Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media

The End of Physical Media 331

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-only-a-matter-of-time dept.
L-s-L69 writes "The register is reporting that Forrester is predicting that a third of all music sales will be made by downloads in the next five years. They also predict that almost 15 per cent of films will be viewed by "on-demand" services such as rather than by DVD or video by 2005. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The End of Physical Media More

The End of Physical Media

Comments Filter:

  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:56AM (#6850257)
    So here's the question: what effect do these predictions have on the ways in which companies in control of these industries approach their market? Do companies move to prevent the predicted move to electronic means or do they embrace it because of it's new seeming inevitability? Or has Forrester taken the very effects of its own findings release into account? And if so, might companies recognize this and try to undermine the research adjustment by acting differently than it otherwise would. Don't you just love how these silly little viscous cycles can come out of attempts at predicting trends in a market so easily controlled?

    • Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by klparrot ( 549422 )
      Regardless of any predictions Forrester has made, you can almost be certain that the MPAA/RIAA will try to maintain the status quo at all costs. Only when all hope is lost will they embrace the new content delivery methods, and they'll probably make a killing on them, too.

    • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:01AM (#6850306)
      I think they just project the last five years onto the next five years, and if you do that then the findings aren't unreasonable. On the other hand you could point out that PDF has been around for ten years and grown explosively, but hasn't replaced printed media yet.

      I think what these guys keep confusing is that CONSUMING and COLLECTING are two different mindsets, and physical media will always have a market for those of us who like to accumulate.

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by QuackQuack ( 550293 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:23AM (#6850487) Journal
        Pretty much.

        Who keeps track of what Forrester and Gartner predicted in the past? It would be pretty funny to see what they predicted the world would be like now five years ago. IIRC, Gartner said that we'd all be using NT now, and Linux would be nowhere.

        I think the real value in these analysts are for companies who these trends favor. For example, a company who owns a piece of digital music sales can say "Forrester says 1/3 of all music sales will be digital." This helps attract customers and investors.

        • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jayackroyd ( 703624 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:41AM (#6850623)
          Yeah. That "next five years" thing is a good trick. They've got, what, two or three year's of useful data? And from that they make five year projections. Reminds me of the first round of pen-based computing. In 1989/90, we're five years away from the death of the keyboard.

        • Re:Really? (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          About predictions, I'm still waiting for the paperless office and the U.S. converting to the metric system, as predicted in the 70's

        • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Jack Auf ( 323064 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:30AM (#6851029) Homepage
          Five years ago the MegaCorp I worked for at the time was just beginning a merger with another MegaCorp. At that time we had almost completed our Win3.11->Win NT4 migration. The other company had gone from Netware/Win3.11 to Netware/Win95.

          The PHB's at the other company spent a large amount of time and energy lobbying our CIO to go with Netware for everyone. One of their key points was the fact that Gartner had stated in several research papers about that time that Netware was going to be around for quite sometime and was a viable long term technology strategy for the corporate IT environment.

          Riiiiight.

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by smallpaul ( 65919 ) <paul AT prescod DOT net> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:32AM (#6850548)
        PDF is less convenient (to read) than physical media. But MP3s are more convenient (to listen to) than physical media. That's why people rip even CDs that they own into their MP3 players

        People who collect MP3s are also collectors. I definately feel more like a collector when I occasionally log onto a P2P system then when I am in a CD store. While I am in the P2P system it is pure hunting and gathering with no concern about cost. When I am in the CD store it is about deciding which of the CDs are worthy my hard earned money (and let's not forget the space they take up in my CD rack).

        On the one hand it is cool to look at my rack and see the stuff I own summarized nicely. But on the other hand, physical media is a pain in the ass. CDs and DVDs are really poorly designed media. Way too fragile. For DVDs: too many silly restraints about skipping FBI warnings and advertisments. For CDs: not enough information density.
        If I could leave that all behind I probably would.

        • Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by john82 ( 68332 )
          While I am in the P2P system it is pure hunting and gathering with no concern about cost. When I am in the CD store it is about deciding which of the CDs are worthy my hard earned money (and let's not forget the space they take up in my CD rack).

          Would that have anything to do with whether or not you pay for P2P-source MP3s? If you're ripping your own stuff, cool. It seems to drive RIAA nuts, but I think that case falls into fair use. If you're talking about a pay service like Apple's iTunes, that's fine t

          • Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by bogado ( 25959 )
            If I pay fo P2P that would have warranty quality and I could listen to as many times I wished and record to any number of medias. Who knows?

      • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:48AM (#6850691)
        "PDF has been around for ten years and grown explosively, but hasn't replaced printed media yet."

        It hasn't completely replaced printed media, or replaced it everywhere, but it has replaced printed media to an extent. I routinely receive products with no printed manual, but either a PDF on a CD or else just on a website somewhere.

      • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by anon*127.0.0.1 ( 637224 ) <slashdot@NosPAm.baudkarma.com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:51AM (#6850725) Journal
        Physical media will always have a market, but will they always be available? I can easily foresee a future where ppv and on-demand have achieved such market penetration that content providers no longer find it necessary to release products for sale at the consumer level. They'll try to keep you hooked on paying rent for the same virtual product over and over and over...

      • Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tambo ( 310170 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:56AM (#6850770)
        Ah, but you misjudge the *AA mindset.

        DVD is great for consumers - for a (quite reasonable) one-time fee, we get permanent ownership of media. We get to watch it infinitely; we get to show it to others; we get to sell the DVD if we don't want it.

        That's great for us, but the MPAA hates that part. They're all about limiting our uses of their media for their advantage. Even DVD has media controls - they can explain away Macrovision as preventing VHS copying, but what about region coding? They really wanted DIVX to succeed, but consumers balked and the technology wasn't there. They would have loved a DRM-based mechanism, where the DVD only plays in one player.

        Why is the MPAA so crazy about controlling its media? Easy - profit maximization. C'mon, they're the kings of repeatedly profiting from the same medium! How many versions of Star Wars were released? Like, 20? We even had three separate VHS releases. DVD is even worse: first the DVD, then the SE/LE/Superbit/Director's Cut, then the Limited Edition with the funky packaging...

        Take this to its next logical step. In the broadband/Palladium era, instead of selling you the DVD for $15, the MPAA will have the option of charging you:
        (a) a $20 annual subscription fee;
        (b) a $20 fee for an ad-free media player on your computer, or a $100 fee for a set-top (pirate-proof) device for your TV; and
        (c) a $5 fee for each viewing of the movie, plus
        (d) a $2 fee for accessing the special features for a 24-hour period.

        Meanwhile, you can't publicly criticize the films or take screen captures without jeopardizing your subscription license ("The MPAA hereby exercises its option under the contract, part XXIV(c)(iii)(a)(2), to withdraw your license to its copyrighted material...")

        End result: The movie industry doesn't sell you content and move on. They nickel and dime you for the privilege of viewing their entire library at rental fees. Even Gigli breaks even. They'd be suckers not to do it.

        Why hasn't this happened so far, you ask? The MPAA hasn't had the technology available to offer such an option.

        Why would we accept this option, you ask? Same reason you rolled over and accepted a $4 charge for Caller ID. They'll raise the prices on DVDs to something absurd, or they'll stop selling them altogether. So, you can take the option they give you, or you can choose never to see a movie at home again.

        - David Stein
    • So here's the question: what effect do these predictions have on the ways in which companies in control of these industries approach their market?

      But is the prediction true?

      By 2004, Forrester is predicting 49 million US households will spend more than $184 billion online. [wminet.com] - We might be lucky if the sum reaches $50 billion in 2003 [commstrade.com].

  • Video On Demand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by notbob ( 73229 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:56AM (#6850261)
    I've used the on demand viewing for at home, but haven't been 100% happy with it.

    The whole pause, fast forward, etc... is laggy and inaccurate. I don't like it.

    I don't like only being able to watch it for 24 hours, give me lifetime viewing for 15$ then we're talking.

    As of right now it's just a waste of money as always.

    • Re:Video On Demand (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shenkerian ( 577120 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:05AM (#6850343)
      On-demand viewing is going after the rental market, not the DVD collector market.

      I share your beefs with the user experience, but those can and probably will be resolved as the technology is refined. Cable box DVR's, e.g., could allow local caching for smoother rewind and fast forward.

      • While not quite "on demand", I've found pay-per-view movies on the dish to be far more convenient than renting a DVD. And with a Tivo to boot, you don't have to worry about something interrupting the show, since you can just record and delete it later on if you need to free up space.
        • What do you mean "not quite 'on demand'?" Aren't pay-per-view movies considered on-demand? Do you have to order yours ahead of time or something?
          • I would consider "on demand" to be instantly available whenever I hit the couch and order a movie, as opposed to pay-per-view that has set showing times. Granted, the top movies get shown about every half hour, so it's not that big a difference.
          • No, but they are broadcast on a schedule. So the schedule may start the movie at 8:00pm and it's only 7:00pm. With on-demand, you get to watch the movie whatever time you happen to sit down. With PPV you have to wait until it's scheduled to show.

            However, with TiVO, if you know in the morning that you're going to want to watch a movie that night, you just schedule a particular showing to record during the day, and it's exactly like on-demand for you when you get home. So it's not quite on-demand, but a
          • Aren't pay-per-view movies considered on-demand?

            On demand movies can be started at any time by the viewer. If you'd like to begin the movie at 8:27, that's possible with the on demand system. Normal pay-per-view movies (Comcast refers to them as In Demand) start at specified times. The most popular movies usually begin every 30 minutes while less popular ones begin every hour.

      • Re:Video On Demand (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BrokenHalo ( 565198 )
        As I understand it, the original post was referring to music sales.

        If "they" seriously want to push this angle, they will be disappointed with the result. People want media they can take anywhere. I, for one, absolutely insist on being able to listen to Bach's 2nd Partita for unaccompanied violin while sitting in a rowing boat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

        Never mind how I'm supposed to get there :-)

        Most people do not have the resources to lug their broadband connections around on their backs. Most peo

    • Re:Video On Demand (Score:5, Interesting)

      by whatch durrin ( 563265 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:06AM (#6850350)
      For many, paying for the on-demand movie is preferrable to making a trip to the video store. Especially when the price is the same.

      I haven't had any problems with the pause/fast forward in on-demand. I only go to the video store now when on-demand isn't showing a particular movie I want to see.

      And if you want lifetime viewing, buy the physical media. Would you actually trust the cable company to "remember" you have lifetime viewing rights anyway?

      • Re:Video On Demand (Score:4, Interesting)

        by 68K ( 234318 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:29AM (#6850529)
        For many, paying for the on-demand movie is preferrable to making a trip to the video store. Especially when the price is the same.


        Kinda.

        I've used video-on-demand on my satellite box, but it isn't the same as going to Blockbuster. The satellite transmission is limited to Dolby Pro Logic sound at best (because that can be encoded into a stereo stream), so no Dolby Digital or DTS sound for you. Also, the movies are normally shown in the 4:3 aspect ratio. They have a couple of channels carrying widescreen versions, but the choice is far more limited. Oh, and the TV channels have less bandwidth to play with, so the overall quality suffers.

        That's my experience with Sky in the UK, at least. I'll watch something on pay-per-view for the convenience of it, but if I really like it, I'll get it on DVD for the better quality picture and sound.

        I *like* having CD and DVD racks stuff with discs. Shows me where a lot of my money is. I don't think I'd ever be happy having it all stored as licence keys on my PC.
      • *And if you want lifetime viewing, buy the physical media. Would you actually trust the cable company to "remember" you have lifetime viewing rights anyway?*

        well i guess what he wants(what i would like to see) would be paying ~4-10$ for the film and then get to download good quality xvid with ac3 sounds and keep that then forever, what they should do is to offer BETTER service than what you get for 'free' when you get them from somewhere else(illegally), paying for something that is inferior to what freelo

      • Re:Video On Demand (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BrokenHalo ( 565198 )
        Would you actually trust the cable company to "remember" you have lifetime viewing rights anyway?

        That's assuming the company continues to trade throughout your lifetime. Also assuming they don't decide to change the rules and hit you in the pocket anyway as a matter of policy.

      • Re:Video On Demand (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cens0r ( 655208 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:47AM (#6851172) Homepage
        I do have a problem with in-demand. Maybe I'm not the average user but I much prefer the video store. My problems are as followed:
        • The selection sucks. If it wasn't a recent blockbuster I'm not going to get to see it on PPV. Some days I might want to see the matrix. But other days I'd like to see something like spellbound.
        • The quality sucks. They compress the shit out of all my channels on comcast. It's only gotten worse since they added more HD content. The DVD simply looks better.
        • Only a few of the movies are actually in OAR. I will not watch any movie that has had it's aspect ratio changed. It makes me sick to do so. Usually only those movies that are in widescreen are broadcast in DD5.1. So, a small list gets even smaller
    • I don't like only being able to watch it for 24 hours, give me lifetime viewing for 15$ then we're talking.

      $15? at that point, why not just go out to walmart and buy the DVD? yeah, you have to go there and get it, but you have the original which you can just rip?

    • Get a TiVo. Then PPV turns into delayed VOD. It gets rid of all of those delays that you're talking about and you get to keep the rental for as long as you're willing to leave it on the disk (or as long as you want when you archive it to VHS or DVD).

      I never go to the video store anymore. No need. In addition to a few PPV movies that I rent, I record a bunch of stuff off of Showtime, and a bunch of stuff just off of TBS, TNT, and other non-premium movie channels.

      (Sorry for the nearly duplicate post.

      • Re:Video On Demand (Score:3, Informative)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 )
        I never go to the video store anymore. No need. In addition to a few PPV movies that I rent, I record a bunch of stuff off of Showtime, and a bunch of stuff just off of TBS, TNT, and other non-premium movie channels.

        I don't, either...but the stuff that comes through the cable is almost always pan-and-scan. My TiVo is fairly good at finding older stuff that's not on DVD...but if it's available on DVD, I'll add it to the Netflix queue.

  • such as what? (Score:3, Informative)

    by klparrot ( 549422 ) <klparrotNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:56AM (#6850263)
    ... viewed by "on-demand" services such as rather than by DVD

    Such as what?

    • Re:such as what? (Score:5, Funny)

      by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:01AM (#6850307)
      ... viewed by "on-demand" services such as rather than by DVD

      Such as what?

      Well, the story submitter put something there, but we're not licensed to view it. Sorry.

      Don't feel bad. In a day or two, he won't be able to view it either.

    • I would use DeCSS on that statement to try and figure it out, but with all the recent court rulings (especially the one about code as free speech), I'm afraid to.
    • With my trusty 28.8 modem, I'll be streaming that underworld quicktime trailer in about 3 hours!

    • Such as what?

      In the UK there is a company called Homechoice [homechoice.co.uk] which has been providing Video on Demand services for close on five years now, all be in it in a fairly limited area at the begining. Currently it's available in most of the UK, as far as I can tell.

      I've been using it since it's inception as Video Networks. They offer a huge variety of TV Shows, Films, Music Videos, News Programs etc. all on-demand with different fees applying depending what you watch (for example you can subscribe to various '

  • Thats okay... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by neodymium ( 411811 )
    ... but in some way they assume that dl'ing music and movies generates revenues ????

  • Is this really a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eric Ass Raymond ( 662593 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:57AM (#6850266) Journal
    Is this really a good thing?

    I mean in the worst case scenario this will only mean pay-per-view and draconian DRM.

  • Still need physical media (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:57AM (#6850269)
    After you download the movie/music, you still need physical media to store it. It may be your hard-drive or your CD-ROM. The title sounds almost like you store the files in thin air.

  • I agree, except... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mschoolbus ( 627182 ) <travisriley@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:57AM (#6850275)
    The register is reporting that Forrester is predicting that a third of all music sales will be made by downloads in the next five years.

    I wouldn't go as far as to say 'sales'...

  • Profit shifts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Empiric ( 675968 ) * on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @09:58AM (#6850281)
    I believe this will in fact happen, and the ironic thing here is that a lot of the customer's dollar (yen, etc.) will be shifted to the bandwidth providers, rather than the creator of the content. This is really the opposite of the renaissance for artists internet distribution was hoped to provide.

    (Related one-time-no-financial-interest-rant: How many hours of quality reading do you get in a week on Slashdot? Toss your five bucks into the hat already...)

    • It won't happen - ever. Sure some people may be happy just downloading stuff when they need it but the vast majority of people
      (and I mean everybody , not just teenage geeks) like the convenience of just shoving in a CD or DVD that they own whenever they want into a simple to use
      player and not have to boot up a PC and go through licensing hell just to listen to a piece of music.
    • This could be reduced by making content-on-demand based on downloads rather than streaming, and artists can find creative ways of compressing their works more without reducing quality much. This assumes that the big media companies will embrace downloads over streaming.

    • Yes, the money will shift to bandwidth and hosting providers, but not from the artists. Instead, it will shift from the current distribution companies to newer more efficient distribution companies. Currently, the record labels take a huge amount off of CD and DVD sales - and a lot of it has to filter through middlemen such as distribution centers and retail stores. Online distribution is so much cheaper since the only real cost per copy is bandwidth.

      This does not even take into consideration cost savings

    • Bandwidth is cheap to the point of being irrelevant in the music context. The cheapest I could find on short notice was 0.5 cent/GB [dreamhost.com]. That turns into ~2 cents a song. And that isn't even wholesale price.

      Somewhat different story for movies, of course. Sending the contents of a DVD at this rate would cost around $12 which is cost prohibitive.

    • (Related one-time-no-financial-interest-rant: How many hours of quality reading do you get in a week on Slashdot? Toss your five bucks into the hat already...)

      Are negative values valid? Taco, I'll send you my paypal link later.

    • Re:Profit shifts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Shalda ( 560388 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:47AM (#6850680) Homepage Journal
      Bah. Production and distribution in both new and traditional media are marginal costs. The money is in controling the distribution chanels and the marketing. Any band could get a half million CDs made. The trick is getting radio stations to play your song and Best Buy to stock the disc (in a prominent location). The bandwidth providers are a commodity. The money will still flow to who has the power to decide what gets heard.

  • Didn't they say this before... (Score:3)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:00AM (#6850291) Journal
    They said this exact same thing 5 years ago...didn't happen so they are trying again?

  • No more paper too! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rajinikanth ( 235707 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:00AM (#6850295)
    Paperless offices are a reality! No more paper used at offices! News at 11.

  • third of all music sales will be made by downloads in the next five years

    As opposed to a third of all music acquisitions being made by download today (as opposed to actual sales)?

  • Overpriced Services (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brahmastra ( 685988 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:01AM (#6850300)
    Services such as OnDemand on cable are way too over-priced. It's usually $3.95 per movie. I'd much rather buy a used DVD for 10 bucks instead. It's the same reason I never rent anything from Blockbuster (Overpriced American movie rental store). I don't see DVDs dying anytime soon. It may get marginalised like VHS in a few years, but it is unlikely to "end" as mentioned in the title
    • Blockbuster (Overpriced American movie rental store)

      They have now extended their reach, and are an overpriced movie rental store in many other countries too.
    • Rental prices are dramatically low. Its $2 or less at Blockbuster and mom-and-pop rental stores were driven out of business because they could hardly compete on price. Chains are the only ones staying afloat due to lower costs. Most stores compete on service and selection, and supplementals.

      For example, blockbuster lets you keep older rentals for a week. New rentals for several days. Most local shops let me only rent for 2 days. Blockbuster has a wide selection. The only local place that I've seen t

  • The End of Physical Media? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by villain170 ( 664238 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:01AM (#6850305) Homepage
    How is this the end of "physical" media? So is this stuff just going to be stored on nothing? It's rather misleading.

    • Re:The End of Physical Media? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:29AM (#6850526)
      Well yes, that's their hope. If you can't store it on anything than you have keep paying for your connection and pay again every time you watch something.

      The media kills your wallet with a financial death by 1000 cuts.

      What's more is the fact that "on demand" viewing is a push model disguised as a pull model. They who control the pipe get to control that which is available to you for your "demand." Think Clear Channel and the pop music machine become endemic to all media.

      Of course this will only work if your media is taken from you or rendered usless by force, because, of course, what you want downloadable media for in the first place is to record it to permenant media for viewing, well, on demand. Like maybe on your boat 10 miles out of sight of land or your mountain getaway cabin or wherever.

      Sure people want the convienience of on demand media from home, so they can record the shit on cheap, free and open storage media.

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a cupboard full of tapes, CDs and DVDs. Not to mention the fact that such are true on demand media.

      KFG

  • news? (Score:4, Funny)

    by NetMagi ( 547135 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:03AM (#6850320)
    How is this new? I've been getting 100% of my pr0n online now for almost 8 years!

    Heck, I've even got my 51" tv hooked up to a computer for pr0n viewing, and for chrissake. .I'm married. I can only imagine what you single guys are doing !!

    :)

  • Obsolete or just used differently? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by immel ( 699491 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:03AM (#6850322)
    The article says that CDs and DVDs will become obsolete. I think this is wrong. There will always have to be at least one hard copy that can't easily be deleted. Moreover, it says that people have already started to shun buying CDs. People haven't stopped buying CDs, they are just buying more blank ones. For those who see no need to spend several hundred dollars for an MP3 player in their home stereo or car, and then spending all the time and frustration installing it and syncing it with their PC, burning downloaded music onto CDs is a very viable alternative.

  • Sound Quality (Score:4, Informative)

    by mopslik ( 688435 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:05AM (#6850342)

    ...a third of all music sales will be made by downloads in the next five years...

    Hooray, five years of tinny-sounding 128-kbps MP3s rather than properly sampled CD-audio tracks!

    MP3s are great because they're portable, but they still don't sound as good as compact discs. Never mind the fact that downloading an entire MP3 album pretty much requires broadband to start with.

  • Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fleener ( 140714 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:07AM (#6850360)
    Hmmmm, digital downloads and on-demand content with draconian DRM restrictions? The end to CDs and DVDs? Not bloody likely. People want to own what they buy and they want to be able to share it. People will reject content which is "delivered" (always in transit) instead of controlled and owned. Recording VCRs and rental stores were a boon for Big Hollywood, despite Hollywood's whining. Sharing and pirating generate sales, not stifle them. When will Hollywood learn?

  • HomeChoice (Score:5, Informative)

    by deepstephen ( 149398 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:09AM (#6850367)
    I used to have HomeChoice [homechoice.co.uk] at home, and it was excellent. The only reason I stopped using their service was because I moved out of the area they cover, and I miss them very much.

    They use a DSL line with a set-top box which splits the signal into two parts: one for video on demand, and the other to plug your computer (or network) into. The video service has an archive of TV programmes in all kinds of genres, as well as music videos and the most recent news bulletins from a variety of sources.

    Plus you can also 'rent' movies from them, just by clicking a few buttons. You get to play it as much as you like for 24 hours and the cost is comparable to (if not better than) the Blockbuster round the corner. You can pause, fast-forward, rewind, no problem. It works great.

    It's fast, very usable, convenient, cheap and it works. I have seen the future and it is video on demand. And no they're not paying me to say this. :-)
    • "You get to play it as much as you like for 24 hours and the cost is comparable to (if not better than) the Blockbuster round the corner. You can pause, fast-forward, rewind, no problem. It works great."

      Yeah , and I can do all that if I buy a DVD for only a few times the price, the difference being I get to play it whenever I want, wherever I want
      (I can take it to friends , relatives etc etc) and hopefully it'll still play in 24 YEARS.

      "It's fast, very usable, convenient, cheap and it works. I have se

  • really? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:09AM (#6850372) Homepage Journal
    "...almost 15 per cent of films will be viewed by "on-demand" services such as rather than by DVD or video by 2005."

    So all codec, player, bandwidth, and DRM issues will be ironed out in the next 15 months? Sweet. </sarcasm>

    I don't know where I first heard it, but the best way to do on-demand (at least for a handful of current films) would be to send them to your TiVo in the middle of the night withou you even requesting it, then you just pay for a key to unlock it. But still, I'm big into ownership--pretty much anything worth seeing is worth paying $10-$20 to have forever.

  • Costs, hard copies and piracy. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Channard ( 693317 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:10AM (#6850376) Journal
    Call me a stickler but I'd much rather have a an actual proper DVD/CD/VHS than a burned DVD or virtual copy. From a financial point of view, providing purely digital online copies of songs/movies will make them much easier to copy and share. Currently - allegedley - if you want to perhaps share a movie you have to rip it, encode it to a managable size and then send it on, a good few hours of work/processor time.

    With a digital copy it'd be just a matter of decrypting the file, sending it along and there you go. If DeCSS was the best the industry could come up with then I don't forsee any online media protection scheme being hard to crack.

    And as for the reduction in costs being passed on to the end user? Doubtful - they'll just be absorbed as profit because if people are happy to pay current prices, why reduce them? CDs were cheaper to produce than tapes yet are more expensive.

  • physical media == more bandwidth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tuffy ( 10202 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:11AM (#6850389) Homepage Journal
    A dual layered DVD holds ~8 GB(?) of data. Assuming it takes half an hour to drive to the store, buy one, and return, that's ~4.5MB/second. If I buy more than one DVD, the rate is even better. Cable TV delivers more varied content, but little of it is on-demand and the quality doesn't approach DVD. Pay-per-view content hasn't taken off in the 10 years I've had it available, and doesn't look like it's going to anytime soon.

    My guess is that broadcasted (cable/airwave) media and physical media will always coexist to fit different niches in the marketplace to fulfill different needs.

  • Forrester predicts the end of physical media.

    I'm commenting on /. stating that the Register reports that Forrester predicts the end of physical media.

    I disagree.

    Now others might agree/disagree about my commenting on /. stating that the Register reports that Forrester predicts the end of physical media.

  • I hardly doubt the end of physical media is near. Right now video on demand services offer a very limited amount of movies available, and are not available in High-Definition (HDTV). I can't even get Dumb and Dumberer on Time Warner's Video on Demand service. Until just about every movie is available on demand, and until its all available in Hi-Definition and with at least dolby digital 5.1 sound, I will be sticking to DVDs and I am sure a LOT of audio/video-philes are with me on that.
  • Gives new meaning to my $.02 worth doesn't it?

    That will be 30 downloads worth.
  • These two predictions aren't as closely related as everyone seems to think. The first is just a shift in media from CDs to mp3s. It's really nothing that hasn't happened every ten years since the 45 was introduced.

    The second prediction is just stupid. Just because video on demand is possible doesn't mean people will loose all sense of ownership. I could see VOD replacing video rentals (if it became 100 times more useful than the crap Charter has been pedaling for the last two years)... I don't see why i
  • foreasster reseach suggests that by 2015, we won't need brains. We'll be the human equiv. of thin clients plugged into the machine. 2015? Good thing we won't be around for it.

  • cheaper DVD vs online viewing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by z_gringo ( 452163 ) <z_gringo.hotmail@com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:14AM (#6850415)
    I would rather think that DVD's will become cheaper and will flourish.

    I doubt that within 1 1/2 years, online multimedia will make the leaps and bounds necesary to replace DVD. But, I do think that they will make enough progress to signifigantly drive down the prices of DVD due to the competition.

    I for one, prefer DVD's to online because of bandwidth, availability, features, etc.. Also, having the DVD play connected to the internet could enhance the DVD, while not replacing it..

  • I just don't see it happening (Score:3, Insightful)

    by reimero ( 194707 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:15AM (#6850426)
    I can see the point about downloaded music becoming the norm, although I think you'll always have a hardcore group of audiophiles who will want a physical (analog) recording to play on top-shelf equipment. But I have to disagree with the prediction about on-demand movies. My girlfriend's 80-year-old mother (who is not at all tech-savvy) is wowed by the difference in quality between a DVD and digital cable.

    What's even more significant is the archival nature of DVDs: it's easy to watch what you want when you want, and they're inexpensive enough to produce that there is a plethora of obscure, old, special-interest or otherwise non-mainstream titles. On-Demand can only handle a finite number of titles, and I'd imagine that the vast majority will be new releases.

    Given the cost/benefit situation as well as more limited access to less popular or less current titles, I don't forsee the demise of the DVD or other similar future format (blue laser DVD?)

  • Sure ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Durandal64 ( 658649 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:16AM (#6850427)
    Yes, physical media is definitely going away. Researchers are looking into using storage media that only exist in metaphysical planes of existence to store data. Rather than clicking a mouse, the user meditates intensely and mutters a small prayer to Hardus Discus, the god of data storage. They've already found that delusional maniacs can hold up to ten times as much data as a standard hard drive platter.

  • Future Predictions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GearheadX ( 414240 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:17AM (#6850439)
    Are highly doubtful in general, much of the time. I'd really hate to say it, but a lot of it is corporate-funded pandering and dreaming out to try and force the market in a certain direction.

    I think most people lost their faith in the powers of technological prediction when whole the flying cars by 1990 fell through.

  • People are packrats. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:18AM (#6850447) Homepage Journal
    People like to own things. It's the hunter-gatherer in us. The author does not understand consumers if he thinks that on-demand services is going to satify collectors. People want to own tangible things - whether it's a table or a DVD. Often times renting something is not enough. They are not as fond of paying for something they get to enjoy once.
    • True, but this pack-rat-ism manifests in different ways. The difference between the pack rat that collects thousands of cds on their bookshelf vs. the pack rat who collects thousands of Mp3s or ripped DVDs is merely a matter of which media they prefer. I find the younger generation is not as hung up on the physical CD or DVD, and ultimately they are the ones that will move the market. And if you're not really paying for these files in the first place, well, that kind of trumps the whole idea of renting n
  • There will still be physical media, it just that the producers are going to shift the extra cost to the consumer. Supply your own damn cdrw. Print off your own liner notes.Buy your own jewel case.

    For rentals - sure. But for music I will still want something to hold in my hand and read while I listen.
  • I know people that have CDs and still download the MP3 version off of Kazaa. Why? It's because they have no clue how to convert a CD to MP3. None whatsoever. It's these people who I assume would be apt to buying "downloadable" music. These are the same people who also don't know there is an audible difference in quality between CDs and MP3s. Can't fault them for not picking up the difference on their stock car unit with the cassette adapter and their home stereo system purchased at Walmart for $99. It
  • And in other news:

    The register is reporting that Forrester is predicting that a third of all financial transactions will be made by credit companies and online banking services in the next five years. They also predict that... ahhh PPPPTTHTHLLTLTTT :-P'''

    Just because more sales/downloads are being done online doesn't mean it's the END of the old disk way. A new media format is needed to kill the old media format. [phonograph... 8-tracks... cassettes... CDs... BlueRay??] And even THAT doesn't mean the old
  • Frankly, I would rather have a CD than a MP3. I use MP3's a lot, but there is something to be said for having an entire album complete with cover art and a disc that has the intended design on it.

    I use mp3s today for checking out a band to make sure I'm not going to buy a CD that I don't like.

    Now if CD prices could just come down a bit and I don't have to look at a CD rack full of white CD cases labeled with a sharpie... I'd be happy...

  • Is this anything like the 'paperless society' predictions of yesteryears?

    While it's fine and dandy to have bits flowing around, they're not permanent, and you need some kind of redundancy if you don't want to lose your data.

    The fact that sales of stuff won't be made through physical media doesn't mean the end of it.

  • On Demand? Pfft. (Score:3, Informative)

    by UncleOzzy ( 158525 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:38AM (#6850599)

    Does anyone here live in the Boston area? Have you actually tried to use Comcast's "On Demand" feature? At least 75% of the time I try to watch something, it skips, or audio drops out, or there are horrendous artefacts, or it just won't start. We actually considered ordering an On Demand movie last weekend, but when the preview wouldn't even play, we gave up and watched Jason X on Showtime instead.

    (Jason X is a fine film. Really.)

    • Re:On Demand? Pfft. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by greymond ( 539980 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @10:48AM (#6850693) Homepage Journal
      I can't agree about Jason X, however over here in San Jose, Comcast sucks balls too. Me and the GF tried digital cable for about 6 months and after continuous outages, supposed upgrades, and ordering shows that would cutout during important dialogues or just get all scrambled for a bit during the great sex scenes, we decided to get rid of it. Now we are much more happy with being able to rent/buy a good movie put it in and not have to worry about it skipping (unless the dvd is dirty, but thats rare) - hell we can even pause it and then go back to watching it something digital cables hasn't figured in yet.

  • And it will cost the same.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by laddhebert ( 570948 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:00AM (#6850812)
    Even after physical media costs are eliminated, I bet these products will still cost just the same if not more....

    -Ladd

  • So, what they're saying (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:04AM (#6850843) Homepage

    Is that we are to live in a topsy-turvy world where sound and pictures will travel down galvanic wires (snort!) or through the very aether (guffaw!) instead of being carried on good old reliable phonographs [google.com] and daguerrotypes [google.com] .

    What next, I ask you? Flying-machines? Women's sufferage? Coloreds sitting at the front of the bus? One can only hope that the imminent dawn of the twentieth-century will put an end to this poppycock.

  • Interesting, but not right? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blinder ( 153117 ) <blinder@dave.gmail@com> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:04AM (#6850846) Homepage Journal
    Okay, I thought this was interesting. I got to thinking though, if by 2005 physical media will be well on its way out, that would mean that the vast majority of consumers of DVD (and whatever) would have to have broadband service (with the exception of on-demand via digital cable or satelite, but again, this infers broadband).

    So, I went and googled and found this [tfi.com] study that basically says that by 2005 only 40% (or so) of US house holds will have broadband service. This too, is a forecast. So, it just seems to me that this projected date of 2005 is a bit, well, optimistic?

  • Forrester (bah!) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bildstorm ( 129924 ) <`peter.buchy' `at' `shh.fi'> on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:48AM (#6851185) Homepage Journal

    I'm so sick of Forrester research. They've been so pro-Internet for so long that every new wave is a realm of optimism for them. They're predictions are always 'out with the old, in with the new'.

    I highly doubt that DVDs are going away any time soon. CDs may not be released as readily, but they thought CDs would die with the advent of the miniDisc. (Who uses that?) The increase in downloading of music has more to do with the paltry and rather pathetically released albums as of late combined with incredibly high prices that with people switching to broaddband for all delivery.

    If the switch comes to broadband for delivery by the industry, chances are it will have more to do with corporate greed and the desire for increased control (see failure of DVD Regions to mean anything for more info) that it will with people not desiring physical media.

    Today's thought.... Stop piracy and corporate greed. Set fair market prices and compete. Damn oligopolies!

  • This "news" is horseshit (Score:4, Informative)

    by gosand ( 234100 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2003 @11:57AM (#6851244)
    From the article:
    "Music and studio executives are finally beginning to understand that they must create new media services through channels that consumers will pay for. Consumers have spoken - they are tired of paying the high cost of CDs and DVDs and prefer more flexible forms of on-demand media delivery," he said.
    Hmm, according to this article over at azcentral [azcentral.com], DVDs are "a freight train that can't be stopped".
    Full article text:

    DVD sales up 57% in 1st half of 2003
    Greg Hernandez
    Los Angeles Daily News
    Aug. 4, 2003 12:00 AM

    LOS ANGELES - The DVD express continues to gather steam.

    During the first six months of 2003, a phenomenal 427.2 million DVD units were shipped to retailers, representing a 57 percent leap compared with the same period a year ago, according to the DVD Entertainment Group, an industry trade association.

    "This is a freight train that can't be stopped," DVD Entertainment Group President Bob Chapek said. "We are enjoying the momentum and looking to the future for continued growth with an eye toward what is next."

    Fueling the growth in software sales are the 10.3 million DVD players that have already been sold so far this year, easily outpacing the first half of 2002 when 7.3 million players were sold.

    There are now DVD players in close to 50 percent of all U.S. homes,with more than 66 million players sold in the past six years.

    These robust hardware sales are connected to the soaring sales of DVD software.

    Overall, the number of DVD units shipped in North America has reached nearly 1.8 billion since the format was launched in mid-1997, according to figures compiled by Ernst & Young for the trade association.

    Now, back to the crappy article at hand...

    According to Forrester, music sales are set to increase by more than half a billion dollars in 2004 thanks to online revenues.

    Equally, on-demand movie distribution channels will generate $1.4 billion by 2005, while revenue from DVDs and tapes will decline 8 percent.
    Yeah, they will be down from 100 gazillion dollars to 92 gazillion dollars.


    What is this wild speculation garbage? Someone actually gets *paid* to think up this crap? The DVD industry is a huge part of the movie studios' revenue. Even if there were a way to deliver online movies, they would still be raking it in. And they aren't going to change their proven moneymaking business. Look at the record industry, and their unwillingness to change. Hell, they won't even consider change towards a *proven* market for their product. So you think the stakeholders in the DVD market will gladly switch away from their "free" money?

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Close