Surprise, surprise, more people are buying Blu-ray players this year over last year. I guess that’s to be expected. In all, retailers have ordered 13 percent more Blu-ray players this year. That’s 3.3 million for those keeping track. So this brings the total amount of Blu-ray players – including PS3s – in American households to a whopping 11.7 million and in nearly 25% of homes that own an HDTV when considering that 45 million US homes have high-def sets. Yeah, that’s cool. But I still don’t want a Blu-ray player.
There was a time when I was totally in the HD DVD camp. I was yelling its virtues from atop a mountain. It was going to revolutionize home-based HD viewing. But then I got fed up with the whole HD DVD vs Blu-ray thing. Why in the world would I invest money into equipment and discs that might be obsolete one day. The day I came to that conclusion was the day physical media died for me.
Sure, some folks will still buy Blu-ray players and I won’t try to stop them. It’s the only way to get the very best HD audio and video at home. Hell, most of the time it can be a better picture than from your local cinema. But I’m totally content with the HD picture that streaming media services like Netflix and Vudu offer. The point and click convenience is so much more satisfying that a higher quality picture to me.
So while Mom and Pops will still buy Blu-ray players from slightly pushy Best Buy salesmen, the rest of us will probably be just fine without a Blu-ray player at this point. Maybe, just maybe, if the players and titles drop in price even more, I’ll pick one up just because. Maybe.
I’m not too excited about Blu-ray either. But I keep reading rumors that for the holidays, Blu-ray players will be a lot less. Plus sometimes Blu-ray discs go on sale, and are generally cheaper on Amazon. They have some horror Blu-ray discs on sale for $15 at Best Buy this week. Sales like that may help change my mind
I’m looking at a PS3 for my Blu-ray player, since it can do more than just play discs. If I go the Blu-ray route, PS3 will likely be it.
The one thing that stops me from going Blu-ray though, isn’t online media but the fact that DVDs(yes I still buy those) are dirt cheap(used even cheaper) along with the players. Using a good ripper, I can then view titles I like on my PC or media player.
so you’re a quantity over quality person?
yes, in this case
“There was a time when I was totally in the HD DVD camp. I was yelling its virtues from atop a mountain. It was going to revolutionize home-based HD viewing. But then I got fed up with the whole HD DVD vs Blu-ray thing.”
In other words, the format you backed LOST. So, rather than bite the bullet and invest in the format that the rest of the industry has unified around (including Toshiba), you seek out other performance-compromised alternatives just to get back at Blu-ray for daring to vanquish your beloved HD-DVD format. To each their own, I guess.
I wonder about whether the embittered HD-DVD devotees who now worship at the altar of online/streaming media (”It’s about the convenience, not about the quality!”) would share those same views if HD-DVD had won the format war.
FWIW, I think Blu-ray will wind up doing just fine by simple attrition. As Blu-ray player prices continue to tumble, consumers will wind up simply replacing their current DVD players with Blu-ray models. This is no different than how consumers are replacing their older TVs with HDTVs — prices on HDTVs are now on par with how much analog TVs cost just a few years ago, and you can hardly find TVs without HD capability to begin with.
Physical disc media will be with us for a while, so long as the landscape for streaming/online options remains as balkanized as it is right now (i.e., competing formats, different pricing structures, differing DRM, etc.). The streaming-obsessed tech press can’t bring itself to admit that the vast majority of TV and movie viewing will continue to occur via broadcast and optical media until online media can overcome the market barriers that still exist (i.e., most consumers don’t want to hook their TV up to a computer, don’t watch TV on their computer, lack the bandwidth necessary for real time HD video streaming, etc.).
Blu-ray won’t take over the industry the way that the DVD did (I doubt that people will repurchase their favorite DVD titles in droves), but it has already carved out a sizable share of the new release market, and that share will only grow as the number of Blu-ray players increases (and this also includes the millions of PS3 out there).
“I wonder about whether the embittered HD-DVD devotees who now worship at the altar of online/streaming media (”It’s about the convenience, not about the quality!”) would share those same views if HD-DVD had won the format war.”
a) BTW, the “HD-DVD devotees,” are still just that, embittered or not!
b) anyone with half a brain, regardless of their optical media preferences or format battle affiliations, can see that the rise of downloaded media content is beginning to out strip that of physical media (revenue wise). Even the major Hollywood studios and networks realize it.
c) You do not have to hook your computer up to your HDTV to watch programming in HD anymore. you can do it right on your 24″ or better, HD ready computer LCD screen!
d) Every HD DVR (Sat. or cable), XBOX360, PS3, Vudu, etc. is a digital device (Consumer level COMPUTER) that connected to their HDTV!
e) Many of the New and Next generation HDTVs have BUILT IN multimedia computers and many have direct NETWORK/INTERNET accessibility. Negating the need to connect ones computer to the HDTV altogether.
f) The FUTURE IS HERE! Wake up (the HDM format battle is over and the WAR has just begun)! The B-Ray zealots can cling on to the hope that one day B-Ray will be as ubiquitous as DVD……uh..to coin the phrase, “To each their own, I guess”
Please be sure to let me know when you hit even 45,000 B-Ray titles (~half of DVD BTW) AND I can play a B-Ray title ANYWHERE that I go (in the car, at the hotel, on the plane, on every model of MAC book or PC LapTop/Netbook, etc.)
Overall I agree with Matt and I will not buy into B-Ray! Not just because I too still believe HD DVD to be a superior HD delivery system to B-Ray, in almost every way, but rather, I do not see the point in investing in a (second for me) walking dead media format.
To address the real meat of your somewhat sarcastic question, would HD DVD, and it’s consumers, have faced the same challenge if it had survived or won the HDM battle? Irrelevant question at this point, but IMO absolutely! M$, Steve Jobs and the Major Studios know that HDM’s time to live, is limited. Even some of the BDA members have stated it to the press. HDM was created to continue to generate revenue to the Studios and the CEMs in the time interval between the slow sales death of DVD and the nexus of High Speed INTERNET infrastructure build out, DRM standardization and the creation of Download-able media content.
I get HD content today (honestly, more content than I can watch) via HD sat. The quality is dammed good on my calibrated TVs. Is it as good as HD DVD or Blu-Ray? Probably not. But without either optical media format having the shear breadth of HD content to compare it against, it is PERFECT for now and into the relative future! VOD works well, and some of it is 1080p so that is a non-issue or disadvantage.
For the rest of my HD injection, I watch Movies & TV, in HD, on my REAL computer, which work FAR MORE reliably than an B-Ray player that I have seen, worked with, or had the continuing displeasure of constantly hearing my friends complain about new B-Ray movies which they can not watch on their new BD players!
I have HS-DSL for my broadband and I am not subject to any DL limits or metering… It may take longer to DL HD content (especially 1080p), but that is okay with me as most of my DVRs are full of HD stuff, that I have not watched yet anyway.
“Anyone with half a brain, regardless of their optical media preferences or format battle affiliations, can see that the rise of downloaded media content is beginning to out strip that of physical media (revenue wise). Even the major Hollywood studios and networks realize it.”
Not even close. the DEG’s figures put downloads + VOD at around $960 million for the first 6 months of 2009 (up 21% on the same period in 2008), for the same period Blu-Ray revenues were around $640 million (up around 90% on 2008)
That sounds like a big win for digital distribution (other than the minimal growth over 2008), until you realise that the digital figure includes not only VOD over traditional cable and satellite, and the only figure the DEG would give was the curiously named “digital sell-through” figure of just under $200 million. Even more damning, the digital figures include both SD and HD content which likely means the HD percentage of that figure is tiny.
Whichever way you want to cut it, take your pick – HD downloads vs Blu-Ray, SD+HD downloads vs DVD & Blu-Ray – movie downloads are a fly-spot at the moment, and with only 21% growth YOY it doesn’t look like that’ll be changing any time soon.
“But without either optical media format having the shear breadth of HD content to compare it against, it is PERFECT for now and into the relative future!” Enlighten me, which VOD service are you using that has a “shear breadth” of content? The only one that comes close to Blu-Ray’s 1500 titles is Vudu, and very few of those are in high-quality HDX.
a) To clarify , I specifically stated, “Downloaded media content,” not necessary including or excluding either HD content, or SD content. The point was really about the revenue relative to the delivery medium period. (As you pointed out, this shows where people are spending their hard earned money,) which is ALL the studios really care about!
“downloads + VOD at around $960 million”
“Blu-Ray revenues were around $640 million”
As the CEO and Major share holder of a major movie studio, which do you think would get your attention faster? Oh and this is revenue, not profit! That we in the general public will probably never know, but I am willing to speculate that the ongoing overhead for BD authoring, production, marketing and distribution and licensing, would and generally does exceed the overhead required to distribute that same or similar content, via the Internet, from a studio’s perspective. Again, remember, it’s your company and your shareholders money, so what would you do?
b) “I get HD content today (honestly, more content than I can watch) via HD sat. The quality is dammed good on my calibrated TVs. Is it as good as HD DVD or Blu-Ray? Probably not. But without either optical media format having the shear breadth of HD content to compare it against, it is PERFECT for now and into the relative future! ”
I was not referring to only VOD or Internet based video delivery mediums. I was referring to any high quality HD content source, which the general consumer has access to today. For me, that is HD Sat. (@ MPEG-4). For others, it can include HD cable, a VOD system, Internet downloads, etc. Most of the TV series and movie programming, that I watch these days, is in HD via broadcast or VOD medium. Some of it is at 1080p, however most of it is at 1080i (same thing to me). The quality looks outstanding, at least until I play an HD DVD of the same thing on the same screen. Then I can both see, and appreciate, the VQ & AQ differences. Other say the differences are not that significant to them, as their eyeballs, retinas and eardrums had already been soundly assaulted by the first pass of the HD based content.
FWIW…..All my main HT gear is fairly high end so even with 720p based source material, many people regularly mistake it for being 1080p content, on my HD setups. That may or may not be the typical HT environment or HD experience. However, my statement was driven purely from both my and my guest’s perspective.
With this, hopefully clarified context, please read my comment again and it may make a little more sense, this time.
“a) To clarify , I specifically stated, “Downloaded media content,” not necessary including or excluding either HD content, or SD content. The point was really about the revenue relative to the delivery medium period. (As you pointed out, this shows where people are spending their hard earned money,) which is ALL the studios really care about!”
Permit me to remind you what you said – “anyone with half a brain, regardless of their optical media preferences or format battle affiliations, can see that the rise of downloaded media content is beginning to out strip that of physical media (revenue wise). ” It’s clear from the DEG figures that “downloaded media content” is nowhere near outstripping physical, even if cab/sat VOD (which has been around for the best part of a decade) is included. The DEG seem reluctant to clearly separate downloads from cab/sat, but did give a figure of just under $200 million for “digital sellthrough” with overall growth of 21%. Compare that to their Blu-Ray revenue of $640 million and growth of 90%, and no way could anyone with even half a brain summize that “downloaded media content is beginning to out strip that of physical media (revenue wise)”. The opposite is true – without the cab/sat camoflage, and even ignoring that download advocates (yourself included) persist in trying to compare SD + HD downloads with Blu Ray which is HD only, and shy away from the apples-to-apples comparisons of HD downloads to Blu-Ray, or SD+HD downloads with Blu Ray and DVD, clearly they’re not growing as quickly as some would like us to believe.
““downloads + VOD at around $960 million”
“Blu-Ray revenues were around $640 million”
As the CEO and Major share holder of a major movie studio, which do you think would get your attention faster? Oh and this is revenue, not profit!”
First of, I’d identify that I was comparing SD + HD digital revenues against HD only-Blu-Ray. THEN I’d identify that the “digital” figure was including sat/cab. THEN I’d find out what percentage of that “digital” figure was really downloads, and if/how much it had actually grown without the smokescreen.
“That we in the general public will probably never know, but I am willing to speculate that the ongoing overhead for BD authoring, production, marketing and distribution and licensing, would and generally does exceed the overhead required to distribute that same or similar content, via the Internet, from a studio’s perspective.”
We know that anyone can get low runs of dual-layer, retail-ready Blu Ray disks authored for $2.90 each (http://www.pacificdisc.com/PricingBluRay.html) so the studios are definately paying a lot less for theirs. If we assume they’re paying $2.00 a unit (likely still very high) that only leaves downloads a $2.00 margin advantage. And of course, whatever a download costs to distribute, that has to be paid EVERY time it’s downloaded, and since downloads are almost exclusively “rentals” right now, that doesn’t scale very well for the studios, knowing that every download rental costs them, whereas a single physical disc probably gets rented 10,20 or even 50.
Plus, of course your assumption of this extra profit potential only stands up as long as the download providers are able to charge as much (or in some cases, more) than a physical rental or purchase, something that early adopters are happy to do, but will leave mainstream customers asking themselves why they should be paying more for less. Think of it like DVD or Blu-Ray prices having to fall as the formats moved into the mass-market, whereas downloads are still in that early-adopter only honeymoon period.
“FWIW…..All my main HT gear is fairly high end so even with 720p based source material, ” I didn’t really get the rest of what you were going on about there. The gyst seems to be that you’ve invested heavily in high end gear, had it calibrated, but don’t use the highest quality HD content currently available. “Each to there own” indeed.
DaveBG,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree a bit here, as you seem to have your interpretation of the DEG data and I have mine!
I am attempting to discuss the revenue aspect of things not the market growth, as I see that the growth element not to be the true relevant factor here ( Forest and trees, comes to mind). Seems very cut and dry to me.
I am not attempting to do an apples-to-apples comparison! So no, I was not talking about only HD content. (BTW not all BD content is HD) That seems to be what is relevant to your point, but not to mine. BD’s competition is NOT only from HD content media sources. Not a a revenue level anyway which is why the DEG data shows all of the relative currently competing commercial media delivery formats, as a single market sector.
We, as consumers, have a choice as to where we want to spend our hard earned money to be entertained. Most of the folks that I know, only want to spend their money once, to get that specific entertainment experience. So with the choices out there, which one of the myriad of choice out there, are people tending to spend that money on? The numbers show that for today, by and large, “it AIN’T” Blu-Ray.” We can debate market growth % for BD all day long, but the revenue $ numbers are telling the real story. Just look at the whole DEG pie chart.
Note: My purpose here, is not to convince you of the validity my opinion, but merely to state my opinion, on the BD growth rate and what it means, from my perspective. If you somehow take my comments personally or you are offended in some way, well there is not much I can do or say there, except to say this is an opinion. I respect yours.
I can only comment on the information, at hand and I try to avoid speculating on the potential or possibility of things. What the studios want to charge for DL or VOD media s is completely up to them (and what the market will bear) and it does seem to vary, regardless of the mechanism.
I can not comment on the very useful information that you provided on the low run BD authoring costs ( Although a) that is only one component of the total BD production and distribution costs and b) I have no data to know if the studios are actually doing low volume runs of their movies and tv series on BD, which would make this information relevant to this discussion,or my point. )
“I’d identify that I was comparing SD + HD digital revenues against HD only-Blu-Ray. ”
Not really relevant if you are the CEO or a major share holder of a Major studio. Relevant only in a technical discussion or a product development and marketing discussion.
“THEN I’d identify that the “digital” figure was including sat/cab. THEN I’d find out what percentage of that “digital” figure was really downloads, and if/how much it had actually grown without the smokescreen.”
I see this as only being relevant from a target market segment perspective. The percentage of the digital figure represents the overall market segment demographic. Again, this is marketing, not necessarily bottom line revenue. The revenue percentages are the factors that I would expect the CEOs and COOs to be focused on. The DEG numbers are one of the tools used for this purpose, as I’m sure you know.
Something can grow in market share by hundreds of percent (i.e growth from 10 product sold last year to 100 products sold this year represents a 1000% growth rate! While the net revenue garnered for that same product may only represent a 50% increase. My point was which is more important to the CEO and Shareholders and in applying that to the BD revenue information, the competitive forms of media delivery to BD, (regardless of true apples to apples PQ & AQ) are being shown to make a more compelling financial argument to that studio shareholder. I see this disparity in revenue between BD/DVD and DL /VOD only growing larger in the coming years. Most industry analyst tend to agree with what this DEG data is showing from a trend perspective and by noting where the studio money is being more heavily invested.
“whereas downloads are still in that early-adopter only honeymoon period.”
I have to disagree here. DL Video and media have been around for quite a while now! I would say it is BD that is more likely in the Honeymoon period. And the industry still has time to get an annulment if the deem it necessary.
DL video is ubiquitous and is here to stay, for some time to come. Neither can be said for Blu-Ray, at this time. IMO
“The gyst seems to be that you’ve invested heavily in high end gear, had it calibrated, but don’t use the highest quality HD content currently available.”
Where did I state that I do not use the Highest quality HD content currently available? Perhaps a presumption on your part?
I have HD DVD, HD Sat. HD VOD and a media server with a ( 1 TB storage array) for streamed HD content… Who says that that is not the highest quality HD content currently available? What is the “highest quality HD content currently available? Available to whom? ;-)
Grated NONE of what I have is currently at 4K res. which is the HIGHEST quality HD content AVAILABLE today, that I am aware of.
So let’s put this in perspective, please. One can not judge my (or anyone else’s) HT environment without first seeing and hearing what that HT is capable of delivering. The presumption that without Blu-ray somewhere in the HT setup, one can not have the best HD quality available, is both a bit irresponsible and to coin a label, elitist. IMO Especially as there are obviously more people out there doing fine without BD, than that with, today.
Just as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” VQ & AQ are relative and subjective things. Superior technical specifications for some product or device, do not always equate to the best overall user experience. Case in point the original BD MPEG-2 release of The Fifth Element! Or the fact that Many people out there, can not play some of the NEW BD movies being released without firmware updates! I would rather not have to worry about, IF my new $ movie will play on my player, at ANY quality level.
Thank you, for allowing me to both BE and HAVE MY OWN! ;-)
This debate and the discourse has been both interesting and informative. Albeit, relatively pointless in the big scheme of things.
Enjoy your movies ALL! ANY way you can!
@The Omega Man
“b) anyone with half a brain, regardless of their optical media preferences or format battle affiliations, can see that the rise of downloaded media content is beginning to out strip that of physical media (revenue wise). Even the major Hollywood studios and networks realize it.”
Downloads are currently stagnant and will be until the issues of bandwidth caps, paucity of high-speed broadband connections, disparity of services, transportability, the technology gap for the average Joe, ownership and DRM (plus a miriad of other disadvantages) are solved. Sure, they’re “the future” but still a distant one.
“c) You do not have to hook your computer up to your HDTV to watch programming in HD anymore. you can do it right on your 24″ or better, HD ready computer LCD screen!”
Eh? So I don’t have to hook up my computer to my HDTV because I can do it on my HD ready computer LCD screen? I don’t get it, unless you’re saying I should move my living room to my office?
“d) Every HD DVR (Sat. or cable), XBOX360, PS3, Vudu, etc. is a digital device (Consumer level COMPUTER) that connected to their HDTV!”
None of which can recieve all download content services. All those different services, with some content available on one but not the other, most with proprietary hardware. Which to choose? Kudos to Vudu for getting their player into CE kit, but other than that, it’s a huge mess of incompatible formats/devices, a load of (relatively) tiny download players all scrabbling for a piece of the same tiny pie. Little wonder Apple, as probably the biggest digital provider, considers it no more than a hobby-horse for the foreseeable future.
“e) Many of the New and Next generation HDTVs have BUILT IN multimedia computers and many have direct NETWORK/INTERNET accessibility. Negating the need to connect ones computer to the HDTV altogether. ”
Unless you want to watch something besides YouTube, that’s a HUGE non sequitur you’ve just thrown in there. Again, Vudu is making some inroads, but along with Netflix they’re about the only digital companies getting their services into 3rd party devices.
“Please be sure to let me know when you hit even 45,000 B-Ray titles (~half of DVD BTW) AND I can play a B-Ray title ANYWHERE that I go (in the car, at the hotel, on the plane, on every model of MAC book or PC LapTop/Netbook, etc.) ”
So you picked downloads? Which usually can’t be played anywhere but on a proprietary device? Unless you’ve got a portable 360, PS3 or Vudu box, or you lug a laptop with you everywhere (which could equally play DVDs or Blu-Rays).
I get HD content today (honestly, more content than I can watch) via HD sat. The quality is dammed good on my calibrated TVs. Is it as good as HD DVD or Blu-Ray? Probably not. But without either optical media format having the shear breadth of HD content to compare it against, it is PERFECT for now and into the relative future! VOD works well, and some of it is 1080p so that is a non-issue or disadvantage.”
Your preferred method of viewing HD fails ALL of the criteria you gave in your previous paragraph. But if you can ignore that hypocrisy, plus live with the artifacts, lower quality sound and mis-matched aspect ratios, good luck to you. And you’ve gone to the trouble of calibrating your TV, but don’t watch movies in the highest quality available? That makes real sense.
“For the rest of my HD injection, I watch Movies & TV, in HD, on my REAL computer, which work FAR MORE reliably than an B-Ray player that I have seen, worked with, or had the continuing displeasure of constantly hearing my friends complain about new B-Ray movies which they can not watch on their new BD players! ”
News flash! Consumers (you know, the people who actually WATCH most movies) don’t watch movies on PCs, which is why HTPCs are still a flop outside of nerd circles. Your anecdotal flurry about Blu-Ray players is at best mis-informed, at worst on straight up FUD.
Milt,
“Downloads are currently stagnant and will be until the issues of bandwidth caps, paucity of high-speed broadband connections, disparity of services, transportability, the technology gap for the average Joe, ownership and DRM (plus a miriad of other disadvantages) are solved. Sure, they’re “the future” but still a distant one.”
This is not a stagnant market segment, it is growing every day. However, this is a relative factor (IMO) as I state in my reply to Dave. And, form what I see, it is here now and it is only going to get more ubiquitous and consumer friendly, in the future.
“Eh? So I don’t have to hook up my computer to my HDTV because I can do it on my HD ready computer LCD screen? I don’t get it, unless you’re saying I should move my living room to my office?” I am not advocating that anyone move or displace their living rooms for the sake of just watching HD media content. I am merely pointing out the fact that a good chunk of the DL video market place is via home user computer systems and more and more “HD” high quality content is being made available for that presentation platform, every day. I currently watch about have of my weekly HD TV series content on my computer as opposed to on the couch. That is because I can actually be productive while watching “My shows”. It works for me. ;-)
“None of which can receive all download content services. All those different services, with some content available on one but not the other, most with proprietary hardware.”
Agreed! now I have over 1000 channels of Sat. based content available to me ( out of that I regularly watch ~12 regular channels (excluding the sports channels), all in HD )
And yet I watch about half of my TV programming via the computer and not through the HD Sat.! If Netflix has a library of over 50,000 DVDs , would you rent all of them? Would you watch all of them? The point here is I think that we have to evaluate the via options on the market at the time, and leverage that which work best for our personal viewing preferences and life styles.
“Kudos to Vudu for getting their player into CE kit, but other than that, it’s a huge mess of incompatible formats/devices, a load of (relatively) tiny download players all scrabbling for a piece of the same tiny pie. ” And having Blu-Ray fixes all of that???? :-) Yes, I agree that this is an emerging market segment in terms of formats and devices, but they all provide usable video and audio to your HT devices (hopefully) Is this a do or die proposition? hell I bought into HD DVD, knowing that there was an ongoing format battle with BD and the fact that the industry is moving toward DL and VOD movie delivery. Good or bad, it was a conscious choice, one which I still reap the benefits of. At some point you either jump in the game, or continue to stand on the sidelines. If you are sure, from experience I say make sure you have a way out of that decision and that the initial capital investment in one technology over another is treated as an investment gamble, somewhat like the stock market. That last HDM format battle show the world that ANYTHING can happen, at ANY TIME!
“Little wonder Apple, as probably the biggest digital provider, considers it no more than a hobby-horse for the foreseeable future.”
Never saw that specific statement from Mr. Jobs and company! LOL! They (Apple Inc.) seem fairly heavily invested into Apple TV and iTunes! However, I did see the statement from Mr. Jobs referring to Blu-Ray as a “Bag of hurt” (re. Licensing)
“So you picked downloads? Which usually can’t be played anywhere but on a proprietary device? Unless you’ve got a portable 360, PS3 or Vudu box, or you lug a laptop with you everywhere (which could equally play DVDs or Blu-Rays).”
Well, I thought that I indicated that I pretty much picked it all (substitute Blu-Ray with HD DVD), With a media server in my house and a wired and wireless network I can play my stored and DL content anywhere in the house. Via WiFi on my laptop I can play it on the patio or at starbucks! I can burn a disc or store it on a flash card/drive and it plays on my AVR/ my LED TV/ my laptop, in my car, etc. Is it so easy that a MAC users can do it? :-) not quite, but it is getting there. My Lap top does have DVD but not a BD drive. I’m not sure it is even an option for me, considering the system resource requirements that it takes to playback a BD disc. (CPU+GFX+Mem > my batt life)
I’ll let my contacts @ M$ know about your portable 360 idea! ;-P
“Unless you want to watch something besides YouTube, that’s a HUGE non sequitur you’ve just thrown in there. Again, Vudu is making some inroads, but along with Netflix they’re about the only digital companies getting their services into 3rd party devices.”
Agreed, but stay tuned! ;-)
“Your preferred method of viewing HD fails ALL of the criteria you gave in your previous paragraph.”
How so? Especially if it works for me?
“But if you can ignore that hypocrisy, plus live with the artifacts, lower quality sound and mis-matched aspect ratios, good luck to you.”
Are you implying that there is something out there commercially, without all of these digital issues, available today? If so what would that be?
“Lower quality sound,” than what exactly?
If the movie I want to watch is NOT even available on a specific medium, then the video and audio quality both effectively hit the 0 mark, if I rely solely on that content delivery mechanism! Therefore, I watch it via whatever HD or HQ source medium, I have available to me, @ whatever relative PQ & AQ that I can get it presented to me, via my current HT setup. That works just fine for me (that was my point).
Is that a problem? How exactly is that being Hypocritical? (Rhetorical, as frankly. I really do not care how it might be contrived, as it is what it is)
“And you’ve gone to the trouble of calibrating your TV, but don’t watch movies in the highest quality available? That makes real sense.”
Why does one even need to calibrate a TV? Think about that question. Feeding a poorly encoded HD source has what net effect on the PQ of a calibrated TV? These questions relate to source content versus actual output. “Garbage in, Garbage out” With a calibrated TV, I am able to make even decent SD level encoded video content, look it’s relative best and accurate.
Today, what is the ratio of NON-HD content versus HD content? I do have HD DVD and from a PQ perspective it is arguably the same as that of BD, on my setup. I have a large library of HD movies and an even larger library of DVD movies. Which do you think I watch more, when I want to watch something? Neither! I tend watch the HD Sat. the majority of the time. The HD movie content on the Sat. is generally superior in PQ to that of my upscaled (via Reon processor) DVDs and much of what I like watch is not even available on HDM. Therefore, my HT is optimized to yield the best PQ that can be had, from what video sources I have available. Most importantly, I and my friends are quite happy with the results! ;) and ALL of them who have the privilege of viewing movies though my setup (HD or not) say that what I have put together completely makes sense. Some have even propositioned to contract me to do the same for them!
“News flash! Consumers (you know, the people who actually WATCH most movies) don’t watch movies on PCs, which is why HTPCs are still a flop outside of nerd circles. Your anecdotal flurry about Blu-Ray players is at best mis-informed, at worst on straight up FUD.”
Interesting, because pretty much EVERYONE I know, including my aging relatives, has and does watch movies on PCs… (HD or not) Time to wake up, get off the couch, turn off the BD player, clean out the cobwebs and get some fresh air, me thinks! LOL
There is a REAL world out there, and it’s a BIG one too! If you want to experience it, you can DOWNLOAD A VIDEO via your COMPUTER and watch it, right now! Give it a try!
FACTS > FUD!
“I am attempting to discuss the revenue aspect of things not the market growth, as I see that the growth element not to be the true relevant factor here ( Forest and trees, comes to mind). Seems very cut and dry to me.”
How you can say downloads are outpacing physical media without discussing growth? Particularly since downloads are outpacing Blu Ray in neither growth or absolute revenue.
To illustrate, according to Video Business, ( http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6630137.html ) in 2008 “consumers spent $488 million on digital rentals and purchases of films and TV shows over the Internet” in the same period “Blu-ray sales represented about $750 million”. So far this year, we’re being told that Blu Ray has risen around 70% but downloads & VOD have only risen 20% ( http://www.videobusiness.com/contents/images/2009Q3TotalSpending_Pie.jpg ). If that trend continues, and the download share of the “digital” slice is representative, Blu-Ray’s 70% growth will give revenues of about $1.2 billion this year, downloads will only have $590 million.
“I am not attempting to do an apples-to-apples comparison! So no, I was not talking about only HD content. (BTW not all BD content is HD) That seems to be what is relevant to your point, but not to mine. BD’s competition is NOT only from HD content media sources. Not a a revenue level anyway which is why the DEG data shows all of the relative currently competing commercial media delivery formats, as a single market sector.”
You now appear to be dancing around your original statement – again you said ““anyone with half a brain, regardless of their optical media preferences or format battle affiliations, can see that the rise of downloaded media content is beginning to out strip that of physical media (revenue wise)”. Downloads are not cable/sat VOD, yet you chose to lump them all together when it suits your overall revenue comparison, but when it comes to comparing downloads to physical you want to just compare the whole of downloads to Blu-Ray in an attempt to ignore the 200lb gorilla that is the rest of physical media – DVD.
“We, as consumers, have a choice as to where we want to spend our hard earned money to be entertained. Most of the folks that I know, only want to spend their money once, to get that specific entertainment experience. So with the choices out there, which one of the myriad of choice out there, are people tending to spend that money on? The numbers show that for today, by and large, “it AIN’T” Blu-Ray.” We can debate market growth % for BD all day long, but the revenue $ numbers are telling the real story. Just look at the whole DEG pie chart.”
I agree with your first sentence wholeheartedly. However, it’s a falsehood to suggest that more people are using downloads because, despite download revenue being less than Blu-Ray’s, they’re significantly cheaper than physical media. As a regular user of at least 3 streaming/download services I know this is not the case.
“Note: My purpose here, is not to convince you of the validity my opinion, but merely to state my opinion, on the BD growth rate and what it means, from my perspective. If you somehow take my comments personally or you are offended in some way, well there is not much I can do or say there, except to say this is an opinion. I respect yours.
I can only comment on the information, at hand and I try to avoid speculating on the potential or possibility of things. What the studios want to charge for DL or VOD media s is completely up to them (and what the market will bear) and it does seem to vary, regardless of the mechanism.”
I don’t take your comments personally, and I do respect your opinion, where your comments relate to a personal opinion, but your download growth statement was presented as fact, not opinion. It’s a simple fact that your statement that downloads are outpacing physical media is false, and whether it’s a myth you’re perpetuating deliberately, or due to having recieved misinformation makes it no less so.
“I can not comment on the very useful information that you provided on the low run BD authoring costs ( Although a) that is only one component of the total BD production and distribution costs and b) I have no data to know if the studios are actually doing low volume runs of their movies and tv series on BD, which would make this information relevant to this discussion,or my point. )”
I’d think that at this stage, studios would consider low volume Blu-Ray runs as anything under 100,000 copies. The studios will not be doing 10,000 copy runs, but even if they were their buying power would mean they’d be getting them for much less than $3 a piece.
“Not really relevant if you are the CEO or a major share holder of a Major studio. Relevant only in a technical discussion or a product development and marketing discussion.”
To be honest, as a consumer I don’t care what the studios make or don’t, but I know they’re greedly and clever enough to look at all the facts. I’ve no doubt they’d just love to shift their entire distribution to downloads – Draconian DRM and wiping out the entire second-user market at a stroke is no doubt a studio exec wetdream. Unfortunately for them, download caps, incompatible services, lack of transportability etc means their dream is still a fair way off. Modest download revenue figures bear this out.
What I do care about is what affects me directly. Being told that download distribution is cheaper than physical media for example, but still having to pay the same (or often more) to rent the same movie as a stream than I could from Redbox or Blockbuster. Much in the same way I kept getting told how much cheaper HD DVDs were to make than Blu-Ray’s, yet I often had to pay more for the former.
“I see this as only being relevant from a target market segment perspective. The percentage of the digital figure represents the overall market segment demographic. Again, this is marketing, not necessarily bottom line revenue. The revenue percentages are the factors that I would expect the CEOs and COOs to be focused on. The DEG numbers are one of the tools used for this purpose, as I’m sure you know.
Something can grow in market share by hundreds of percent (i.e growth from 10 product sold last year to 100 products sold this year represents a 1000% growth rate! While the net revenue garnered for that same product may only represent a 50% increase. My point was which is more important to the CEO and Shareholders and in applying that to the BD revenue information, the competitive forms of media delivery to BD, (regardless of true apples to apples PQ & AQ) are being shown to make a more compelling financial argument to that studio shareholder. I see this disparity in revenue between BD/DVD and DL /VOD only growing larger in the coming years. Most industry analyst tend to agree with what this DEG data is showing from a trend perspective and by noting where the studio money is being more heavily invested.”
That would perhaps be relevant, if download revenues weren’t both small, and growing at such a slow rate. VOD has been around for a decade, movie downloads for just under half a decade, so why are their growth AND revenue so low?
“I have to disagree here. DL Video and media have been around for quite a while now! I would say it is BD that is more likely in the Honeymoon period. And the industry still has time to get an annulment if the deem it necessary.”
Exactly, yet despite being around so long, DL video still accounts for less than $700 million revenue per annum, if the latest DEG figures are correct. And if they are, that means they’ll be barely half of Blu-Ray’s revenue for the same period, despite DLs having been around much longer.
“DL video is ubiquitous and is here to stay, for some time to come. Neither can be said for Blu-Ray, at this time. IMO”
By no stretch of the imagination is DL video ubiquitous. A small number of incompatible devices and services do not constitute ubiquity, and the only place where downloads could be said to be ubiquitous is on PCs which the vast majority of consumers do not use for watching movies. DVD is ubiquitous, Blu-Ray has the potential to become ubiquitous. Untill there’s a download “standard”, or a single download service replaces all others, there is no way for them to become ubiquitous.
As I’ve said before, I’ve no doubt downloads are the future, but they’re not “now”. Right now, they’re growing at a slower rate than Blu-Ray, they’re taking less overall revenue than Blu-Ray, and saying otherwise is a nonsense. As far as profit goes, I’m sure if they had to pick the studios would rather have 30% on $1.2 billion than 50% on $700 million, but as they stand they don’t have to choose, they’ve got both.
“Where did I state that I do not use the Highest quality HD content currently available? Perhaps a presumption on your part?
I have HD DVD, HD Sat. HD VOD and a media server with a ( 1 TB storage array) for streamed HD content… Who says that that is not the highest quality HD content currently available? What is the “highest quality HD content currently available? Available to whom? ;-) Grated NONE of what I have is currently at 4K res. which is the HIGHEST quality HD content AVAILABLE today, that I am aware of.”
Since HD DVD is dead, Blu Ray is the highest quality HD currently available. No HD sat/HD VOD service can match it (though XStreamHD may, if it ever launches). Even Vudu HDX (which I love, and would consider the second best HD content currently available ;) ) shies away from comparing itself to Blu-Ray. Bringing up 4K is disingenuous, there is no 4K content currently available.
“The presumption that without Blu-ray somewhere in the HT setup, one can not have the best HD quality available, is both a bit irresponsible and to coin a label, elitist. IMO”
It’s neither, it’s just simple fact. It will change, but right now Blu-Ray is the format capable of delivering the best quality HD content.
“Especially as there are obviously more people out there doing fine without BD, than that with, today.”
The article we’re responding to puts Blu-Ray players in almost 10% of homes, or 25% of HDTV equipped homes. DVD players are in around 110 million homes, or 90%. What percentage would you hazard are downloading, SD or HD?
“Just as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” VQ & AQ are relative and subjective things. Superior technical specifications for some product or device, do not always equate to the best overall user experience. Case in point the original BD MPEG-2 release of The Fifth Element! Or the fact that Many people out there, can not play some of the NEW BD movies being released without firmware updates! I would rather not have to worry about, IF my new $ movie will play on my player, at ANY quality level.”
Download services also require regular updates (my Vudu box updates regularly, my LG player had to be firmware updated to access Vudu at all), so that’s not a comparison that works in your favour :)
“This debate and the discourse has been both interesting and informative. Albeit, relatively pointless in the big scheme of things. Enjoy your movies ALL! ANY way you can!”
You too fella, take it easy :)
Truth definately trumps FUD every time, and the truth of your FUD has been exposed above more eloquently than I could do it, besides pointing out DaveBG’s miscalculation for 2009 download revenues. $488 million for 2008 + 20% is $600 million not $700 million.
So lets look at the truth:-
1) Downloads for 2009 have grown 20% so far. That’s an estimated $600 million total revenue.
2) Blu-Ray for 2009 has grown 70% so far. That’s an estimated $1.2 billion revenue for Blu-Ray.
3) 20% growth on $500 million after more than 5 years on the market is as near as damn it stagnant by anyones measure. Definately the most stagnant of all the distribution methods on DaveBG’s chart.
QED: Saying downloads are outpacing physical media is FUD. FACTS > FUD, EVERY time!
“I currently watch about have of my weekly HD TV series content on my computer as opposed to on the couch. That is because I can actually be productive while watching “My shows”. It works for me.”
Yet all available figures show HTPCs don’t sell and Microsoft’s attempt to boost HTPC penetration with Media Centre was a complete flop. Works for you, not for many others. Likewise your use of media servers etc, which again are a teeny niche market in themselves. I know it’s tempting to think that you’re the typical consumer but the facts say differently.
“from experience I say make sure you have a way out of that decision and that the initial capital investment in one technology over another is treated as an investment gamble, somewhat like the stock market.”
Where’s the consumer’s out with downloads? If their provider of choice goes under, their STB is useless. It’s not even like HD DVD where the players still work even if there’s no movies coming out for them.
“Never saw that specific statement from Mr. Jobs and company! LOL! They (Apple Inc.) seem fairly heavily invested into Apple TV and iTunes!”
Here’s Steve Jobs quote…..
““I think the whole category is still a hobby right now,” Jobs said, in response to an analysts question about Apple TV. “I don’t think anyone has succeeded at it, and the experimentation has even slowed down lately. Some of the people who were doing some things in that area have sort of faded away. Given the economic conditions and the VC funding outlook, I think it will continue to be a hobby in 2009″
http://www.podcastingnews.com/2008/10/21/steve-jobs-apple-tv-still-a-hobby-through-2009/
“How so? Especially if it works for me?”
1) “Please be sure to let me know when you hit even 45,000 B-Ray titles (~half of DVD BTW)”
Point me to a download service with 45,000 titles. Fail.
2) “I can play a B-Ray title ANYWHERE that I go (in the car, at the hotel, on the plane.
The only way you can play your movies ANYWHERE is by lugging your laptop with you, which you could also do with a Blu-Ray equipped laptop. Not to mention most current services do not allow their streams/downloads to be played on anything but the download device, like those tied to STBs like Vudu and AppleTV. Not legally, anyway. Fail.
3) “On every model of MAC book or PC LapTop/Netbook, etc.)”
See 2). Fail.
“How exactly is that being Hypocritical?”
You spelled out specific conditions for when Blu-Ray would become attractive to you, conditons which downloads also do not meet. Hypocritical or simply confused, pick your own moniker.
“I tend watch the HD Sat.”
Irrelevant in the bigger picture. People have watched the equivalent to DVD and HD content on sat/cable for well over a decade and it’s had little or no effect on physical media sales. Suggesting that something has suddenly changed is more FUD, just look at that 20% growth figure for VOD and downloads.
“Interesting, because pretty much EVERYONE I know, including my aging relatives, has and does watch movies on PCs… (HD or not) Time to wake up, get off the couch, turn off the BD player, clean out the cobwebs and get some fresh air, me thinks! LOL ”
Just like truth trumps FUD, market forces trump anecdote every time too. If EVERYONE and their aging relatives are watching movies on PCs, why are HTPCs not selling? Why did Media Centre flop? Why are download revenues and growth so small? Time to put down the laptop and ask yourself just why you’re exaggerating this download myth. Have your MS contacts been offering you Cool-Aid, mayhap?
“There is a REAL world out there, and it’s a BIG one too! If you want to experience it, you can DOWNLOAD A VIDEO via your COMPUTER and watch it, right now! Give it a try! ”
I do, it has it’s place, but, and sorry to burst your bubble, it’s still in the domain of the techie nerd, not in the living room of the mass-market consumer.
From your reply to DaveBG “This debate and the discourse has been both interesting and informative. Albeit, relatively pointless in the big scheme of things.”
Time spent dispelling FUD and propaganda such as you attempted to spread above is never pointless.
One thing I forgot to point out. How easily you segued from talking about how downloads were outpacing physical to including satellite and cable services when the fallaciousness of your statement was pointed out.
I’m not sure I agree about barely anyone but tech geeks watching on their PC. Seems to me average people ARE watching downloaded movies and TV shows on or through the PC. Otherwise who else is using iTunes, Amazon and torrented downloads? It can’t be only tech geeks, otherwise iTunes and Amazon wouldn’t be turning a profit on their download sections. Why would Hulu be so popular if people aren’t watching on their PC(although some hook up equipment to their TV)? So now Hulu wants to charge(yuk), would they do that if they had barely any viewers watching on the PC? Whether through online streaming or downloads, people are watching on their PC. Or hooking the PC to their TV, but the PC still remains the meduim for delivering the movie.
Stephanie C.
I’m not saying only geeks are using PCs, but the sector is so small that it’s likely as near as damn it. US download revenues for the first half of the year are between VideoBusiness’ $140 million
and the DEG’s $200 million. That’s small beer whichever way you pour it and 20% year-on-year growth, with so many supposed potential users and capable devices, is pitiful. The industry hopes downloads will account for $2 billion globally by 2013 http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6697138.html?nid=2705 . Globally! But $1.2 billion for Blu-Ray in the US this year shows downloads are taking over? Apparently. You’ve got to wonder which world these pro-download lot are living in. It’s certainly not the real one.
According to pro-download shills Blu-Ray’s 70% growth on $750 million is a clear indication that physical media is dying because, and get this, for some reason 20% growth on $400 million is a clear indicator that everyone is downloading! Press them on it and they’ll start bringing in illegal downloads and tripe about studio profits, like our misinformed friend above. Their ability to self-delude is laughable when you think about it.
As said above, HTPCs have never taken off, Media Centre flopped, Apple might make a profit from iTunes, but never post any figures and call AppleTV a “hobby”, likewise Amazon movie downloads have never been listed in their profit reports. Besides, since when was making a profit an indication of popularity or growth? There are plenty of businesses serving niche markets that turn a profit, that doesn’t mean the market isn’t niche.
I’m sorry, but trying to bring torrents into it is a real facepalm. So, some people would rather steal a movie than pay for it? Go figure! So if the Nissan Sentra is the most stolen car, does that mean it’s also the most popular car? And what do most of those torrent filenames end with? “DVD-Rip” and “BLU-RAY-rip”, so why is each illegal download a thumbs-up for downloads, but not DVD/Blu-Ray? If lots of people steal DVDs from corner stores, does that mean corner stores are the biggest DVD distributors?
It is interesting you bring up Hulu, who is switching from an advertising funded model to pay-to-use, PRECISELY because it’s not bringing in enough funding. That would seem a clear indication of the “popularity” of the service, and the precise opposite of what you suggest. Advertising revenue only works as a funding model when you have a large user base, which is why so many commercial TV stations are floundering.
You cannot overlook download torrents. They are a fact of life whether we want to admit it or not. A torrent downloaded movie or TV show is still a digital download.
I’m not here to argue that downloading is going to take over Blu-ray or any physical media. I can’t make that prediction because things seem to keep changing quickly IMO. I think physical media will be around for quite some time because DRMed downloads are a PITA and now even TV is DRMed by broadcast flags. Not only that but bandwidth caps come into play. It’s sometimes just easier to get the DVD. Plus HD on cable is supposedly not true HD but compressed, so Blu-ray still has it’s audience of those who want to watch seriously good video.
I’m just saying that downloading and also streaming on the PC is very significant and can’t be downplayed. It’s not a small number of people from what I’ve seen, it’s quite a few. Downloading is easy and lazy. You’re at home and you can download or stream on demand. People like convenience.
“HTPCs have never taken off, Media Centre flopped”. Usually any computer with a decent video card will play media on it’s own. And you can hook up many of the newer ones to your TV. HTPC seems unnecessary IMO. Also if MC really did flop(I thought it was also in Windows 7 though), I suspect it has something to do with the way MSFT handled it. I use other free 3rd party software to view DVDs and movies on my PC. There was something about MC that turned me off and people report it’s buggy.
BTW, concerning Hulu, one exec said “It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online”, meaning they want to cash in on all their viewers. They just want more money. Hulu does indeed have lots of users. Hulu seems to be mentioned almost as much as Netflix.
I forgot. You mentioned why didn’t I give credit for torrented downloads that are ripped from physical media to the DVD/Blu-ray side.
I didn’t because I really do consider this a point for the download side, even if the ethics of the download are in question. Many people who download torrents often aren’t interested in physical media to begin with. And I consider any download, even if purchased, a lost sale for physical media. They’ve already stated this is the case for music, digital downloads(yes legal ones too) are hurting CD sales.
I’ll only buy a Bluray if it has a digital file that I can download into iTunes or Windows Media. Otherwise it’s Netflix for me.
That’s a slow uptake. People are still reluctant to purchase Blu Ray players.
How is 13% in this economy modest? I’m surprised they managed to stay even with last years numbers, let alone grown. Even with cheaper prices, people still have to spend that money on something they don’t need.
It’s like anything else – prices come down, and you see increased interest. Nice to see the uptick, and hopefully the movies and TV shows keep coming down in price.
I’m planning on making the jump to BluRay in November. I didn’t bother with it until now, mainly because of price but also because there wasn’t enough Japanese anime available (in North America) on the format for me to really care about making the investment.
However, I’m a 35-year old luddite only ever interested in owning movies, anime, TV shows (and music and games) on prepackaged physical media formats and I kind of doubt there will be any other mass-market physical media format that’ll replace BluRay (or, at the very least, not until I’m well into my 50’s or so).
I bought a Bluray for under $150. About half the movies I watch are Bluray. The main reason for the purchase was it streams Netflix, Pandora, Youtube and downloads Blockbuster. This $150 purchase has allowed me to watch and listen to top notch programming at any time day or night.
What noone seems to have spotted in those figures is that total player sales went up 13% including PS3s, but set top players went up 112%. So people are actually buying players to watch BluRays on instead of PS3s which might just be getting used for gaming.
Alright someone please take me off this e-mail list.
“You cannot overlook download torrents. They are a fact of life whether we want to admit it or not. A torrent downloaded movie or TV show is still a digital download.”
In the context of discussing whether downloads are outpacing physical media by comparing sales figures, then obviously torrents should be ignored. They’re no more relevant than pirate DVDs or Blu-Rays are. But, if you want to bring those torrents in, then by all means lets bring in pirated DVDs too, which apparently “cost” the industry more than $2 billion in the USA alone. Comparing the “popularity” of stolen media seems crass, but if it’s a comparison you’d like to make then go ahead, it’s still a loss for downloads.
“I’m not here to argue that downloading is going to take over Blu-ray or any physical media. I can’t make that prediction because things seem to keep changing quickly IMO. I think physical media will be around for quite some time because DRMed downloads are a PITA and now even TV is DRMed by broadcast flags. Not only that but bandwidth caps come into play. It’s sometimes just easier to get the DVD. Plus HD on cable is supposedly not true HD but compressed, so Blu-ray still has it’s audience of those who want to watch seriously good video.”
On this I agree wholeheartedly. I’d go further to say that I can see downloads growing significantly over the next 10-15 years as the stumbling blocks are removed. But saying that they’re significant now as The Omega Man claims is completely and utterly false.
“I’m just saying that downloading and also streaming on the PC is very significant and can’t be downplayed. It’s not a small number of people from what I’ve seen, it’s quite a few. Downloading is easy and lazy. You’re at home and you can download or stream on demand. People like convenience.”
Again, we could have a debate on how many more people buy pirate DVDs and screeners from their buddy, I’m sure we all know at least one in our workplace, neighbourhood or family who always has a ready supply of pirate DVDs to push. Or, let’s have a debate on how it’s pretty obvious by the tiny amount of revenue generated by legal download sites that consumers put near to zero value on downloaded content. Then let’s talk about how the movies we love are going to be funded by a distribution method that makes absolutely no money right now.
“BTW, concerning Hulu, one exec said “It’s time to start getting paid for broadcast content online”, meaning they want to cash in on all their viewers. They just want more money. Hulu does indeed have lots of users. Hulu seems to be mentioned almost as much as Netflix.”
That kind of reminds me of the statements about “billions” of streams being watched every year…. if Youtube is included. That’s why providers like Hulu and Netflix talk about huge numbers of users (relatively, in the millions anyway), but talk about actual viewed content in minutes.
For example http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=116559
“ComScore ranked Hulu as the fifth-highest online video site, with 488 million videos viewed. Martin explains that this adds up to 1.9% of all videos viewed online in August. The average Hulu viewer watched 12.7 videos in August, totaling 1 hour and 17 minutes of videos per viewer, compared with the average 3.7 minutes for online video across the Web.”
Or http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Netflix-stock-hits-new-high-apf-552328284.html?x=0&.v=1
“In a first, Netflix also shared some information about on how much its U.S. subscribers are using the streaming service. About 42 percent of Netflix’s customers streamed at least 15 minutes of video in the third quarter, up from 22 percent at the same time last year.”
They’re above average (Note the average is quoted as being 3.7 minutes per month), but make people pay for them and watch those figures plummet. For all the talk of millions of hours, Hulu made about $10 million profit on $70 million revenue last year. It’s clear no-one is watching much online content, and certainly not in their living room. Compare those figures to the 100s of millions of DVDs and Blu-Ray’s sold a month, and the billions of cable/satellite TV hours per week, and you’ll realise just how tiny and insigificant those downloads are.
“I didn’t because I really do consider this a point for the download side, even if the ethics of the download are in question. Many people who download torrents often aren’t interested in physical media to begin with. And I consider any download, even if purchased, a lost sale for physical media. They’ve already stated this is the case for music, digital downloads(yes legal ones too) are hurting CD sales.”
So are pirated DVDs and Blu-Ray’s a lost point for downloads? Just how far into the negative would downloads have to go to get the point across?
Interesting you bring up CDs/music downloads, with legal download services just going into their second decade and only just matching physical CD sales, despite available broadband speeds being much more suited to MP3 than movies.
I actually didn’t know a lot of people still used pirated physical media(unless it was burned from a download) since the companies keep mentioning downloading only as their biggest threat. But if they are, yes I do consider that a point against downloads, since apparently those people want physical media.
I can see what you mean about not counting torrents into actual sales, but where I’m going is more toward the preference factor. It seems many people DO prefer to download if they can, legal or illegal, so be it.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree about the relevance of torrents. They may not be ethical but they ARE influencing digital distribution. They show people WILL download if they can get DRM free content. And this the big reason people give for resorting to torrented video, DRM. The music industry finally listened and started offering DRM free music, the movie industry is still very stubborn.
“Or, let’s have a debate on how it’s pretty obvious by the tiny amount of revenue generated by legal download sites that consumers put near to zero value on downloaded content. Then let’s talk about how the movies we love are going to be funded by a distribution method that makes absolutely no money right now.” No profit from DRM video downloads? No comment as to why that may be, if true. :) Though Amazon and iTunes downloads seem to be profitable, even with DRM. Although with iTunes, since there are lots of iPhone/iPod owners, the device tie-in is probably driving those profits.
Concerning Netflix, you do pay with your subscription and streaming is still very popular. They now want to expand their streaming service into other countries and they wouldn’t do that if the US model was failing so badly. Hulu is another story. It was free to begin with so people want it to stay free. I do expect that if they don’t make it worthwhile to pay(no ads, better resolution) Hulu likely could fail in the end.
“It’s clear no-one is watching much online content, and certainly not in their living room. Compare those figures to the 100s of millions of DVDs and Blu-Ray’s sold a month, and the billions of cable/satellite TV hours per week, and you’ll realise just how tiny and insigificant those downloads are.”
You and I are reading some very different articles and message boards then. All I see are how people are dumping cable to watch TV online, or streaming Netflix, Hulu(through a hack though) and other stuff from their game consoles. Even Blu-ray players stream Netflix. iTunes gets some play from this also as people watch shows purchased from their store. Then there are the large number of people who admit they torrent. And again, the companies claim they’re losing physical media sales big time, so who can I believe about that?
“Interesting you bring up CDs/music downloads, with legal download services just going into their second decade and only just matching physical CD sales”. Same thing, who do I believe? The industry keeps claiming they’re losing CD sales to downloads and also some sites confirm this. iTunes is trying to sell full digital albums, also because of the claim that CD album sales are declining.
I do think downloading made a big dent in physical media sales, not enough to kill it yet, but enough that it apparently hurts.
“I can see what you mean about not counting torrents into actual sales, but where I’m going is more toward the preference factor. It seems many people DO prefer to download if they can, legal or illegal, so be it.”
I think it’d be far more accurate to say that torrents prove some people prefer to steal free content than having to pay for it. More than that, torrents prove that some are willing to forego the supposed convenience factor of legal downloads and would wait hours or even days for a torrent. That takes torrents even further away from legal services, for which there is no evidence that many people do prefer (see the pitifully small revenue figures, above).
“They show people WILL download if they can get DRM free content. And this the big reason people give for resorting to torrented video, DRM. The music industry finally listened and started offering DRM free music, the movie industry is still very stubborn.”
They show nothing but that some people are willing to steal to get what they want. Otherwise why are there still far more people downloading illegally than legally? Like it or not, DRM is an insignificant or non-existant issue for the average Joe and Jane – the vast majority who aren’t downloading… anything.
“Or, let’s have a debate on how it’s pretty obvious by the tiny amount of revenue generated by legal download sites that consumers put near to zero value on downloaded content. Then let’s talk about how the movies we love are going to be funded by a distribution method that makes absolutely no money right now.”
“No profit from DRM video downloads? No comment as to why that may be, if true. :) Though Amazon and iTunes downloads seem to be profitable, even with DRM. Although with iTunes, since there are lots of iPhone/iPod owners, the device tie-in is probably driving those profits.”
I never said there were no profits, just tiny revenue. Please see my comment above regarding how a profitable niche is still a niche, and how iTunes et al never release any profit figures for download services (other than Mr. Jobs’ “hobby” statement).
“Concerning Netflix, you do pay with your subscription and streaming is still very popular. They now want to expand their streaming service into other countries and they wouldn’t do that if the US model was failing so badly. Hulu is another story. It was free to begin with so people want it to stay free. I do expect that if they don’t make it worthwhile to pay(no ads, better resolution) Hulu likely could fail in the end.”
There is no way to subscribe to Netflix streaming, except as a freebie as part of a play-by-mail package. Conversely, there is no reduction in subscription if you choose not to use streaming. It’s a zero-value add on (though not a zero-cost one, if Netflix’s subscription hikes are any measure). Again, Netflix talks of 40% of their 10 million subscribers using downloads, but starts counting at anyone whose used it for a few minutes.
“You and I are reading some very different articles and message boards then. All I see are how people are dumping cable to watch TV online, or streaming Netflix, Hulu(through a hack though) and other stuff from their game consoles. Even Blu-ray players stream Netflix. iTunes gets some play from this also as people watch shows purchased from their store. Then there are the large number of people who admit they torrent. And again, the companies claim they’re losing physical media sales big time, so who can I believe about that?”
There’s your biggest mistake – basing your opinions on information from online articles and message boards. Is it any suprise that people living their lives on the web express a preference for on-line services? It’s a little like asking soccer fans at a soccer match if they like soccer, then proclaiming everyone likes soccer because most of the people you asked said they do. The world outside is much bigger, much more diverse. And most people in this country aren’t running blogs or posting on forums. One only has to look at Facebook, a hugely popular service with an appeal that crosses tech/normal boundaries far better than any download site, legal or torrent, but still has only a relatively small percentage of the population as members.
“Same thing, who do I believe? The industry keeps claiming they’re losing CD sales to downloads and also some sites confirm this. iTunes is trying to sell full digital albums, also because of the claim that CD album sales are declining.”
Are you talking about illegal downloads again, because that’s a big misnomer. CDs are not subject to DRM, music has been available to download for a decade or more, yet people still steal music on-line. What bigger proof to you need that torrents etc should be ignored when it comes to proving the popularity of downloads? It’s not a question of people preferring downloads, it’s a case of people preferring to steal than pay, and goes right back to my car theft analogy. It’s like Walmart gauging what they should stock by canvassing shoplifters.
“I do think downloading made a big dent in physical media sales, not enough to kill it yet, but enough that it apparently hurts.”
And the figures show it’s barely a scratch, and that Blu-Ray so far has made a far bigger dent.
Actually I was talking more about legal music downloads, since people who legally download often don’t download full albums. The companies obviously gripe about torrenters too, but they also don’t like the method of download only what you want, not filler songs. They never did. Because they cannot sell you crap CDs with only one good song if you can choose your songs individually.
“There’s your biggest mistake – basing your opinions on information from online articles and message boards. Is it any suprise that people living their lives on the web express a preference for on-line services? It’s a little like asking soccer fans at a soccer match if they like soccer, then proclaiming everyone likes soccer because most of the people you asked said they do. The world outside is much bigger, much more diverse. And most people in this country aren’t running blogs or posting on forums. One only has to look at Facebook, a hugely popular service with an appeal that crosses tech/normal boundaries far better than any download site, legal or torrent, but still has only a relatively small percentage of the population as members.”
And it seems everyone and their mama is on the internet these days, so I don’t think it’s valid to discount people who visit the internet and use online services. My wireless shows almost every apartment in my vicinity has a network. Even the guy down at the pet shop talks to me about his latest finds on iTunes all the time. I look at YouTube and there’s something of every walk of life on their, it seems. Even my mayor has a channel!
People ARE spending more time online and utilizing the internet for everything. Some people won’t even go to brick and mortar stores anymore, but order it all online. Seems like everyone and their mama is on Facebook too, LOL! Except me.
As for torrents, like I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree on their relevance. I consider a download a download, concerning media. I acknowledge what you’re saying about the fact that it’s unethical, but if physical media were so preferrable, more people would refuse torrents because of the quality. Seems download quality is good enough for many people.
“It’s like Walmart gauging what they should stock by canvassing shoplifters.” I’ve read some companies sometimes DO gauge what’s popular by stuff torrented the most.
“And the figures show it’s barely a scratch, and that Blu-Ray so far has made a far bigger dent.” The best selling Blu-ray player still seems to be the PS3, but it does more than just Blu-ray obviously. I think that may be a bit misleading as to the popularity of Blu-ray alone. Blu-ray still seems to be considered a luxury, not a necessity. Plus how many people really have money to buy all the new equipment required for Blu-ray? It might be better to say Blu-ray is becoming popular among those with disposable income, which doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of people depending on what sector of the economy you’re looking at. If you think downloading is a niche, so is Blu-ray. I’d even say downloading likely gains on Blu-ray, but clearly not all physical media.