Microsoft: Blu-ray is Going to be Passed by as a Format

I agree that Blu-Ray offers a higher quality picture and sound than digital download.
I also agree that Blu-Ray will be dead in two to five years. Not because digital download quality improves to the same level as Blu-Ray (although I am sure some improvements will be made), but because the quality of 1080P digital download, as it exists today, is more than adequate for a majority of the public (who has no idea that 1080p off of DirecTV or download is any worse than 1080p off of Blu-Ray). Heck, most consumder don't even understand what compression is or why they should be concerned about it).

Just look at all the people who love their Uverse systems. That has to be some of the worst over-compressed picture quality available today.
 
computerpro3 said:
Again, a lot of you are talking out of your ass. On usenet I can download UNCOMPRESSED bluerays in about an hour to an hour and a half (40GB files), with no ads, trailers, or copy protection.

Explain to me how physical bluray is better?
Click to expand...

CUZ ITS NOT ILLEGAL?
 
Digital download IS ALREADY THE SAME QUALITY AS BLURAY. Just not from netflix and shit like that.
 
you are dumb sir. When people say digital download, they are not talking about pirate software. I cant believe this even has to be pointed out.
 
computerpro3 said:
Again, a lot of you are talking out of your ass. On usenet I can download UNCOMPRESSED bluerays in about an hour to an hour and a half (40GB files), with no ads, trailers, or copy protection.

Explain to me how physical bluray is better?
Click to expand...

studios get paid and you're not a thief?
 
computerpro3 said:
Again, a lot of you are talking out of your ass. On usenet I can download UNCOMPRESSED bluerays in about an hour to an hour and a half (40GB files), with no ads, trailers, or copy protection.

Explain to me how physical bluray is better?
Click to expand...

Didn't you mention on GenMay you were tempted to go 100Mb for $299 a month? Nobody's that dumb enough to pay that much for internet connection. Well almost nobody.

25/5 Comcast might be able to handle 1080p high bitrate streams, but I'd much rather not have to cross my fingers every time I'm watching a movie.
 
TheResidentEvil said:
you are dumb sir. When people say digital download, they are not talking about pirate software. I cant believe this even has to be pointed out.
Click to expand...

You are far dumber. Everyone is arguing about the impracticality of downloading, when thousands of people do it everyday.

Feasibility /= legality.

The only thing stopping uncompressed digital downloads is the studio execs.
 
webdev511 said:
While I agree with the analogy of Blu-ray=LaserDisc, Blu-ray is going to have a lot higher penetration. It will be the last optical format for consumers as things like streaming gets better and SDXC drops in price.

The whole reason there was an HD optical disc format war had less to do with consumers and more with each camp though the last optical format would be viable. The Blu-ray camp believe that "consumers want the most advanced format possible." and said that it would last 15 years or more and that justified the extra investment in completely new production lines. The HD DVD camp believed that "Consumers want high quality but didn't care about specs." and said that the format would last ten years and as such didn't warrant the substantial infrastructure investments. (I don't recall the exact numbers, but wasn't the cost of a full Blu-ray production line something like $1.5 million and the equipment to upgrade a DVD line to HD DVD was something like $100k?)

Fact is that today streaming can't touch the picture and sound quality of Blu-ray. That said it's hard to argue with just how convenient streaming is at a quality level that's "good enough" for a lot of people. Streaming is still growing, but the question remains of when it plateaus and what kind of share it as when it does so.

The only real wildcard is just how much the consumer electronic manufacturers are going to jam 3D down our throats. IMHO they are only doing it because they're pretty sure that 3D won't be streamable for a long time, making them the only providers. I for one hope consumers leave 3D out on the fringe.

Me personally? I will continue to RENT Blu-ray versions of movies that I missed in the theater and stream stuff off of Netflix or Zune Marketplace that catches my eye.
Click to expand...

The other wildcard is whether more and more ISPs will impose low caps on usage. That will be the one factor that slows/stops digital downloads.
 
Azhar said:
Didn't you mention on GenMay you were tempted to go 100Mb for $299 a month? Nobody's that dumb enough to pay that much for internet connection. Well almost nobody.

25/5 Comcast might be able to handle 1080p high bitrate streams, but I'd much rather not have to cross my fingers every time I'm watching a movie.
Click to expand...

Downloading them in an hour to an hour and a half is with my 30mbps connection for $59 a month.
 
computerpro3 said:
Downloading them in an hour to an hour and a half is with my 30mbps connection for $59 a month.
Click to expand...

Actually check that it takes longer for a 40GB file, I was basing my download times off of the 17-18GB files I download (I don't care about special features and multiple languages and such, but if you want to wait longer you can still get them).

Either way, it's faster than waiting for them in the mail.
 
that's not the same. You can't use piracy as a viable alternative to blu-ray. I understand where you are coming from with the hope for uncompressed downloads (I wish the same thing for music) but piracy is not the answer. Plus your downloading ripped blu-rays anyway lol.
 
Baker_God said:
that's not the same. You can't use piracy as a viable alternative to blu-ray. I understand where you are coming from with the hope for uncompressed downloads (I wish the same thing for music) but piracy is not the answer. Plus your downloading ripped blu-rays anyway lol.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's an answer. I'm saying the technology, infrastructure, and model already exists for a large part of the US population that has decent internet connections.

Digital download of uncompressed (or barely compressed) Blu-Rays is already here. All of you guys bitching about how digital download can never be equivalent to the disc are just wrong - it's just 1's and 0's, guys. It's just being blocked by the asshats at the MPAA.
 
Since it was coming from an EU guy you have to not think US centric. There is much better bandwidth in other countries. What are we 28th or something in available high speed internet? fast 1080p dls might be more common there.
 
Call me crazy but I still like to buy movies. I like the special features, the deleted scenes, the commentary. I like to be able to jump to chapters to show off what my home theater system and Blu-ray is capable of. If my internet is down I like to be able to pull a disc off the shelf and watch a movie. I love uncompressed high definition 7.1 surround sound audio. Don't even get me started on the 25Mbit/sec bitrate. You can't get any of that via digital download.

It always amazes my how everyone thinks Sony owns/created the Blu-ray format. Blu-ray was created by Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG , Hitachi, Sharp, Samsung and yes Sony. So don't hate on Blu-ray because you hate Sony. And stop giving credit to Sony for creating an amazing format when they were only 1/9th of the team.

These posts always seem to go off on Sony fanboy, Microsoft fanboy and people who got burned by HD-DVD tangents. The point of the quote was about how Microsoft wants to sell Xbox video games. I don't blame them. If you take emotion out of the equation it makes perfect sense.

1) The more games you want to own depends on how large a hard drive you buy from Microsoft. = $ for Microsoft
2) If you buy games directly from Microsoft they don't have to share the profits with retailers. = $ for Microsoft
3) If you download a game you can't sell it when you are done. People cant buy used games so if you want to play you have to pay Microsoft. = $ for Microsoft
4) The same thing applies to game rentals. You buy the game or you don't play it. = $ for Microsoft
5) All the money they will save on making a hard copy of the disc with all the packaging, do you think Microsoft is going to pass those savings on to you? = $ for Microsoft

That's just off the top of my head. You may now return to you tangent.
 
computerpro3 said:
Actually check that it takes longer for a 40GB file, I was basing my download times off of the 17-18GB files I download (I don't care about special features and multiple languages and such, but if you want to wait longer you can still get them).

Either way, it's faster than waiting for them in the mail.
Click to expand...


So I can sit there and wait 3 hours or more to pirate a movie (assuming I have a 30meg connection - which is actually a low percentage of users, thus making it MUCH longer of a wait), or I can jump onto Netflix and stream a movie at decent quality onto my HDTV (which I do and am very satisfied with), OR take a 7 minute drive to a McDonald's and rent a Blu-ray movie.

hmmmm... Wasting 3+ hours (or 18+ hours in my case) of my life waiting for a pirated 40GB file to download for a 1.5 hour viewing just doesn't sound that appealing.
 
computerpro3 said:
I'm not saying it's an answer. I'm saying the technology, infrastructure, and model already exists for a large part of the US population that has decent internet connections.

Digital download of uncompressed (or barely compressed) Blu-Rays is already here. All of you guys bitching about how digital download can never be equivalent to the disc are just wrong - it's just 1's and 0's, guys. It's just being blocked by the asshats at the MPAA.
Click to expand...

I think their argument is that "currently" there is not a legal alternative that is of the same quality. I'm all for high quality downloads, not sure it would be my bag, but for people like you it would be great. I love a physical media. The issue is with people who are fine with current legal offerings of digital content. It's just frustrating to hear people argue immediate convenience over quality of the experience. I guess a lot of people are more impatient than I.
 
computerpro3 said:
All of you guys bitching about how digital download can never be equivalent to the disc are just wrong - it's just 1's and 0's, guys. It's just being blocked by the asshats at the MPAA.
Click to expand...
The MPAA has nothing to do with it. If a studio wishes to offer high-def digital downloads, they can do so freely.
 
computerpro3 said:
Again, a lot of you are talking out of your ass. On usenet I can download UNCOMPRESSED bluerays in about an hour to an hour and a half (40GB files), with no ads, trailers, or copy protection.

Explain to me how physical bluray is better?
Click to expand...

Actually you are the one talking out of their ass. Downloading a copy of a movie to your hard drive (pirated or not) has no bearing in comparison to Bluray disk vs. streaming. For all practical purposes you have a ripped Bluray copy on your hard drive you are not streaming that copy from Usenet. Your entire point is moot.

The fact you are pirating said videos is a whole other topic. Yes we know you can download pirated media from Usenet, welcome to 20 years ago :rolleyes: .
 
MS is still butthurt over backing HD-DVD.

What MS/Apple etc. want is for you to just rent movies/games/etc from now on and not own anything. They want full control. So that they can change your games, delete it and monitor how you use it and when.

No thanks. Try and download 50GB off of a 300K DSL or Cable connection. It will take a week or more.
 
robothunter said:
Call me crazy but I still like to buy movies. I like the special features, the deleted scenes, the commentary. I like to be able to jump to chapters to show off what my home theater system and Blu-ray is capable of. If my internet is down I like to be able to pull a disc off the shelf and watch a movie. I love uncompressed high definition 7.1 surround sound audio. Don't even get me started on the 25Mbit/sec bitrate. You can't get any of that via digital download.

It always amazes my how everyone thinks Sony owns/created the Blu-ray format. Blu-ray was created by Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG , Hitachi, Sharp, Samsung and yes Sony. So don't hate on Blu-ray because you hate Sony. And stop giving credit to Sony for creating an amazing format when they were only 1/9th of the team.

These posts always seem to go off on Sony fanboy, Microsoft fanboy and people who got burned by HD-DVD tangents. The point of the quote was about how Microsoft wants to sell Xbox video games. I don't blame them. If you take emotion out of the equation it makes perfect sense.

1) The more games you want to own depends on how large a hard drive you buy from Microsoft. = $ for Microsoft
2) If you buy games directly from Microsoft they don't have to share the profits with retailers. = $ for Microsoft
3) If you download a game you can't sell it when you are done. People cant buy used games so if you want to play you have to pay Microsoft. = $ for Microsoft
4) The same thing applies to game rentals. You buy the game or you don't play it. = $ for Microsoft
5) All the money they will save on making a hard copy of the disc with all the packaging, do you think Microsoft is going to pass those savings on to you? = $ for Microsoft

That's just off the top of my head. You may now return to you tangent.
Click to expand...

nicely said. This thread is going to devolve into name-calling very shortly, this may be the last rational post.
 
To get the visual payoff of BluRay you need a good set. 40" or larger, 120hz and 1080p. For the first year I was on BD, I had a 4year old 32" 720p 60Hz LCD TV. I really didn't see what the big deal about BD was all about. Now I've bumped up to a 46" Bravia. Now I get it. BD is an amazing format. And the only thing that comes close to BD quality is over the air ATSC broadcasts from PBS.

But what hasn't helped the format is the shoddy state of BD mastering. It basically means getting a good BD version from older films is a crap shoot. Buying Avatar or Toy Story 3- safe bet. Buying Gladiator or Top Gun- not so much. An alarming number of BDs are simply up-conversions from standard def masters instead of remasters from original negative. So when people say they don't see the difference between BDs and DVDs- I first ask em' what they're watching.

I like digital downloads and streaming. I watch Netflix and Amazon 720p streams more than I watch BD. (IMHO, 720p streaming is only marginally better than a physical DVD.) But the infrastructure for 1080p over the internet isn't there yet. When the U.S. average broadband speed exceeds single digits- then we can talk. But even if we do get that fast- it may be 1920x1080 pixels, but it will *never* approach the quality of a physical BD.
 
With the lacking US infrastructure, you have a point about streaming. But not for digital downloads. Most people would rather wait 2 hours for a download to finish in advance than 3 days to get it from netflix.
 
computerpro3 said:
On usenet I can download UNCOMPRESSED bluerays in about an hour to an hour and a half (40GB files), with no ads, trailers, or copy protection.
Click to expand...

Must be nice. That kind of bandwidth just isn't available here, which is why I finally gave in and bought a BR player. And we just got our 256k DSL "upgraded," too, which probably means we're several years from getting this kind of bandwidth. Small town, very limited options.

Honestly, I'm no fan of Blu-Ray. The wrong format won. But I'm not going to be waiting for Sasktel to catch up to the bandwidth necessary to stream HD content. At this rate, that could be decades.
 
ccmfreak2 said:
I'm not a fan of Bluray. I prefer the digital format, and have not had any issues or complaints streaming netflix at a relatively good quality onto my 1080p HDTV via HDMI from my laptop. I dont' suffer from graininess or perceived low quality streaming with the middle range internet service for my area (5mb/s down).

However, I do realize Bluray has it's niche. And that's exactly what it is - a niche. Sales are proving that. Some consumers are purchasing Bluray. But it hardly compares to those who are streaming and/or using dvd's. No one argues the quality advantages of Bluray vs all other mediums. They only argument is the majority of the market's adoption of Blueray. I, for one, don't own a Bluray player, and have NO plans of getting one. I would never utilize it enough to justify the cost.
Click to expand...

Afraid to break it too you but Digital streaming and downloads are far more niche then blu-ray at this point. However the bolded part is the important part. You are satisfied with that quality and that is fine. However to infer that it is anywhere close to blu-ray without having any actual experience is absurd. I have netflix as well and I do enjoy its convenience, but the quality is not even in the same ballpark.

TheResidentEvil said:
CUZ ITS NOT ILLEGAL?
Click to expand...

That would be one good reasons..yes.

computerpro3 said:
Digital download IS ALREADY THE SAME QUALITY AS BLURAY. Just not from netflix and shit like that.
Click to expand...

However it is more then just being able to download a full blu-ray rip. There are also bandwidth issues (caps), people having a machine actually capable of running a blu-ray at full resolution and a plethora of other reasons. Not to mention that at this time I am unaware of any "LEGAL" sources of digital blu-ray downloads. So as such the statement that blu-ray is going anywhere anytime soon is absurd. Digital is great, but it is not going to be taking over the market anytime in the next 5 years and to argue otherwise is blind fanboism.

BOTH formats have their place and will maintain a strong presence in the market for the foreseeable future. Diversity benefits the consumer, some of you are arguing to have more choice taken away from us, I really don't understand that kind of insane selfishness. Either those arguing that are; 1) made of money and don't care, 2) Pirating and don't care, 3 trolling because they have no idea what they are actually talking about.
 
computerpro3 said:
With the lacking US infrastructure, you have a point about streaming. But not for digital downloads. Most people would rather wait 2 hours for a download to finish in advance than 3 days to get it from netflix.
Click to expand...

1) You are greatly overestimating the average speed in this country. 25mbit isn't common at all. Heck, I've been in several areas (both cities and small towns) where the speed topped out at ~10mbit, and good luck actually getting that.

2) You are completely ignoring bandwidth caps. The only reason you can download 20gb in an hour or two is because others aren't. If everyone tried to do that in your area, it would slow to a crawl.
 
Meh. I'll take DVD and Blu-Ray over ANY stream or digital technology. I don't buy movies for just the movies, I also buy them for extras. No way in hell am I going to spend over $5 for a movie without extras, same applies to digital movies. I'm willing to rent digital movies from time to time, but more often than not I'd rather go to the movie store and pay a buck for a five day rental of something and enjoy it.
 
Until we can all get internet connections that can push a solid 40Mbps this is just a pipe dream.

The absolute fastest I can get in my area is half of that. ISPs are too busy screwing us to really care about infrastructure.
 
computerpro3 said:
With the lacking US infrastructure, you have a point about streaming. But not for digital downloads. Most people would rather wait 2 hours for a download to finish in advance than 3 days to get it from netflix.
Click to expand...

We got the music industry to back off of DRM for music. The only way for digital downloads to *really* work is to ditch DRM.

But I don't think we'll ever get the the movie/TV industry to go the same route.
 
If Blu-rays were as cheap as DVD's then it would be no contest; they will drop dramatically in price long before broadband speeds are fast enough for HD streaming and then all those who knock BD will be raving how for a few bucks they get 7.1 lossless audio and beautiful 1080p picture they can actually OWN rather than a download which no one else can borrow.
 
Streaming is a great technology, however there are still plenty of people who don't have an internet connection, or are not able to get high speed. Add to those without broadband the people who want to be able to "hold it", and those who fear network outages will ruin a movie night, and you have a considerable market. To increase it further, you have videophiles, who cannot stand the amount of fidelity loss streaming gives due to the requirement for compression.

You also have to realize that if everyone streamed every movie that they ever watched, all ISPs would change their model to pay-per-bit, and streaming would not be economical anymore.

I think this guy has not thought it through all the way.
 
I think the thing that many people that are invested in bluray forget is that they are a minority holder in the marketplace.

the mass market is embracing streaming content at a very quick pace, and it could easily outpace bluray sales before long. now maybe both can coexist in the market, but if more systems like roku, google tv, apple tv, and other media streaming boxes come out at cheaper prices, i bet youll see sharp adoption of streaming media over bluray/3d.

its not a question of sheer quality. sure, everyone wants the best picture, but most people:

1. dont see the value in buying all the equipment to achieve it

2. are satisfied with streaming quality, even if its not true HD

3. value the convenience and price over best quality


'best' doesnt always win, but in the case streaming also has some advantages over bluray, so itll be interesting to see if streaming media really takes off over the next year.
 
trooper11 said:
I think the thing that many people that are invested in bluray forget is that they are a minority holder in the marketplace.

the mass market is embracing streaming content at a very quick pace, and it could easily outpace bluray sales before long. now maybe both can coexist in the market, but if more systems like roku, google tv, apple tv, and other media streaming boxes come out at cheaper prices, i bet youll see sharp adoption of streaming media over bluray/3d.

its not a question of sheer quality. sure, everyone wants the best picture, but most people:

1. dont see the value in buying all the equipment to achieve it

2. are satisfied with streaming quality, even if its not true HD

3. value the convenience and price over best quality


'best' doesnt always win, but in the case streaming also has some advantages over bluray, so itll be interesting to see if streaming media really takes off over the next year.
Click to expand...

Not really. The majority of the people in the US don't have anywhere near the connection speed required for HD streaming. They're lucky if they can reliably stream SD content. A year is WAY too short of a time. Even if every ISP got together tomorrow and pledged to actually fix the terrible infrastructure of the country it would take years to get to that point. People earlier have mentioned 5 years and thats probably a good minimum estimate.
 
On the subject of Usenet downloading of movies...I have to wonder if those speeds would hold up to a shitload of people streaming the movie instead of a pretty tiny niche.
Just look at IE9. It was a 10 second download and 1-minute update before MS posted links on their front page. Afterward there were people taking 30 minutes or more to download/update it...and it's not like MS doesn't have a good infrastructure.
 
H-street said:
i completely agree, i put a bluray in mylaptop, signed up for bluray on netflix got in 5 or 6 blurays and took it off, it just wasn't that impressive (and yes i do have a native 1080p display). Maybe for the hardcore theatre enthusiast, but for the masses i just don't think so. (Bluray will probably be the same as laser disk, around but just not many people use it)

the digital streaming is just too convientent and the quality is actually really good. Add on that were devices like the Wii and Xbox360 (and win7 media player) support it and its hard to argue that its the way of the future.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is pertanent to compare bRD to lazerdisk considering the prices and originality the lazerdiaks actually were.
 
greengrovesystems said:
I doubt most people's internet connection can handle a 1080p stream... And I'm not talking about us power users here.

On a side note, I wish OSX supported blu-ray.
Click to expand...

A 1 1/2 hour 1080p movie takes around 15 GB of space. 15,000 MB divided by 90min/movie*60sek/min

that's 2,7 MB/s or close to 20Mb internet-connection.. you're right, it's not even close
 
Hels said:
A 1 1/2 hour 1080p movie takes around 15 GB of space. 15,000 MB divided by 90min/movie*60sek/min

that's 2,7 MB/s or close to 20Mb internet-connection.. you're right, it's not even close
Click to expand...

Ever see a 20mb connection pull down at a solid 2.7mb/s for 5 minutes much less 90? What was that? No? That's what I thought. That and there is a difference between megabyte and megabit, but that is another argument entirely.
 
Derangel said:
Not really. The majority of the people in the US don't have anywhere near the connection speed required for HD streaming. They're lucky if they can reliably stream SD content. A year is WAY too short of a time. Even if every ISP got together tomorrow and pledged to actually fix the terrible infrastructure of the country it would take years to get to that point. People earlier have mentioned 5 years and thats probably a good minimum estimate.
Click to expand...

it would be itneresting to see some numbers to back that up. i wonder how many households have internet access good enough to stream SD or HD content. I would think SD level access would be rather high.

Either way, if SD access the majority, that doesnt change the convenience/price issue that will attract alot of average users. I mentioned a year becuase of all the announcements of new hardware for stremaing media locally over your home nework and internet sources like netlfix. the hardware is going to be there are prices anyone can afford.
 
trooper11 said:
it would be itneresting to see some numbers to back that up. i wonder how many households have internet access good enough to stream SD or HD content. I would think SD level access would be rather high.

Either way, if SD access the majority, that doesnt change the convenience/price issue that will attract alot of average users. I mentioned a year becuase of all the announcements of new hardware for stremaing media locally over your home nework and internet sources like netlfix. the hardware is going to be there are prices anyone can afford.
Click to expand...

I used to think the same thing. I have broadband and it's affordable. I have several very fast computers - it's so easy to build and maintain and upgrade - so cheap too these days.

Then I met my girlfriend.

No cable TV

No broadband internet

Runs a 9 year old computer with a Celeron processor and 512mb RAM and a 38gb ATA4 drive.

Has a 19" television with a build-in VCR and DVD player.

Hoo boy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top