.  And once the service takes off and the prices come down, on-demand via Apple or anyone else will become the way to go.  No need to store all those DVDs, no need to have a separate player and everything available on every TV which multiplies the equipment savings.

So, Limey says, go ahead and get your Blu-Ray player.  I am.  But don't go crazy on re-purchasing your existing movies (save a few, very favourite ones) because you'll end up throwing them all away before you know it.  On-demand technology is already here and is already viable and available and cost-effective.  All it needs is to break the consumer fallacy that to "own" a movie you have to have it in physical form.

DISCLAIMER:  Broadcast HD and Apple TV is 720p max.  Blu-Ray is 1080p, which is superior.  However: (a) you'll need a 'uge TV to be able to tell the difference, and (ii) I expect that they'll up the quality of on-demand HD once 1080p becomes more widely taken up.

Another obstacle to VOD "ownership" is DRM.  I'm sure you're familiar with the restrictions on iTunes...you can't copy them to a friend's computer and play them.  You'd better have a backup because if your hard drive fails, Apple will not allow you to re-download the files you purchased.  AIf Apple decides to shut off iTunes, or goes out of business, your movies will not play.

Sound far-fetched?  I don't know if anyone remembers the short-lived competitor to DVD, DivX.  The idea with DiVX was that you paid a small amount for the disc (say $5) and you were permitted to play it 2 or 3 times.  If you wanted to play it more, you'd pay Panasonic and the DivX player would connect via modem and authorize unlimited plays.  This experiment failed, and once the DivX hotline shut down, consumers were left with useless pieces of plastic.

The same thing could happen again with any number of VOD services, including iTunes, Microsoft's service, etc.  For the same price (and it looks like most of the offerings are around the same price) I'd rather have physical media that I know will work without having to "phone home" through some enabling middleman.

[Arky Vaughan]

Another obstacle to VOD "ownership" is DRM.  I'm sure you're familiar with the restrictions on iTunes...you can't copy them to a friend's computer and play them.  You'd better have a backup because if your hard drive fails, Apple will not allow you to re-download the files you purchased.  AIf Apple decides to shut off iTunes, or goes out of business, your movies will not play.

Sound far-fetched?  I don't know if anyone remembers the short-lived competitor to DVD, DivX.  The idea with DiVX was that you paid a small amount for the disc (say $5) and you were permitted to play it 2 or 3 times.  If you wanted to play it more, you'd pay Panasonic and the DivX player would connect via modem and authorize unlimited plays.  This experiment failed, and once the DivX hotline shut down, consumers were left with useless pieces of plastic.

The same thing could happen again with any number of VOD services, including iTunes, Microsoft's service, etc.  For the same price (and it looks like most of the offerings are around the same price) I'd rather have physical media that I know will work without having to "phone home" through some enabling middleman.

This concern would not be as great with a rental service.

When the Apple TV was first released, you could only stream (or sync) music, movies and TV shows that you had already purchased or ripped through iTunes. In other words, you had to add the media to your library at your computer, and only then would it be available on your TV.

The latest Apple TV release this month makes it possible to download a movie rental while watching TV. You can browse movie titles and rent them for $2.99 for older movies, $3.99 for new movies and $4.99 for HD. You have 30 days to start a movie, and 24 hours to finish it once you've started. It's like a mix of PPV and on-demand that you get on cable.

So you can't share them, but for most people, being able to order up a movie rental at a reasonable price using the remote control from the sofa is probably a pretty good arrangement. The hook-up and user interface are easy too.

Also, Apple going out of business would not cause movies not to play. iTunes is a software application on your computer. The music or movies you download are protected files that limit copying, but they are not dependent on any online connection with Apple once you've downloaded them. They would continue to play even if your computer never accessed Apple's servers again.

[Ankh]

How many times do you really watch a movie? The DivX issue for me wasn't that that the disc didn't last after DivX went out of business, it was that the discs did not have any special features of a DVD. Basically, you could rent a DVD from Blockbuster and get extras like deleted scenes and commentary, but for the same rental price, you won't get that on a DivX disc.  The "ownership" argument was always bullhockey to me - I prefer to rent that to buy stuff I rarely rewatch.

For me, I stream unlimited Bollywood movies through bwcinema.com for $10 a month. The quality is pretty good for streaming video, and I can always restart a stream for any movie at any point in the movie. Good stuff.

For me, both Blu-Ray and streaming video are great, and I'll enjoy both.

[tophfar]

The "ownership" argument was always bullhockey to me - I prefer to rent that to buy stuff I rarely rewatch.

Yeah, because no one collects things.  Like Movies.  Everyone else does things just like you, so obviously the argument cannot be valid.

[Ankh]

Must be why Netflix and Blockbuster never did shit.

[Arky Vaughan]

Yeah, because no one collects things.  Like Movies.  Everyone else does things just like you, so obviously the argument cannot be valid.

How do DVD sales compare with DVD rentals as far as viewership is concerned?

[Ankh]

PS, DivX "gold" discs were unlocked foreever.

[tophfar]

How do DVD sales compare with DVD rentals as far as viewership is concerned?

What difference does that make?  Especially considering that

http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2007.php

Rank        DVD Name        Units Sold        Sales Revenue        Release Date   
1     Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End    13,699,490    $279,046,391    12/4/2007
2     Transformers    13,251,378    $302,706,311    10/16/2007
3     Happy Feet    12,353,541    $208,418,686    3/27/2007
4     300    12,248,728    $263,577,299    7/31/2007
5     Ratatouille    11,233,232    $169,016,024    11/6/2007
6     Shrek the Third    10,889,584    $164,198,234    11/13/2007
7     Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix    9,905,305    $200,996,396    12/11/2007
8     Night at the Museum    8,787,682    $148,189,379    4/24/2007
9     Departed, The    7,563,680    $146,168,519    2/13/2007
10     Spider-Man 3    6,845,349    $116,640,667    10/30/2007

Represents around 2 billion dollars worth, and thats just ten DVD's sold last year.  And the 100th top selling DVD still sold more than 22 million dollars worth. 

It would seem that ownership of an actual physical product is of rather large concern to a great many people out there.

The idea that an argument is bunk because it's not a concern of some random individual is beyond illogical and stupid.  And the defense of such shares the same traits.

[JackAstro]

For right now, getting a bunch of 1080p blu-ray discs from Netflix every month for $9 is much more desirable than streaming two 720p movies for $10. Things will evolve over time, but I don't see much that's compelling about the Apple TV right now. At least it's less shitty than the first generation.

[tophfar]

Must be why Netflix and Blockbuster never did shit.

And Best Buy and FYE and other entertainment outlets are just going out of business?

And Blockbuster will also sell you DVD's too dontcha know.

[Gizzmonic]

Actually Blockbuster and FYE are in big trouble.  I don't think Best Buy is in trouble because it sells hardware as well, but movie rentals and CD sales are on the decline.  MP3/AAC files are more convenient than CD, but I don't think we've gotten to the point where digital video is as convenient as DVD.

And Best Buy and FYE and other entertainment outlets are just going out of business?

And Blockbuster will also sell you DVD's too dontcha know.

[Andyzipp]

For right now, getting a bunch of 1080p blu-ray discs from Netflix every month for $9 is much more desirable than streaming two 720p movies for $10. Things will evolve over time, but I don't see much that's compelling about the Apple TV right now. At least it's less shitty than the first generation.

With statements like that...you know you're just begging certain immigrants to give you pages and pages of posts about why Apple can do no wrong.

[MusicMan]

With statements like that...you know you're just begging certain immigrants to give you pages and pages of posts about why Apple can do no wrong.

Shouldn't Tejada and Matsui be more concerned with their DP timing?

[Andyzipp]

Shouldn't Tejada and Matsui be more concerned with their DP timing?

One would think...

[gleach]

For right now, getting a bunch of 1080p blu-ray discs from Netflix every month for $9 is much more desirable than streaming two 720p movies for $10. Things will evolve over time, but I don't see much that's compelling about the Apple TV right now. At least it's less shitty than the first generation.

I have an Apple TV.  I hated it for the first year because it was worthless.  Now that I can rent movies it is less worthless. I am not saying it is worthwhile, but it is certainly less worthless.  I have rented a couple of movies on it, and it is easy.  It is also close to immediate, so even if I finish all of my netflix movies I can get something else to watch now.

[JackAstro]

I have an Apple TV.  I hated it for the first year because it was worthless.  Now that I can rent movies it is less worthless. I am not saying it is worthwhile, but it is certainly less worthless.  I have rented a couple of movies on it, and it is easy.  It is also close to immediate, so even if I finish all of my netflix movies I can get something else to watch now.

Funny... "less worthless" is exactly how the guy in the office next to me described it after the rental announcement at Macworld. They should add that to the product page on the site.

[Arky Vaughan]

What difference does that make?  Especially considering that

http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2007.php

Rank        DVD Name        Units Sold        Sales Revenue        Release Date   
1     Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End    13,699,490    $279,046,391    12/4/2007
2     Transformers    13,251,378    $302,706,311    10/16/2007
3     Happy Feet    12,353,541    $208,418,686    3/27/2007
4     300    12,248,728    $263,577,299    7/31/2007
5     Ratatouille    11,233,232    $169,016,024    11/6/2007
6     Shrek the Third    10,889,584    $164,198,234    11/13/2007
7     Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix    9,905,305    $200,996,396    12/11/2007
8     Night at the Museum    8,787,682    $148,189,379    4/24/2007
9     Departed, The    7,563,680    $146,168,519    2/13/2007
10     Spider-Man 3    6,845,349    $116,640,667    10/30/2007

Represents around 2 billion dollars worth, and thats just ten DVD's sold last year.  And the 100th top selling DVD still sold more than 22 million dollars worth. 

It would seem that ownership of an actual physical product is of rather large concern to a great many people out there.

The idea that an argument is bunk because it's not a concern of some random individual is beyond illogical and stupid.  And the defense of such shares the same traits.

I was just wondering because I didn't know the answer. There's no reason to get nasty about it.

[Arky Vaughan]

And Best Buy and FYE and other entertainment outlets are just going out of business?

And Blockbuster will also sell you DVD's too dontcha know.

Actually, almost every dime I've spent on DVDs over the last two years has been buying used DVDs at half-price or less at Blockbuster rather than renting them or buying them new at Best Buy. So I'm not arguing that people don't want to collect things. Which is why I've got a huge stack of DVDs next to a huge stack of laserdiscs next to a huge stack of CDs, LPs and 45s and used to have a huge stack of VHS and cassette tapes. It's probably 2,000 pounds of music and video media.

The biggest change of any of these over the last two decades has been the ability to rip all of my CDs and have them digitally, accessible on my computer, iPod and Apple TV. The CDs, LPs and 45s are relics, and I've thrown out the cassette tapes. If I could ever get all my movies on a hard drive as well, the DVDs would become obsolete. I don't watch the laserdiscs anymore, having replaced most of them with DVDs, and I ditched the VHS tapes a few years ago. The problem, of course, is that ripping 1,000 DVDs would take forever. I already spent three years ripping 700 CDs.

But I'm strongly considering buying more movies digitally from now on. I love having all my media available instantly. Besides the time involved with ripping DVDs, there's still the quality issue. I'd rather have 1080p and fully encoded 7.1 surround than the 720p and 5.1 (at best) that the Apple TV currently offers. But I suspect that'll change in the future. So even for someone who's a collector on a mega-scale, I still think having video on demand access would be a great convenience.

I'm not extrapolating to think my ways are everyone else's ways. But I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that people will get used to downloading movies moreso than buying them in stores. It's worked for music. CD sales have slumped, while online music sales are booming. If near-parity in quality can be achieved, what's different for movies?

[Craig]

I just read an interesting article that says iTunes was the second-leading seller of music in 2007 (behind Wal-Mart and ahead of Best Buy). It also said that last year 48% of teenagers did not buy a single CD. That was up from 38% the year before.

[Arky Vaughan]

I have an Apple TV.  I hated it for the first year because it was worthless.  Now that I can rent movies it is less worthless. I am not saying it is worthwhile, but it is certainly less worthless.  I have rented a couple of movies on it, and it is easy.  It is also close to immediate, so even if I finish all of my netflix movies I can get something else to watch now.

I didn't find it worthless being able to stream music and photos and having an easy-interface on-screen display. If you don't value that, then it would be pretty worthless. But then why buy one?

[Arky Vaughan]

I just read an interesting article that says iTunes was the second-leading seller of music in 2007 (behind Wal-Mart and ahead of Best Buy). It also said that last year 48% of teenagers did not buy a single CD. That was up from 38% the year before.

How did they get by without collecting the physical artifact of a CD?

[tophfar]

I was just wondering because I didn't know the answer. There's no reason to get nasty about it.

Sorry, been a long day, didnt mean to snap off.

[gleach]

I didn't find it worthless being able to stream music and photos and having an easy-interface on-screen display. If you don't value that, then it would be pretty worthless. But then why buy one?

I got it as a gift.  I don't stream music over my gameroom television very often, I usually hook my ipod to my whole house audio system.  I don't do much with photos, but my wife does.  She bought it for me because she knows I love gadgets of all sorts.  It was a nice gift from her.  I am not complaining.  But she knows that I used it approximately 3 times in the last year.  Now that I can get movies on it, I have already used it twice in about 2 weeks.  Like I said, it is now less worthless (should have stipulated that it was "to me"). 

[Limey]

I have an Apple TV.  I hated it for the first year because it was worthless.  Now that I can rent movies it is less worthless. I am not saying it is worthwhile, but it is certainly less worthless.  I have rented a couple of movies on it, and it is easy.  It is also close to immediate, so even if I finish all of my netflix movies I can get something else to watch now.

Any porno?

[Limey]

With statements like that...you know you're just begging certain immigrants to give you pages and pages of posts about why Apple can do no wrong.

Noe?

[gleach]

Any porno?

yeah, but I am into little people and homo erotic clowns (redundant?), so it's not for everyone.

[Limey]

yeah, but I am into little people and homo erotic clowns (redundant?), so it's not for everyone anyone.

FIFY