Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Blockbuster Chooses Blu-ray

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Jun 18, 2007 09:43 AM
from the nailing-the-coffin-shut dept.
s31523 writes "The format war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray has posted another battle, this time the victor seems to be the Blu-ray side. Blockbuster has announced it has chosen Blu-ray as the HD format to rent out in the majority of its stores. This decision comes after rental data was looked at for the 250 stores that carry both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray with the majority of rentals being Blu-Ray. Blockbuster now plans to stock Blu-ray only in 1450 of it's stores, but says the 250 stores with the HD-DVD movies will be kept on the shelf."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Oh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:46AM (#19550639) Journal
    "This decision comes after rental data was looked at for the 250 stores that carry both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray with the majority of rentals being Blu-Ray."

    8 rentals versus 6?
  • Freedom to choose (Score:4, Insightful)

    by allscan (1030606) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:47AM (#19550641)
    Yet another win for Netflix, which allows you to pick your favorite HD format!
    • by monk.e.boy (1077985) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:49AM (#19550695) Homepage

      Yet another win for BitTorrent, which allows you to pick your favorite HD format!

      :-P

      monk.e.boy

    • by guidryp (702488) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:58AM (#19550821)
      BB online will match netflix in that they will still have HDDVD, so how is this a win for netflix?

      Is netflix starting a chain of B&M rental outlets to compete with BB?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Is netflix starting a chain of B&M rental outlets to compete with BB?

        Only if their management are a bunch of shortsighted numpties. What they'll be doing instead is buying up datacenter space worldwide and installing terabytes of fast disk and boatloads of bandwidth.

        I predict that BlueRay and HD-DVD won't even make a splash as they sink without trace. ok they may sell some in the US where they have 3rd world levels of bandwidth, but the rest of the world is going to be downloading it's HD movies to HD PVRs... legally or not...

  • by vivaoporto (1064484) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:47AM (#19550651) Homepage
    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [ytmnd.com]. The war is over, Blue Ray won. Sad.
    • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:04AM (#19550915)
      Yet others of us are happy. I bought my PS3 as a bluray player first and potentially a console second. Now with the most recent firmware update it is also my upscaling DVD player and a wireless media extender for my mac.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The PS3 is a really good DVD/Blu-ray player. It had a in movie HUD similar to the PS2 except it's responsive and doesn't suck. It scales up significantly better then my HD-TV.
    • Blockbuster chose Blu-Ray. Porn chose HDDVD. Blockbuster is becoming incresingly irrelevant and is (IMO) heading straight for bankruptcy. Porn isn't. How has this choice "won" the battle?
  • by ulysses38 (309331) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:48AM (#19550659)
    since i just finished reading the 'psychology of fanboys' story below. now we can see some in their native habitat.
      • by Paradox (13555) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:38AM (#19551371) Homepage Journal
        I'm not saying which one you should prefer, but lots of people either hate HD-DVD or Blu-ray on irrational basis. For example, "HD-DVD players break too much! (even though I don't own them and the current generation is just fine)" or "I hate Sony/BMG, therefore I will boycott all of Sony (even though the connections between various divisions of such a large company are extremely slim)." Some people are even so foolish as to have decided-retroactively, of course-that the format they purchased is the superior one because, well... they spent a lot of money!

        There is no reason to hope both lose. I'd really hate to be suck with DVDs for several years while the next-next-gen media gets its act together, and probably does the exact same thing all over again.

        Me, I prefer Blu-ray because Sony takes their recordable-data business seriously and they're getting that stuff to market much faster. You might prefer something else, like HD-DVD because the hardware is a bit cheaper. Either way, there are plenty of rational non-fanboy reasons to prefer formats. The most irrational view I can think of is your position. How would the completely failure of the new media types benefit the market or consumers?
  • by jimicus (737525) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:49AM (#19550683) Homepage
    More interesting will be to see what the retail giants do.

    If Wal-Mart decides not to stock HD-DVD (or, for that matter, Blu-Ray) titles, then that's more interesting.

    Myself, I think the idea of two formats which (unlike VHS/Betamax) are, at first glance, practically identical and come in very similar cases yet require different players is absurd. Unless and until either one wins or dual-format players become commonplace, there's going to be some very pissed off people when they get their shiny new film home only to find that it won't play.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      More interesting will be to see what the retail giants do.

      I would say equally interesting. I think a rental giant will have more sway than a retailer as I believe the average consumer rents more than they buy. If I wanted to buy a HD format (well, I wouldn't because regular DVD is all I need, but IF I did, I would get a duel-player), if I had a choice of renting Blu-rays at any number of Blockbusters (I'm also a Blockbuster Online member) or having a hard time finding HD-DVD rentals, I would choose Blu-R

      • I would get a duel-player


        That would get expensive, having to put both a BR and HD version of the same movie in the player
        and only getting a single one back.

        I suggest Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, that way you can put both movies in the duel player and
        chant "TWO DISKS ENTER, ONE DISK LEAVES!".
  • by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:49AM (#19550687)
    Digital distribution is the way of the future, not Blu-Ray or HD DVD discs. Isn't netflix already selling movie downloads?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Digital distribution is the way of the future, not Blu-Ray or HD DVD discs. Isn't netflix already selling movie downloads?

      For whom? Geeks with fancy computers hooked up to their TVs? The only digital distribution for movies I use is empornium.us for my fix because the local video store with a "back room" has a shit selection of what I want to watch and I don't like being taxed $8/video because there are no other porn peddling stores in town.

      For the rest, I go to the Hollywood Video kiosk at the grocery st
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Isn't netflix already selling movie downloads?

      Yes, and it sucks. It's basically YouTube on 'roids; you have to watch it on a computer, and it's streamed (not really downloaded), and it's Windows-only. I've played around with it and found it interesting from a technical standpoint but otherwise totally uncompelling. And this is from someone who *does* have computers driving most of the TV monitors in their house.
    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:49AM (#19551569)
      Digital distribution is the way of the future, not Blu-Ray or HD DVD discs. Isn't netflix already selling movie downloads?

      Microsoft sure thinks this is the way. That's why they backed HD-DVD, to try and keep the format war going long enough to make sure Microsoft is in control of the majority of digital distribution via Live and to fragment physical formats.

      However, what is not being factored in here are two issues:

      1) Size and thus quality of downloads.

      2) DRM

      You can download HD media today, but even the 720p stuff Microsoft offers takes a while. As 1080p sets become more popular, there simply are not a lot of people who will be able to download 1080p versions of movies over the network, for many many years to come as fiber is slowly built out to homes. A physical Blu-Ray disc offers 50 GB of storage - how long will it be before you can download anything near that amount in any kind of reasonable time? Even with torrents a few GB can take a while.

      On top of that, the video people buy online is not really very transferable - Apple comes close by being able to also put video on an iPod, but it's still not something you can share. So people will be inclined to buy some video online, but if they really like a show or movie still pick up a physical disc for that just so they can share it or carry it around between devices easier.

      P.S. Yes Netflix offers movies, but not all of them and only online streaming. A cool way to check out a bit of this or that but not very practical for watching whole movies, and nowhere near the quality even of DVD, much less Blu-Ray!
      • by twistedsymphony (956982) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:05AM (#19550939) Homepage
        Everyone I know with an HDTV has some form of "On Demand" for getting HD movies... I don't know a single person who owns either an HD-DVD or BRD player.

        The cost of ownership is significantly lower too... pay your cable/satellite company $5 for the movie you want to see using the equipment you already have or buy a $500+ player and go to the store (or wait for delivery of) a rental + however much that costs.

        I see the HD-DVD vs BRD debate along the same lines as the DVD-Audio vs SACD debate... which format one that war? NEITHER the equipment was over priced, crippled by DRM and only a fraction of the market owned the supporting equipment to fully utilize it nevermind become actually interested in it.... who won that war? technically it still rages on but the real victor was the MP3 and other digitally distributed forms of music... far and wide technically inferior to the DVD-A and SACDs but it's pretty apparent that consumers go for convenience over quality... at least in terms of their media.
          • it's pretty apparent that consumers go for convenience over quality... at least in terms of their media.

            Right, because we must pick one over the other..

            Yes, sometimes you do. Obviously not all the time but sometimes that is a choice consumers have to make.

            If you're looking at portable media players you will never get the same quality out of those that is delivered by a SACD or DVD-A in a full high end surround sound setup... Not only is the music compressed way beyond what you'd get on SACD or DVD-A t

      • by Lumpmoose (697966) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:12AM (#19551027) Homepage
        What's the file size of a HD movie, and how long will it take to download at 1.5 mbs?

        The only service I've used that distributes a large number of HD movies online is the Xbox Live Marketplace on the 360. A 720p movie on there usually ranges from 6-7 GB which has takes 8-12 hours over my DSL line. Someone can correct me, but that size seems a bit small to be a true HD film. Most Blu-Ray/HD-DVD movies are 1080p, AFAIK. Besides the 360 & PS3, BR/HDDVD are the only ways to get a true 1080p image (no one broadcasts above 1080i). As the owner of a 1080p HDTV, that makes this format war all the more annoying.
  • by CrazyTalk (662055) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:51AM (#19550721)
    All the Blockbuster video stores in my area went bankrupt a couple of years ago and closed. Since they already drove all the mom and pop video stores out of business, that leaves nowhere to rent vidoes anymore.

    One "advantage" of living in a depressed post-industrial area of the country - we are ahead of the curve in terms of business that will eventually no longer exist closing before everyone else. We lost our last CD stores years ago, and the one downtown bookstore closed just this year. Yippee.

    • While I think it sucks when chain stores drive out local businesses, I'm not sure how this would have been different in the long run. If BB can't survive with its much lower overhead and cash reserve to get it through rough patches, what makes you think several mom and pop video stores would?
      • by Rich0 (548339) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:41AM (#19551433) Homepage
        Actually, small businesses might stay open long after large concerns would close shop. A few reasons:

        1. The owners may be inclined to stay in the area and tend the shop, so it doesn't matter that the capital could be better used elsewhere.

        2. The owners can't just ship the DVDs to their 500 other stores with minimal loss. If they close shop they must liquidate probably for pennies on the dollar.

        3. The owners may be able to use dodgy practices to reduce their costs, without the liabilities a major concern faces.

        4. The small business probably has less overhead.

        Now, in a hot market the small business will get killed by the corporation, but the small guy may stick around long after the corporation leaves - if for no other reason than they don't have much choice...
  • Wow, this is huge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by llZENll (545605) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:52AM (#19550723)
    Why on earth would they not just rent both? Its not like it costs them any money to rent another format. Dollars to donuts there is some behind the scenes payola or pressure going on here. I guess with all of their sales heading towards online rentals it probably doesn't matter, as they are still supporting it online.
    • Re:Wow, this is huge (Score:5, Informative)

      by brewer13210 (821462) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:57AM (#19550803) Homepage
      Easy...shelf space. Stocking both would essentially require them to stock two of everything, which isn't optimal if you're trying to provide a wide selection to your customers.
      • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:33AM (#19551311)
        Parser error: you used "wide selection" and "Blockbuster" in the same thought.
        Blockbuster only stocks "hits". And not for very long, at that.
        • Re:Wow, this is huge (Score:4, Informative)

          by Intellectual Elitist (706889) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:47AM (#19551547)
          Warner and Paramount are supporting both formats. Universal is exclusively HD-DVD, and the rest of the majors are exclusively Blu-Ray.

          Between Warner and Paramount it looks like around 70-80 titles are currently available on both formats according to High-Def Digest's [highdefdigest.com] historical release [highdefdigest.com] lists [highdefdigest.com].

          Warner's been a little quicker about getting their HD-DVD titles out, so they have about 20 more titles that are still waiting for Blu-Ray releases.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      1)Maybe it simplifies their procurement by having to only buy one format. 2)Also, stores don't have unlimited shelf space. If you stock two formats for every movie, doesn't that double the space needed for storage? 3)Probably a much less important consideration, but it would also eliminate the possibility of someone grabbing a movie from the incorrect format and having to bring it back.
  • by Silver Sloth (770927) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:52AM (#19550725)
    As I remember it, it was the rental market that killed off Betamax. Whatever you might think of them (and few have a lower opinion than I do) the rental market, and Blockbusters in particular, has a massive influence. You can just see the average clueless consumer saying 'Why get HD DVD when Blockies only stocks Blu Ray'
  • Another Layer of DRM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by neonman (544) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:56AM (#19550793)
    The unfortunate thing about Blu-Ray is its BD+ DRM feature, which has not yet been turned on. While Blu-Ray and HD-DVD both use AACS, Blu-Ray's BD+ is an additional layer of DRM which has not yet been broken. The reason you aren't hearing about this is that people think Blu-Ray has been freed to the same extent that HD-DVD has, when this really isn't the case. All it will take is for Blu-Ray Disc publishers to start using BD+ on their titles (which we can expect to see in a few months) and at that point our hopes of ever seeing free HD disc player software will be dashed once again.

    For now, as a user who wants to play HD content with free software, I'm going to advocate the use of HD-DVD and not Blu-Ray.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The reason that nobody has broken BD+ DRM is because the studios haven't started using it. As soon as they start using it, people will find a crack. Can you please tell me what makes BD+ DRM so special that hackers won't be able to break it? Given enough demand, any DRM system can be broken.
  • by Sunburnt (890890) * on Monday June 18 2007, @10:00AM (#19550857)

    Blockbuster now plans to stock Blu-ray only in 1450 of it's stores, but says the 250 stores with the HD-DVD movies will be kept on the shelf.

    What sort of shelf can fit 250 retail stores, exactly?

  • DOH! ... or ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:04AM (#19550907)
    "How to close the door after the horse has bolted." By the BlockBuster management

    The future ain't DVD, of any format. The future be network distributed content, no matter what the US film industry wants you to think.

     
    • The future ain't DVD, of any format. The future be network distributed content, no matter what the US film industry wants you to think.

      People (including me) like physical media because if all you have is a license and a file, your license can be revoked. Of course, there are schemes where that is possible with physical media as well, but that stuff has to call home (so far) and people haven't yet displayed a willingness to stand for that kind of shit (witness the failure of circuit shitty's divx project. a

  • by LightPhoenix7 (1070028) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:09AM (#19550981)
    While this is somewhat interesting, the problem is that it doesn't matter at all. Neither HD-DVD nor Blu-ray has managed to get any sort of decent penetration into the home market aside from enthusiasts. There are a couple of reasons for this.

    Firstly, there's price. I'm not just talking the price of players here, though that is a factor right now. The big thing is that the vast majority of people do not own televisions that will benefit from a higher-quality format. The cost of having a television that will benefit from this has to be added on to the startup cost, and that price hasn't seemed like it's gone down at all. Sure, you can get high-def 22" sets - but with a set that small, the difference between DVD and HD-format is pretty nullified. Again, only enthusiasts will notice a difference.

    Another big reason is customer fatigue. DVDs have only relatively recently obtained high penetration in the home market - in no part thanks to cheap players from Walmart and other discount stores. Now customers are being asked once again to spend money to upgrade their collections... and as I said above, the startup price is not trivial for marginal improvement in quality. No, there are no MPAA-Nazis... oh, there are. My point is, no one is forcing them to upgrade - but on the other hand, the mass amount of customers just don't care.

    Another thing I might point out is that the major indicator of trends - the porn industry - hasn't chosen a format yet. In fact, they're pretty much eschewing physical media for the internet. So, were I to be a betting man, I'd say that an online format is going to be the next big thing - and we're already seeing that with sites like YouTube.

    So, in the long run, this isn't really news at all, this is just a blip on the radar.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      And remember that DVD had the fastest penetration of any consumer format in history, mainly because it did offer something much better than VHS.
  • by urbanriot (924981) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:25AM (#19551191)
    Blockbuster is owned by Viacom. Viacom owns Paramount Pictures. Paramount is one of the proponents of Blu-Ray.
  • This is so sad ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boyfaceddog (788041) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:36AM (#19551345) Journal
    Its like "Buggy Whips, Inc chooses Naugahide over Vinyl". I can't remember the last time I bought/rented a movie on a disk.

    I guess the dying industries need to get into the news somehow.

    So sad.
  • by Templar (14386) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:56AM (#19551673) Homepage
    It's a shame it's going this way. I was an early supporter of Blu-ray, but now I'd be much happier to see HD DVD win (or at least live on for a while).

    Reasons to support BD:
    - Sony & Disney catalogs
    - More storage

    Reasons to support HD DVD:
    - Universal catalog
    - Less DRM, no region codes (imports!)
    - Easier to author your own content
    - No censorship by factories

    Reasons to hope both stay alive:
    - Price wars
    • by alcmaeon (684971) on Monday June 18 2007, @09:54AM (#19550767)
      Let's see, Blockbuster does basically the same thing as Netflics (ordering over the net with postal delivery) but you can drop the movies off at the store, if you want, so, yeah, I guess they are still relevant.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Yeah, Blockbuster still 'offers' all those old faults that drove us into the arms of Netflix in the first place.

        I must be odd - I don't find the process of driving to the video store, shuffling through the poor selection, finding something that's actually in stock and waiting in line to check out and driving home all that appealing.

        I suppose they're still relevant in much the same way Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is relevant.
        Other people might see value there - but all I see are the limitations that far outweigh the b
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Yea, me too. I have a pretty nice DVD player; it cost me a bunch of money when I got it. It still looks very good but it doesn't look nearly as nice as a standard DVD in the PS3. The PS3's upscaling is top notch; it doesn't just stretch out the picture to fit the high resolution, it really enhances sharp lines, contours, and colors. It's great!

        I watched a few DVD movies on it when 1.8 came out and I really couldn't believe they were the same DVD's I'd watched before.

        Of course, the benefit of the upsca
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            The PS2 (don't remember if it was the slim or not) had an issue where the lens would eventually fall out of alignment due to watching DVDs. Weird problem, and being sceptical with the PS3 is only logical.
    • by DrXym (126579) on Monday June 18 2007, @10:51AM (#19551613)
      Someone's getting paid off. With no clear winner in the format war, it doesn't make sense that they would want to stock both.

      Define clear winner. Toshiba has been heavily subsidizing its players to make them sell, yet it's still had to slash its 2007 sales estimates almost in half. Sales of Blu Ray discs outstrip HD DVD almost two to one and the format has the support and backing of the majority of electronics companies and every major studio except one.

      It's not a question of if HD DVD will fail but when. Now perhaps some cheap HD DVD players will charge over the hill and save the day, but I think it may be too late for that.

      That doesn't mean Blu Ray has set the world alight - it's still transitioning from early adopter to mainstream. But it looks inevitable that in a few years the only things selling in your local store will be DVDs and BDs.