|'); } // End -->|
this data is from market researcher Nielsen Video scan.
Toshiba and HD DVD did not want to comment. So they also know they have lost.
"In a survey of PS3 users, Sony claim that of 100,000 console owners, 90% said they had already watched a Blu-ray film and 80% said they would buy more discs."
Does anybody know the figures on the sales of HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray burners? We've been installing 15GB HD-DVD units as backup devices for customers. They run about $200.
I love new formats--particularly technically superior ones--but this one scares me. IMO, it's WAY too early to make an informed decision. I would feel like a real chump if I invested thousands of dollars in a good source, expensive software, and a 1080 TV, only to wind up with the losing format (the TV would've been the only decent investment).
One or more of the following things have to happen to make me take the plunge:
(1) Several respected high-end manufacturers have to embrace one format over the other (like what happened with SACD). That would lead me to think that that format is starting to pull away in the audiophile and videophile markets.
(2) A true winner is declared. Not sure if that'll ever happen.
(3) Someone (I'm hoping Oppo) comes out with a decently priced TRUE universal that plays EVERYTHING: Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, HDCD, DVD-A, DVD, redbook CD, etc.) That'll get me on the bandwagon for sure.
< < the TV would've been the only decent investment > >
Today's TVs (plasmas and LCDs) basically suck compared to good old-fashioned CRT technology. Wait a few years and there should be something much better coming down the pike. For example, do a google search on SED.
I will also keep mine running in the corner of the livingroom.
Unless and until the games are only available on HD-DVD discs, most people with Xbox 360s won't bother to buy the HD-DVD drive, just as most people with a PS3 won't bother to use it to play BluRay movies.
Maybe percentage wise possibly not but I do think some folks are savvy enough out there to know the PS3 is a heck of a bargain compared to what is out there for players at this point.
I said, "most people," not just, "people."
I know a number of people who bought the PS3 including myself, and all of them made the purchase at least in some part with Blu-Ray in mind. None of them are 'videophiles' either.
until film itself morphs to holographic projection (and thus true HD) to even bother considering an upgrade (including to 5.1 or its contemporaneous incarnation). Until then, video remains at its core a sensory-disconnect two-dimensional medium onto which the industry has grafted a semblance of three-dimensional audio.
Of course, it won't happen in my lifetime, so I've considered petitioning for a monicker change to Luddite.
...and I might think about it.
I suppose so. Myself, I have never found DVDs or Blu-rays, VHS, Laserdisc as a whole worth buying or making the space for. I prefer to rent/Netflix.
Can't say how that might affect the market...
They are nice looking for sure. Too little software at too high a price now. Always better to wait.
My guess is which ever one goes cheap as in costs less will win the format war....They would have to overcome the huge obstacle though.....GREED
DVDs upscaled to 720p look surprisingly good on my 106" screen. So I think it's safe to assume that the average consumer with a 32" or 40" set and a lower income is quite happy with standard DVD when confronted with the alternative of paying $3000 or more for a new 1080p set and $1000 for a new player - all to play 150 mediocre overpriced titles.
Yes, I'm interested in higher-resolution video. But I'm sitting this format war out until a single standard is declared, until we move beyond the problem-plagued first generation players, and until decent titles become available at reasonable prices. I'm not about to buy a $1000 player, that will be bettered in a couple of years by a new $150 version, to play a $30 copy of "The Fifth Element". And in a couple of years, I'm sure you'll be able to buy a 1080p projectors for less than $1000, just like 720p projectors today.
I have a Playstation 3 and an Oppos DVD player, and a 60" 720P set.
The PS3 Blu-ray kicks butt over the Oppos any day. All you hear about is the resolution difference, but there are other advances in technology that are just as significant and make the new formats worthwile.
There is the resolution that on my set looks like the best Over the Air HDTV signal (I run the PS3 as 1080i on movies), this is a significant jump from the Oppos. Motion is much better with Blu-ray, as the picture is so seamless and smooth moving compared to DVD. And the best thing is color. Blu-ray displays many more colors than DVD. The tonal palette has been expanded, and bright primary colors are more intense, and there are more subtle colors, so many more shades of blue in sky, more kinds of natural greens in a forest, more detail in shadows.
Soundwise, on a good Bu-ray disk, there is no comparison either. The DVD has audible compression artifacts on dynamics (you don't hear it until you hear something better), and sounds just altogether rougher. But some Blu-ray discs sound better than others, since there are so many different ways of storing the audio, some (mostly the very first releases) sound worse than the Oppos. But, for instance, The Brothers Grimm, has a lossless audio track you can select, and this sound will blow you away. So when the producers figure out the audio on Blu-ray, I think most movies will sound gorgeous.
Netflix carries both Blu-ray and HD-DVD, and there are a LOT of Blu-ray movies to choose from, though the movies released are not the best selections, but I expect that to change fairly quickly. So I am not replacing my DVDs, just enjoying all the Blu-ray discs for no more money.
I had some friends over last night and we watched "Running with Scissors" on Blu-Ray and it was a treat. There are a bunch of songs played in the movie, and I am pretty sure that the sound quality coming through the movie was way better than my CDs could produce. That's just not true for a DVD player. My friends, who are not audiophiles, but know my system really well, spoke up during the movie and commented on how great all those old songs sounded.
I'm not saying that I wouldn't appreciate the difference. But I have a Denon DVD-5910 which is no slouch at getting the best out of standard DVDs and upconverting to 720p. It creates a very acceptable picture on a 106" screen, even with my cheap Optoma HD-70 projector. The Optoma is only 10-bit color and 720p native resolution, so I would have to replace it to see any major benefit with Bluray or HD DVD.
As I said, in a couple years when 1080p projectors are cheap and there are better cheaper players and more titles available for rental or at discount prices (I buy most of my DVDs used from Blockbuster for $3 to $5), then I will consider it.
On my 122" screen, 720p upsampling is fine too. Well, it's better than fine, it's stunningly good, I'd even dare say, film like.
I'm with you. When I bought the projector, the Panasonic was nearly a giveaway with rebates making the 1080 models cost at least 5X more with little to gain.
Now, the new Sony Pearl seems to have the same specs as the Ruby and cost half as much. When Blockbuster has all the new titles in Blu-Ray and/or HD DVD, I'll think about it. I'm not a buyer of DVDs anyway and I'd surely not buy any a second time.
I'm also happy enough with the ocassional movie eye candy on DirecTV HD, making HD DVD even less attractive to me. Recently I caught "Amadeus" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" in 720p. For free. And they looked great. Sometimes you can even catch those quirky but entertaining little movies you wouldn't necessarily pay to see otherwise, like "The World's Fastest Indian". So why would I spend thousands for HD DVD?
High prices for players, luke warm reception by reviewers (I haven't read a positive review of a Samsung player yet), and competing formats, mean not much attraction to most buyers. I also imagine those with extensive DVD collections are loathe to replace them with HD discs.
< < Toshiba and HD DVD did not want to comment. So they also know they have lost. > >
Are they paying you to write this silly stuff? You sound like a shill for Sony.
The truth is that so far we have *two* losers -- HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Right now they each have a grand total of 150 titles each. Compare that to DVD, with over 50,000 titles.
The only people that buy either format are the uber-techno-geeks. If you don't believe me, check out the sales statistics at Amazon.com. Both formats are running neck-and-neck, with Blu-Ray taking a small lead in recent weeks. But check out the #5 top selling HD-DVD disc -- it's a *test* disc! Normal people just don't buy test discs...
So there you have it -- another giant flop, just like SACD and DVD-A. The normal person doesn't give a hoot, and a miniscule group of uber-techno-geeks are making a tempest in a teapot over which flop of a format is "winning". Give us a break.
this failure along for a while but they to will give up soon enough. The majors simply can't see the forest for the trees, VHS/Beta; SACD/DVD-A; and now BD/HD-DVD lead to fighting for the techie dollar when the man on the street and his billions could not care less. The future successful format must be a single standard or it to will fail IMO.
is off to an auspicious start, but, there is one significant difference between these video formats and the format wars between DVD-A/SACD vs. CD: anyone can readily see the difference in picture quality on a capable set, while the advantages of high definition audio were, by comparison, much more subtle.
< < anyone can readily see the difference in picture quality on a capable set > >
Please read the review of the Toshiba HD-1 in issue 110 of Widescreen Review. These guys are far more critical than the average joe, but even they said that the improvement between HD and properly upscaled SD was marginal.
I saw the Sony demonstration video on their Qualia SXRD set at CEDIA (the set I own) and I have never seen a picture from SD sources that comes close to the kind of definition. The closest comparison would be good PAL DVDs (they tend to look better than the NTSC stuff we get here in the US).
I can understand your pessimism. Sony and others in the Blue ray consortium promised machines much earlier, and Sony promised over a hundred titles once their machine was introduced. All Blue ray members announced machines in the $500 to $700 price range (list price). I haven't seen those cheaper machines yet.
That being said, the sales of 50 inch flat screens is rapidly approaching the numbers for 42 inch screens. Once you've seen the difference between the signals of a regular DVD and a true HD model, you become a convert. Still, I am not happy with the selection of movies available nor their $30 list prices.
I did own a second production run of the Sam Sung player and was very happy with the picture, even with regular DVD's. Curiously, as I pointed out earlier, the digital audio comes out phase correct whereas all other DVD players I have had spits out an inverted signal with the same discs.
As TV sets grow larger, and because Sony has finally come to it's senses in allowing the Blue Ray to be backwards compatible, there will be a shift towards that format.
according to one of your staff.
People naturally hesitate to buy expensive DVD players, until they know what will happen with the new formats.
So I can well understand, that you do not like the new formats. But attacking me (the messenger) does not help you.
Anyway your new monoblocks are very elegant.
see link to Ayre DVD player
< < People naturally hesitate to buy expensive DVD players, until they know what will happen with the new formats. > >
Good thing that we make other products besides expensive DVD players. That way we won't go out of business.
Change the word "DVD" in your sentence to "CD" and turn back the clock 10 years. Then look what happened to Wadia who only made expensive CD players. Unlike Theta, who diversified with a full line of other products, Wadia fell upon very tough times trying to sell CD players in a time of great uncertainty.
As soon as the new formats were announced years ago, we knew that the sales of our DVD players would drop off significantly. But we don't care. We're not going to stop making them, because they still offer the best performance you can buy, assuming you are interested in more than 150 of the latest crappy titles from Hollywood.
Someday, when it makes sense to do so, we might even make a high-def video player. Just like we did with SACD and DVD-A. (Unlike Gamut, who never did get around to it, despite all your claims on this forum that such a player was imminent.)
< < So I can well understand, that you do not like the new formats. But attacking me (the messenger) does not help you. > >
Whether I like a format or not has very, very little to do with whether or not it will succeed in the marketplace. And that is what I am looking at. The last thing Ayre will do is bring out some new "fad" product that will be orphaned, leaving the owner holding the bag.
And I am not "attacking the messenger". I am simply pointing out the facts. And the facts so far are that we have two more failed formats. Saying that Blu-Ray is winning over HD-DVD is just plain silly. Kind of like saying that DVD-A is winning over SACD. Or that Columbia's SQ quadraphonic system is winning over JVC's quadraphonic system. At this point, it's all pretty irrelevant, don't you think?
I think it can make the difference. If Sony sells over the world more than one million of those devices, we'll have the HD winner in a couple of years.
< < If Sony sells over the world more than one million of those devices, we'll have the HD winner in a couple of years. > >
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
A few years ago there were well over a million DVD-A players sold also. But did that mean that DVD-A became a successful format? No, of course not. The reason is that the people that bought the machines didn't give a hoot if they played DVD-A, they only cared if they played movies (DVD-V).
Actually the demographic for the Playstation 3 is solidly in the 21 to 35 year old crowd, and they very much care about video and hi-rez pictures. Those that can drop the cash needed for a $500 t0 $600 machine plus $60 per game are not 'kids', and there are close to 2 million of them so far. Remember the Playstation franchise has been around for more than a generation (I'm not sure when Playstation 1 launched, but it was something like 12 to 15 years ago?).
The demographic who uses Playstation on the whole cares about new technology AND hi-rez images. So they are a much better fit than you would think.
but if Blue Ray delivers some picture benefits that they can obvioulsy see when the thing is connected to a good screen, they'll prefer watching movies on Blue Ray than in DVD-V. The DVD-A and SACD sunk because "average Joe" couldn't find any difference in his stereo or multichannel home cinema.
They plan to ship 6 million before April, but I doubt they can do that.
Anyway I will buy a PS3 in April, when sales in Europe starts.
At USD 599 I doubt they make money on the player now.
But this is classical Japanese marketing, get the sales numbers up quickly by selling below cost. Then make money, when the market have accepted the product.
... HD-DVD and Blu-Ray against the sales of standard DVD movies/music.
Now THAT would make interesting reading!
The last time we were asked to dance a merry jig and adopt a new format (actually, a few formats ago) when CD came out, many of us stopped looking for vinyl and missed out on picking up great music and even better records (why didn't I start collecting Blue Note et al.?) in the rush to be first on the block.
Well, no partner - not me again. Right now I'm busy collecting as many obscure and delightful CDs as I can find: I continue to collect mini-lp releases when I can, I have resurrected my piano collecting from APR recordings and have now begun a Trinidadian calypso collection, recorded by Emory Cook and made available by the Smithsonian. All great stuff. All unlikely to find their way in significant numbers on to any new, physically-based format.
Good luck to any and all who decide to get on this bus. Me, I just won't bite this time. And if you decide to offload your precious, low-res CDs, let me know. I'll be happy to have them.
And I still collect vinyl.
the laserdiscs, the DVDs, the CDs, the SACDs, the DVD Audio discs and the players for all these formats.
I have all of my CDs on harddisk now. But I never sold any CDs. Why should I sell? I also keep my books and magazines.
You're right. Having said that, can't see me bothering with those either - and I work in film/tv.
Waiting for downloads and the less discs we buy, the more likely we are to get HD by wire.
and Blu ray is likely to become a mainstream music format.
For the MTV generation, music and picture goes together. And before that TV make both Elvis and the Beatles great stars.
Fans allways want to see the stars. Sales of DVDs with music have been growing for a long time.
< < Blu ray is likely to become a mainstream music format. > >
Where in the world do you come up with this stuff?
Two years ago the music industry was in a panic because CD sales were down 10%. But do a little bit of math before you make silly statements. There are nearly 1,000,000,000 CD players world-wide. Which is, oh, only about 1000 times as many CD players as compared to Blu-Ray players.
So if you are trying to sell music discs, do you think it would make more sense to release a CD (with a billion potential customers), or a Blu-Ray (with a million potential customers)?
effects of crack cocaine so well as you must do, to make that statement :-)
The fact remain that while CD sales went down, sales of DVDs with music went up.
You did not like SACD, but now you make a SACD player. SACD did not get mainstream. So why do you make it?
But Blu ray can become mainstream because large flat TVs are now mainstream, and they need a source.
When Ayre makes a Blu ray player, you should give me one and say "damn it, I was wrong again."
< < The fact remain that while CD sales went down, sales of DVDs with music went up. > >
Don't confuse correlation with cause. CD sales went down because people didn't like the new music releases, or they were downloading MP3's or both. Not because they were switching to "DVDs with music".
< < You did not like SACD > >
Huh? Where did you come up with that idea? It's not a very good format for modern recording techniques, as any mixing or effects requires conversion to PCM. But it makes sense as a way to distribute high-resolution digital copies of analog source tapes.
< < now you make a SACD player. SACD did not get mainstream. So why do you make it? > >
You may not have noticed, but Ayre is not a "mainstream" product. We make it because the hard-core audience we serve wants it. The difference between Ayre and the other high-end manufacturers is two-fold:
a) We waited to introduce a multi-format player until the price premium over a CD-only player was reasonable -- on the order of 20% or so.
b) We offered the product that most audiophiles wanted -- two channels only, with no video.
< < But Blu ray can become mainstream > >
Uh, let me clue you in on something. Higher performance at a higher price is *not* a recipe for mainstream success. If it were, Ferrari would be the biggest car company in the world.
< < When Ayre makes a Blu ray player, you should give me one and say "damn it, I was wrong again." > >
If Ayre makes a Blu-ray player, you will be saying, "damn it, Ayre was right again." The only reason we would do so would be because it would serve our customers. In other words, we will not make an expensive piece of hardware to play a dead-end format. So if it turns out that Blu-ray is not a dead-end, or if we can make one for a very small price premium over a DVD player, then we will do so.
Making a high-end Blu-ray player now would be stupid. It would require that your customers shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for the privilege of playing a handful of discs. Why not wait a year or two to see which format (if either) survives, and also for the technology to mature so that a higher level of performance can be offered for a much lower price? That's what we did with our multi-format audio player, and both we and our customers are happy with that decision.
and not much more than DVD players cost some years ago, adjusting for inflation.
Mainstream buyers see PS3 as a good deal, a DVD player, a game console, and a Blu ray player in one box for USD 499.
re CD sales, I have designed recording studios and sold
equipment to replicators, so I know that business a bit better than you do.
< < USD 499 for the cheapest SONY PS3 is hardly Ferrari prices ! > >
Not to you, maybe. But to the normal consumer it is. They can buy a DVD player for less than $50. The cheapest Blu-Ray player cost 10x as much. Most mainstream DVD titles are selling for $12 to $15 in this country. Blu-Ray titles cost 2x to 3x as much. For a normal person, this is like deciding that instead of buying a $30,000 car, they should instead buy something that costs $300,000 because it offers higher performance. And instead of paying $2 a gallon for gas (yes, I know that is absurdly cheap by world standards) that their new $300,000 car requires special fuel that cost $4 to $6 per gallon.
< < Please read your old SACD posts, from the time, when you did not make a SACD player. > >
I think it's you that needs to read them (link below). You seem to be either suffering from selective memory or senility. Here are some examples of what I actually said in that thread:
"I'm not sure that it makes sense to pay an extra $3000 for the capability to play only a handful of discs." (Kind of like the situation today for making a high-end Blu-ray player, no?)
"But none of this will change the problem with software availability. The fact remains that it is distinctly unprofitable for any major software company to release titles in the new formats." (Kind of like the situation today for Blu-ray software, no?)
"Another problem is that when we introduce a product, we would like it to have some level of longevity, say three or more years. I'm not at all sure that any of the current SACD manufacturing kits will still be available in three years. Either they would be discontinued altogether, or they would typically be replaced by cheaper ones that would require a redesign of our product." (That is something that you would have been well-served to pay more attention to when you were at Gamut. Instead of putting all of your eggs into the Philips basket and getting screwed in the process, you could have noticed all of the other companies that put their eggs into Philips basket [both SACD and CD] and got screwed.)
But since you are so keen on Blu-ray, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Why don't you go ahead and introduce a high-end Blu-ray player? Since you are so sure that I'm wrong, I guess you'll be laughing all the way to the bank. So go ahead, prove me wrong.
Your SACD statements still make a negative impression on me, so maybe you need to study writing :-)
For small High End electronics companies, the recent years have been difficult, with CE, SACD, Rohs, WEEE, class D and now Blu ray.
Not to mention new versions of HDMI, and the yearly fees.
Because I sold GamuT in 2003, I live happily without the above, so you cannot tempt me :-)
You ignore, that the SONY PS3 is a game console. USD 50 DVD players do not play games.
A relevant alternative would be the much praised oppo DVD multiformat player at USD 149 and a X-box 360 game console at USD 299. Total USD 448 versus SONY PS3 at USD 499.
This is the choice consumers make today. And for the many millions of owners of many PS2 games at USD 50 for each game, the choice is clearly SONY PS3, because it can play their old games.
This is the reality of mainstream today.
< < Your SACD statements still make a negative impression on me > >
I guess the truth hurts.
< < A relevant alternative would be the much praised oppo DVD multiformat player at USD 149 and a X-box 360 game console at USD 299. Total USD 448 > >
That might be relevant if normal people that bought DVD players cared about SACD or DVD-Audio, or wanted to buy a game console at the same time. But in general, that's not the case. Your example would be like comparing a car with a navigation system to a car without a navigation system plus a separate navigation system. For those small percentage of buyers that need it, it would make sense. But that is not the vast majority of purchasers.
< < SONY can sell PS3 at a loss, because SONY get money from the game companies. > >
Actually Sony *has* to sell the PS3 at a loss because it would be completely unsaleable at $1000. So they have no choice. What remains to be seen is how long they can continue to lose money. I think it will be many years before their manufacturing costs come down to the point where they stop losing money. We'll see how long they have the stomach for bleeding. Don't forget that Sony stopped selling SACDs because they got tired of losing money.
no matter how you want to avoid it, a game consoles that play Blu ray and DVD is worth much more than a DVD player to a lot of people.
Your argument about USD 50 for a DVD player versus USD 499 for a SONY PS3 is simply wrong.
My math teacher said it this way: The price of the apple do not matter, when you want to buy and eat a coconut.
Similar a DVD player cannot be sold to people, who want a game console.
You also fail to understand how much money SONY made on the PS2.
It gave SONY about 50% of the total company buttom line.
So SONY have a very good reason to stay committed to PS3.
Secondly the profit comes via the games companies.
So SONY can sell PS3 at a loss, and still make a profit.
This business model is well known in printers, the profit comes from the ink sales.
However long term Blu ray is not more expensive to build than a DVD. So profits will come from Blu ray player too. That is the reason Panasonic and Samsung make Blu Ray players. They see no profit in making USD 50 DVD players.
When a technology have become a cheap commodity, the big companies will try to force a new format with better profits on the buying public. Small companies get hurt everytime.
Get used to it. It will happen again and again.
< < When a technology have become a cheap commodity, the big companies will try to force a new format with better profits on the buying public. > >
This is the last resort of of dying behemoths. You weren't around in the US during the '60s, but an interesting thing happened here. The giants of the consumer electronics industry at that time (RCA, Zenith, GE, et cetera) had been dominating their market for nearly 50 years. Then in a matter of a few years, they got slaughtered and either went out of business or were dismantled.
Why? Because the Japanese companies made products that were less expensive and offered performance that was "good enough" for the average consumer.
And now the same thing is happening to the Japanese companies. The fact that PS2 contributed 50% to Sony's bottom line a year or two ago only shows what terrible shape they are in. They don't make money with TV's, or computers, or Discmen, or DVD players or any of what should be their core businesses. Instead, they are reduced to trying to stay at the forefront of that most faddish of products -- video games.
For a while, they made money selling DVD players. Then when it became a commodity, they couldn't keep up with the Chinese. Why? Because the Chinese companies are making products that are less expensive and offer performance that is "good enough" for the average consumer.
So you see, history is repeating itself. It's only a surprise for those that don't study it. (If you really think I'm wrong, why don't you go ahead and invest your life savings in Sony stock?)
For Sony (and you) to think that they can save themselves by offering higher performing products at a higher price is pure foolishness. That would be like thinking that if only RCA had offered a high performance TV 35 years that cost 5x what the Japanese models did that they would still rule the world of consumer electronics.
The funny part is that you think what Sony is doing is a *good* thing. You are probably one of those kind of guys that happily waits in line to buy the latest abortive fiasco from Microsoft, thinking that it will somehow improve your life. And you happily give Bill Gates even more of your money.
< < Small companies get hurt everytime. > >
Only the ones that make bad decisions. Our business was up 40% last year, which was up 50% over the year before that, which was up 40% over the year before that.
There is nothing new for me in your last post.
The big CE companies in USA could have stayed in the CE market, just
the companies in Europe did. Perhaps Europe were more clever?
Look at Europes trade balance versus USA ?
The japanese produced TVs in Europe for many more years, using local parts. So did Philips, Thomson and Grundig.
And Bang&Olufsen still produce in Europe.
In Europe quality is still king, just look at Audi, Porche, Mercedes, BMW.
Look at French and Italien fashion clothes, womens handbags, food and wine.
People all over the world prefer to buy it because it is expensive.
Even in China :-)
The big USA manufacturers do not seem understand the concept of quality and a higher price as a positive sales argument.
Your own growth is caused by high price, elegant design and quality.
Very much like an European car.
If you tried to go low price, you would fail fast.
GamuT had the best sales ever in July 2003, just when I decided to sell the company. SACD never hurt GamuT.
I sold to end a 14 year long battle with our governement over an illegal act done by the government in 1989. The European court ruled in my and many others favour, but we never got our money back from the Danish government, because the total amount was 7 billion USD, or 5% of Denmarks GNP at that time !
I do not buy Microsoft products, unless I have to. My father developed the largest computer software on punchcards in his time.
Good software keep on being used, remember year 2000?
To sell new "improved software", you have to make bad software :-)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: