Samsung Quits Blu-ray Player Market

Well, in the case of music by the time they lowered albums at about 10$ the market was shifting.
I guess the same is going on with movies. I think the market would expand if prices were lowered, but it would take time. Some will always complain about prices... With Spotify music prices are vastly lower... Has the market expanded? Are they making the same less or more money as a whole? Even making the same miney with an expanded market its still a win as a tiny increase in prices would yeild a lot more money each time and more people are hooked and its easier to sustain the market as people talk with each other things like that.
Btw, as far as movie tickets go... Yeah those are too high too, its rare i go anymore... I used to have the whole slate cleared before... Then prices climbed, and climbed ...

No, before they sold MP3s, everyone said, OH we have to buy crappy albums. Then songs were a buck a song...HOORAY...oh wait now that sucks why is a dollar. No matter what happened, it was never enough. And no, they aren't making the same money.

As for movies, the point is that if you're asking for a brand new movie to be released at for less than the average movie ticket, you're asking too much. Wait a few years and buy older movies.

As for theaters themselves, just join AMC's Alist 20 bucks a month (give or take) and see any 3 movies/week

The fact is that movies are insanely expensive to make and aside from 4k, they're all cheaper than they were 20 years ago (in some cases cheaper even if you don't adjust for inflation). 4K catalog is cheaper than what they sold for 20 years ago on DVD (unadjusted for inflation).

But honestly, if you don't want to do that, just rent movies from redbox. If you sign up for their mail, you get codes that cut the rental price in half...sometimes I pay as little as 50 cents for a blu ray rental.
 
No, before they sold MP3s, everyone said, OH we have to buy crappy albums. Then songs were a buck a song...HOORAY...oh wait now that sucks why is a dollar. No matter what happened, it was never enough. And no, they aren't making the same money.

As for movies, the point is that if you're asking for a brand new movie to be released at for less than the average movie ticket, you're asking too much. Wait a few years and buy older movies.

As for theaters themselves, just join AMC's Alist 20 bucks a month (give or take) and see any 3 movies/week

The fact is that movies are insanely expensive to make and aside from 4k, they're all cheaper than they were 20 years ago (in some cases cheaper even if you don't adjust for inflation). 4K catalog is cheaper than what they sold for 20 years ago on DVD (unadjusted for inflation).

But honestly, if you don't want to do that, just rent movies from redbox. If you sign up for their mail, you get codes that cut the rental price in half...sometimes I pay as little as 50 cents for a blu ray rental.
Redbox (4k if available) is what i do mostly.. and Netflix ( but that has nothing to do with 4k Blu-ray)
As far as the music field doesn't matter what people say, how is the market doing now? Quick duck search gave me nothing useful. Don't care that much to keep digging.
How expensive are movies is not my problem either... It is their problem that i am mostly priced out of their market though... I am not particularly broke either ( just ok) .
And yes, i am now 'in' the music market via spotify family (google music before).. otherwise I would be 'out' of the market, and it would be a monthly payment they won't get from me.
I would enjoy 4k Blu Rays , but the need to be way cheaper.. however if the expensive contents trend continues, i won't even bother to get the proper hardware either ( next format, if that ever happens again), it been mostly pointless the money i wasted in 4k crap.
 
Last edited:
Redbox (4k if available) is what i do mostly.. and Netflix ( but that has nothing to do with 4k Blu-ray)
As far as the music field doesn't matter what people say, how is the market doing now? Quick duck search gave me nothing useful. Don't care that much to keep digging.
How expensive are movies is not my problem either... It is their problem that i am mostly priced out of their market though... I am not particularly broke either ( just ok) .
And yes, i am now 'in' the music market via spotify family (google music before).. otherwise I would be 'out' of the market, and it would be a monthly payment they won't get from me.
I would enjoy 4k Blu Rays , but the need to be way cheaper.. however if the expensive contents trend continues, i won't even bother to get the proper hardware either ( next format, if that ever happens again), it been mostly pointless the money i wasted in 4k crap.

For musicians, the money makers are the same as they've always been, shows and merch. The shifting trends have primarily hit the record labels instead of the musicians (as musicians always made crap from actual music sales, basically they were lucky to make $1 per CD in general). There are lots of bands that make more from a single show than they'll make all year in record royalties and that's been true going back decades. Someone like the Stones can make ~$5+ mil from a stadium gig post expenses between gate and merch. Taylor Swift was clearing 6+ mil gate during her stadium tour last year. Basically impossible to make that kind of money off of records and always has been simple because artists make ~50% of gate vs ~10% of a record.
 
For musicians, the money makers are the same as they've always been, shows and merch. The shifting trends have primarily hit the record labels instead of the musicians (as musicians always made crap from actual music sales, basically they were lucky to make $1 per CD in general). There are lots of bands that make more from a single show than they'll make all year in record royalties and that's been true going back decades. Someone like the Stones can make ~$5+ mil from a stadium gig post expenses between gate and merch. Taylor Swift was clearing 6+ mil gate during her stadium tour last year. Basically impossible to make that kind of money off of records and always has been simple because artists make ~50% of gate vs ~10% of a record.

Which is why more studios have been trying to muscle in on that revenue stream.

I can't wait for the day artists figure out they have no need for the studios. You can reach the world with nothing more than a Youtube channel if not less.
 
I can't believe people still buy DVD's... they aren't even HD. I kind of just assumed Blu-ray was all that is available by now and DVD had gone the way of the VHS. So yeah, if DVDs are good enough then streaming is easily good enough.
 
I can't believe people still buy DVD's... they aren't even HD. I kind of just assumed Blu-ray was all that is available by now and DVD had gone the way of the VHS.

It's not that DVDs are still viable- it's that a lot of consumers didn't upgrade to BluRay. Yes, optical disc media is fading market- and sometimes you won't see releases in both formats, just DVD. Netflix still operates a DVD service, and not all titles are available in BD- even the ones that do exist in the format.

So yeah, if DVDs are good enough then streaming is easily good enough.

It's good enough for anyone who *doesn't* watch BD on a regular basis. If 5Mb/s 1080p Netflix is all they watch- then it's fine. Even compared to 17 Mb/s MPEG2 1080i OTA, it's fine.

But it's not good enough for those that watch in the original quality on BD (20-30 Mb/s) And I have several hundred digital copy/streaming movies in my Amazon, VUDU and MoviesAnywhere libraries- and there's no comparison to the original quality BD rips I watch on PLEX. Streaming quality is only good enough if you don't have exposure to anything else.
 
It's not that DVDs are still viable- it's that a lot of consumers didn't upgrade to BluRay. Yes, optical disc media is fading market- and sometimes you won't see releases in both formats, just DVD. Netflix still operates a DVD service, and not all titles are available in BD- even the ones that do exist in the format.



It's good enough for anyone who *doesn't* watch BD on a regular basis. If 5Mb/s 1080p Netflix is all they watch- then it's fine. Even compared to 17 Mb/s MPEG2 1080i OTA, it's fine.

But it's not good enough for those that watch in the original quality on BD (20-30 Mb/s) And I have several hundred digital copy/streaming movies in my Amazon, VUDU and MoviesAnywhere libraries- and there's no comparison to the original quality BD rips I watch on PLEX. Streaming quality is only good enough if you don't have exposure to anything else.

Blu-ray isn't the original quality of films. Blu-ray's use compressed video therefore they are factually below the quality of the original studio masters.
 
Blu-ray isn't the original quality of films..

Original Quality is a PLEX convention. You're dealing with the exact same bitrate and quality that originally came on the disk. Before UHD, Blu-Ray was the highest quality available to the consumer market. (outside of actual exhibition- and you can't get those in streaming or optical disk formats)
 
It's good enough for anyone who *doesn't* watch BD on a regular basis..

Actually I would rank my viewing habits into 5 categories: Old digital rips, DVD, streaming, new digital rips (both HD and SD) and BR/HD-DVD.

The older stuff doesn't bother me, it is what it is for the time frame. The only time old rips or some DVD bother me is when there is artifacts or lots of noise. Stuff that looks ok on a 20" CRT isn't so hot at 1080p 55."

It will look even worse if I pickup that 65" I have been eyeballing. hmm.

My collection is vast of physical and digital media, started well over 35 years ago. The VHS went the way of the recycle bin a few years back and the stuff that was not available on DVD or was home/racing video I converted to digital. Watched Captain America (1990) Laserdisk rip for the first time last night, the quality was fine. The movie? Not so much.
 
So this is my point -- even 4K TV's have been around forever now. 1080P TV's since before forever.

You are telling me that most people are still buying 700x400 or whatever resolution DVD's to watch on them on their new 65" OLEDs? If this is the case then the physical media market has already been dead for years. I honestly thought people just meant Blu-ray when they said DVD now. How is DVD still around? Its an obsolete technology. It should be Blu-ray for those rentals and physical copy die-hards and 1080p/4k streaming for online services. I don't understand how DVD is still in the equation. Its like if I still bought ZIP Disks.


So lets say I buy a $3000 TV and want to have the best quality possible... I have to BUY a 4k blu ray disk? Netflix and Redbox don't rent them?
 
Redbox (4k if available) is what i do mostly.. and Netflix ( but that has nothing to do with 4k Blu-ray)
As far as the music field doesn't matter what people say, how is the market doing now? Quick duck search gave me nothing useful. Don't care that much to keep digging.
How expensive are movies is not my problem either... It is their problem that i am mostly priced out of their market though... I am not particularly broke either ( just ok) .
And yes, i am now 'in' the music market via spotify family (google music before).. otherwise I would be 'out' of the market, and it would be a monthly payment they won't get from me.
I would enjoy 4k Blu Rays , but the need to be way cheaper.. however if the expensive contents trend continues, i won't even bother to get the proper hardware either ( next format, if that ever happens again), it been mostly pointless the money i wasted in 4k crap.
Redbox has 4k Blu ray in some markets. I have 0 interest in streaming 4k rentals. They're too expensive. I'd probably do almost as well buying a movie and selling after I watch it, especially if sell the digital download separately (which definitely breaks the license agreement, but that doesn't stop redbox from selling disney codes).

Bottom line is that selling YOU a movie for 5 bucks means that they lose money on all the people who are willing to pay 15-30 bucks for that same movie. Again, what you want might make sense if the movie had been out for a year or 2, though probably not at 5 bucks.
 
For musicians, the money makers are the same as they've always been, shows and merch. The shifting trends have primarily hit the record labels instead of the musicians (as musicians always made crap from actual music sales, basically they were lucky to make $1 per CD in general). There are lots of bands that make more from a single show than they'll make all year in record royalties and that's been true going back decades. Someone like the Stones can make ~$5+ mil from a stadium gig post expenses between gate and merch. Taylor Swift was clearing 6+ mil gate during her stadium tour last year. Basically impossible to make that kind of money off of records and always has been simple because artists make ~50% of gate vs ~10% of a record.
If music was all physical, an artist like Swift, Stones or u2 is probably getting closer to 3-4 bucks/CD. And the artists making bank from concerts were making big bucks from CD sales back when people bought albums. Once everyone wanted free music (and later 10/month music), they made much less from sales, but I doubt U2 or madonna has suddenly decided to cut what htey get/album and at one point they were getting 3-4 bucks/album
 
Redbox has 4k Blu ray in some markets. I have 0 interest in streaming 4k rentals. They're too expensive. I'd probably do almost as well buying a movie and selling after I watch it, especially if sell the digital download separately (which definitely breaks the license agreement, but that doesn't stop redbox from selling disney codes).

Actually, it is unclear if redbox is breaking any laws in unbundling the digital copy from the physical copy. Softman Products v Adobe is the closest case I can find where Softman was unbundling the adobe software collection and selling it individually. In that case, the court ruled in favor of Softman. Its a first sale doctrine issue.
 
If music was all physical, an artist like Swift, Stones or u2 is probably getting closer to 3-4 bucks/CD. And the artists making bank from concerts were making big bucks from CD sales back when people bought albums. Once everyone wanted free music (and later 10/month music), they made much less from sales, but I doubt U2 or madonna has suddenly decided to cut what htey get/album and at one point they were getting 3-4 bucks/album

Even in the days where music was all physical, even mega stars with extremely good deals weren't making much more than $2 per sale all up (including all rights). New artists were lucky to clear $1 per CD.
 
Both bluray and dvd will eventually die, as more convenient media becomes used. So no great loss losing a crappy manufacturer. I know, I know, lots of people LOVE Samsung, but every single thing I've ever purchased with their name on it has sucked, and died a quick death. None of the others. I don't know, maybe my house has a curse on Samsung.
DVD - Good enough! It's only a movie or a TV show FFS!.
Our eyes are only so good. Once 35% of our vision is taken up by the screen, it becomes good enough to seem live. People really don't know the difference unless you tell them it's different. I've played DVD's to folks masquerading them as blurays and nobody said a word. They can't tell. It's just like the music, with 128 bit vs CD quality of the latest rap stuff. It sounds the same to the average person. So why pay the huge premium for the bluray?
All this talk of backing up media is making me look at my blu-ray collection and thinking "I need to get a NAS set up at some point and put all of these on it".
Whatever you have, is probably already out on torrents. My 'Where Eagles Dare' disc crapped out, how I don't know as it still looks pristine, but won't play. so I just downloaded a copy. I don't know if I'm breaking a law by downloading something I already paid for or not. Probably; because the studios hate their customers and want us to keep buying more copies of the same things.

No, before they sold MP3s, everyone said, OH we have to buy crappy albums. Then songs were a buck a song...HOORAY...oh wait now that sucks why is a dollar.
I'd be fine with a buck a song if they'd start making more good music. Besides, they haven't reimbursed me for all the crappy songs that I've already had to buy on about a thousand albums and CD's. When they give me my money back for all the crap I had to buy, I'll be happy to start buying the good music again. Charge a decent price for a good product and people will buy it. Try to rip people off by using shenanigans like DRM, 'album only' tracks, and selling DVD's in Beijing for the equivalent of $3 while charging Americans $25? Screw you, studios.

As for theaters themselves, just join AMC's Alist 20 bucks a month (give or take) and see any 3 movies/week
If there were 3 movies worth watching.

I can't believe people still buy DVD's... they aren't even HD.
Few need HD. Same as few need a high end audio setup.

And I maintain, if you're busy counting the blades of grass or the hairs on the character's head, then whatever sport or movie you're watching, sucks. People can get so involved with old black and white crappy resolution movies that they not only couldn't take their eyes off of them, but were so fixated on that 19" (or even smaller) screen, that they'd be scared out of their wits by a well written scary movie. Today? Movies, TV, and even sports generally suck. Studios can't be bothered to do a decent job of finding good scripts, and don't want to pay writers. Instead they spend a fortune blowing stuff up. Special effects is almost all that's left. No story. Sports? Yeah, two hours (or more) of commercials, for one hour of football or basketball game. I don't need to see the sweat on Lebron's head, thanks. I want a decent game with fewer interruptions. If the guys are stationary enough that I can criticize the resolution, that game sucks, too.

And last but not least, both the media studios and the hardware manufacturers keep shooting themselves in the foot, trying to squeeze out every penny from the viewers. Wacky copy protection that they invent to fight the few of us who will copy the movies & music, makes 99% of their consumer base hate them. A commercial DVD or bluray is filled with crap. We want to watch a movie not five minutes of interpol and fbi notices telling us it's a crime to do this or that, followed by a 'would you download a car?' nonsense. Then the trailers. They basically make it a pain in the ass to use their product. Same with a few years ago, they had lobbied to remove all the analog connections from the video players. Makes them cheaper to produce. Win Win for the studios and the manufacturers, right? Screw the customers who have an older set who now had to go out and buy a HDMI to analog converter. Greed simply came back to bite them in the butt, as it should.

Bye bye, Samsung, you won't be missed.[/quote]
 
Even in the days where music was all physical, even mega stars with extremely good deals weren't making much more than $2 per sale all up (including all rights). New artists were lucky to clear $1 per CD.
I definitely recall some deals in the 90s where artists were getting close to 4/CD, but I can't find it. I see Madonna getting 20%, which was probably pretty close to 4 bucks before deductions and was likely 3 bucks after deductions. I think U2 had a similar deal. I'm not sure what ZZ Top's deal was, but I know they got some sort of ridiculous up front for a few albums. Don't remember if that was before or after Antenna, but it was definitely well past their commercial peak.

Anyway that's still better than streaming. I've got a friend in an indy band who consides streaming royalties so bad that it's almost pointless (unless you're a major artist).

But the reality is that in 2000, almost a billion CDs were sold. In 2017 it was 99 million. The idea that artists didn't make money from sales is just wrong. Artists were often contractually obligated to tour (in promotion of the album), but they didn't get rich from it, which makes sense, because most concerts up through the mid 90s were under 30 bucks and in the 80s-early 90s they were 15-25 (with fees).

I saw Pink Floyd perform the wall for 15 bucks (the expensive seats) and almost every Rush concert I saw prior to 2002 was under 30. I think 97 broke 30 for the first time.
Springsteen was also cheap prior to 98 or 99. U2's sold out Zoo tour started at 20-25 indoors and went to around 30-35 outdoors.

I don't know what Rush or Bruce netted, but I know Pink Floyd lost money on the wall tour and U2 barely broke even on ZooTV (the top grossing tour of 92/93). They either broke even or lost money on Popmart (Top grossing in 1097 and #2 for 1997-1998). I suspect they made more money on sales of Joshua Tree than they did on the tour in 87, but it's hard to tell, since there are no grosses for Europe. The album sold around 14 million in the USA, so it's safe to assume that they made more from the album than touring, given grosses were generally well under a million dollars)
 
Both bluray and dvd will eventually die, as more convenient media becomes used. So no great loss losing a crappy manufacturer. I know, I know, lots of people LOVE Samsung, but every single thing I've ever purchased with their name on it has sucked, and died a quick death. None of the others. I don't know, maybe my house has a curse on Samsung.

I don't think i own any samsung, but I haven't really heard bad things about them in a long time, but back in the mid 80s, we sold MultiTech (who i believe is now pretty big in telecom or networking) and Samsung. They were really cheap crappy CD players (mostly) we called the Samsuck and Multicrap.

Our eyes are only so good. Once 35% of our vision is taken up by the screen, it becomes good enough to seem live. People really don't know the difference unless you tell them it's different. I've played DVD's to folks masquerading them as blurays and nobody said a word. They can't tell. It's just like the music, with 128 bit vs CD quality of the latest rap stuff. It sounds the same to the average person. So why pay the huge premium for the bluray?

Unless teh viewers have the shittiest eyes, on movies that are dark or have dark scenes, it's obvious. I'm no videophile, but I watch Daredevil, and it's got tons of noise in dark scenes

I'd be fine with a buck a song if they'd start making more good music. Besides, they haven't reimbursed me for all the crappy songs that I've already had to buy on about a thousand albums and CD's. When they give me my money back for all the crap I had to buy, I'll be happy to start buying the good music again. Charge a decent price for a good product and people will buy it. Try to rip people off by using shenanigans like DRM, 'album only' tracks, and selling DVD's in Beijing for the equivalent of $3 while charging Americans $25? Screw you, studios.

1. You must have had really shitty taste in music if you have thousands of albums that are mostly crap. I've probably got 1000 and most of them are solid from beginning to end. 1 or 2 bad tracks is not a big deal. What's more CDs were generally cheaper than Vinyl was in the 70s (adjusted for inflation)
2. comparing the USA to china is ridiculous. The median salary in China is under 3 grand. In the USA, the median salary in the USA was around 31k in 2016, so obviously a company will sell something for significantly less in a place where people have no money


If there were 3 movies worth watching.

There's plenty of movies that are good. I swear, [H] is made up of my grandparents peers, and and they died in their 90s almost 20 years ago.
 
I definitely recall some deals in the 90s where artists were getting close to 4/CD, but I can't find it. I see Madonna getting 20%, which was probably pretty close to 4 bucks before deductions and was likely 3 bucks after deductions. I think U2 had a similar deal. I'm not sure what ZZ Top's deal was, but I know they got some sort of ridiculous up front for a few albums. Don't remember if that was before or after Antenna, but it was definitely well past their commercial peak.

Anyway that's still better than streaming. I've got a friend in an indy band who consides streaming royalties so bad that it's almost pointless (unless you're a major artist).

But the reality is that in 2000, almost a billion CDs were sold. In 2017 it was 99 million. The idea that artists didn't make money from sales is just wrong. Artists were often contractually obligated to tour (in promotion of the album), but they didn't get rich from it, which makes sense, because most concerts up through the mid 90s were under 30 bucks and in the 80s-early 90s they were 15-25 (with fees).

I saw Pink Floyd perform the wall for 15 bucks (the expensive seats) and almost every Rush concert I saw prior to 2002 was under 30. I think 97 broke 30 for the first time.
Springsteen was also cheap prior to 98 or 99. U2's sold out Zoo tour started at 20-25 indoors and went to around 30-35 outdoors.

I don't know what Rush or Bruce netted, but I know Pink Floyd lost money on the wall tour and U2 barely broke even on ZooTV (the top grossing tour of 92/93). They either broke even or lost money on Popmart (Top grossing in 1097 and #2 for 1997-1998). I suspect they made more money on sales of Joshua Tree than they did on the tour in 87, but it's hard to tell, since there are no grosses for Europe. The album sold around 14 million in the USA, so it's safe to assume that they made more from the album than touring, given grosses were generally well under a million dollars)

20% would be at best ~$2. No record company was selling CDs for >$10 on average (the rest of wholesaler/distributor and retail markup).

ZooTV was basically financial suicide but they still managed a reported 5% return. Their largest issue was the overhead costs for that show which were and ARE still insane. They were burning 125k per day just in overhead, show or no show, which is just flat out insane. By all reports, they made bank on the Joshua tour, their touring costs were very low, and likely made more money for them than the album. The year after ZooTV, the Rolling Stones made absolute bank off of the Voodoo Lounge tour.

As far as streaming, the biggest issue is that for lots of bands there is no upfront like there was back in the day. Also depends if you are directly licensing or contract licensing. For direct licensing, the rather is roughly 150-200 plays = 1 sale. If you are contract licensing through a record company its horrid though.
 
But the reality is that in 2000, almost a billion CDs were sold. In 2017 it was 99 million. The idea that artists didn't make money from sales is just wrong.

You may want to look into that, I thought it was well known that the music industry screws the artists on CD sales. They make no money till promotion and production costs are covered. Guess who states what the costs are?

FYI a year or two I caught an article similar to this one that had one example of a famous boy band from the 90's who TO THIS DAY had not collected dime one from album sales.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/23482610186.shtml
 
Unless teh viewers have the shittiest eyes, on movies that are dark or have dark scenes, it's obvious. I'm no videophile, but I watch Daredevil, and it's got tons of noise in dark scenes
You're obviously one of those who are irritated by things so much that it takes away from the show. So you NEED a higher quality format. As opposed to me, who grew up with a 9" black and white TV with the picture rolling vertically or horizontally every so often.

[/quote] 1. You must have had really shitty taste in music if you have thousands of albums that are mostly crap. [/quote]
I purchased a whole lot of my music in the era when album oriented rock was starting to make itself more widespread on the FM band. With that, came extended song versions which were only available if you purchased the album. Even though seven minutes of song could fit onto a 45, it was rarely done. So if you wanted the 'good' version of the song, you had no choice, but to buy the album. Routine practice for a very long time was to produce an album with one or two hits, and the rest were all cover versions or crap songs that pretty no one would ever pay for if they were sold on their own. And for the most part, a lot of people wound up buying the album, and paying many times over what the price of the song we wanted should have sold for.
If you love every song by every artist, great. I don't. For the most part, I'm not a fan of every artist that ever wrote and performed a hit record. I'm a fan of that song. Just because I like one song, doesn't mean I will automatically enjoy everything that artist sings.

So, I wound up having to buy a whole lot of songs that generally suck, because the recording companies held them ransom by not selling the hit, without 9 crap songs. Did I ever find artists that I enjoyed some of the other album songs? Sure, but they are outweighed by a scale of about 95:1 and that's a lot of songs that I certainly didn't need to buy. And I'm quite sure that I'm not the only person to go through this, based on today's market where people CAN buy those crappy songs, but don't.

I've probably got 1000 and most of them are solid from beginning to end. 1 or 2 bad tracks is not a big deal. What's more CDs were generally cheaper than Vinyl was in the 70s (adjusted for inflation)
When CD's came out, they were about three times as expensive as LP's, and maybe twice the price of cassettes. I don't know what the current price of a newly released CD with a hit on it, costs, vs the price of the single hit that's on it.

comparing the USA to china is ridiculous. The median salary in China is under 3 grand. In the USA, the median salary in the USA was around 31k in 2016, so obviously a company will sell something for significantly less in a place where people have no money
Fact if the matter is, the cost of the product is not in any way related to the cost of making it. The industry in some way got together and decided to keep the prices of pre-recorded movies at a certain price, much the same way that the cable companies set minimum prices among themselves. Whether you want to call it a conspiracy or not, it's being done.

BTW, I'm 63. I've watched corporations rig the market many times. All to squeeze the maximum amount of money out of the consumer as possible, and executives get bonuses for this. We see this in the healthcare industry as we speak....I know, I work in it.

For example: While it seems that today, everyone loves to hate Jeff Bezos and Amazon, what he did is provide a better service, better delivery, and decent products, for lower costs. And that's how to be an ethical billionaire (Unlike oh, Gates who made his billions by ripping off consumers).



There's plenty of movies that are good. I swear, [H] is made up of my grandparents peers, and and they died in their 90s almost 20 years ago.[/QUOTE]
 
Our eyes are only so good. Once 35% of our vision is taken up by the screen, it becomes good enough to seem live.

This doesn't even make sense. How much viewing angle your screen occupies is very different than its resolution. You can take up 35% of your vision with 4 pixels and it's not gonna be a real good experience.

People really don't know the difference unless you tell them it's different. I've played DVD's to folks masquerading them as blurays and nobody said a word. They can't tell.

Maybe you have bad eyesight or a small shitty television. Also it is extremely weird that you play DVD's for people and lie to them that it's a blu ray and wait to see if they say anything. Maybe they know it's a DVD but they don't say anything because they think you're a giant weirdo or maybe they're just being polite.

I'd be fine with a buck a song if they'd start making more good music. Besides, they haven't reimbursed me for all the crappy songs that I've already had to buy on about a thousand albums and CD's. When they give me my money back for all the crap I had to buy, I'll be happy to start buying the good music again. Charge a decent price for a good product and people will buy it. Try to rip people off by using shenanigans like DRM, 'album only' tracks, and selling DVD's in Beijing for the equivalent of $3 while charging Americans $25? Screw you, studios.

Lol THOSE PEOPLE FORCED ME TO BUY THEIR MUSIC I DIDN'T LIKE WAAAAH. Gtfo with that shit.
 
This doesn't even make sense. How much viewing angle your screen occupies is very different than its resolution. You can take up 35% of your vision with 4 pixels and it's not gonna be a real good experience.
Thing is, your brain fills in the missing information. Same as in your peripheral vision you don't actually see in color, as there are no cones in that area of the eye. Yet, you think you're seeing it all in color. It's the same with the 3D TV's; it's not necessary. You perceive it as real if it occupies enough of your field of vision.

Maybe you have bad eyesight or a small shitty television. Also it is extremely weird that you play DVD's for people and lie to them that it's a blu ray and wait to see if they say anything. Maybe they know it's a DVD but they don't say anything because they think you're a giant weirdo or maybe they're just being polite.
It was simply comments they gave about how much better the movie looked in HD. I simply didn't tell them it was 480. They assumed it was HD because the big TV was 1080 capable.

Lol THOSE PEOPLE FORCED ME TO BUY THEIR MUSIC I DIDN'T LIKE WAAAAH. Gtfo with that shit.
I never said anyone forced me to buy it.
 
Thing is, your brain fills in the missing information. Same as in your peripheral vision you don't actually see in color, as there are no cones in that area of the eye. Yet, you think you're seeing it all in color. It's the same with the 3D TV's; it's not necessary. You perceive it as real if it occupies enough of your field of vision.


It was simply comments they gave about how much better the movie looked in HD. I simply didn't tell them it was 480. They assumed it was HD because the big TV was 1080 capable.


I never said anyone forced me to buy it.

What is not necessary? I can't tell what you're referring to.
 
If people can't tell the difference between sources (i.e. DVD vs. Blu-Ray) it's your screen that needs upgrading. The difference between the two, when properly mastered, is night and day (at least to me but I'm a video engineer so maybe a bit biased).
 
What is not necessary? I can't tell what you're referring to.
3D apparently doesn't enhance the viewing experience enough to make a difference, based on the lack of sales.

If people can't tell the difference between sources (i.e. DVD vs. Blu-Ray) it's your screen that needs upgrading. The difference between the two, when properly mastered, is night and day (at least to me but I'm a video engineer so maybe a bit biased).
It's easy to tell if you can view them side by side or if you switch sources back and forth. When viewed all by itself, without something to compare it to, apparently lots of people just can't tell. The TV being used was a Toshiba 55" that I purchased back in 2011, and my experience with people not being able to tell the difference, during the same year. These were not TV critics, just regular people. I suppose that if you went up to it a few inches away and examined the screen from a few inches away, perhaps it would have been able to discern the differences, again, especially if two TV's of the same type were viewed side by side with 1080 on one, and 480 on the other.
 
If people can't tell the difference between sources (i.e. DVD vs. Blu-Ray) it's your screen that needs upgrading. The difference between the two, when properly mastered, is night and day (at least to me but I'm a video engineer so maybe a bit biased).

The majority of people are clueless when it comes to tech.
 
20% would be at best ~$2. No record company was selling CDs for >$10 on average (the rest of wholesaler/distributor and retail markup).

ZooTV was basically financial suicide but they still managed a reported 5% return. Their largest issue was the overhead costs for that show which were and ARE still insane. They were burning 125k per day just in overhead, show or no show, which is just flat out insane. By all reports, they made bank on the Joshua tour, their touring costs were very low, and likely made more money for them than the album. The year after ZooTV, the Rolling Stones made absolute bank off of the Voodoo Lounge tour.

As far as streaming, the biggest issue is that for lots of bands there is no upfront like there was back in the day. Also depends if you are directly licensing or contract licensing. For direct licensing, the rather is roughly 150-200 plays = 1 sale. If you are contract licensing through a record company its horrid though.
I don't see how they could have made more on the Joshua Tree tour than the album. It allegedly grossed 33 million. The album sold 25 million copies and they owned part of Island Records.

As for Zoo, I don't know if your figure is right. I believe the book Until the End of the world said they barely broke even (as in it came down to the last few shows as to whether they'd break even or lose money) and Larry Mullin Jr. saying he didn't ever want to do that again, thus they used Cole (The next adventure?) to promote Popmart, though I don't think it made much either. They started raking in the bucks on Elevation when the top prices were roughly 15x higher than the indoor version of Zoo (about 4x what I paid for the outdoor show)...all prices after fees.
 
You're obviously one of those who are irritated by things so much that it takes away from the show. So you NEED a higher quality format. As opposed to me, who grew up with a 9" black and white TV with the picture rolling vertically or horizontally every so often.

WTH are you talking about? you said nobody can tell the difference and it's freaking obvious if there scenes are dark. There's noise all over the place.


I purchased a whole lot of my music in the era when album oriented rock was starting to make itself more widespread on the FM band. With that, came extended song versions which were only available if you purchased the album. Even though seven minutes of song could fit onto a 45, it was rarely done. So if you wanted the 'good' version of the song, you had no choice, but to buy the album. Routine practice for a very long time was to produce an album with one or two hits, and the rest were all cover versions or crap songs that pretty no one would ever pay for if they were sold on their own. And for the most part, a lot of people wound up buying the album, and paying many times over what the price of the song we wanted should have sold for.
If you love every song by every artist, great. I don't. For the most part, I'm not a fan of every artist that ever wrote and performed a hit record. I'm a fan of that song. Just because I like one song, doesn't mean I will automatically enjoy everything that artist sings.

If bands were album bands they had good albums. Sorry, but I've got plenty from that era and they're almost all solid albums. yes, you occasionally got a shit album, but it was pretty rare. And that has been true throughout my life. I rarely bought albums based on a single. And I also note that if you heard the single first you were more likely to be disapointed than if you bought the album. Using U2's war album, the songs that most people like are not my favorite songs. And the ones I like were got less, or no, airplay. It's next to impossible for album tracks to compete with the song you heard 100 times before you bought the record. It'll take 100 spins before the album tracks are that familiar. There are exceptions they're rare.

So, I wound up having to buy a whole lot of songs that generally suck, because the recording companies held them ransom by not selling the hit, without 9 crap songs. Did I ever find artists that I enjoyed some of the other album songs? Sure, but they are outweighed by a scale of about 95:1 and that's a lot of songs that I certainly didn't need to buy. And I'm quite sure that I'm not the only person to go through this, based on today's market where people CAN buy those crappy songs, but don't.
Sorry, haven't had that problem. The ONLY reason I bought singles were for Bsides. I already owned the album.

When CD's came out, they were about three times as expensive as LP's, and maybe twice the price of cassettes. I don't know what the current price of a newly released CD with a hit on it, costs, vs the price of the single hit that's on it.

I can't speak to 1982(which I believe is when they came out), but mid 80s, a cd was 15 bucks and vinyl was roughly 8-9 bucks. My vinyl is gone, the CDs remain. As for today, I'd assume a buck or so for a song 10-13 for most albums. I don't buy digital singles. If it's not worth owning the album it's not worth owning the song.
 
Last edited:
So kind of off topic here, but this next generation of QLED (Samsung) or OLED (LG) is it really that much of a difference over the "UHD" 4K tvs out there? I mean don't get me wrong they look awesome ass fuck as Costco, but I know they're playing that color jizz demo to make them look hot as fuck. But like a series6 4k Samsung is under $400, where as the QLED one is 3 times as much. But all I want to know if I play a video on one, will it look all color jizzy on the other?
I waited until late last year before I moved to UHD to be sure I would be satisfied.
I hoped projectors could catch up with HDR but they simply dont do it well which means no longer using my wall size screen.

To be sure, I got a Samsung Q9 and it absolutely rocks.
The colours throughout the whole brightness range are sublime, way better than anything before, including the best of Panasonic plasma.
My Dad still uses a Panasonic Plasma and each time he visits he comments how much better the Q9 is.
And this TV does HDR properly, very few TVs can, even OLED.
OLED max out around 400nits while keeping the colour quality up and then have to cheat adding an extra white LED to boost up to 800nits, bleaching the colour. Nowhere near the 2000nits and super colour quality of the the Q9 !
Some HDR movies are mastered to 10K nits, many to 4K-2K nits and most to 1K nits.
OLED simply cannot do HDR justice, the same reason I didnt upgrade to a UHD projector.

The only downside of Samsung QLED vs OLED is the zone lighting with some very dark scenes where the background in a zone can raise above completely black when a lot of pixels are lit in that zone.
Note there is no black crush, no detail is lost, proven in one of the TV threads where I was questioned.

I much prefer a glorious HDR experience and occasional issue with very dark scenes than to have to use the TV only in a dark room and still get subpar HDR colour quality and brightness.
Especially because there is an HDR+ mode which makes nearly all none HDR material look fantastic. note I dont blast the brightness up with HDR+, it is kept to the same level as SDR so only boosts very bright objects and works surprisingly well, very much like having a high end CRT again but better.
I watch TV with HDR+ on all the time, the same for movies - except for true HDR media which get the proper experience.
HDR+ doesnt work as well with gaming, some look good, some the colours look wrong so SDR it is for those.
But thats no bad thing because SDR looks seriously good as well.
True HDR gaming is incredible, Shadow of the Tomb Raider is to behold. I tried it with HDR+ and while this game works quite well with it, true HDR is a jump in quality. HDR done properly.

edit:
The Samsung QLED Q7 to Q9 range dominate the colour volume (good colour throughout the full range of brightness) and Q6 + NU series follow shortly after.
1 OLED made the grade between them, the Sony A9F, only just beating the Samsung Q6.
LG OLED are much worse.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/color-volume-hdr-dci-p3-and-rec-2020


Do I miss my projector?
Yes, I would like the immersion of the huge wall of screen.
But the massive increase in colour detail/clarity/quality, brightness and superb HDR are an easy compensation that add their own huge immersion, I am more than happy.
No PJ can match this.
Getting the Q9 was a test to see if going back to a TV would suit me, my next trick is to get a bigger one :)


edit:
Some info on OLED burn in.
Many people report no problems with burn in and Rtings even reported the same.
https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/real-life-oled-burn-in-test
But this report states the maximum brightness used was only 200nits when you may need brighter in a daylit room.
And no testing was done with HDR material which is sure to give a different result.
The higher the power applied to an OLED gives an exponential wear, HDR is not going to be good for them.
Potential burn in, the loss of colour volume and the inability to display even the lower brightness of HDR material properly made me decide against OLED.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top