Blu-ray vs. HD DVD Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

http://playstation.joystiq.com/2009/04/16/q1-blu-ray-sales-double-over-last-year/

Q1 Blu-ray sales double over last year
by David Hinkle { Apr 16th 2009 at 9:00PM }

Adams Media Research has busted out the microscopes and attempted to get to the bottom of all this Blu-ray business, reports Blu-ray.com. In dissecting multiple discs (and perhaps a few of the people that purchased them last year), Adams Media Research has determined that Blu-ray sales for the first quarter of this year have been greater than those during the same period last year. Science!

Over 9 million Blu-rays were sold in Q1, crushing the 4.5 million sold last year. The research firm points to the sudden explosion in Blu-ray-enabled homes, which are now estimated to comprise 10.5 million households. The majority of these homes aren't just watching Blu-ray on their PS3s, either, as 75% (7-8 Million) own standalone Blu-ray players (twice as many as last year). With so many folks hopping on the Blu-ray train, maybe now we can finally get those American Ninja flicks on Blu-ray!

I think we can put away the notion that Blu-Ray might not be catching on or gaining any marketshare. And with Wal*Mart even having $10 Blu-Rays in some instances (I got Reservoir Dogs) it is safe to say the price issue is becoming moot as well.

 

[YSSMAN]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Its no doubt gaining marketshare, but it is a slow process. With digital distribution (Apple TV, Netflix streaming, Boxee, etc.) becoming a popular thing now, watching those play off each other will be interesting as well.

 

[Jay]

Just curious that article states a estimated 10.5 million Blu-ray enabled homes but we know that the PS3 alone has sold over 20 million, wouldn't owning a PS3 make your home 'blu-ray enabled'? Or am I missing something?

 

[nick09]

I think they are just counting the blu-ray players.

 

[Jay]

But then it states 7-8 million of the 10.5 million enabled homes are watching in stand alone players, so what about the rest? PS3?

 

[nick09]

Computers with blu-ray drives?

 

[Scaff]

Just curious that article states a estimated 10.5 million Blu-ray enabled homes but we know that the PS3 alone has sold over 20 million, wouldn't owning a PS3 make your home 'blu-ray enabled'? Or am I missing something?

The figures are just for the US, not global.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Jay]

Ah, that always catches me out.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Its no doubt gaining marketshare, but it is a slow process. With digital distribution (Apple TV, Netflix streaming, Boxee, etc.) becoming a popular thing now, watching those play off each other will be interesting as well.

Except none of those choices offer 1080p and HD audio... in most cases they are no better than DVD quality, are heavily compressed, and lack the special features and controls found on disc releases. The reason Blu-ray sales are increasing at a much faster rate than many believed they would is because clearly many consumers not only have 1080p displays, but want the best quality video and audio... something download movie services have yet to offer... and with the increased traffic congestion on servers, this is very unlikely to happen any time soon.

ISPs are throttling down individual user bandwidth due to the lack of infrastructure to handle the ever increasing demand from video downloads, I would not expect companies or users to be downloading a 25-50GB movie as found on many Blu-ray releases.

If Time Warner has it there way, it'll cost consumers $30 a month for a max download speed of 750kbps (at that max speed it would take about 10-20 hours to download the amount of data on a Blu-ray disc) and a monthly cap on ALL downloads to 50GB, and charge $1 per GB after that. AT&T and Comcast are considering similar new limits to their ISP customers.

If that happens, downloading even DVD quality films is going to be cost prohibitive to the mass market.

That said, I'm sure downloading services will continue to have a market... but in no way are they a replacement or an equal alternative to consumers who want 1080p movies and HD audio... which is why Blu-ray sales are growing at a much faster rate than many predicted they would.

 

[Jay]

If Time Warner has it there way, it'll cost consumers $30 a month for a max download speed of 750kbps (at that max speed it would take about 10-20 hours to download the amount of data on a Blu-ray disc) and a monthly cap on ALL downloads to 50GB, and charge $1 per GB after that. AT&T and Comcast are considering similar new limits to their ISP customers.

If that happens, downloading even DVD quality films is going to be cost prohibitive to the mass market.

Thats not all that bad of a deal in Australia....

Good thing the new Prime Minister is keeping his promise and we are laying FTTH pretty much all over the country now.

 

[FoolKiller]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Its no doubt gaining marketshare, but it is a slow process.

Yep, just as "slow" as the DVD process was.

 

[YSSMAN]

Yep, just as "slow" as the DVD process was.

As I've said before, it depends on the cost associated with getting into it. With player prices dipping significantly in the past few months, and the prices of discs leveling out, yeah... I can see it accelerating for people who are ready to give up their DVD options. However, despite its limitations, I still see digital distribution becoming a major competitor. Most HD services aren't ready, I wholly understand that, but the alternative is growing quickly as well.

Hence the use of the word "interesting."

 

[FoolKiller]

As I've said before, it depends on the cost associated with getting into it. With player prices dipping significantly in the past few months, and the prices of discs leveling out, yeah... I can see it accelerating for people who are ready to give up their DVD options. However, despite its limitations, I still see digital distribution becoming a major competitor. Most HD services aren't ready, I wholly understand that, but the alternative is growing quickly as well.

Hence the use of the word "interesting."

I don't care about your use of the word interesting. I was saying that it is not a slow process. It's keeping pace with DVDs, which is impressive considering it has competition in digital forms that DVD didn't have.

 

[TB]

Discovery.com has the Planet Earth Blu-Ray set for $29.99 (plus $4 shipping) with promo code TBEARTHDAY, for anyone interested.

 

[eMke3]

There might be a new player in the game, micro-holographic disc.

General Electric has introduced a micro-holographic disc that can store up to 500GB of data today, aimed at the archive industry and users with massive movie
and music collections.

The company knows the market for the disc is small now, but believes it can eventually be used in standalone players, just like DVDs and Blu-rays are now. DVDs can hold up to 8.5GB and BD-50 can hold up to 50GB.

Micro-holographic discs can store so much data because the store information in three dimensions, rather than just having the info written on the surface of the disc.

Brian Lawrence, head of GE's Holographic Storage team added, "Very recently, the team at GE has made dramatic improvements in the materials enabling significant increases in the amount of light that can be reflected by the holograms."

Now that the higher reflexivity is a possibility, the technology can be used in new standalone players that are backwards compatible with DVD and Blu-ray discs.

Added GE: "The hardware and formats are so similar to current optical storage technology that the micro-holographic players will enable consumers to play back their CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs."

"GE's breakthrough is a huge step toward bringing our next generation holographic storage technology to the everyday consumer," noted Lawrence in a separate statement.

Lawerence concluded, "The day when you can store your entire high definition movie collection on one disc and support high resolution formats like 3D television is closer than you think."


Source:http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/17809.cfm

 

[FoolKiller]

I am watching this holographic storage disc to see where this goes. Not enough is known yet for me to really judge how well it will be accepted or even work.

For instance: If it is a single layer then search times may take a lot longer than Blu-Ray or DVD. That much data on one layer could possibly mean longer search times. It is already a noticeable effect on BD games that requires developers to either have repeating data, hard drive installs, or possibly other some fancy data organization technique that developers may come up with. This may be why they are only discussing this being used as storage and archiving.

In comparison the 16 layer, 400GB BD that has also been developed may have shorter search times. But again, I haven't seen enough about this to accurately judge.

One other thing that should be kept in mind is that, assuming these both are on the same field technically, the 16 layer BD is being tested to see if current players can read it with a simple firmware upgrade. If that is the case then GE will be asking consumers to buy an entirely new player that has the hardware for CD, DVD, BD, and holographic while using the 16GB BD will likely mean a free download. Heck, even a $15 upgrade fee would be much more desirable than a whole new player.



I will have to wait and see before I know what I would prefer to use and can guess at which might catch on faster. But both have so far only talked about archiving, so I am guessing that it will be a long while before anyone uses either of these for general media content, like a single game or movie.

GE does talk about 3D TV, though. But again, that requires more expensive hardware investment for a lot of people.

 

[Joey D]

Here is the Engadget version, which points on the cost effectiveness of the holographic disc.

GE microholographic storage promises cheap 500GB discs, Blu-ray and DVD compatibility
Ah, holographic storage -- you've held so much promise for cheap optical media since you were first imagined in research papers published in the early 60s. Later today, GE will be trying to keep the dream alive when it announces a new technique that promises to take holographic storage mainstream. GE's breakthrough in microholographics -- which, as the name implies, uses smaller, less complex holograms to achieve three-dimensional digital storage -- paves the way for players that can store about 500GB of data on standard-sized optical discs while still being able to read DVD and Blu-ray media. Better yet, researchers claim a price of about 10 cents per gigabyte compared to the nearly $1 per gigabyte paid when Blu-ray was introduced. The bad news? We're talking 2011 or 2012 by the time microholographics devices and media are introduced and even then it'll only be commercialized for use by film studios and medical institutions. In other words, you'll likely be streaming high-def films to your OLED TV long before you have a microholographic player in the living room.

Probably the biggest blow the Blu-Ray is that holographic discs are being estimated to cost $.10 per gigabyte while the Blu-Rays cost $1. However it looks like we are going to have to wait awhile to get this technology, which is lame. Blu-Ray has sole control of the HD market right now there is no competition and the prices for Blu-Ray films is still high. A new player could start another format war with the winner being the consumer.

 

[FoolKiller]

Probably the biggest blow the Blu-Ray is that holographic discs are being estimated to cost $.10 per gigabyte while the Blu-Rays cost $1. However it looks like we are going to have to wait awhile to get this technology, which is lame.

The wait may be the downfall of holographics. If it takes them that long to hit the market Blu-Rays may very well catch up. The other small thing regarding that price that has been overlooked is that it means each disc will be similarly priced, and consumers often look at the end price, not the long-term benefit. It all depends on how this is handled I suppose.

This also doesn't address what the cost of the 16 layer BD may end up being, or what a new player might cost.

The other issue, for both, is that hard drive prices are already competing and dropping fast. If I wanted to archive I would only use optical if I felt I couldn't trust a hard drive.

Blu-Ray has sole control of the HD market right now there is no competition and the prices for Blu-Ray films is still high.

Since when? The last time I bought Blu-Rays I got two for less than the cost of one DVD movie. 2010 was $15 and Reservoir Dogs was $10. Marley & Me on two-disc DVD was $25.

From what I can tell Blu-Ray prices have fallen in line with similar content-filled multi-disc DVD packs. So, in most instances I can get the same amount of content, occasionally more with BD-Live, and at a higher quality for the same price. At most it is $5 more now.

For example, as this was the last new movie my wife and I bought.

Marley & Me single-disc DVD: $19.99
Marley & Me two-disc DVD (second disc only being digital copy): $24.99
Marley & Me Blu-Ray (more features & digital copy): $29.99

It is a $5 difference for more content and HD quality.

Honestly, if an extra $5 for added features and HD is too high I don't know what you expect.

Add in that older titles are beginning to sell near budget DVD prices and sales usually knock most BD's to below $20 these days and it is well within line for what I was paying for DVDs 2-3 years ago.

Granted, a few companies are still trying to price them at some $30+ premium, but those will come down too.

 

[Joey D]

I find Blu-Ray films to be expensive, quite a few of them at Best Buy are $24.99 and up with many of the DVD's being $9.99-$14.99. Granted I don't really buy a whole lot of films because I really see no point to, but still when I do buy one I don't want to drop $20-$25. I have a hard enough time with most films seeing the difference between Blu-Ray and an upscaled DVD so to me the price increase isn't worth it. Also I find special features to be gimmicky and I really don't understand how adding them can justify an additional price jump.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

Probably the biggest blow the Blu-Ray is that holographic discs are being estimated to cost $.10 per gigabyte while the Blu-Rays cost $1.

Besides the fact that they are not competing products (yet), you may want to check your math again, or at the very least the way you phrased your statement.

$2.50 / $5 = 25GB / 50GB @ $.10 per gigabyte

That's more than $1, the cost you say of a Blu-ray disc... so how is that the biggest blow to Blu-ray?


I've been following holographic data storage development for over ten years now, and while G.E.s latest development is certainly very promising, it's competing against several companies with very similar end products... like Optware's HVD, which they claim will be able to store up to 4TB of data on a single optical disc. InPhase has already been selling holographic storage devices for some time now.

It's a fascinating technology, but I'm afraid by the time it comes out and is priced reasonably, nano technology and solid state drives may very well end up making optical storage data a thing of the past, but we are still many years away from that ever happening.

 

[Joey D]

I was going by what the article said, that's all. To me a $.90 difference per gigabyte in processing cost is a lot and would be a blow to Blu-Ray. And based on the information from the article they will be competing products, I in no way implied they were currently competing.

 

[FoolKiller]

I find Blu-Ray films to be expensive, quite a few of them at Best Buy are $24.99 and up with many of the DVD's being $9.99-$14.99.

If you are only looking at Best Buy that is your problem. Their biggest selling point is availability. They have a large number of titles, but their pricing is not the best unless you catch a sale. When I go to Best Buy it is often because of a sale, and then I see what other deals I can be caught up in an impulse buy for.

If I want a specific title though I first check Wal*Mart (hence 2010 for $15 - Reservoir Dogs was an impulse buy after that) and then start looking online. But then, I am a price hunter. We get the Sunday paper and while my wife is reading the local gossip news I am pulling out the ad circulars to see who has the best deals that week. Note: I am not a coupon clipper. It is either a sale or not, no rebates and no coupons.

Granted I don't really buy a whole lot of films because I really see no point to, but still when I do buy one I don't want to drop $20-$25. I have a hard enough time with most films seeing the difference between Blu-Ray and an upscaled DVD so to me the price increase isn't worth it.

And this may well be the difference. I can tell upscaled from HD, although I admit some films make it more apparent than others.

Also I find special features to be gimmicky and I really don't understand how adding them can justify an additional price jump.

Experience may vary is the way I see special features. Sometimes the filmmaker bores me to death as he sniffs his own farts to show me how artistic he is, but other times I get these very interesting looks at how things are made or, as in 300, a historical rundown of what in the film is accurate and what is artistic license.

Another thing that now needs to be taken into consideration for the price is that the $5 premium for Disney movies now gets you the DVD and the BD in the same package. This is very convenient for us early adopters who want to take a movie to a friend's house. I hope every company goes this route.

you may want to check your math again, or at the very least the way you phrased your statement.

$2.50 / $5 = 25GB / 50GB @ $.10 per gigabyte

That's more than $1, the cost you say of a Blu-ray disc... so how is that the biggest blow to Blu-ray?

I think he meant $1 per gigabyte, not per disc. Making the $25 price range for a movie about right. Of course the article is silly if they think we could get an HD movie comparable to Blu-Ray on one of these things for $2.50. I personally think the article is using some bad assumptions in calculating their data.

But personally if it is three years away before I can even hope to see it, it is not a concern right now.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

To me a $.90 difference per gigabyte in processing cost is a lot and would be a blow to Blu-Ray.

Several problems with that statement.

First of all, the article compares what they "claim" was the cost of making a Blu-ray disc when it was released (not what it is now) to what they claim are the costs "now" for their discs, even though they aren't even making them yet. It's an absurd comparison that has no relevance even if you choose to believe what they claim.

Secondly, one doesn't have to even know the figure, to know, that it doesn't take $1 a gigabyte to make a Blu-ray disc... more like a $1 a disc. After all, if a 50GB Blu-ray discs costs $1 a gigabit (even when it was released), then just the disc itself would cost $50, which doesn't even take in account everything else.

DVDs cost less than a nickle to make, and I suspect it costs about a dollar per disc for Blu-ray... Which may be why the "researcher" somehow got his figures mixed up.

Regardless though, it should be extremely obvious that it doesn't cost $1 per gigabyte to make a Blu-ray disc... that simply makes no sense at all.

I think he meant $1 per gigabyte, not per disc. Making the $25 price range for a movie about right. Of course the article is silly if they think we could get an HD movie comparable to Blu-Ray on one of these things for $2.50. I personally think the article is using some bad assumptions in calculating their data.

But it doesn't... as DVDs cost less than a nickle to make... but they aren't selling for a nickle.

If Blu-ray discs (not the movies mind you) really did cost $1 per gigabyte to make, then they would be selling for much more especially the ones on 50GB discs ... and all those Blu-ray movies I've been buying for $10-$15 would mean someone is losing a ton of money... I can almost guarantee it most likely costs about $1 to make a Blu-ray disc... perhaps even less now.

 

[FoolKiller]

But it doesn't... as DVDs cost less than a nickle to make... but they aren't selling for a nickle.

If Blu-ray discs (not the movies mind you) really did cost $1 per gigabyte to make, then they would be selling for much more especially the ones on 50GB discs ... and all those Blu-ray movies I've been buying for $10-$15 would mean someone is losing a ton of money... I can almost guarantee it most likely costs about $1 to make a Blu-ray disc... perhaps even less now.

I personally think the article is using some bad assumptions in calculating their data.

To be clear here: I am agreeing with you in this statement.

The article is stating $1 per gigabyte, which I gather is taken from them assuming $25 movie on a 25GB BD = $1 per gigabyte, which is a bad assumption. The reality is that most of that $25 is the movie, not the BD.

 

[Tornado]

I think you and Digital are mistaken in your comparisons. First of all, I don't think they meant how much the disk cost to make. I'm pretty certain that they meant how much per Gb it cost to buy (and when BD-Rs first came out, they did cost around $1 per Gb). I don't think Blu-Ray movies are a factor in their comparison in the slightest.
Second of all, they were comparing the hopeful initial price of holodiscs to the initial prices of BD-Rs, saying that holodiscs won't cost as much per Gb when they come out as BD-Rs did when BD-Rs first came out.

It's a fascinating technology, but I'm afraid by the time it comes out and is priced reasonably, nano technology and solid state drives may very well end up making optical storage data a thing of the past, but we are still many years away from that ever happening.

How will SSDs replace optical media? They don't really cover the same market.

First of all, the article compares what they "claim" was the cost of making a Blu-ray disc when it was released (not what it is now) to what they claim are the costs "now" for their discs, even though they aren't even making them yet. It's an absurd comparison that has no relevance even if you choose to believe what they claim.

I don't think the relevance is so questionable. A $0.10/Gb starting price, assuming they can deliver it at around that price, is quite a deal when the cheapest BD-Rs I can find at the moment are in the $0.15-$0.20/Gb bracket (many being considerably higher). Yes, BD-Rs may get cheaper as the holodisc date comes closer, but I don't think the change would be that drastic. And a $0.10/Gb starting price in theory leaves quite a lot of room for later cost reductions, as well.

 

[TheCracker]

It's not directly comparable to the argument, but this article points to a manufacturing cost per unit, for a fully packaged BD (including whatever media is on the disk) at $1.80 for a BD25 and $2.75 for a BD50 - as long as the production run is over 10,000 units.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

How will SSDs replace optical media? They don't really cover the same market.

Currently. Which is why I specifically said "may very well end up".

I don't think the relevance is so questionable. A $0.10/Gb starting price, assuming they can deliver it at around that price, is quite a deal when the cheapest BD-Rs at the moment are in the $0.15-$0.20/Gb bracket (many being considerably higher).

You are making the same mistake as Joey, and basing the flawed comparison in the article by comparing two different things... manufacturing cost (which the manufactures control), and retail costs (which publishers and retailer control).

GE may very well be able to make these discs for $0.10 per gigabyte, but that in no way means you'll be able to buy a movie on a 25GB/50GB holographic optical disc for $2.50/$5. All they can do is sell those discs to studios and publishers who in term will use them to stamp their movies on them, then they buy cases and 4-color covers and inserts, and then in turn they sell those to retailers who in turn price them accordingly.... and this doesn't even take in account other costs like digital transfer fees, menu designs, graphic design work, distribution costs, etc.

Again, it is very likely Blu-ray discs cost about $1 to make, which is about $0.04 per gigabyte... so again, if that is the case, $0.10 per gigabyte isn't cheaper... it's 250% more expensive.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

It's not directly comparable to the argument, but this article points to a manufacturing cost per unit, for a fully packaged BD (including whatever media is on the disk) at $1.80 for a BD25 and $2.75 for a BD50 - as long as the production run is over 10,000 units.

Exactly. Also, as TheCracker points out, that's for a fully packaged BD release. For example, with movies on DVDs, other than the high cost of telecine transfers, digital restoration, menu designs, and such, the most expensive part of producing a DVD with a movie on it, is the case and the 4-color cover and inserts, which can easily exceed $1 per DVD.

 

[Tornado]

Currently. Which is why I specifically said "may very well end up".

I also do not understand how they will ever coincide.

You are making the same mistake as Joey, and basing the flawed comparison in the article by comparing two different things... manufacturing cost (which the manufactures control), and retail costs (which publishers and retailer control).

No, not really. I understand that it obviously does not cost $1/Gb to make a Blu-Ray disc. I actually acknowledged that fact right here:

I think you and Digital are mistaken in your comparisons. First of all, I don't think they meant how much the disk cost to make. I'm pretty certain that they meant how much per Gb it cost to buy (and when BD-Rs first came out, they did cost around $1 per Gb). I don't think Blu-Ray movies are a factor in their comparison in the slightest.
Second of all, they were comparing the hopeful initial price of holodiscs to the initial prices of BD-Rs, saying that holodiscs won't cost as much per Gb when they come out as BD-Rs did when BD-Rs first came out.

However, with the vague way that the Engadget article is written, the price figures quoted in the article could apply either to manufacturing costs (in which case the article is heavily flawed) or it could apply to cost for the end consumer (in which case the article makes a very valid, albeit highly assuming, point). All I was doing was pointing that out.

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

However, with the vague way that the Engadget article is written, the price figures quoted in the article could apply either to manufacturing costs (in which case the article is heavily flawed) or it could apply to cost for the end consumer (in which case the article makes a very valid, albeit highly assuming, point). All I was doing was pointing that out.

Which is why vague articles and vague posts based on vague articles can be so terribly misleading... especially when they use them in the same post to suggest Blu-Ray has sole control of the HD market (note: no mention of BD-R) that there is no competition and the prices for Blu-Ray films is still high (in their opinion).

And based on what we already know, the comparison no matter how you choose to interpret is still, as you say heavily flawed.... which as you say is what FK and I have been pointing out.

If, and that's a big if, GE is suggesting it is going to be able to sell holographic recordable discs for $0.10 per gigabyte (which that article does not clarify is the case), and currently you can buy 25GB BD-R discs for $3 a disc and less if you really looked around, then that's just about $0.10 per gigabyte as well... even without pointing out the fact that mass produced 25GB & 50GB BD-ROM discs are far less expensive to manufacture.

So what we do know is that comparing what it cost to make or sell a product, to something that no longer costs that much, to a product that isn't even for sale yet is heavily flawed, and to make a comparison without even properly identifying exactly what it is you are comparing and what exactly you are comparing it to, like size (25GB/50GB), type of disc (BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RW, etc), and by who (manufacturer, publisher/distributor, retailer) is also heavily flawed.