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.
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.
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Informative)
Also players typically offer a higher quality of up conversion since they're designed to work specifically with the kind of content found on DVDs while TV upconverters are designed to be more generic (jack of all trades, master of none... or some such).
Really it comes down to which device has the better scaling equipment. No matter what you should set it up to only scale the image once. ie: having your player scale from 480i to 720p then your TV from 720p to 1080p is a no-no.
What you should be doing is setting your player to scale to the native resolution of your display, and see how that looks, then set your player to output at the native resolution of the original content, thus letting your display do all the scaling, and see how that looks.
The problem is most people have their player set to upscale something stupid like 1080i (because it's the "biggest") when their display has a native resolution like 1366x768 and the results generally look like garbage in comparison to what they COULD look like.
As for myself, personally I have a projector with a native resolution of 1280x768, and I have an Oppo upscaling DVD player set to scale the dvds to 720p (1280x720), my projector is set to just center the signal and leave some black bars on the top and bottom (often called "just scan" mode) thus completely bypassing the scaler in the projector. Both the player and projector have identical scaler chips (Faroudja DCDi) so the player is the better place to scale since it's done before converting the signal for travel over the cable. The scaling is only done once and the picture looks fantastic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is most people have their player set to upscale something stupid like 1080i (because it's the "biggest") when their display has a native resolution like 1366x768 and the results generally look like garbage in comparison to what they COULD look like.
Actually, on my setup I have a 720p LCD HDTV with a native resolution of 1366x768, and an OPPO upconverting DVD player. I find that the image actually looks better with the player upconverting to 1080i, then having the TV scale the image down to 1366x768. I believe that may be because at 720p, the image must still be stretched to fit the native resolution of the screen. The image winds up looking better being squeezed down from 1080i to fit 1366x768. Just my two cents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually your scenario is not uncommo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The upscaler in a new DVD player may be better than the upscaler in the TV, but that's only half the issue. For a LOT of people, the benefit to upgrading DVD players isn't so much about the scaler as it is about getting a progressive scan player with composite/dvi/hdmi output.
Hooking up a 7 year old $20
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its a little more complicated than that.
Component vs HDMI cables carrying the same resolution signal should be barely distinguishable in normal circumstances. And even when you can see a difference, it should come down to blind luck to be able guess which is HDMI and which is component.
You didn't state what resolution the component was on the Sony. (Was it 480i as well?)
And more importantly, you didn't try component on the Pioneer a
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: (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
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if they're still doing it, but when I bought my PS3 I mailed in the proof of purchase, and got 5 free BluRay movies. Check online and they may still be doing that.
The alternative interpretation ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The other interpretation is that regular DVD sales will crash, to the point where they're even with BluRay sales.
In a severe recession, anything is possible, especially since cable is rolling out video-on-demand like crazy, and if people have a choice between a dvr or a bluray player, they'll take the dvr.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the point of an upconverting DVD player when the TV can do it natively and likely much better (as it knows what its own native format is)?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Actually considering the price difference here between DVD and BD I'd still buy DVD's. Now for me I also rarely buy new dvd's I always buy used dvd's from pawn shops ($4-10) and rental stores ($7-12).
IF they would bring in a cheap BR burner for computers then I might be persuaded to change since it is a huge change in the amount of data BR can sto
Re: (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
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
I still collect Laserdiscs you insensitive clod! (Score:3, Interesting)
In all seriousness, my laptop, my wife's laptop, my PC, my wife's PC, the PVR in the entertainment center, and the cheap portable DVD players that we're considering getting for my wife and for her parents all use DVDs, not Blu-Ray. EVEN IF the desktop PCs become cheap to upgrade to Blu-ray I'd have to buy at least two read
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What's more likely is that as old and/or cheap DVD players start to break down, they'll be replaced by Blu-ray players instead of DVD players. That's a trend that will increase as DVD players get older and Blu-ray players get cheaper. The two £20 DVD players that my parents have are on their last legs, although one of them has been replaced by a Mac Mini.
What's also possible is that, bearing the above in mind, those cautious people that sat out the HD DVD/Blu-ray format war will now opt for Blu-ra
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I think we're in completely different markets, which is probably why we have different perspectives on it. I know loads of people with HDTVs, but cable is almost non-existent here (let alone on-demand cable). Sky HD is prohibitively expensive, the box alone is between £200 and £250 (so, at least $400). That's with a subscription, which increases by £10 if you want HD channels. So Blu-ray starts to look less of an expensive option. HD channels on Freeview are a few years away, by
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:5, Insightful)
Average people won't spend $400 on gadgets? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Actually now is a perfect time to buy. With not many people buying, prices will drop to try and entice more people into spending. You can get good deals in a recession.
Incidentally the looming recession is only in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd hate to see it come to stud
Re:Then you had better lower those prices! (Score:4, Interesting)
However, Netflix could be the savior for all parties involved. They already let you borrow BD discs for the same price as DVDs so that's really the only cheap BD source for consumers. As demand goes up, Netflix will have to increase BD purchases which should ultimately lead to lower production prices.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DVD-R costs $190 for a 1000-pack, $0.19ea.
Sony's got to cut those BD-R prices really a lot, to something like 2-5%, to get the IT industry using them the way we use DVDs. Compared to media prices, the burners even at $500 are only the price of 15-45 blank discs.
There's still not much demand for single packages of content spanning multiple DVDs, which is where BD is better. BD is only 5-10x DVD
Re: (Score:2)
The blanks aren't quite as bad as you said though, simply because they do have higher capacity. Blu-Ray blanks at $11/each for $0.44/GB. This is still more expensive th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. "Not to mention that DVD looked good on virtually any TV (even older legacy sets)"
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.
2. "Blu-ray players will (for most people) require the purchase of a new, potentially very expensive
Re: (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 suppo
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:5, Interesting)
Some people are already complaining that their profile 1.0 Blu-Ray players can't play the latest discs. I'd say DVD is the better bet for future proofing at this point, especially as far as hardware goes. Who wants a $400 Blu-Ray player that won't play next month's discs?
BR players are flashable just like DVD players (Score:3, Interesting)
You can update the firmware on Blu-ray players as well. Probably the exact same way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You just don't know of many, then.
This was very true back in the day, and is a big reason I go to great lengths to keep two of my old VCR-sized monster DVD players working.
However, when the DVD-CCA got upset about all the workarounds, and when price competition drove DVD players down to $50, the ability to flash firmware was entirely removed from the vast majority of DVD players. ROM is cheaper, and fewer instructions in the firmware means you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blueray looks fine on old 60cm CRT PAL TVs (I've tried it). Sure, the resolution isn't upped at all, but you still get nice things like Java interactive menus, online stuff (if your into all that of course) and more content on a single disc. It certainly looks no worse than DVD, more or less the same.
The two Blueray movies I have watc
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing GP's point though. The big selling point of BluRay (high-definition video) is meaningless unless you have an HDTV. Picture quality on the TVs most people have is, as you observed, about the same
Not if everyone is like me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Not every purchase is an upgrade. (Score:2)
Most of this thread seems focused on the argument for upgrading from DVD to blu-ray vs. not buying a new player--and I agree the 'don't upgrade' side is winning. But not every purchase is an upgrade with an option to purchase nothing.
I recently replaced a combo TiVo/DVD players w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think many people are particularly opposed to upgrading, they're just not in a hurry to do it.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not many people care for the extra features. But they sure do manage to take up a lot of space! You'd be able to fit if it was "just a movie" onto a regular 2.4gig DVD easily, thus the media industries say its too
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whats the point? (Score:5, Informative)
They were recorded on 35mm or 70mm film. The grain size is finer than a High definition CCD's pixel.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:4, Informative)
Buy Blue ray player now, and buy it again next year when the 2.0 [wikipedia.org] profile becomes mandatory for the published disks. Only the sony PS3 promises it can be updated. All "cheap" BR players do not say such details, and probably you can forget about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Blu-ray player sales (Score:2)
And some UK retailer has reported that sales are up 600% [gizmodo.com]. Regardless I won't be buying a Blu-ray player any time soon.
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: (Score:2)
Re:I don't believe it. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they are spinning it:
DVD and BD currently account for about 80% and 20%, respectively, of global demand for movie discs
So this isn't sales, it is demand. What is demand and how do you quantify it? Through a survey? Through a market expert? Are people really demanding Blu-ray, or do they merely want HD and Sony is conveniently using the Blu-ray trademark to represent all HD content in all forms? Just because 20% of people want higher resolution than DVD doesn't mean they will pay for it. Heck, I demand even better resolution than Blu-Ray, but that doesn't mean I will actually pay money for it. Do the people that demand and seek only HD movie torrents count in that 20% too?
Upconverting is good enough for me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
no drm at all. saves regular
no, I don't get HBO in the clear, etc. I actually cancelled most of my pay services via satellite anyway and I'll cancel that, too, shortly.
my
blue ray? what's that? I have no need for a disc that has a virus built into each one (the running-code that is mandatory part of every BD disc, with revoke lists and all kinds of malware that could hur
Re: (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
Will I ever need one? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlikely. (Score:2)
Not in this household. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
They don't need to stop making DVD drives, they just need to stop making DVD discs. And considering the size of the studios that are owned by Sony, it wouldn't be all that difficult for them to make a move towards that.
And if by year's end you can't watch a movie put out by Sony without owning a blu-ray player, then that will drive up blu-ray sales.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Real question : (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the tipping point will be when the pre-release rips start showing up as blu ray rips. When the first rip hits we tend to download whatever is offered as long as it's not a crappy cam version, and even th
no way. (Score:2)
a up sampling DVD player and an HD TV are all I need for the time being.
in short - DVD is perfectly acceptable for my needs (and many other peoples from the looks of things).
Hmmm raise prices and sell better? -- no (Score:2)
He speaks of "cobranding" (Score:2)
1. Blu-ray gets cobranded with another product, probably a video game console or computer DVD drive maker. In exchange for the Blu-ray drive being sold cheaply, it is sold under a high profile brand to increase market awareness and market share.
2. In time for Christmas, around September, they half the price of their low-end model.
These two steps will have box stores stocking as much of the stuff as people can get their hands on. It's probable the industry is going to be forced to discoun
Yeah, it's going to happen (Score:2)
Give it a year and even if they are still carrying a $5 premium over DVDs the sales will be fine. After all, the
DVD Sales??? (Score:2)
Does anybody have reliable numbers on DVD sales before and after the copy protection was cracked?
I'd just like to know what (if any) the effect was.
Can I play Blu-ray on my Linux desktop? (Score:2)
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
Sony's spinning the truth... (Score:2)
One reason that Sony is so optimistic is that the cutoff for analog TV in the United States is scheduled for February 2009. They anticipate (perhaps correctly) that an enormous number of people will opt to purchase a new high def TV set in advance of the changeover to digital. They'd make ideal Christmas presents. And once a customer has laid out $700 for the TV, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch to add another $400 for a Boo-ray player to show off to their friends. In other words, Sony's statement abo
Another reason for Sony's optimism (Score:2)
Short term they may start pushing the market by selling at a loss, knowing that long-term they're not really competing with anyone and by flooding the market with BR hardware they can create momentum.
Long-term they may switch up who's allowed to make players and cut some of the royalty costs to bring in more of the low-end Chinese manufacturers to keep player prices lo
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.
Reading comprehension (Score:2)
Don't trust a sloppy blog like the TFA.
The source article at Digitimes says the 50% refers to the share of devices, not movie discs.
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20080407PD201.html
>Sony looks to 50% global market share for its Blu-ray products in 2008
Sounds unlikely to be that fast but BD will sell (Score:2)
The biggest sticking point is price. I think $400 is a bit steep for a standalone (although the PS3 is great value), but I expect we'll see sub $300 and possibly even a sub $200 player by yea
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wanted to buy The Mist. Can't.
I wanted to buy Battlestar Galactica. Can't.
(There's not even a Season 2 on bluray).
Have wanted to buy some other stuff, but either the movie doesn't exist on bluray or it's an edition with lim
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted to buy The Mist. Can't. I wanted to buy Battlestar Galactica. Can't.
After a year of owning my bluray, I own Planet Earth, Apocolypto, 300 and the special five disc edition of Blade Runner. That's it. Four movies in a year. They're losing a lot of money by having nothing but crap out there.
Well you can blame the HD-DVD guys for the lack of Blu-ray content now. But it will get better soon now that the war is finally over.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree on your points, but the fact that you can't even get the most simple statements wrong means that I could be picking the wrong party to agree with.
And I couldn't care less what you have to say in response.