Sony Thinks Blu-ray Will Sell Like DVDs by Year End 434
An anonymous reader writes "Sony CEO Ryoji Chubachi knows something we don't. At a press conference, he announced Sony's plan to increase Blu-ray market share to 50% of all movie discs by the end of the year. 'DVD and BD currently account for about 80% and 20%, respectively, of global demand for movie discs, Chubachi indicated. The new BD devices to be offered by Sony include models integrating an HD LCD TV with BD recording functionality, Chubachi pointed out. Sony has relied mainly on the PlayStation 3 (PS3) to promote BD, and sales of the game console will increase along with the offering by top Hollywood studios of new BD movies, Chubachi noted. However, Sony will extend its BD promotion from the current focus on the PS3 and BD players/recorders to IT devices, Chubachi pointed out.'"
Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, the cheapest blu-ray players are still up around $400 and the discs still average (at most brick and mortar retailers) in the $30 range. Not to mention that DVD looked good on virtually any TV (even older legacy sets), wheras Blu-ray players will (for most people) require the purchase of a new, potentially very expensive, HDTV.
If you're going mainstream, you had damn sure better get those prices into the mainstream. Japan made be filled with technophiles who are willing to spend big money on the latest tech of the moment. But most of the rest of world isn't.
Not if everyone is like me (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if they give away HDTVs (Score:4, Insightful)
Regular DVDs look fine to me, and the price is right. When you factor in the TV needed, upgrade costs are ridiculous.
Upgrade? Not Worth It (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile ... In Neighboring Microsoftia (Score:4, Insightful)
"If we're sitting here in 12 or 18 months time, we'll be saying, 'Why were people even thinking about a disc format when it's really about digital distribution?' Our strategy's been developed for the last six or seven years, and ever since we launched the platform this has been our big, big, big bet."
Convenience and you being at the mercy of whether or not your ISP deems that traffic taxable or expensive bulky disc boxes with insane prices? Good luck, consumer, you're bound to be screwed one way or the other!
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Average people will not spend $400 on new technology especially with an economic recession looming over us.
I don't believe it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe 20% of generated income, since Bluray discs are not discounted and tend to be $30 or more, while DVDs are getting to be heavily discounted.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Upconverting is good enough for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Will I ever need one? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd hate to see it come to studios extorting people by squashing DVD while there is still legitimate demand, but it is not unthinkable.
20% of sales? (Score:3, Insightful)
I sense a snake in the grass - no way Blu-Ray is gonna up sales to that levels without either a massive price cut or other sneaky tactics - like no longer making regular DVD drives - but that would be stupid...
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus who wants to have a root kit on their tv. No thanks Sony.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Insightful)
I know I stopped buying VHS tapes as soon as I had a DVD player, even though I still owned a couple of VHS players and plenty of old tapes.
As others have commented, they need to get the player price down to encourage adoption, but I think that once the players are out there, the disc sales will quickly follow. Assuming they make a decent royalty off each disc, it may even be in their interest to subsidise the player cost to boost uptake.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, 16mm film meets or even exceeds HDTV resolution.
I would guess that pretty much any movie made after 1930 probably has more resolution than HDTV. Of course, to harness this, the studio would need to master from the original negatives, or a high-quality print.
Utterly clueless ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If people don't have something to display it on, they're not going to buy the Blu Ray disks, it's that simple. Everyone who owned a TV got to switch to DVD, and it was an improvement. The utterly huge installed base of a standard definition TV means that high definition DVDs are going to be relegated to a very small percentage of people with that kit.
My house has 3 functioning TVs -- none of them HD compatible. So, what do I want with a BD disk? Unless everyone stops making normal DVDs, there is no market reason why they can improve their sales ratio. If they stop making plain DVDs, I'm going to stop buying them, not upgrade just because Sony thinks I should.
Plain and simple, Sony is dreaming!
Cheers
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, hard to say. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can speak through personal experience.
For the longest time, I told myself I wouldn't be interested in HD displays, at least, not for a while. Then, I got my new laptop, with an HD capable monitor. After a month I finally popped in a DVD, and after being exposed to HD content I was able to appreciate the difference. I noticed how the picture was not as sharp, colors were muted.
Then I downloaded some movie trailers in HD. I saw a considerable difference, and for the first time seriously considered purchasing a new HD TV and player.
I think the secret to Sony's success on this front will be a gradual but constant exposure to HD content over time. As people upgrade their computers and get new monitors with better capabilities, I believe the desire for HD content will grow.
Most people only get exposed to HD in retail outlets, looking at a 52" LCD and saying "Oh, isn't that nice" and then move on at the price tag. Also, those not technically inclined may not be anxious to jump headfirst into something so new.
Impulse buys are only going to get Sony so far. And it won't be easy convincing people that they need HD content. Getting them to want it is the trick. And to want it, someone needs to appreciate what they're missing (in my case, through prolonged exposure to HD and then reverted back) and affordable pricing.
Having ranted on that with no particular organization (and the above is only my opinion, as is the following) I don't see Blu-ray selling like DVDs by the end of this year. Next year, perhaps, if they can provide a competitively-priced player and televisions, and are willing to take a financial loss to gain a presence in the living room.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Insightful)
But blu-ray is worthless without an HDTV and HD capable receiver, which will set you back several thousand more if you don't already have them. With the push for digital only, an HDTV/receiver is far more important than Blu-ray - maybe in 2-5 years when those prices drop and Blu-ray drops we'll see 80%.
I'm still debating whether to do what I'm supposed to, buy cheap Chinese goods with the government loan from the Chinese (like an HDTV) with my economic stimulus, or doing the 'wrong' thing and paying another month on my mortgage. Never mind - I'm paying off my debt first - I can always move to a debt free country.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:2, Insightful)
As I understand it, Blu-Ray evolves and new versions are released. If I buy a 1.0 or 1.1 player today, there is no guarantee that later Blu-Ray releases will be able to play in my 1.0/1.1 player, as they may have new features, or just updated DRM due to hackers breaking older DRM attempts.
If future players are going to support DVDs, then I don't see the harm in buying cheap DVDs that are good enough for my eyes, can play in next-generation players, and can be ripped to my PC should players cease to support them.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
DVD looks like crap on any television with coax inputs (a significant portion of them when DVD first came out) because of Macrovision copy protection. Running the DVD player through a VHS machine to get coax outputs triggered the copy protection, and DVD players did not have coax natively.
BS. DVD is always better, even on crappy sets. And, no, people didn't just deal with the macrovision and assume that it was functioning normally. They got themselves an RF modulator (or just used their VCR, since back then, a lot of VCRs didn't even have macrovision features). But claiming that DVDs looked like crap? I still use a DVD player hooked through an RF modulator, looks just fine, and there's no annoying stripe at the top of the screen for the first half hour of the movie.
So compairing the best scenerio (Blu-ray) with a clearly not-functioning setup (DVD-through macrovision enabled VCR) is just a bit disingenuous. At least give us a fair comparison.
Actually Blu-Ray will work just fine on older televisions, although it won't look any better than DVD. But if the prices do come down it would be silly to buy a DVD when you could future-proof your collection with a Blu-Ray disc instead.
Actually, blue ray will require a new tv. Know why? Technically, it'd work on an old TV. But wasn't your last argument simply that DVDs "DVD looks like crap" on older tvs? So why go blueray if that's true? At least be consistent!
The upgrade from DVD to Bluray is purely asthetic. So don't get your panties in a bunch, but people are only going to upgrade to blu-ray if they have a TV that will show the difference. Otherwise you're throwing $400 out for absolutely NO increase in quality.
Firstly, it's not really comparable because DVD players could not play VHS, so you were making a pretty big jump back then. All Blu-Ray players can play DVDs, so if you're buying a new player you might want to future-proof the hardware, as well. But even so, with inflation you can't compare exact dollar figures. If folks are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on iPods, it doesn't seem unreasonable they'd spend something similar to play the latest disc media.
First problem in your reasoning:
1. Blu-ray needs to be backwards compatible because it's the only way to get people to switch. DVD was a major improvement over VHS, that alone was enough reason to switch and buy replacement DVDs for all those crappy VHS Tapes. Additionally, it didn't take long for combo players to appear, to get those people who wouldn't make the switch.
2. The iPod comparison doesn't work. There are obvious benefits to the new iPod: Space. Your old iPod only fits X number of songs? But you have more? If your audio collection is cumulative (and it is) then you'll always need more space. But the comparison you're trying to make is buying an ipod that plays the exact same amount of songs, but pretends to do so with higher quality, which isn't that big of a deal unless you're plugging it into $1500 speakers or earbuds. Oh, and this high-quality version of the ipod is $400 more, but again, offers no new space for more music.
As you can see, you've compared apples and oranges. During a recession people will have to make decisions on what they'll buy. Understand that you must maximize the advertised value to get people to buy. Money is tight, but not gone. So yes, people will buy an iPod because it's obvious what the benefits are. Blu-Ray? Expensive, plus neccessary additional equiptment to enjoy. Not in the budget- my dvds play just fine.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Insightful)
For me, everytime I watch a BluRay disc it's as WOW as when I first tuned into DiscoveryHD when I first got the HDTV.
But even the overcompressed HD of some of the cable channels is better than DVD.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think tour analogy to VHS is entirely accurate. I also stopped buying VHS tapes as soon as I had a DVD player, but that was because (a) no more rewinding, (b) smaller size and easier to store and look through (c) easy fast forward and backup [including skip] (d) subtitles and closed captioning, (e) easy access to bonus materials. The advantage of Blue Ray is not nearly as compelling
Don't forget the "rent vs. buy" distinction. (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe it. Why? Rentals. Most of the people I know with DVD players do not buy many DVDs. They rent tons, but do not actually purchase many.
Is it hard to believe that Blu-Ray early adopters are more likely to buy media than rent it when compared with late adopters? No, it's not hard to believe at all, which means each DVD sold is on average viewed by more people via rentals. And that makes the 80%/20% split much more plausible.
Can they drive up Blu-Ray usage so it makes up 50% of sales? Dunno. Seems ambitious. But the thing to remember is, the number of people consuming Blu-Ray does not have to equal the number of people consuming DVD for it to be true. You could have 90% of the population sticking with DVD, but as long as the Blu-Ray folks make purchases all out of proportion to their numbers and the DVD folks stick with rentals, it's possible for Sony to hit their numbers.
What will Sony do now that they have "won" the war (Score:2, Insightful)
But what do they do now? Their proprietary technology has won out, but have they ever been in this situation before? It sounds like there past and current plan is to make profit by keeping prices high due to keeping a tight grip their proprietary tech. But they've never gotten past the first market hurdle to see if that actually works - in their mind, their business model MUST work, because it hasn't actually *failed*, it was just never allowed to succeed.
I think Sony may be in for a harsh education in consumer economics and psychology.
Re:Average people won't spend $400 on gadgets? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:3, Insightful)
Buying the PS3 for $400 netted us:
- Home media server
- BluRay player (with frequent firmware updates!)
- The best upconverting DVD player I've seen
- A next gen console.
I won't hate on the other consoles here, but people are quite willing to spend $450 on the XBox 360 Elite. You can argue that the $400 PS3 is a much better value all around.
Even at the horrendous launch, everyone just focused on the $600 price tag, which was a huge mistake. Sony should have just launched the $500 version alone. At $500, it compared to the $400 360 model (both had HDDs) and you could in theory justify the $100 difference in price due to BluRay and better processing power.
Sony is still playing catch-up because of the $600 snafu, but for those of us who did take the jump, I feel the investment was very worthwhile.
Re:Upconverting is good enough for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what wins a comparison without the desire to compare in the first place. It doesn't matter to me what the best car on the market today is because I already have a car, and I'm happy with it. When I am no longer happy with it, then I'll compare the cars on the market at that time.
I have a HDTV that I use to watch OTA digital broadcasts. It looks good. I'm sure BR discs would look great. I don't care. I rarely watch movies. I don't need to compare. BR would win the comparison, and the answer would still be that buying a BR player would be a waste of money for me.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:3, Insightful)
How are they obsolete? I just watch a couple DVDs last night and they worked fine, I didn't find their entertainment value in any way decreased. Just as when I watch thing on my friends Blue Ray on my friends PS3 I don't find any more entertainment value than I do on my old DVD player. I don't find any real increase in the only thing that matters, entertainment. But then again I'd say the average age of when the movies in my collection were made is around 10+ years ago, so no graphical improvements will really effect them.
I don't want to replace my television and my player just because some marketing shit tells me that their OLD and OBSOLETE, and most assuredly, NOT THE NEXT BIG THING. I don't care if my neighbors or friends are impressed, I don't care if I get the best possible picture in the unnoticeable details. I don't care if they can handle 500 more special features that I won't watch more than once (if even). I AM glad though that the media companies could come out with such a profitable scam to make more money, and foist more DRM on us, AND widely convince everyone to buy into it.
Blue Ray isn't a big improvement, at least not big enough to get me to go get a new TV, a new player, new over-priced cables, and buy a bunch of massively over-priced movies (much less even think about replacing the ones I own). DVD was a large technological leap above VHS, and I still haven't managed to replace some of my old tapes yet, and now I'm supposed to worry about the whole damn mess again.
I own maybe 6 (out of 100+) DVDs made after 2000, and rarely see any need to buy them since they are largely inferior to older movies, as my tastes go. Is the Blue Ray version of the Godfather really going to be better than the DVD version?
Sure, if my TV dies I will replace it with HD. This is equal parts by force (no one sells CRT anymore), and because I might as well replace it with the new thing. If my DVD player dies, then I MIGHT replace it with Blue Ray, if they get really cheap fast (roughly same price as a middling DVD player), and play vanilla DVDs to my liking. I dobut this will happen soon, since my TV is ten years old, and works fine, and my DVD player is 5 years and works fine. Will I replace any of my movies? No, not enough added value to justify the price. Will I buy new Blue Ray movies? Only if they are cheaper than the DVD equivalent, and available at the places I mostly buy movies (Sales, and used book stores).
In brief, Blue Ray isn't big enough a leap to justify me spending any extra money on. They are basically DVD 1.5. The difference is so small I have a hard time seeing it at any normal viewing distance, and really don't care. I don't watch movies for the "pretty", I watch them for the plot, acting, and the other intangibles that no technological gimmick will ever improve.