Will Hybrid Players End the Format War? 279
flyhalf writes "A new report says that hybrid players will force an early end to the HD DVD/Blu-ray format wars. Some of the projections seem optimistic: $200 hybrid players by 2009 and several manufacturers cranking them out. But reality will likely be different: 'standalone units of any format aren't selling terribly well. Recent research determined that 695,000 consumers owned either a Blu-ray or HD DVD player, but most of those are tied to a console — 400,000 of the 425,000 Blu-ray players sold by the end of 2007 were PlayStation 3s and 150,000 of the 270,000 HD DVD players were Xbox 360 add-ons.' Most importantly, consumers aren't early adopters: 'DVD players needed over a decade to supersede the VCR in the living rooms of the United States and there is little reason to believe that HD DVD and Blu-ray player adoption will outpace that of the DVD.'"
Most people unaffected .... (Score:5, Insightful)
People with HDTV represent a fairly smallish chunk of the population. The most of the rest of us neither have, nor are we looking to buy, HDTV. It's an expensive migration path with little perceived benefit for many people and very little in actual programming to use it -- most of what I watch isn't available in HD, and I wouldn't watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" in any definition.
The ones who know how fraught with peril the technology is, are staying away -- that whole HDMI DRM debacle, not working with older sets, and whatnot conspire to make this stuff a bit of a joke at the moment. Most people I know own a plain old TV, in about the 20" range. And, most of them are very unlikely to care about HD unless it becomes exceedingly cheap and compelling to do so. For most people, a full HD set is just way too expensive to considedr.
I'm sure the format war will sort itsself out, and it will be a good thing for the small amount of people with the displays to use this stuff. But, in the mean time, I bet a lot of people really could care less about this particular format war.
Don't forget, DVD was a huge improvement over VHS, and it was compatible with existing displays. The next gen of DVD isn't.
Cheers
It's about content... (Score:2, Insightful)
The content people want to see in the new format will drive the market. While there are 7 movies available, people aren't going to pony up $100 per movie for a player.
Frankly the format will go nowhere until Ishtar is available on it...
Sheldon
I know! I know! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they think we are all sheep who will do whatever we are told to do by our corporate masters?
Another way to read the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Recent research determined that 695,000 consumers owned either a Blu-ray or HD DVD player, but most of those are tied to a console--400,000 of the 425,000 Blu-ray players sold by the end of 2007 were PlayStation 3s and 150,000 of the 270,000 HD DVD players were Xbox 360 add-ons.
25,000 people bought standalone BluRay players.
120,000 people bought standalone HD-DVD players.
I think the peeps have spoken and shown that if Sony wasn't bundling BluRay in with PS3s that almost nobody would be getting one.
Keep in mind too that all 150,000 people who bought add on HD-DVD players made an optional decision to buy that drive. 400,000 people who bought PS3s got a BluRay drive because you can't get a PS3 without one.
HD-DVD is winning the "format war" and it's only the PS3 that is so far making BluRay appear to even be in the race. I'd love to see disc sale comparisons because that will give a truer indication of who is in the lead than player numbers. It's a reasonable assumption that everyone who has an HD-DVD player is buying discs for it because the decision to buy that player was 100% optional and it's also a reasonable assumption that many people own the PS3 and don't have a single BluRay disc.
VHS - DVD was NOT due to visuals (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, we've reached a place where the average person has DVD collections - they didn't so much for VHS tapes. Nobody ever bought season box sets of tapes en masse before DVDs, now they're suddenly saying "buy them again!"?
Is it just me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Crap + Higher Resolution == Shinier Crap.
Only a small niche of humanity actually require fancy technology to be entertained. Remember that people used to see "live performances", and later on "black and white" programs on the over-the-air TV, etc...
The sooner they realize this the better. Maybe then they can focus more on script and acting lessons and less on CGI and camera resolution.
tom
doomed for failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, this war is going to be long and hard-fought. Ultimatley, both camps will lose to online video content delivery. And, just like for audio, online content will be of lower quality than the one on optical disks of various kinds; and still it would be the winner. MP3, AAC, WMA are all lossy compression format which are lower in sound quality than CD (let alone DVD-Audio, SACD etc.) but they are winning more than anything because of the content delivery innovation and content mobility.
There will be one saving grace for HD-DVD and Blu-ray though and I think that will be computers and gamers use. This format will be more popular for people to back up their data on due to their larger size. It will also work well for releasing games for consoles with amazing amount of data to create more real-world-like experience.
Osho
the end has already been decided... (Score:1, Insightful)
the pr0n industry settled on hd-dvd. the war is over.
Same play, different night (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not certain why this is hard for a lot of tech sites, as well as the companies that pushed these technologies, to figure out. The reason the DVD is widely accepted now is because it offered a multitude of benefits over VHS:
1) Larger storage capacity
2) Instant skipping
3) Smaller
4) More durable
5) Cheaper to produce
6) Higher quality
7) Longer lasting
The only thing that HD/BR have over DVD is an even larger storage capacity and higher quality, the latter of which most consumers can't even make use of right now. They keep all the problems that DVD had, such as possibility of scratching and moving parts. The only reason they were pushed out was to sell more HDTVs, as well as to give movie companies better DRM.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: HD/BR are just bumps in the road. The next turning point in terms of mass media storage will be flash memory.
Something the size of a mini-DVD (think Gamecube games), but likely squarish (like a floppy). It will have the internal flash memory inside a thin-but-durable plastic shell. Small pins slightly inset on one side are what transfers the data.
A storage system like this will be cheap, modular (only need a certain capacity? Save money and just buy that capacity), and durable. From there, it's just a matter of choosing a compression format for films to make standard. The lack of moving parts (aside from what is used to eject it/hold it in place) will make for less failures.
All that's needed for this to happen is for the companies to toss BR/HD to the wayside, come up with a good format standard across ALL studios, and then wait for the price of flash memory to drop more.
What does the consumer expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
What it comes down to is: what does the consumer want and expect? Moving everyone from VHS to DVD took some time and that was making a change to a much higher quality and compact format (you cannot put 50 VHS tapes in a little wallet storage case). Nor can you jump to chapter marks on a VHS - more added functionality that people wanted. Also, the picture and sound quality was something you could enjoy without upgrading the other parts of your entertainment system. In the case of Blu-ray and HD-DVD, the high quality has extra costs. The television and players required to get the full effect are much more expensive.
I wonder if the next format should not be based on discs, but more like flash drives with your movie. The great part about that would be plugging it into your "home entertainment hard drive" and installing the movie for future viewings. I love the idea of having all my films on a hard drive array, though it would be bad news for companies that make shelving. Of course, then some sort of offsite backup service will become important (if not mandatory).
Re:Sony = Duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
They might have been a factor in the VHS/Beta wars but not the only one. And back int he 70's/80's the avenue for pornography were few so even the modest size of the industry might have been a background factor. But these days most porn hounds get more "bang" for their buck online. It will be a less compelling factor in this round of the format wars then in the one in the days of yore.
Re:Most people unaffected .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Another expense is possibly getting a new sound system. My current one only has composite for my DVD/VHS and consoles, and it doesn't support any digital audio (it was a Wal-Mart special a couple of years ago). My current older HDTV monitor (it's a 32" w/o the tuner) only has 1 component (no HDMI). If I'm going to have a DVD and a couple consoles hooked to the TV, I gotta have the inputs somewhere.
$$$ starts adding up quick if you don't have the parts needed to go full-out HD. When things settle down, it'll be time to start piecemealing an entertainment center together.
No. They will not..... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are now three formats out: Standard DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD. If you bought a player that would play all three, why would you need to switch? Of course, in the future, DVD will definitely become obselet, since it is the only format that is not HD as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD already are. So, that leaves two high definition formats for 100% of the HD disk market share. If you start selling hybrid players that can play both of them, then what does it matter if you are buying Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? Unless you are a videophile or always have to have the biggest and best of anything in your neighborhood, it doesn't matter what format you use. So, if companies no longer have to worry about compatibility issues and the criticality of those issues in determining a commercially viable product, no one is going to back out and let the other take over. If companies realize that they no longer have to worry about getting customers to buy their products as a matter of life and death, then we will be stuck with the same problem facing video game developers: Platform contracts, format conracts, and proprietary content issues that just irritate the customer because they would have to buy multiple expensive platforms so they can play all the games they enjoy, not just be limited to a specific few.
A hybrid player would further the multiple format problems that just flat out irritate users, since they would have to buy a hybrid player to be able to fully enjoy video media. If movie houses and studios got locked into contracts depending on what Sony will pay and what HD-DVD manufacturers will pay. If hybrid players come out, then good, I won't have to buy a different player for certain movies. BUT, then ALL players that you bought in the future would have to be dual format. The same thing can be seen in video media files:
They should do it like TV: "We're gonna switch from analog to digital in 2010. Do what you need to change. If you want something else, buy it, but it's you're problem.". There needs to be standard format for media, and someone needs to put practicalty above profits for that to happen.
If you want to see what runaway formats can be like, just look at a complete list of Centerfire Rifle Calibers (Wikipedia has a short list). They all do the same thing, but everybody wants to make there mark on the industry.
Re:stale numbers (Score:2, Insightful)
But also, that's not a million ps3's in households, thats a million ps3's in stores. That's a fairly large and important difference, but even if it wasn't, 1 million is probably about 1 percent of US households. That's similar to the market share of, say, the Opera browser. Ask the average joe what he thinks about Opera, and he'll have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Point: HD capability is still basically below the radar and the format doesn't really exist to the average consumer.
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so. For one, shiny plastic discs are still the best distribution method for media like video. Everyone can go to the shops (high street or online) and buy a disc, but not everybody will have the ability to download that amount of data. Even for those with broadband, some ISPs (including mine) have introduced monthly download limits, and you can be sure that the movie studios aren't going to let ISPs dictate to them how many movies a customer can buy in a month.
And then there's the question of storage - even if hard drives becomes as economical as shiny discs in the future, DVRs will have to allow the user to swap hard drives in order to avoid an upper limit on the amount of media you can own at once... and at that point you're back to the portable disc paradigm again, only with a far more fragile piece of hardware.
Finally, I think you're wrong about consumers thinking long-run. When presented with a new paradigm, consumers will adopt it if they see a benefit. For example, online music - given P2P software and unlimited free music, consumers will use that resource, but there was no great clamour for the service before it was provided. That said, consumers are suckers for new things, and it's a lot easier to market something revolutionary, like the TiVo, than it is to market something that's an incremental upgrade, like HD-DVD or SACD.
Of course, the people trying to market the HD disc formats are fighting so many uphill battles that it's not surprising that they're struggling. They're trying to sell to a very small, HDTV-owning market. It's a very new market; people are splashing out a lot of money on these TVs now, so there's less money to spend on other pieces of kit. And when it comes to content, there's the choice between paying for something like a Sky HD box and subscription (not cheap) or a shiny disc player. Given the cost, not many customers are immediately going to buy both. And given the uncertainty in the shiny disc player market, nobody wants to pay early-adopter costs for a product that may lose all its support in a matter of months, so people will lump for Sky HD. That's without even getting into worries over HDCP...
Re:home recording is the thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another way to read the numbers (Score:2, Insightful)
I know it's not enough to make all the difference but I'm sure it will be a factor in some decisions.
Just my take... (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, the thing that bums me out about articles like this is that there's always a couple of different crowds that pop into this discussion EVERY TIME. The first are the naysayers who predict the demise of both formats and the non-adoption of HD-TV in general. I think that's a patently ridiculous assertion from people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The original television standard is now over 60 years old; it is showing it's age. A properly calibrated HD-TV looks great and delivers a measurably higher-quality experience; I wonder if any of the people poo-pooing HD have actually SEEN a system that delivers the full potential of the medium. And the price is not as ludicrous as people say. You can get a very nice 1080p 42" television for around 1500 dollars, which will work great in 95% of homes. Considering the amount of coin that most slashdotters (and the iPod-buying public in general) drop on technology, this is certainly not an outrageous amount of money. Since HDTV media is able to be broadcast over the air or downloaded, it is not tied to the success of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. It is here to stay and will become more and more of a factor as the general public is made aware of the large jump in quality.
Secondly, there is the "too much" crowd. As in, "I have terrible eyesight, or would be happy with a postage-stamp-sized square of video" people, and HD is "too much" for them. Which is fine, but this group needs to realize that the vast majority of people don't feel this way. To take this to the extreme, I even saw a ludicrous comment in this very discussion along the lines of "Why do people even need 16:9, 4:3 cropped is fine...". No you luddite, the reason that 4:3 cropped movies are not "fine" is because they infringe on, and in some cases destroy*, the coherence of the visual scene that the director is trying to construct. It's absolutely myopic to think that because your vision is poor or your depth of field narrow that television technology should stay firmly mired in the 4:3 aspect ratio. (Which, by the way, was chosen because it was the cinematic aspect ratio of the 40s and 50s! 16:9 and greater were used by directors starting predominately in the 60s, and was popular enough with viewers to become the de facto cinema screen ratio.) Of course there's no helping some people: I have a friend who has a 22" Zenith television from the 70s with color so bad that Friends looks more like Amigos and they are happy with it; I have another friend with a blurry big-screen that looks like absolute shit that he is happy with it(the "quantity over quality" mentality in action). But I have built out 4 media centers for my friends on a pretty reasonable budget and without fail all of these systems have been regarded very highly by guests, relatives, etc. Virtually no one has said that the system is "too much" or that they wouldn't want one if they had the option. So to all of those that say that HDTV is "too much" for them: I am sorry that you are going to have to pay for features you won't be able to appreciate, but then again I am sure color-blind people bitched about it when black-and-white televisions went out of favor. You'll live.
Having said all this, I myself believe that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray might still fail. The number one thing that will kill both these formats is the price of the discs. No one wants to pay 25 dollars (HD-DVD) to 30 dollars (Blu-Ray) for a movie; that is just too much and is a major barrier to the success of the formats. And in many cases these are movies that the potential audience already owns on DVD. Is a better picture quality, and ONLY better picture quality**, worth it? I suspect that the answer will be no. This will change as more HD discs of new releases are released "day and date" with their DVD counterparts. The second issue is that the players are WAY too expensive. I myself own an xbox360 (that I wanted anyway, seperate from HD-DVD) and bought the reasonably-priced HD-DVD add on for it. Keep in mind that I am 100% co