We are quickly approaching the END of ALL format wars. The question is not IF but WHEN?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/technology/index.html

Listen to the last minute from 6:30 to 7:30 BEFORE jumping to conclusions.

I'm not here to just discuss Blu Ray dying off, but FORMATS dying off as a source of discussion.

Just as DVD has begun to sputter, all of these format products have worked in an uptake and decline cycle. The music industry (sans rentals) bears out what may very well happen with HDM.

Videocasettes preceded DVDs which led to HDM to ????. Audio casettes preceded CDs which led to SACD/DVD-A to digital distribution (commensurate with the broadband pipelines).


This is I believe the apt comparison.

Audio cassette -> Compact Disc -> SACD/DVD-A -> Digital Distribution

Video Cassette -> Digital Versatile Disc -> BluRay

There is no difference between these two cycles. And the differences which do exist are a distinction without a difference. Content providers embrace new mediums to get out their product in an effort to capture high margins and when those margins either:

1) do not materialize into profitability
or
2) begin to fall into a commodity status

ALL content providers move on to the next medium. The only questions are which of these two occurrences WILL take place and at what rate?

NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY knows which will occur and at what rate.

What is fairly certain, however is how either scenario would play out.
#1
If Blu Ray maintains margins but doesn't generate high sustained profitability, it will be left on the wayside just like SACD/DVD-A relative to CD.
#2
If Blu Ray catches on, it will sell for a period of time competing against other methods of content distribution until such time as it comes to resemble a commodity price curve.

WHEN either of these happen, content providers will move on to the next medium. PERIOD.

To some degree, there is also the hybrid option, but I tend to think of it as more of a transitory occurrence. Studios have already begin hedging their bets on digital distribution. Many, in fact, inked deals with Microsoft, Apple, Vudu, ComCast, and others before the HDM war was even settled.

I suspect that they did so for two reasons because:

1) the market was too fragmented [PS3 player is highest selling BR, VOD, DVD still selling too well, Digital downloading - people watching TV shows directly from ABC, CBS, etc];

and

2) the evidence of the cycle modeling the music industry was too strong (probably not matching in pace, but the trend) and they expect future falling margins until commodity status for BR and want to keep sustained high margins for as long as it is possible.

My point is simply this. We are quickly coming to the end of all format wars. Universal players will accept SD cards that hold 50 Gigs or USB dongles or have wired/wireless access with 10 terrabyte and larger drives.

My contention is simple, powerful, and without equivocation. Format Wars won't exist after Blu Ray....just like how DRM and formats are being removed from music. :)

I think there are other sources of entertainment now mainly due to the internet. Music sales are way off, printed media is getting destroyed, network news and shows are seeing a decline, and even DVD sales are starting to tumble without the coresponding uptake in HDM.

I think there are many forces acting in the market right now.

I think there are other sources of entertainment now mainly due to the internet. Music sales are way off, printed media is getting destroyed, network news and shows are seeing a decline, and even DVD sales are starting to tumble without the coresponding uptake in HDM.

I think there are many forces acting in the market right now.

Isn't that at least in part due to the homogenization of devices and software? The PS3 will do everything except play Xbox 360 games, send out bitstream audio in True HD and DTS-MA HD, and play HD-DVDs. Now, just imagine the PS4 or Xbox 720....they won't have a disc drive. There won't be a format....it will all just be about the content.

We are quickly approaching the END of ALL format wars. The question is not IF but WHEN?Most of the online movie services use proprietary formats so even looking at the very long term I don't see format wars coming to an end this century.


Audio casettes preceded CDs which led to SACD/DVD-A to digital distribution (commensurate with the broadband pipelines).I would point out that the most popular legal online music service (iTunes) is based on a proprietary format.


Now, just imagine the PS4 or Xbox 720....they won't have a disc drive. There won't be a format....it will all just be about the content.Well besides finding it very unlikely that the next generation of game consoles won't have disc drives I don't see format wars going away with online video/audio services. If anything online video services like Xbox Marketplace are the pinnacle of proprietary formats being limited to a single product. As such call me skeptical when I hear someone say that there won't be any issue with formats in the future.

There is something you guys are forgetting.

Everyone has a computer so downloading music on to a portable device is fine.

But not everyone has the internet or computer going to their main TV.

And not everyone has DVRs capable of storing and downloading High Def programs over their cable.

Now evetually this might be the case, but it will take a lot longer than you people think.

And the PS4 and XBOX 720, will have disc drives. We simply won't be ready for all downloads in the next few years.

Most of the online movie services use proprietary formats so even looking at the very long term I don't see format wars coming to an end this century.

Exactly. I don't know why people lump everything into "downloads" when they have more "formats" than the physical products.

I have tried a number of downloading services using DSL, cable modem, and very fast fiber connections to the Internet.

Mostly I have tried SD content that is "DVD quality" they say but far worse in fact. I have tried some HD content.

I have a long list of issues with this approach and feel that it will be a very long time before it works satisfactorily. So many issues that it pains me to list them here.

Also, people like hard media, collecting things is in our DNA.

But, just give it a try and see how you like it.

Also, people like hard media, collecting things is in our DNA.


I don't doubt that downloads will be visually and acoustically inferior (for now) to most equivalent physical formats. However, I disagree on the collecting things. I've got 80 HD DVD's, and I already have fatigue. When I go Blu, I will likely rent as much as possible.

You are mistaken when you show SACD/DVD-A succeeding CDs - never happened and never will. And in both cases the only relation to CD is the size of the disc itself. I do agree that hard copy media like casettes and discs will decline in popularity, though I really think SD-DVD will have a very long run. Blu-Ray I don't think will ever have anywhere near the same success as SD-DVD, and the sad thing about the BR "victory" is that it killed a format (HD-DVD) that could easily have replaced SD-DVD with higher quality video for the masses.

As for the drop in CD sales there are many forces at work, including the internet and easy music downloads of music. It is also a generational thing - my generation grew up appreciating good music and enjoyed the higher sound quality of CD (or good vinyl even). Today's generation grew up listening to rap and hip-hop and music that lasts about a week and then is replaced by another mindless piece of musical garbage. Audio quality of such music is unimportant, which is why young people today have no problem with MP3 degraded quality, and see no point in investing in a high fidelity audio system. The fact that many teens are using recreational drugs while listening to their music doesn't help in their musical judgment either. If you check out the music videos on cable MTV you will find 90% of what they are showing are urban rap/crap music. The days of good music on VH1 are long gone. Only the MTV Country music channel has anything approaching listenable music (and I am not a big country music fan), and sometimes the MTV Latin music channel, though it has become mostly urbanized as well. The music industry has sown the seeds of their own demise by catering to the adolescent market and ignoring high quality music that drove CD sales for many years. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

Digital distribution is inevitable, you cant stop it, its just a matter of when.

People are quite rightly proud of their movie collections on here but soon J6P will have access to even more movies at a flick of a few buttons on his remote, that and not having to get of the sofa will be the clincher.

When the tech is ready the companies that are going to push it will be so aggressive that the pick up will be very quick, they will need to build up installer base quickly and the movie studios will also love pushing a format where the profit margins are through the roof.

Digital distribution is inevitable, you cant stop it, its just a matter of when.

People are quite rightly proud of their movie collections on here but soon J6P will have access to even more movies at a flick of a few buttons on his remote, that and not having to get of the sofa will be the clincher.

"When" is now for those of us with digital cable. I can "download" movies for viewing using VOD or PPV anytime I want, and I can record scheduled programs for later viewing using a HD DVR. I can even make non-HD copies onto DVD-R for archiving if I want, at least for now. And music downloads have been a reality for quite a while. There will always be different formats available for whatever purpose works best. PPV or VOD downloads for viewing "now" are convenient for some. Others will want to downloads for archiving and will pay for the right to do that. Others want portability, which means recording onto a disc or a flashcard, or whatever. The point is that we will have choices of formats ("form" really) regardless. The main variables will be cost and convenience. PQ, like SQ, will be secondary for many, as it is with MP3 downloads. High resolution video and audio will probably become a niche market, and that is where hard disc (DVD, BR or CD) will hold out for a long time to come, IMO.

I live less than 100km north of the U.S. border, and Apple (and copyright owners, of course) will not allow me to download ANY movie.

I'm not impressed by the prospects of digital distribution so far. :rolleyes:

PQ, like SQ, will be secondary for many, as it is with MP3 downloads.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I specifically don't buy music from iTunes or similar services because I don't see the point in paying $10 for a crappy 128k bitrate AAC file. In many instances, i can get the CD for about the same price +/- a dollar or two. Listen to the music on anything other than the cheap headphones that come with an iPod and you can easily hear the difference between a 128k file vs. a 256k file for example. As for PQ following the path music has taken (in terms of convenience winning out over quality) I disagree. All of my customers, once exposed to HD picture quality, cannot watch SD unless they absolutely have to. I've heard the story over and over about how they find themselves deliberately seeking out HD programming over SD. Back on the music front, let's not forget that storage capacities increase significantly from one device (or version) to the next. I bought a 16gb iPod touch (all my music is ripped @ 256k or higher and my iPod is used exclusively in my cars) in December and 2 months later, new units now have a max capacity of 32gb. Eventually, I think the quality of downloaded music will improve because size will no longer be a constraint (except for those with colossal music collections). I couldn't fill up a 160gb iPod Classic if I wanted to, unless I filled it with movies and TV shows. All that said, downloading has a way to go yet. $5 for an HD movie rental in AppleTV is a bit much. I'll stick to Netflix and I'll get a Blu-ray for less than an Apple TV rental.

Digital distribution is going to be more of a niche than blu-ray when dial-up still has
the market share on the internet.Even if you get the speed up to par the masses
will not pay the premium,do you know anyone getting more out of these providers and
they pay less i know mine goes up it seems yearly.

Most of the online movie services use proprietary formats so even looking at the very long term I don't see format wars coming to an end this century.

I would point out that the most popular legal online music service (iTunes) is based on a proprietary format.

Exactly. I don't know why people lump everything into "downloads" when they have more "formats" than the physical products.

What you both say is true, but not as relevant, IMHO. Formats for physical distribution methods (disks, tapes) matter because you actually need to physically possess a player for each format.

For on-line distributions, the "player" software is usually free (sometimes without even paying for a download, a la iTunes). So I can have dozens of players for the various online media distributions loaded into my PC and not care a whit.

The only place the download content format gets annoying is when you try to use the download on a portable device designed for only one of the formats (iPods AAC vs WMA). This is just stupidity on the part of the device manufacturers, and eventually will become a non-issue, IMHO, if/when third-party devices get licensed (maybe after a Supreme Court ruling or two...) for all formats, or every device comes with a format converter that also allows conversion of the license token for the download (may also require a SC ruling or two).

I also agree with other posters that download fees that are close to the cost of buying the physical distribution media (but often of lower quality) are not going to be as popular. A download of the latest album from an artist should be less than half the cost of buying the physical CD/media, especially if the download isn't lossless.

And finally, right now, with the limited number of people that use downloads as a common source of media, the internet-bandwidth can be challenging (or a complete stonewall for many folks). If everyone around the ("industrialized"?) world actually downloaded all their entertainment and other media, the world's internet infrastructure would need pipelines orders of magnitude bigger than the current state-of-the-art in urban centers. This just isn't going to happen for a while. But it probably will happen eventually...

As noted previously, this is IMHO, YMMV,

shinksma

The core flaw in comparing the MP3 revolution to some hypothetical "all downloads" future for video is assuming that audio and video are consumed the same way. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love having an iPod with my whole music collection on it, so I can listen to music while I'm doing other things--working, driving in the car, working out at the gym, falling asleep, etc. But by definition, I have to give my full attention to a movie, so I want it in the best quality I can get, not some lossy HD-Lite download.

Here's the only way I would move completely to video downloads:

Quality and extras equal to maxiumum capabilities of BD (1080p, etc.)
Download speed faster than my current cable modem
An "all-you-can-eat" subscription model, reasonably priced, with effectively every movie from every movie studio available, OR individual downloads with no DRM, or DRM that won't prevent me from watching it on any of my TVs, or a portable player, or loaning it out
Ability to keep and archive downloads if desired (not just rentals available) -- goes with above
Anyone want to tell me we're going to have something like that available to more than a small minority of the population of the U.S. in less than 20 years? I don't think so.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I specifically don't buy music from iTunes or similar services because I don't see the point in paying $10 for a crappy 128k bitrate AAC file. In many instances, i can get the CD for about the same price +/- a dollar or two. Listen to the music on anything other than the cheap headphones that come with an iPod and you can easily hear the difference between a 128k file vs. a 256k file for example.Exactly, and that's why I thank heavens for Amazon's new DRM-free 256Kbps MP3 sales. I can finally completely move to downloaded music purchases. Forget iTunes.

Exactly, and that's why I thank heavens for Amazon's new DRM-free 256Kbps MP3 sales. I can finally completely move to downloaded music purchases. Forget iTunes.

I use an i-pod but it has my music to lossless untill download services offer
lossless i will only use it for one hit wonders where i wasn't going to purchase
the cd for one song same as watching a movie one time many viewings
disc required.

Can't compare music and movies. You're not going to watch a movie while you're driving to work or out jogging. To the majority of people, music is there as background noise while you're doing something else, whereas movies require your entire attention.

Just ask youself this, how many people do you know that go home, get comfortable and just listen to music. Better yet, how often do you think parents say "Hey kids, lets all sit down as a family and listen to this cd!". Or invite their friends over to listen to their stereo. I know that I never have, but I have invited friends over to watch movies.

How does this premise hold up?

There are two formats for every type of distribution.
Physical Media and CODEC's (software, COmpression/DECompression)

Even with a defined and fully agree upon physical "media" type for whether it's for on-demand, download or physical; there will be a format war going on with the CODEC's. Sony has established a long history of taking tangents in the middle of standards definition groups to suddenly introduce their version of "stuff". Sony then gets P.O'd because the working group tells Sony that it's a bit late for it to be submitting another set of criteria for consideration, and to work with what was agreed upon by the group as a move forward position. For that matter Apple isn't all to innocent with these tactics either (iTunes/MP3). On the surface, these "conflicts" generate a lot of free advertising/press for the company that throws a tantrum with the standard of the moment.

I think there are other sources of entertainment now mainly due to the internet. Music sales are way off, printed media is getting destroyed, network news and shows are seeing a decline, and even DVD sales are starting to tumble without the coresponding uptake in HDM.

I think there are many forces acting in the market right now.

IMO the biggest factor is saturation of the market. On both DVD and CD you can basically buy any movie, or any album you want, just about everything is available. I think the real problem facing the content industry is that consumers have everything they want, so sales that were artificially inflated due to people building collections are now falling to where they should be for just new releases.

That would be a very interesting metric to see, has the sales volume of new releases dropped off as much as the market as a whole, I'd guess not.

The problem Blu-ray faces is that DVD is good, and Blu-ray is not enough better to get the majority of people to rebuy everything on BD.

There is something you guys are forgetting.

Everyone has a computer so downloading music on to a portable device is fine.

But not everyone has the internet or computer going to their main TV.

You don't need a computer, or internet. The AppleTV can download movies without anything more than a power connection next to your TV.

And not everyone has DVRs capable of storing and downloading High Def programs over their cable.

But anyone who wants to do that can get a DVR for free (up front) from their service provider.

Now evetually this might be the case, but it will take a lot longer than you people think.

I think most will be quite surprised at the speed these things happen. For all intents and purposes, home entertainment has stepped into the IT/computer world, and that world moves orders of magnitude faster than the traditional audio/video industries.

And the PS4 and XBOX 720, will have disc drives. We simply won't be ready for all downloads in the next few years.

Yeah, they probably will, but I wouldn't be surprised if they offered the option of getting games electronically. Xbox Live already lets you get Xbox games electronically.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I specifically don't buy music from iTunes or similar services because I don't see the point in paying $10 for a crappy 128k bitrate AAC file.

You're not alone, but we're definitely in the minority.

As for PQ following the path music has taken (in terms of convenience winning out over quality) I disagree. All of my customers, once exposed to HD picture quality, cannot watch SD unless they absolutely have to.

First, I don't understand that feelling, I can still happily watch SD, but thats beside the point. We're not really talking about HD vs not, we're talking about uncompromised HD (ala BD), vs "optomized" HD (ala AppleTV). See the "Apple TV's not bad" thread. AppleTV succeeds in providing something better than DVD, something better than Cable or Satellite HD, something that's not even close to BD spec wise.

When we say people will choose convenience over quality, we're saying that people will choose 5Mbps, 720p non-artifacty HD (ala Apple TV or Xbox Live) over 30-40Mbps 1080p "perfect" HD (ala BD) if the former is significantly more convenient.

This is exactly like MP3, most people don't have the equipment, or care to tell the difference between 128k mp3 and CD, similarly I'd bet most people don't have the equipment or care to tell the difference between AppleTV HD and Blu-ray.

$5 for an HD movie rental in AppleTV is a bit much. I'll stick to Netflix and I'll get a Blu-ray for less than an Apple TV rental.

This was mentioned in the AppleTV thread, but you do get something for the added cost of an AppleTV rental vs Netflix, several things in fact:
1) No waiting days to weeks for a movie you want.
2) The guarantee that the movie will play (no scratched discs)

I put my netflix account on hold because of the absolutely atrocious turn around time on HD discs. Maybe they were preparing for dropping HD DVD, so I'll probably reinstate my account when I get a BD player, but given netflix service and that I usually only watch one movie a week, AppleTV or Xbox Live are very real/competitive alternatives for me to netflix, even if the quality is a bit less.

The core flaw in comparing the MP3 revolution to some hypothetical "all downloads" future...

I guarantee you, 100% that everything will be transfered electronically in the future. I'm very certain that I will see that future, and I'd guess it will happen before most of those really attached to discs expect.

...for video is assuming that audio and video are consumed the same way. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love having an iPod with my whole music collection on it, so I can listen to music while I'm doing other things--working, driving in the car, working out at the gym, falling asleep, etc. But by definition, I have to give my full attention to a movie, so I want it in the best quality I can get, not some lossy HD-Lite download.

You're absolutely right, movies and music are absolutely consumed in different ways, this is one major reason why I think VOD is the future of movie distribution. Most people, even those who buy every movie, only watch most movies once. Contrast this with music where you normally listen to songs over and over again.

I think that once a service appears that makes accessing any movie, at any time, and for a reasonable price (eg Netflix without the mailing), movie sales will go down hill.

Here's the only way I would move completely to video downloads:

Quality and extras equal to maxiumum capabilities of BD (1080p, etc.)
Download speed faster than my current cable modem
An "all-you-can-eat" subscription model, reasonably priced, with effectively every movie from every movie studio available, OR individual downloads with no DRM, or DRM that won't prevent me from watching it on any of my TVs, or a portable player, or loaning it out
Ability to keep and archive downloads if desired (not just rentals available) -- goes with above
Anyone want to tell me we're going to have something like that available to more than a small minority of the population of the U.S. in less than 20 years? I don't think so.

I fully expect there to be a service that offers great quality, huge collections, subscription service, and no "downloading", ie a real VOD service, to be available in 20 years easy, probably less than 10. In fact, the first hints of that are here today, AppleTV and Xbox Live offer good HD movies almost on demand today (wish one or both had a subscription model). XStreamHD, due out this fall promises better than BD quality (higher maximum bitrates, lossless audio), we'll see how pricing/selection goes.

Here's the only way I would move completely to video downloads:

Quality and extras equal to maxiumum capabilities of BD (1080p, etc.)
Download speed faster than my current cable modem
An "all-you-can-eat" subscription model, reasonably priced, with effectively every movie from every movie studio available, OR individual downloads with no DRM, or DRM that won't prevent me from watching it on any of my TVs, or a portable player, or loaning it out
Ability to keep and archive downloads if desired (not just rentals available) -- goes with above
Anyone want to tell me we're going to have something like that available to more than a small minority of the population of the U.S. in less than 20 years? I don't think so.

We will have that available to more than a small minority of the U.S. in 10 years worst case. I would be more than willing to bet on 5 years.

RT

We must keep in mind that the IT revolution is being led by the young - teens and not much older, and they want convenience more than anything. They are the prime market for Apple, Walmart, and all the other internet/download vendors. And while you and I will demand HD quality in our movies, the X/Z generation will be happy to get something less if it fits their download lifestyle (free or cheap, convenient, easy to share). They are not going to invest $10,000 in a high quality HT settup like many AVS members. They will watch movies on their laptops or their iphones, or whatever is hanging on their hip.

We must keep in mind that the IT revolution is being led by the young - teens and not much older, and they want convenience more than anything. They are the prime market for Apple, Walmart, and all the other internet/download vendors. And while you and I will demand HD quality in our movies, the X/Z generation will be happy to get something less if it fits their download lifestyle (free or cheap, convenient, easy to share). They are not going to invest $10,000 in a high quality HT settup like many AVS members. They will watch movies on their laptops or their iphones, or whatever is hanging on their hip.

So the largest purchasers of videos are people <22? years old? Who's money and what money are they buying these videos with?

We must keep in mind that the IT revolution is being led by the young - teens and not much older, and they want convenience more than anything. They are the prime market for Apple, Walmart, and all the other internet/download vendors. And while you and I will demand HD quality in our movies, the X/Z generation will be happy to get something less if it fits their download lifestyle (free or cheap, convenient, easy to share). They are not going to invest $10,000 in a high quality HT settup like many AVS members. They will watch movies on their laptops or their iphones, or whatever is hanging on their hip.

Agreed, ease of access not quality has become the defacto.

.....look I can cram 40 million songs a CD, and then I'll play them on my $8000 car stereo (oops, in-car entertainment) system. ....you're joking right, the 'perceived' listening bandwidth is far superior to the 44.1KHz sampling of the CD, did I mention that I got 40 million songs on the same CD that you can only get 8 songs on with your old-fashioned sample rate?

We will have that available to more than a small minority of the U.S. in 10 years worst case. I would be more than willing to bet on 5 years.Ain't gonna happen in even 20 years.

I wish people would stop making the comparison to music downloads. A song is what, maybe 5 MB? An 1080p HD movie without excess compression is going to run about 20 GB. That's 4000 times as much data as a song. Most people with broadband don't have the bandwidth to download one HD movie in less than a day. Anything more than an hour or two is very annoying.

Computing power increases exponentially, but bandwidth increases slowly. The cable/DSL broadband duopolies have no incentive to increase their bandwidth by 2000% to make HD downloading feasible for large numbers of people. Instead, they are effectively decreasing people's bandwidth by throttling the most active users.

We must keep in mind that the IT revolution is being led by the young - teens and not much older, and they want convenience more than anything. They are the prime market for Apple, Walmart, and all the other internet/download vendors. And while you and I will demand HD quality in our movies, the X/Z generation will be happy to get something less if it fits their download lifestyle (free or cheap, convenient, easy to share). They are not going to invest $10,000 in a high quality HT settup like many AVS members. They will watch movies on their laptops or their iphones, or whatever is hanging on their hip.

I'd bet the "young" you're referring to are interested in quality in about the same proportion as the average "older" person, ie a small portion of either.

Ain't gonna happen in even 20 years.

I wish people would stop making the comparison to music downloads. A song is what, maybe 5 MB? An 1080p HD movie without excess compression is going to run about 20 GB.

720p AVC @ 1.5GB/Hr looks amazingly good. Frankly I'm surprised how good it can look. No Blu-ray but definitely better than SD, and for VOD/rental type usage, that's just fine (I wouldn't "buy" something like that though).

That's 4000 times as much data as a song. Most people with broadband don't have the bandwidth to download one HD movie in less than a day. Anything more than an hour or two is very annoying.

There are quite a number here who can pull movies from AppleTV or Live in less than a day. Many who can stream them.

Computing power increases exponentially, but bandwidth increases slowly. The cable/DSL broadband duopolies have no incentive to increase their bandwidth by 2000% to make HD downloading feasible for large numbers of people.

Why are Comcast and Verizon working so hard to get significant increases in bandwidth to the end user? DOCSIS 3.0, Switched Digital Video, etc.

Ain't gonna happen in even 20 years.

I wish people would stop making the comparison to music downloads. A song is what, maybe 5 MB? An 1080p HD movie without excess compression is going to run about 20 GB. That's 4000 times as much data as a song. Most people with broadband don't have the bandwidth to download one HD movie in less than a day. Anything more than an hour or two is very annoying.

Computing power increases exponentially, but bandwidth increases slowly. The cable/DSL broadband duopolies have no incentive to increase their bandwidth by 2000% to make HD downloading feasible for large numbers of people. Instead, they are effectively decreasing people's bandwidth by throttling the most active users.

I don't think the comparsion is completely without merit.

Due to bandwidth restrictions of "the day", it took forever to download songs. 3MB average on 28K dialup, took forever and a day. MP3 and other compression 'schemes' became the defacto's to just get that song.

The same is happening with video content, with VOD, etc, the goal only seems to be to get that movie. DIVX, and other compressions, sacrifice quality for speed.

I myself don't want to watch and enjoy a movie on a 2", 5", 10" or even a 22" widescreen monitor. It ain't a movie any more, it's just a video you watch, background noise/motion.

Understand history as to avoid repeating it.

Trends are what is important here, my friends.

This has been a good discussion so far, but MP3 will be replaced when I die (only 33).

The young are the ones who are driving the boat in 5 to 10 years. If you don't think CEs are going to jump in behind that wake, you're not being realistic.

As well, the 1080P lossless comparison on digital systems is unrealistic. You couldn't reasonably get uncompressed audio over networks for the masses. The CEs aren't going to do things which would kill the very internet bandwith that they need to ensure their future.

There is a reason I lined up the technologies the way I did. Many of the same folks (just look at the arguments on MP3 - all you need will be a quick search!!) said I won't succumb to MP3s. This downloading thing won't work at this speed. They'll never want to go back to less quality. It will be too much for the internet to handle. Dare I go on?

These are part in parcel the same arguments. They won't go for less than a physical disc. Did anyone hear that Walmart has overtaken Apple in downloads? Has anyone heard that Walmart's growth in music revenues from downloads vastly out paces their hard CD sales?

My contentions were not made upon my wishes or desires. It was merely made upon my observations. It I had it my way, only HD plasma TV made by Pioneer in the Kuro or Elite series would be for sale at a size greater than 50 inches. All speakers would be made by Martin Logan, and all amplifiers would be made by Anthem. But my desires don't really matter...the reality is that it seems we're headed towards some combination of a mid-def 720P, Dolby HD-lite world. The sheer convenience is too great. The trends are too established. Not to bring up politics....but its like Clinton trying to claim she's not losing to Obama....the pronouncement of that as a fact doesn't square with reality.

BR will be around, but it will be the last format. In the future, you'll just buy or download the player and watch the software as someone said up above. After all, this is just about a bunch of 1s and 0s. It is nothing more than that.

There are quite a number here who can pull movies from AppleTV or Live in less than a day. Many who can stream them.Not in HD.

I use an i-pod but it has my music to lossless untill download services offer
lossless i will only use it for one hit wonders where i wasn't going to purchase
the cd for one song same as watching a movie one time many viewings
disc required.

There are services that offer Lossless (or pretty much any other format) downloading of entire albums. Not every album is available as lossless, but there are quite a few.

You may want to check out; www. mp3 sparks . com. (remove spaces)

I've downloaded lossless and LAME .extreme VBR files from them. I mostly download the LAME mp3's as I can barely tell the difference between those and the lossless files and the LAME presets are cheaper.

I've been using them for the last couple of years with zero problems and the songs/albums are MUCH cheaper than iTunes to boot.

I will have to agree with others that say downloadable HD content is further off than one may think. I can't even stream an HD File from home with my measly 1.5mbps DSL service and there's no plans for them to up that anytime soon as I am too far from the HUB. I'm sure I am in the majority in regards to this.

I know they're rolling out fiber optic in a lot of neighborhoods, but it's just not going to be enough to make a difference on the whole. MOST people have Dial-up or slower DSL connections and will not upgrade just so they can download content when they can go around the corner to their local video store or big box store and rent/buy a physical copy in a matter of a few minutes.

I think most of us here wouldn't mind doing downloadable content, as most of us are either audiophiles/videophiles or somewhere in between. We don't mind adopting newer formats and ways to get those formats, but we are in the minority as far as the BIG PICTURE as far as I'm concerned.

BD has maybe a year to succeed

Not in HD.

720p is HD, go ask Fox, ESPN and ABC networks.

Not in HD.

Yes in HD, for AppleTV, a 256kbps connection could download a movie in 24 hours. With a 5Mbps connection (pretty standard in my midwestern town, if not low) you can stream them. I could stream HD from Apple TV via my DSL connection if I had one (AppleTV that is).

I will have to agree with others that say downloadable HD content is further off than one may think. I can't even stream an HD File from home with my measly 1.5mbps DSL service and there's no plans for them to up that anytime soon as I am too far from the HUB. I'm sure I am in the majority in regards to this.

Maybe not stream, but you could "buffer" a movie overnight easy.

I know they're rolling out fiber optic in a lot of neighborhoods, but it's just not going to be enough to make a difference on the whole. MOST people have Dial-up or slower DSL connections and will not upgrade just so they can download content when they can go around the corner to their local video store or big box store and rent/buy a physical copy in a matter of a few minutes.

57% of US Housholds have broadband internet, almost 90% of "active Internet" users have broadband:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0802/

If you look here (http://www.speedtest.net/) (which is not a scientific study) North America (the continent) has an average bandwidth of almost 5Mbps (wish I had Belgum's internet which averages 34Mbps :eek: ).

According to this (http://www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf), scientific, study from almost a year ago, average US broadband speed is 4.8Mbps.

http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/speeds.png

Remember, AppleTV is targeting for 5Mbps for it's HD movies.

I think most of us here wouldn't mind doing downloadable content, as most of us are either audiophiles/videophiles or somewhere in between.

My unscientific poll (meaning my feeling reading the forum) is that there's the majority here dislike to vehemently hate the idea of electronic delivery of media.

The U.S. broadband numbers make me sick. Absolutely sick.

Anyway, about the argument in question, these things bother me because people talk as if music CD's and/or movie discs are just going to be pulled from the shelves and not sold in stores anymore. that is NOT going to happen.

Just as there are always going to be people out there who prefer to buy a music CD than download songs, there are always going to be people who want to buy the physical disc for a movie, for whatever reason. And until you can tell me I can download a full 1080p movie with ALL of the special features, audio options, and everything else involved, I'm in no way interested as downloads as a form of OWNERSHIP for movies.

Rentals? Fine. No problem. In fact once the prices are right, and broadband in this country is actually on par with the rest of the world, something I could see is B&M rental stores being hurt very, very badly.

But as far as music/movie ownership goes, digital downloads are not the answer in the present tense, nor in the foreseeable future. Relax.

And until you can tell me I can download a full 1080p movie with ALL of the special features, audio options, and everything else involved, I'm in no way interested as downloads as a form of OWNERSHIP for movies.

Rentals? Fine. No problem. In fact once the prices are right, and broadband in this country is actually on par with the rest of the world, something I could see is B&M rental stores being hurt very, very badly.

But as far as music/movie ownership goes, digital downloads are not the answer in the present tense, nor in the foreseeable future. Relax.

My basic argument is though, that "VOD" whatever form(s) it may take, has the potential, the likelihood even, to drastically reduce the value of "ownership". When I look at myself, I buy a lot of movies, but why? When I boil it all down, I buy movies because, despite costing more, it's easier to buy movies than to rent them.

Today, buying movies means I have access to it whenever I want, no extra cost, no driving to the rental store, or waiting for Netflix to mail me what I want (and then getting something else instead or nothing at all), no dealing with scratched discs.

I buy movies so I can put them on my media server, and have my own, personal VOD system without having to deal with the problems/hastles of rentals. Even so, most movies I watch only once, so I realize it makes little sense to buy them outright.

When HD DVD came out I signed up for Netflix and used that up until a week ago, I really like the theory of Netflix, $xx/month and I can watch as many or as few movies as I want, any movie, movies I'd never have bothered with other wise. But I started buying HD DVDs probably in December because the hassle of waiting, not getting what I wanted, dealing with damaged discs was not worth the monetary savings.

Now there's AppleTV and Xbox Live, they are so close to what I want, they've got a good selection (of popular movies at least), good quality, only problem is the plan, I don't like the PPV model, if AppleTV and/or Live offered a monthly plan, my movie purchases would probably be few and far between. I still hold out hope that XStreamHD will be that product that "gets it right".

It all comes back to this question for me (WRT to VOD):

If there were a service, which for a "reasonable" price, gave you access to a movie library the size of Netflix, and with quality competitive with alternatives (discs, cable, satellite...), and let you watch whatever movie, whenever you want, no waiting, would it affect your movie purchasing (and how)?

My basic argument is though, that "VOD" whatever form(s) it may take, has the potential, the likelihood even, to drastically reduce the value of "ownership". When I look at myself, I buy a lot of movies, but why? When I boil it all down, I buy movies because, despite costing more, it's easier to buy movies than to rent them.

Today, buying movies means I have access to it whenever I want, no extra cost, no driving to the rental store, or waiting for Netflix to mail me what I want (and then getting something else instead or nothing at all), no dealing with scratched discs.

I buy movies so I can put them on my media server, and have my own, personal VOD system without having to deal with the problems/hastles of rentals. Even so, most movies I watch only once, so I realize it makes little sense to buy them outright.

When HD DVD came out I signed up for Netflix and used that up until a week ago, I really like the theory of Netflix, $xx/month and I can watch as many or as few movies as I want, any movie, movies I'd never have bothered with other wise. But I started buying HD DVDs probably in December because the hassle of waiting, not getting what I wanted, dealing with damaged discs was not worth the monetary savings.

Now there's AppleTV and Xbox Live, they are so close to what I want, they've got a good selection (of popular movies at least), good quality, only problem is the plan, I don't like the PPV model, if AppleTV and/or Live offered a monthly plan, my movie purchases would probably be few and far between. I still hold out hope that XStreamHD will be that product that "gets it right".

Fair enough, but that is you in particular, and maybe even a good number of the people who frequent this site.

But Joe Schmo? The guy next door who doesn't even know what the hell Blu-Ray is? The guy who if you asked him what he thought VOD stood for, he'd pass out from confusion? They don't give a damn. And you could say this is even more important for movies than it is music because you could look at the music industry having a lot of younger people as its base demographic, but the film industry goes more so across all ages, and probably far more popular with adults than younger people when it comes to ownership of the media.

These are the people that don't even think twice about driving down to Blockbuster, or wherever, to rent a movie. I would wager even something like Netflix to many, many people is still something that they would be hesitant to sign up for. And when it comes to ownership, people like that are comfortable with going to Target, Wal-Mart, wherever, and buying a DVD. I mean I'm most definitely a tech-junkie kind of guy, and I would not even consider at this point electronic ownership of movies. I want the disc, I want all the special features, and I don't want whatever caveats the companies who supply those digital downloads are going to throw at me.

I understand your Big Picture vision, and hell many years from now, it'll most likely happen. When my generation (I'm 27) is in their 50's and 60's, digital ownership of music, movies, and video games will most likely be the norm and a lot of businesses may no longer exist. But for the short term, like the next 5 to 10 years, I just don't see it gaining much traction. Too much of the demographic for buying these things aren't ready for it yet.

But Joe Schmo? The guy next door who doesn't even know what the hell Blu-Ray is? The guy who if you asked him what he thought VOD stood for, he'd pass out from confusion? They don't give a damn. And you could say this is even more important for movies than it is music because you could look at the music industry having a lot of younger people as its base demographic, but the film industry goes more so across all ages, and probably far more popular with adults than younger people when it comes to ownership of the media.

True, but things like Apple TV will get pretty wide attention without J6P understanding anything about it. J6P isn't going to go out looking for VOD, but marketing will find them, word of mouth will find them.

These are the people that don't even think twice about driving down to Blockbuster, or wherever, to rent a movie. I would wager even something like Netflix to many, many people is still something that they would be hesitant to sign up for.

What if it comes as an option, or part of a package from their TV or internet provider? Comcast is (IIRC) wanting to start pushing VOD pretty hard this year with their new DOCSIS 3 tech.

And when it comes to ownership, people like that are comfortable with going to Target, Wal-Mart, wherever, and buying a DVD. I mean I'm most definitely a tech-junkie kind of guy, and I would not even consider at this point electronic ownership of movies.

I'm not advocating electronic ownership, I'm saying technology will "devalue" ownership. Why spend $80/month ($20/week, 1 movie/week) to build your own library when you can pay, say $40/month to have access to a "complete" one.

Of course people will still buy "special" movies, Matrix, LOTR, Star Wars, etc, but then again, what's the point of buying it if you can watch it whenever you want?

I want the disc, I want all the special features, and I don't want whatever caveats the companies who supply those digital downloads are going to throw at me.

What if it's just pick it from the list and watch? How important are extras really? Or, what if you've still got access to all the extras?

My unscientific poll (meaning my feeling reading the forum) is that there's the majority here dislike to vehemently hate the idea of electronic delivery of media.

It's just that we've heard so many predictions that downloads are going to kill Blu-Ray, that I'm going to ignore any download service that doesn't involve a PS3.

J6P isn't going to go out looking for VOD, but marketing will find them, word of mouth will find them.



Well in the present, the general public is being educated and exposed to Blu-ray at Target, Frys(Now has new endcap with Blu-ray info booklet), Circuit City, Best Buy and some Wal-marts.

The new endcaps at Target and Frys have demos playing that inform the general consumer what Blu-ray is and explains the technical terms in lame-man terms.

VOD costs a reoccuring MONTHLY subscription fee plus additonal cost to view each movie. Also, highspeed internet may be required, which will be an additonal cost.

A player is a one time cost, no monthly subscription and only cost is buying a new title or renting one at their choice. When you buy a title, you own it and can watch any time you like.


I'm not advocating electronic ownership, I'm saying technology will "devalue" ownership. Why spend $80/month ($20/week, 1 movie/week) to build your own library when you can pay, say $40/month to have access to a "complete" one


With VOD, once you stop paying the monthly subscription, you loose your library of movies being left with nothing but a useless box until you start paying your monthly subscription fee.


Blu-ray marketting is picking up and only will gain speed as the year goes on.
Comcast pushes the VOD with 1000's of titles for free but most of us who have Comcast knows that most of those 1000's of titles are junk titles that most wouldn't rent anyway.

...
2) the evidence of the cycle modeling the music industry was too strong (probably not matching in pace, but the trend) and they expect future falling margins until commodity status for BR and want to keep sustained high margins for as long as it is possible.

My point is simply this. We are quickly coming to the end of all format wars. Universal players will accept SD cards that hold 50 Gigs or USB dongles or have wired/wireless access with 10 terrabyte and larger drives.



I understand your point, but what would prevent the exact same thing happening to downloads or 50gb memory cards? It's not the technology or the amount of acceptance that causes the prices to fall, it's capitalism.

I'll cut your download prices by 50 cents, then you'll cut mine by 25 cents more, then someone else will cut yours or add three new features for the same price, so you'll cut yours again to make up for your lack of features.

etc. etc. etc.

VOD costs a reoccuring MONTHLY subscription fee...

So does cable, or Tivo, or Netflix.

...plus additonal cost to view each movie.

It may it may not (Netflix watch now doesn't), rentals cost money per movie.

Also, highspeed internet may be required, which will be an additonal cost.

Anybody who would sign up would already have broadband.

A player is a one time cost, no monthly subscription and only cost is buying a new title or renting one at their choice.

Unless you go with something like Netflix and then there's a monthly fee.

When you buy a title, you own it and can watch any time you like.

But most people only watch most movies once, and do most people really collect movies? I know I don't know anyone with a collection anywhere near the size of mine.

With VOD, once you stop paying the monthly subscription, you loose your library of movies being left with nothing but a useless box until you start paying your monthly subscription fee.

You don't have to build a library yourself, that's the point. But it's the same with Cable TV, stop paying, you no longer have access.

Blu-ray marketting is picking up and only will gain speed as the year goes on.

It may, but it seems that the increased quality just isn't enough to excite most people.

Comcast pushes the VOD with 1000's of titles for free but most of us who have Comcast knows that most of those 1000's of titles are junk titles that most wouldn't rent anyway.

I was referring more to the their rollout of Wideband and DOCSIS 3 tech this year, and the goal for 6000 movies/month. Nobody's really rolled out anything yet that really capitalizes on the promise/potential of the technology. AppleTV and Live hint at it, but they're not there yet either.

I've been using them for the last couple of years with zero problems and the songs/albums are MUCH cheaper than iTunes to boot."MUCH" cheaper, because you are technically paying for pirated content if you are in the US. You do realize that, don't you? :eek: You are helping the profits of a shady Russian organization, though. :rolleyes: Why advertise these guys?

I understand your point, but what would prevent the exact same thing happening to downloads or 50gb memory cards? It's not the technology or the amount of acceptance that causes the prices to fall, it's capitalism.

I'll cut your download prices by 50 cents, then you'll cut mine by 25 cents more, then someone else will cut yours or add three new features for the same price, so you'll cut yours again to make up for your lack of features.

etc. etc. etc.

The point isn't that the costs will continue to be undercut. I think you missed it. The central crux is that we are moving toward a period where all that matters are the 1s and 0s. When you boil that down to its fundamental state, it is just 1s and 0s. They may be in different codecs, put on different harddrives or flash cards with different protective schemes, but a completely incompatible format is disappearing. The 1s and 0s can be manipulated. The players are going to be electronic and some you will be able to download for free. Why do we continue to need a box? Why not just hook the TV up to an ethernet and it gets fed the 1s and 0s...whether that is from stored content, digital distribution or some type of off air system. AV is no longer about the box...it is all about the software. That is my simple point. It's not a movie or a song, it's just 1s and 0s.

To the collector in us all the physical medium will always be important,hard drives and
flash memory have been around for years and they are nice but the disc has won the
hearts of the collector.

The point isn't that the costs will continue to be undercut. I think you missed it. The central crux is that we are moving toward a period where all that matters are the 1s and 0s. When you boil that down to its fundamental state, it is just 1s and 0s. They may be in different codecs, put on different harddrives or flash cards with different protective schemes, but a completely incompatible format is disappearing. The 1s and 0s can be manipulated. The players are going to be electronic and some you will be able to download for free. Why do we continue to need a box? Why not just hook the TV up to an ethernet and it gets fed the 1s and 0s...whether that is from stored content, digital distribution or some type of off air system. AV is no longer about the box...it is all about the software. That is my simple point. It's not a movie or a song, it's just 1s and 0s.

OK I guess I did miss your point. I thought you were talking about content providers always needing to move to The Next Big Thing to keep the margins up.

The 'downloads will kill everything' topic has been beaten to death almost as much as the 'DVD is nearly as good' topic. I want superb quality NetFlix on demand that plays everywhere for $20 a month too. In the meantime I love what Blu-ray offers.

57% of US Housholds have broadband internet, almost 90% of "active Internet" users have broadband:
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0802/

If you look here (http://www.speedtest.net/) (which is not a scientific study) North America (the continent) has an average bandwidth of almost 5Mbps (wish I had Belgum's internet which averages 34Mbps :eek: ).

According to this (http://www.itif.org/files/BroadbandRankings.pdf), scientific, study from almost a year ago, average US broadband speed is 4.8Mbps.


I am curious - I wonder what you have to say about this part of your sources information:
The number of U.S. broadband subscribers per 100 people grew to 19.6 in December 2006, up 0.4 percentage points from 19.2 in June 2006, a growth rate far below the 2.0 percentage point OECD average. ... When the OECD first collected this data in 2001, the United States ranked 4th among the 30 nations surveyed. After several years of steady decline in the rankings, we now rank 15th (see Figure 1).

The way people get to that 57% number is to divide 100 by the average family size and then divide 19.7 by that number.

The problem with that is it is not really an accurate measure of how many people have access to high speed internet. Further, your own studies show we have the lowest adoption rates in the world. If we continue to grow by .4% every 6 months, it will take approximately 50 years for most homes in the US to have broadband. It only took about 10 years for 98% of all households in the US to own DVD players.

Also, how do you account for the fact that physical media still represents around 85% of all music sold in your model? Even with easy distribution methods, "J6P" still seems to be buying far more CDs than he is downloading songs.

These really are questions. In a scientific argument, indicators like these two would be enough to derail any serious theory. I'm just curious to hear why they don't apply in this case.

Also, how do you account for the fact that physical media still represents around 85% of all music sold in your model? Even with easy distribution methods, "J6P" still seems to be buying far more CDs than he is downloading songs.

Well, it must be said that 85% of sales may be physical media, but the majority of music that is downloaded is almost certainly done illegally, for free, and is not factored into the calculation.

I'm not supporting digital distribution (for sales at least, I guess renting's OK), since I prefer to own something physical, but I think I need to point out something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. There are arguments about how many people have broadband and how many people have HDTVs but I haven't seen anyone point out that if someone owns an HDTV then they're VERY likely to have broadband don't you think? So the people saying that those wanting HDM might not have broadband are pretty much wrong. (OK, maybe there might be the odd person here and there who has an HDTV and not broadband but I seriously think that the number is so low it's insignificant.) Also to the person who said that they can't tell the difference between a 128K MP3 and CD, I think you need a hearing aid, lol! :p

I'm not supporting digital distribution (for sales at least, I guess renting's OK), since I prefer to own something physical, but I think I need to point out something that I haven't seen mentioned yet. There are arguments about how many people have broadband and how many people have HDTVs but I haven't seen anyone point out that if someone owns an HDTV then they're VERY likely to have broadband don't you think? So the people saying that those wanting HDM might not have broadband are pretty much wrong. (OK, maybe there might be the odd person here and there who has an HDTV and not broadband but I seriously think that the number is so low it's insignificant.) Also to the person who said that they can't tell the difference between a 128K MP3 and CD, I think you need a hearing aid, lol! :p

HDTV market penetration in the USA is estimated at over 30%, maybe even 40%.

If broadband has a sub-20% market representation, then I think it's a safe assumption that there are indeed a healthy number of HDTV owners out there who don't have broadband.

Certainly downloading will be huge in the future, when US broadband speed become exponentially faster and universal, but the near future I can't imagine the industries even wanting download to win out over physical media, or vice versa. They're not competing, they're complimentary to each other.

More then one outlet with differing qualities allows for the possibility of multiple purchases of the same movie by a single consumer. A person will 'rent' it via download at 720P when it first comes out, then buy the same movie again later when it comes out on HDM with all the extras, bells, and whistles. In a business where they live or die on a margin, multiple purchases of one product is a coup.

Money is made when you give a consumer a reason to open the wallet. We buy HDTV, then we need to buy an HD player. Some years from now, we'll be buying SuperHD (or whatever they'll call it) TVs, and again we'll need to buy another form of HD player and all the new discs. Assuming the companies avoid a stupid format war, it's just money in the bank every decade or so.
I just can't imagine the industry just walking away from that cash cycle in favor of a single format, ie downloading.

I think the only real competition is between downloading via netflix etc vs. ON-Demand via cable/satellite, that kind of inter-format fight.

Format wars will always exist in a competitive capitalist system. Just because we're moving to a non-physical format, there still are formats. MP3 vs WMA for instance

HDTV market penetration in the USA is estimated at over 30%, maybe even 40%.

If broadband has a sub-20% market representation, then I think it's a safe assumption that there are indeed a healthy number of HDTV owners out there who don't have broadband.

The USA isn't the only country in the world. Anyway, find me some people who own HDTVs but don't have broadband. Do you know anybody?

Everyone has a computer so downloading music on to a portable device is fine.

.

whos everyone?? AVS members and.................:D once we can get a computer into everyone home with interent then we can talk about physical media dying off.......

To the collector in us all the physical medium will always be important,hard drives and
flash memory have been around for years and they are nice but the disc has won the
hearts of the collector.

I love my DVD's. But not because they are DVDs, but because they contain all of my favorite movies. Frankly, I could really care less about several stacks of optical disks. If my movies were all on SD cards instead, what would be the difference? Ok, they'd take up about 1/10th the space that my current collection does (spread over two rooms). And I wouldn't have to worry about scratching them....

Hmmm...

But for me, it's still all about the content, my own personal favorite content. I liked optical disks over tapes because of the convenience. Keep in mind, I'm coming from a will-always-own-physical-media perspective. If something much more convenient than DVD comes along, especially for size and durability of format and player capabilities, then I'll be all too happy replace this library of disks.

In Canada there are 4 major internet providers.
Shaw
Telus
Bell
Rogers.

I believe Telus & Bell for $30.00 per month allow a maximum of 30 gigs download.
Shaw & Rogers for $35.00 allow 60 gigs download per month.
I'm with Shaw & I have an upgraded service that allows me 130 gigs download per month for $88.00.
ALL OF THESE COMPANIES are VERY anal about there customers remaining within there download limits.Shaw will allow you 1 month of overage.The second month you are over they automatically bump up your account to the next teir.

Unless these ISP's drastically change there download limits,anyone who tells me that Digital Downloads are the way of the future,all I can say is your Nucking Futs.:D

I am curious - I wonder what you have to say about this part of your sources information:


The way people get to that 57% number is to divide 100 by the average family size and then divide 19.7 by that number.

What's more accurate, 19.7% of people subscribe (which I take to mean sign up and pay the bill), or 57% of households have access? I think the later for sure.

The problem with that is it is not really an accurate measure of how many people have access to high speed internet.

I disagree, I think households is the more accurate measure, it accounts for couples where both have access to broadband, vs subscribers, where it would only count the bill payer. And what about people in appartment complexes, or other locations where broadband is provided, are they counted as "subscribers"?

Further, your own studies show we have the lowest adoption rates in the world. If we continue to grow by .4% every 6 months, it will take approximately 50 years for most homes in the US to have broadband. It only took about 10 years for 98% of all households in the US to own DVD players.

What's your point? Blu-ray only has about 1% marketshare. BTW did you see that almost 90% of "active users" have broadband? That indicates to me that it's not availability that's holding back adoption, it's desire.

Also, how do you account for the fact that physical media still represents around 85% of all music sold in your model? Even with easy distribution methods, "J6P" still seems to be buying far more CDs than he is downloading songs.

It's still early, iTunes has really only been around a couple years, and Amazon/Walmart less than that. I don't have numbers but I believe digital distribution of music is growing while CD sales fall, that's a more telling metric.

These really are questions. In a scientific argument, indicators like these two would be enough to derail any serious theory. I'm just curious to hear why they don't apply in this case.

At one point CD and DVD represented less than 15% of their respective markets as well, yet they both dominate their markets today. Absolute values mean little without context. You point out that broadband access isn't rapidly increasing, true, but the question is (and I don't have the answer) is it just because of demographics, I'd guess yes, there's a very sizeable older generation around that probably has little interest in broadband. The more importan question is, how closely to the demographics match between those who have broadband and those who buy movies, and I'd guess they track very closely.

The really interesting thing, the thing that will be really telling, but that we don't have numbers for, is relative growth of Blu-ray vs AppleTV et al. Maybe BD will take off and e-delivery will sputter, maybe the reverse, but for the next year or two, I wouldn't be surprised if they track closely to each other.

One problem here

Audio= portable format

Movies = non portable format


MP3 has taken off because of players that allow you to listen on the go. HD downloads will NEVER be an on the go format. You simply can't watch a movie and do anything else like you can with music.

HD downloads may over take rentals but they will never bump owning a disc.

whos everyone?? AVS members and.................:D once we can get a computer into everyone home with interent then we can talk about physical media dying off.......

Yeah, it's like thinking that nobody is affected by the digital TV transition, because everyone must have cable or satellite service at this point.

Digital distribution is going to be more of a niche than blu-ray when dial-up still has
the market share on the internet.Even if you get the speed up to par the masses
will not pay the premium,do you know anyone getting more out of these providers and
they pay less i know mine goes up it seems yearly.

Boradband takes over dialup in 2004 (http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-5314922.html)

That would be a very interesting metric to see, has the sales volume of new releases dropped off as much as the market as a whole, I'd guess not.

Most of the articles I read say yes. They compared the top 5 CD releases in 2001 vs 2007 and it is some ridiculous drop off in total sales. I
'd like to say it was something like the #5 release in 2001 outsold the top 5 combined in 2007.

Blu-ray only has about 1% marketshare.
At one point CD and DVD represented less than 15% of their respective markets as well, yet they both dominate their markets today. Absolute values mean little without context.

Good point sir, good point. :D

Boradband takes over dialup in 2004 (http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-5314922.html)
If you really read the article, the situation is even more bleak than has been previously suggested:

As of July, there were 63 million people using broadband at home, making up 51 percent of the total U.S. Internet population, according to market research company Nielsen/NetRatings.
So at that point in time, only 40% of the US population had internet access of ANY kind at home. half of them (20%) had broadband.

So in the past 3.5 years of ~.4% growth/year, we're probably not even to the point that even half the country has access to at least dialup. But broadband penetration might be up to as much as 21%. woo hoo, ridin' the wave..... :rolleyes:

Compare that to the 28% of US homes that had at least one HDTV as of April of last year (http://www.wkyc.com/weblog/directors_cut/2007/04/news-hdtv-penetration-at-28.html). This is growing SIGNIFICANTLY faster than broadband penetration--adoption was up to 33% by July, and 35-38% by Dec. 31st (http://parksassociates.blogspot.com/2008/02/hdtv-penetration-and-sales-figures.html). As many as 10% of US homes purchased their first HDTV in the last 9 months of 2007. Vs. what, a whopping .3% of homes that installed broadband in the same time frame? With that in mind, it's pitifully easy to see how rediculous any short-term predictions of Digital Distribution dominance really are.

If you really read the article, the situation is even more bleak than has been previously suggested:


So at that point in time, only 40% of the US population had internet access of ANY kind at home. half of them (20%) had broadband.

So in the past 3.5 years of ~.4% growth/year, we're probably not even to the point that even half the country has access to at least dialup. But broadband penetration might be up to as much as 21%. woo hoo, ridin' the wave..... :rolleyes:

See above, 57% of US households have broadband internet, 90% of "active users" have broadband.

If you really read the article, the situation is even more bleak than has been previously suggested:


So at that point in time, only 40% of the US population had internet access of ANY kind at home. half of them (20%) had broadband.

So in the past 3.5 years of ~.4% growth/year, we're probably not even to the point that even half the country has access to at least dialup. But broadband penetration might be up to as much as 21%. woo hoo, ridin' the wave..... :rolleyes:

Compare that to the 28% of US homes that had at least one HDTV as of April of last year (http://www.wkyc.com/weblog/directors_cut/2007/04/news-hdtv-penetration-at-28.html). This is growing SIGNIFICANTLY faster than broadband penetration--adoption was up to 33% by July, and 35-38% by Dec. 31st (http://parksassociates.blogspot.com/2008/02/hdtv-penetration-and-sales-figures.html). As many as 10% of US homes purchased their first HDTV in the last 9 months of 2007. Vs. what, a whopping .3% of homes that installed broadband in the same time frame? With that in mind, it's pitifully easy to see how rediculous any short-term predictions of Digital Distribution dominance really are.


Id' venture a guess and say the person who wrote the article made a mistake and meant to say "homes" instead of people. At 2.3 people per home that put the count of "people" using highspeed at the time of the article at about 138 million. Which goes a little better with this link which states in 2004 75% of households had internet connections in the U.S.

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0403/

And to be honest, I wasnt looking for an absolute number. Only to show that the "majority" have highspeed internet access, not dial up, and have for years.

We can piss about the finer points of the numbers in another thread if you like. But I'd venture a guess that 4 years later the number is much higher in terms of people with high speed and the total number of households with internet access should have jumped a little. One thing about internet access is it is an optional service. So there will always be a % of the population who wont have it because they choose not to. Just like people choose not to have cable TV, or buy a Blu-Ray player.

I'll capitulate to your last point if you replace "high speed" with "broadband". The two are not synonymous. Many people with broadband (definitely a very large minority, if not the majority) have sub-1Mbps connections. There's lots of DSL subscribers with 256k-768k download speeds. My parents have 768kbps cable. As was established earlier, the target bitrate for Apple HD is 5Mbps. So even though a large minority of the US population has some form of broadband, many of their connections are woefully inadequate for DD.

My take is that I believe targeting the 720p customer is the way to go when it comes to movie downloads.Many have said if you are sitting atleast 9-10 ft back you cant tell the difference between 1080 and 720.Some you forget that CONVIENCE is king with everyone just like people has direct deposit,you dont have to stay in line at the bank you can just go spend your check.The one thing that physical has over digital is that if you have kids like I do they love the interactivity of disc.I have also talked to many people in my family about Apple TV and VUDU and soon to be Netflix where you can get any movie you want when you want it they become interested because of convience.The big downfall of it is connection speed and if you are sharing bandwidth with other pcs in the home you are not getting all the bandwidth to yourself.I believe both will exist but one will have extras for a while and one will not As far as people having pcs in thier homes everyone in family except for my one aunt has an computer so computers are becoming the norm in homes.I digital downloads are here to stay AND so is physical media they both have to share the profits.

I'll capitulate to your last point if you replace "high speed" with "broadband". The two are not synonymous. Many people with broadband (definitely a very large minority, if not the majority) have sub-1Mbps connections. There's lots of DSL subscribers with 256k-768k download speeds. My parents have 768kbps cable. As was established earlier, the target bitrate for Apple HD is 5Mbps. So even though a large minority of the US population has some form of broadband, many of their connections are woefully inadequate for DD.

Less than 5 years ago (I can't remember how long exactly but it may be as low as 3 or even 2 years) my broadband was 512K, now it's 8Mb. (Although I can actually only get about 6Mb at the moment.) I haven't had to switch ISPs or even pay more (I'm paying less now actually), mine has just kept upping the bandwith over time. So your parents could find that any day now they're offered 8Mb at no extra cost and literally all they have to do is say "Yes". Argue against digital distribution all you want, I'll be on your side, but don't use ridiculous arguments like "Most people don't have broadband and most people's broadband is too slow" because the internet is just going to get faster and faster exponentially and the ISPs will be forced to drop, or at least vastly increase their stupid bandwith limits and "fair use" (:rolleyes:) policies.

I'll capitulate to your last point if you replace "high speed" with "broadband". The two are not synonymous. Many people with broadband (definitely a very large minority, if not the majority) have sub-1Mbps connections. There's lots of DSL subscribers with 256k-768k download speeds. My parents have 768kbps cable. As was established earlier, the target bitrate for Apple HD is 5Mbps. So even though a large minority of the US population has some form of broadband, many of their connections are woefully inadequate for DD.

As of May last year, the average broadband speed in the US was 4.8Mbps.

Just ask youself this, how many people do you know that go home, get comfortable and just listen to music. Better yet, how often do you think parents say "Hey kids, lets all sit down as a family and listen to this cd!". Or invite their friends over to listen to their stereo. I know that I never have, but I have invited friends over to watch movies.

Kind of funny. I do this. I must be part of the minority that still buys physical media for my music. I also end up buying a lot more indie stuff from rock to electronica which doesn't end up on the online services. There is also a big difference in audio quality once played on a good stereo/ home theatre system (versus a portable device). I also do invite friends over to listen to music but I guess that is what happens when I and many of my friends are or were DJs.

One thing that I do is archive my music to a digital format but I have the original purchased discs so I can archive at whatever quality a deem appropriate.

I'll capitulate to your last point if you replace "high speed" with "broadband". The two are not synonymous. Many people with broadband (definitely a very large minority, if not the majority) have sub-1Mbps connections. There's lots of DSL subscribers with 256k-768k download speeds. My parents have 768kbps cable. As was established earlier, the target bitrate for Apple HD is 5Mbps. So even though a large minority of the US population has some form of broadband, many of their connections are woefully inadequate for DD.

The avg download speed for US households is 4.8Mbps. This means half have more and half have less. I am sure there are people with 256Kbps lines but they are on the extreme edge of the bell curve. Just like people with 30Mbps FIOS lines are, but in the other direction.

As of May last year, the average broadband speed in the US was 4.8Mbps.
And the definition of average is.....? Does it mean that all users have 5Mbps internet? No, it doesn't. It means when you add up all the access speeds and divide by the number of subscribers, you get 4.8Mbps. So by definition, many people have speeds well below that.

For example, I have 8Mbps, which is far from the fastest available. Lots of other people have that speed. Some have FIOS at 15-30Mbps. That means that there are a bunch of people with very low-speed connections to drag the average down to 4.8Mbps.

The avg download speed for US households is 4.8Mbps. This means half have more and half have less
No, it doesn't mean that either. If the MEDIAN download speed was 4.8Mbps, you'd be correct. Average states nothing whatsoever about the distribution. The higher speeds go for people at the top end, the more people need to have low speeds to drag the average back down. To use your "extreme outside" examples, for every one user with 30Mbps FIOS, there would have to be SIX people with 256kbps access to offset that. Or 7 with 1Mbps. 8 with 1.5Mbps. 9 with 2Mbps. See where I'm going with this? The higher speed you think a decent number of people with sub-4.8Mbps access have, the more of them it takes to offset just one user at the top of the chart. So the reality is, there's an AWFUL lot of people with internet access nowhere NEAR the 5Mbps we're talking about here.

Most of the articles I read say yes. They compared the top 5 CD releases in 2001 vs 2007 and it is some ridiculous drop off in total sales. I
'd like to say it was something like the #5 release in 2001 outsold the top 5 combined in 2007.

Maybe it's because the major labels are not releasing enough GOOD music that is worth owning. This is no different than box office sales dropping in the movie industry. Put out a quality movie and people will want to go out and see it. Put out crap and the word gets out...no one wants to see it. Pretty simple.

Why are Comcast and Verizon working so hard to get significant increases in bandwidth to the end user? DOCSIS 3.0, Switched Digital Video, etc.

Because Comcast wants you to use their (VOD) services without complaints.

They are not upgrading their bandwith so that you can download 15-20GB movies using AppleTV all day, every day in the near future.

Brandon

No, it doesn't mean that either. If the MEDIAN download speed was 4.8Mbps, you'd be correct. Average states nothing whatsoever about the distribution. The higher speeds go for people at the top end, the more people need to have low speeds to drag the average back down. To use your "extreme outside" examples, for every one user with 30Mbps FIOS, there would have to be SIX people with 256kbps access to offset that.

lmao honestly give it up. The majority of people in this country have ~3-5Mbps or better highspeed internet. If you want to stick your hands over ears and pretend it isnt true. Nobody is stopping you.

No, it doesn't mean that either. If the MEDIAN download speed was 4.8Mbps, you'd be correct.

Bingo.

Maybe it's because the major labels are not releasing enough GOOD music that is worth owning.

You're kidding yourself if you think that music in 2001 was significantly better than 2005 by some overwhelmingly high amount. It's something else.

Brandon

lmao honestly give it up. The majority of people in this country have ~3-5Mbps or better highspeed internet. If you want to stick your hands over ears and pretend it isnt true. Nobody is stopping you.
Your own numbers don't support that. Don't get mad at me because you don't understand statistical distributions. I used to think average meant what you think it means. Then I educated myself.

If "The majority of people in this country have ~3-5Mbps or better highspeed internet", then NO ONE can have speeds higher than that (like the 8Mbps that millions of Comcast subscribers get, or the 15-30Mbps available from FIOS) unless a LOT have REALLY low speeds to balance them out. Then all of a sudden those in the 3-5 category are no longer in the majority.

Your own numbers don't support that. Don't get mad at me because you don't understand statistical distributions. I used to think average meant what you think it means. Then I educated myself.

If "The majority of people in this country have ~3-5Mbps or better highspeed internet", then NO ONE can have speeds higher than that (like the 8Mbps that millions of Comcast subscribers get, or the 15-30Mbps available from FIOS) unless a LOT have REALLY low speeds to balance them out.

Heh

Less than 5 years ago (I can't remember how long exactly but it may be as low as 3 or even 2 years) my broadband was 512K, now it's 8Mb. (Although I can actually only get about 6Mb at the moment.) I haven't had to switch ISPs or even pay more (I'm paying less now actually), mine has just kept upping the bandwith over time. So your parents could find that any day now they're offered 8Mb at no extra cost and literally all they have to do is say "Yes". Argue against digital distribution all you want, I'll be on your side, but don't use ridiculous arguments like "Most people don't have broadband and most people's broadband is too slow" because the internet is just going to get faster and faster exponentially and the ISPs will be forced to drop, or at least vastly increase their stupid bandwith limits and "fair use" (:rolleyes:) policies.
Well, the typical prices for high bandwidth is still high.

768Kb - ~$19.99
1.5Mb - ~$25-39.99
6MB+ - ~$39.99-49.99

Plus, there's about $10 tax to add on to those prices.
Then, people are to pay subscriptions for cable, and their VOD boxes, etc, etc.

How much does J6P have these days for all these subscription driven outlets ?

Seems like buying a player and renting a disc when you have the money is more realistic for J6P. No monthly subscription needed.

I was actually just thinking yesterday about how ridiculous the pricing is for broadband.

And people think Blu-Ray doesn't have as much incentive to drop prices, what about broadband providers? I want those prices to drop but who knows when/if it'll ever happen.

regarding broadband speeds.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-06-25-net-speeds_N.htm

http://www.speedmatters.org/document-library/sourcematerials/sm_report.pdf

High-Def video with lossless Audio support is long long way from being supported even by the content hosting sites and ISPs. They just can't handle the bandwidth if they have serious number of customers.

And image when a new hot movie comes out for downloading! Servers will either crash or downloads will be very very slow that customers would rather drive down to rental stores. Even when all this is in place, customers are far-off from having a means to easily enjoy downloaded content on various TVs they have all over the house or share it with friends.

I have friends that went back to dsl here for 25.00 a month the 50.00 a month for
comcast at 6mbps cut into their budget to hard with gas,utilities,insurance going
up not to mention how many bags of groceries you don't get for the same money.
Also i am now paying a rental fee for the modem so mine keeps going up on price
without offering me speed and reliability.

regarding broadband speeds.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2007-06-25-net-speeds_N.htm
Thank you very much sir. This is quite interesting:
The median U.S. download speed now is 1.97 megabits per second — a fraction of the 61 megabits per second enjoyed by consumers in Japan, says the report released Monday.[...]The CWA report is based on input from 80,000 broadband users
So in fact, less than half of all broadband users in the US have a connection of 2Mbps or greater. But I thought the vast majority had 3-5Mbps access.....:rolleyes:

Guess I'll have to stick my hands over my ears and pretend it isn't true again.... :p

Kind of funny. I do this. I must be part of the minority that still buys physical media for my music. I also end up buying a lot more indie stuff from rock to electronica which doesn't end up on the online services. There is also a big difference in audio quality once played on a good stereo/ home theatre system (versus a portable device). I also do invite friends over to listen to music but I guess that is what happens when I and many of my friends are or were DJs.

One thing that I do is archive my music to a digital format but I have the original purchased discs so I can archive at whatever quality a deem appropriate.

I agree with you personally, but at the same time, I know that the vast majority don't have "good" audio systems at home, and even more than that, most people just don't listen carefully enough to notice/care about the difference.

And the definition of average is.....? Does it mean that all users have 5Mbps internet? No, it doesn't. It means when you add up all the access speeds and divide by the number of subscribers, you get 4.8Mbps. So by definition, many people have speeds well below that.

Yup, average = sum (from 1 to n) / n.

For example, I have 8Mbps, which is far from the fastest available. Lots of other people have that speed. Some have FIOS at 15-30Mbps. That means that there are a bunch of people with very low-speed connections to drag the average down to 4.8Mbps.

Let's get real here, the top end of internet (in any sort of volume) is FIOS at about 30Mbps, but that makes up probably less than 0.1% of broadband users. If the average is 5, as you go above that, the proportion of users with that speed drops off dramatically. If you figure a normal distribution, if the average is 5Mbps, and a distribution that results in something close to 50% probability of less than 5Mbps connection, then just over 1% have a connection faster than 10Mbps, 17% would be between 7 and 10, and 72% between 2 and 7Mbps.

Of course it's probably not quite a normal distribution, but even so, if the average is 5Mbps, the majority of users are going to fall close to 5Mbps.

Because Comcast wants you to use their (VOD) services without complaints.

They are not upgrading their bandwith so that you can download 15-20GB movies using AppleTV all day, every day in the near future.

So what? They're providing VOD.

High-Def video with lossless Audio support is long long way from being supported even by the content hosting sites and ISPs. They just can't handle the bandwidth if they have serious number of customers.

Nobody said that's going to happen soon, quite the contrary, we've said most people would "settle" for 720p, artifact free HD with AC3 audio if it's more convenient than high bitrate 1080p with lossless audio.

And image when a new hot movie comes out for downloading! Servers will either crash or downloads will be very very slow that customers would rather drive down to rental stores.

Maybe initially, but any service that becomes that popular will definitely be able to handle it. Xbox Live has been handling it for a while now.

Even when all this is in place, customers are far-off from having a means to easily enjoy downloaded content on various TVs they have all over the house or share it with friends.

AppleTV is here today, an easy, inexpensive way to view downloaded content on various TVs, no PC involved. As for sharing, I just don't see it being that big of a deal.

So in fact, less than half of all broadband users in the US have a connection of 2Mbps or greater. But I thought the vast majority had 3-5Mbps access.....:rolleyes:

The CWA survey doesn't claim to be scientific:

However, the CWA's data conflicts with that of the ITIF report. ITIF claims that the average broadband speed in the US is 4.8Mbps—still lower than Canada, many western European countries, Japan, and Korea—but more than twice as fast as CWA's numbers. In fact, Cohen himself doesn't exactly claim that the CWA's data is valid. "While we don't claim that the results are scientific, we do believe this is the first national survey of Internet upload and download speeds," Cohen said in his testimony to the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. "I should point out that most people who took our speed test either use DSL or a cable modem."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html

It conflicts with two other sources, one the ITIF report I linked above that says 4.8Mbps, and also the http://www.speedtest.net site that reports the US has an average speed of 5.3Mbps.

I have friends that went back to dsl here for 25.00 a month the 50.00 a month for
comcast at 6mbps cut into their budget to hard with gas,utilities,insurance going
up not to mention how many bags of groceries you don't get for the same money.
Also i am now paying a rental fee for the modem so mine keeps going up on price
without offering me speed and reliability.

yeh ,theres things in life more important then the state of downloading.
things are getting bad out here.
what if you guys on this forum make 5 or 6 figure paychecks lose your job,then what. . do you think downloading or blu-ray or anything going to matter...i think not. we all get carried away with this stuff ...don't we

I have friends that went back to dsl here for 25.00 a month

My mother did the same thing. Recently dropped Comcast for Surewest's 256kbps dsl offering or something like that.

So what? They're providing VOD.


Well, if that's your response to it, then good luck using that service to replace optical media.


It conflicts with two other sources, one the ITIF report I linked above that says 4.8Mbps, and also the http://www.speedtest.net site that reports the US has an average speed of 5.3Mbps.

The speedtest.net claims average while the other article is touting median. That is not necessarily conflicting at all.

Brandon

The CWA survey doesn't claim to be scientific:


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html

It conflicts with two other sources, one the ITIF report I linked above that says 4.8Mbps, and also the http://www.speedtest.net site that reports the US has an average speed of 5.3Mbps.

Also the problem with the report is how they conducted it. It looks like they had users log speed tests from their site. Well Alaska with the slowest speed shouldnt surprise as it has the longest route. This is why they cant claim it as scientific. The simple fact of the matter is anybody can take spot tests and see a wide variance of bandwidth depending on where the people are coming from and the routes the traffic has to take.

The median according to that site is ~2Mbps. That is still a far cry from what geko was claiming with 256kbps. And that number is only going to rise as cable and telco companies continue to add capacity. In the last 5 years I have gone from 1.5Mbps to 8 Mbps. Anybody denying capacity is coming is as I have said before. Sticking their hands over the ears and crying lalalala.

The median according to that site is ~2Mbps. That is still a far cry from what geko was claiming with 256kbps.
I never said 256kbps was the median. I said there were plenty of people with broadband that most people wouldn't consider "high speed", and that is inadequate for HD. I also said that average != median. Both of those things are demonstrably true.

This might boggle your mind. On TV right now is an infomercial for an MP3 player (well, really it's an MP4 player as it plays videos too) with 350 tracks of classical music on called MP3 Classic, lol! It's like downloading.... but not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_mean

Feel free to read up on this and concentrate on the part explaining outliers and how your 5mbs mean is a very poor explaination for the average speed of internet.

What's more accurate, 19.7% of people subscribe (which I take to mean sign up and pay the bill), or 57% of households have access? I think the later for sure.


This indicates you don't understand the studies you posted. Those two numbers are the exact same thing. One had better not be more accurate than the other. They are the same number stated a different way. To get the second number (57% of households) someone took the number of people in the US. They divided it by the average family size. Then they took the number of people who "subscribe" to internet. They divided those two numbers and got 57%.

So the 19.7% who pay and the 57% are the same number.

The problem with BOTH is that the number means nothing in a vacuum. IE - it looks impressive, but when you boil it down to its actual meaning it is not all that impressive. For instance, the average household size in Utah is 3.13 where the average household size in the US is 2.59. In a state like Utah where the population tends to be spread out, the ability to get high speed internet is far lower than in larger cities. The average household size in a place like New York is around 2.6. So you run into a position where "medium" saturation in a large city like New York gives you a high nation wide average, even nation wide high speed access is limited to very few locations.

Basically, you are arguing for a model where only the major cities ever watch any movies. You need to reexamine both studies until you understand that. As everyone likes to watch movies, and there is a sizable population who will not have high speed internet any time soon, that fact alone means that physical media will take a long long time to go away.



What's your point? Blu-ray only has about 1% marketshare. BTW did you see that almost 90% of "active users" have broadband? That indicates to me that it's not availability that's holding back adoption, it's desire.

This is a red herring. iTunes has been operational for 7 years. In 7 years, it and every other digital music service out there still have yet to get over 15% of the market.

I have a feeling that if Blu Ray had 15% if the market after 7 years, everyone would be calling it a colossal failure. Should we then assume that downloading music has been a colossal failure? As I pointed out, DVD had more than 98% of the market in approximately 10 years. Are you saying that you believe that down loadable music is going to gain 83% market share in the next 3 years?

Like I said in my first post, you have yet to address the issue that downloading music has NOT taken off - even with broadband internet "widely" available as your own claims indicate. Why is that in your opinion?


It's still early, iTunes has really only been around a couple years, and Amazon/Walmart less than that. I don't have numbers but I believe digital distribution of music is growing while CD sales fall, that's a more telling metric.

Not at all accurate. iTunes opened for business on January 8th 2001. iTunes has about 70% of the market according to NPD - so that date is by far the most important. Before that, Napster and other p2p programs allowed downloading music for free (they were later shut down in actions by the government). Rhapsody (one of the other major players) started in December of 2001. Amazon and Walmart are newcomers to the market, but down loadable music has been available for 7 years commercially and over 20 on the internet.


At one point CD and DVD represented less than 15% of their respective markets as well, yet they both dominate their markets today. Absolute values mean little without context.

I have now given you the context. Seven years for down loadable music for 15% share vs 10 years for DVDs and 98% share. How do you reconcile that with your "downloads are going to run away with the industry" position? By the way, according to the NPD (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080226a.html) legal downloads only accounted for 10% of music sales. The 15% that I gave includes all forms of non-cd music.


You point out that broadband access isn't rapidly increasing, true, but the question is (and I don't have the answer) is it just because of demographics, I'd guess yes, there's a very sizeable older generation around that probably has little interest in broadband.

Actually, you were only half correct. It is demographics, but not age related. The problem is the infrastructure costs exponentially more the less populated the area. Most major cities have already had the infrastructure put in place. The problem is now branching out from that. Your own studies mention that and mention they think government intervention is required to fix that problem.

It will be painfully slow to get internet to the "masses" so to speak at this point. You have a few major cities with really high speed connections available, and everyone else is left without. While you may not like the implications, that alone suggests that physical media will be around for a long long time.


The more importan question is, how closely to the demographics match between those who have broadband and those who buy movies, and I'd guess they track very closely.

Unfortunately, this is pure opinion. Your studies didn't indicate this at all, but rather mentioned geographical factors as being far more important.

Or are you claiming that only people who live in large cities buy movies?

The really interesting thing, the thing that will be really telling, but that we don't have numbers for, is relative growth of Blu-ray vs AppleTV et al. Maybe BD will take off and e-delivery will sputter, maybe the reverse, but for the next year or two, I wouldn't be surprised if they track closely to each other.

Interestingly enough, there have been studies done. For instance, one done in 2004 (yes - people have been able to download movies from the internet for that long) showed that paid video downloads made up a total of .3% of videos purchased or rented (Article on NPD numbers. (http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2004/moviedownloads.html)).

Notice that while iTunes has steadily be increasing their downloading services, most sites for downloading movies have been shutting down due to not enough profit. I am sure Apple has a plan with their AppleTV - but if it mirrors their plan with iTunes, it is no serious threat to physical media.

Wow Xalion, excellent post! Your logic was impeccable. I had a bunch of things to comment on before I read your post but you basically removed any reason for me to do so.

I agree completely that the infrastructure simply doesn't support the idea of downloadable HD content becoming the dominant distribution method anytime in the next 5-10 years. I think some people who live in cities get a distorted view of things. All the newest services are always available in the bigger cities but they forget that there are a whole lot of people who live in more rural areas who don't have access to those services.

I do think that one day we will likely get most of our media by downloading it but that day is still quite remote, I believe.

My prediction is that downloads will take a pretty good chunk out of the rental market but only a small chunk out of the sell-through market.

What I find completely mindboggling is how at the beginning of the format war all the talk on these forums was about getting the very best sound and picture possible and people on both sides were arguing about the admittedly minor improvements in quality that their format of choice might possibly provide over the other format (remember all that talk about VC-1's supposed superiority?). Now with the failure of HD DVD it seems there are many hardcore HD DVD supporters who in their bitter hatred of Blu-ray are now willing to accept sound and picture quality FAR lower than the differences between the two formats could ever have possibly represented. So now they are claiming picture and sound quality don't really matter that much. I've seen individuals flip 180* in that respect.

These people always couch their desires in terms of what J6P supposedly wants/needs but it's obvious by their tone that it is what THEY want more than what J6P will likely choose. When they talk about relatively low quality 720p downloads taking over the market it isn't written with sad resignation, but rather put forward as something positive to look forward to.

It seems many people have lost sight of what being a home theater enthusiast has always been about--getting the best possible sound and picture quality in our homes as possible.

I find that apple tv is first good online movie rental system released. What i mean is usability is great and thats what is needed for more people to use these kind of systems. It also helps that you can buy tv shows and music and instantly watch/listen them from same interface.

It seems lot of people want to buy their movies (just look at itunes movie comments :)). I am not sure why if you only going to watch most of movies once. I have hundreds of dvds that i have only watched once and probaby could have rented thousands for price of all those.

NOTE: I am going to test apple tv HD rentals this weekend so my opinion might change if they look crap using my 720p projector :)

The CWA survey doesn't claim to be scientific:


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html

It conflicts with two other sources, one the ITIF report I linked above that says 4.8Mbps, and also the http://www.speedtest.net site that reports the US has an average speed of 5.3Mbps.


Well, we really don't know the methodology or accuracy of the ITIF report either. And the methodology of speedtest.net seems to be the same as was used in the CWA survey. Furthermore, the data shown on speedtest.net for country rankings doesn't coincide with the chart from the ITIF report. So who knows what exactly is the average broadband spead in the US. Too much conflicting data and no definite authority to defer to.

But I do know that Geko29's understanding of and differentiation between the terms 'average' and 'median' is spot on. There is no possible way, given the data we have to go on, that the majority of people with internet have a 5Mbps connection or above, as some people seem to think.

But I do know that Geko29's understanding of and differentiation between the terms 'average' and 'median' is spot on. There is no possible way, given the data we have to go on, that the majority of people with internet have a 5Mbps connection or above, as some people seem to think.

And that number would be significantly lower (avg and median connection speed) when taking into account people that don't have any connection at all. Yes, those people do still exist. And are people on dial up even included in these studies?

It would be like going from Yards Per Completion to Yards Per Pass Attempt in football. The number goes way down on the latter because there is a big fat 0 for each one that doesn't connect at all.

And the studios want everybody's dollars, not just the ones in the major cities with high speed internet access.

Brandon

See above, 57% of US households have broadband internet, 90% of "active users" have broadband.

That's most likely based on the deliberately distorted FCC data - if a zipcode has a SINGLE broadband user then FCC count it as broadband-covered area. It's all in order to fool the Congress while FCC is now only serving corporate interests, they completely dropped yours.

IMO this whole US broadband mess is totally disgusting and it's the outcome of stuffing up FCC with totally corrupt corporate shills like Powell or the latest Bushie-pick, former right-hand of Cheney, Kevin Martin. These people have commited criminal offenses, I still do not understand how can they walk free...

Here are some interesting charts/stats from Oct 2007. Those who are upset may want to avoid this. :)

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0711/

Curious to know what Japan is doing with all of that speed. It is being used or underutilized?

The U.S.A. would benifit if cost matched speed.

Here are some interesting charts/stats from Oct 2007. Those who are upset may want to avoid this. :)

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0711/

Curious to know what Japan is doing with all of that speed. It is being used or underutilized?

Seriously: most of EU is already aheead of us when it comes to bandwidth speed and in terms of monthly charge our only 'blessing' (pun intended) is the low dollar otherwise we would look even worse in a cost/value comparison.
Once again corporate greed killed something.:mad:

This indicates you don't understand the studies you posted.

I understand perfectly.

Those two numbers are the exact same thing. One had better not be more accurate than the other. They are the same number stated a different way. To get the second number (57% of households) someone took the number of people in the US. They divided it by the average family size. Then they took the number of people who "subscribe" to internet. They divided those two numbers and got 57%.

But they aren't saying the same thing. If you're trying to get a picture of what portion of the population has access to broadband, does it make more sense to count only the people who pay for it, or the people who pay for it and the people who they allow to use it.

Some were trying to use the 20% number to say only 20% of people have access to broadband, but that's not what the 20% number says, it says 20% of people subscribe to broadband but doesn't include those who have access via someone else's subscription. In the context of this discussion, where we're talking about how many have access to broadband the 57% number is more descriptive of the situation.

So the 19.7% who pay and the 57% are the same number.

They may be derived from the same data, but they aren't the same thing and they don't have the same meaning.

The problem with BOTH is that the number means nothing in a vacuum. IE - it looks impressive, but when you boil it down to its actual meaning it is not all that impressive. For instance, the average household size in Utah is 3.13 where the average household size in the US is 2.59. In a state like Utah where the population tends to be spread out, the ability to get high speed internet is far lower than in larger cities. The average household size in a place like New York is around 2.6. So you run into a position where "medium" saturation in a large city like New York gives you a high nation wide average, even nation wide high speed access is limited to very few locations.

IMO, it doesn't really matter though. Sure people in rural areas are less likely to have broadband and it's probably slower, but they make up a smaller portion of the population as well. As of 2000 only 21% of the US population (http://www.nemw.org/poprural.htm) was "rural".

Of course, as someone living in an area with one of the higher rural populations, I can say that (depending on what exactly "rural" means) broadband is hard to get away from, even outside population centers.

Basically, you are arguing for a model where only the major cities ever watch any movies. You need to reexamine both studies until you understand that. As everyone likes to watch movies, and there is a sizable population who will not have high speed internet any time soon, that fact alone means that physical media will take a long long time to go away.

No I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying that those who can't get broadband make up a very small portion of the population.

This is a red herring. iTunes has been operational for 7 years. In 7 years, it and every other digital music service out there still have yet to get over 15% of the market.

I have a feeling that if Blu Ray had 15% if the market after 7 years, everyone would be calling it a colossal failure. Should we then assume that downloading music has been a colossal failure? As I pointed out, DVD had more than 98% of the market in approximately 10 years. Are you saying that you believe that down loadable music is going to gain 83% market share in the next 3 years?

Like I said in my first post, you have yet to address the issue that downloading music has NOT taken off - even with broadband internet "widely" available as your own claims indicate. Why is that in your opinion?

If I had to guess? Because iTunes provides very little value over their "illicit" counterparts. Maybe it's the DRM to (but I doubt that). That and the iTunes model is so massively different than anything else, it's going to take a while for people to become comfortable buying things that way. DVD was a natural extension of everything previously, buy object, get media, much easier transition.

I have now given you the context. Seven years for down loadable music for 15% share vs 10 years for DVDs and 98% share. How do you reconcile that with your "downloads are going to run away with the industry" position? By the way, according to the NPD (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_080226a.html) legal downloads only accounted for 10% of music sales. The 15% that I gave includes all forms of non-cd music.

Obviously I've not been careful or clear enough with my comments. I don't see a service available today that can take on DVD (or Blu-ray), what we have today are just hints of what's possible. What I've been saying is the technology is there for a service that can "run away with the market" as you say. Again, I've said before, "downloading" as we think of it today will not factor into that service, and nobody has created it. Yet.

Actually, you were only half correct. It is demographics, but not age related. The problem is the infrastructure costs exponentially more the less populated the area. Most major cities have already had the infrastructure put in place. The problem is now branching out from that. Your own studies mention that and mention they think government intervention is required to fix that problem.

Oh, I'm sure age factors in as well. My grandparents don't have broadband, not because they can't get it (and they live in a rural town), but because they don't care. They barely use the internet for anything. They don't buy DVDs, they rarely watch movies.

My parents have broadband, but they don't really "use" it, or care about the speed. They don't buy DVDs but they do rent a lot.

Most of the people I know closer to my age do care about their broadband speed.

It will be painfully slow to get internet to the "masses" so to speak at this point. You have a few major cities with really high speed connections available, and everyone else is left without. While you may not like the implications, that alone suggests that physical media will be around for a long long time.

Seriously, I think you drastically underestimate the availability of broadband. As I said I live in an area with one of the higher "rural" populations, and I'm not sure where where I could go around me an NOT be able to get 5-10Mbps cable broadband. All the small towns have it (that I'm aware of), you have to to basically live on an acreage in the country to be unable to get broadband.

Unfortunately, this is pure opinion. Your studies didn't indicate this at all, but rather mentioned geographical factors as being far more important.

That's why I said "I'd guess".

Or are you claiming that only people who live in large cities buy movies?

No I'm claiming that those who are more likely buy movies are the same type of people who are more likely to be "active internet users", and as the study pointed out, 90% of them have broadband.

Iowa (where I live) has almost four times the proportion or rural population to Utah, and like I said a few times, I'd have to look pretty hard to find somewhere without broadband in the state.

Interestingly enough, there have been studies done. For instance, one done in 2004 (yes - people have been able to download movies from the internet for that long) showed that paid video downloads made up a total of .3% of videos purchased or rented (Article on NPD numbers. (http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2004/moviedownloads.html)).

I can't even remember knowing about such services then. It doesn't surprise me that the proportion was pitifully small 3-4 years ago.

Notice that while iTunes has steadily be increasing their downloading services, most sites for downloading movies have been shutting down due to not enough profit. I am sure Apple has a plan with their AppleTV - but if it mirrors their plan with iTunes, it is no serious threat to physical media.

Here's a more up to date report (also using NPD numbers that paints a slightly different picture) of note:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/188920,studies-kids-forsake-cds-as-itunes-to-overtake-walmart-music.html

48% of Teenagers bought no CDs in 2007.
iTunes Music Store is the number 2 music seller in the US (behind Walmart)
CD sales were down 19% while "digital" sales were up 45% in 2007.

Again, I don't disagree that Blu-ray has little to worry about from AppleTV, but I think AppleTV is only a hint of what's to come.

How come NO ONE wants to even address the issue the VOD or downloads in no way actually replaces owning anything as far as movies go?

We have had PPV and VOD type of services since the 80's and physical media for movies has thrived.

Why all of a sudden to people think VOD is going to ever replace owning a movie?

But they aren't saying the same thing. If you're trying to get a picture of what portion of the population has access to broadband, does it make more sense to count only the people who pay for it, or the people who pay for it and the people who they allow to use it.

This is the problem with and statistics. People just see the number. They don't understand that number. They quote it over and over again - but never actually figure out what it means.

When they do market research, they cannot count who "has" broadband per say. It is impossible to do. So instead, they count the number of people PAYING for broadband access. They come up with the 19% number.

Now, the US population can be estimated at 300 million. If 19% of those "pay" for broadband, then the number of people who "pay" for broadband is 57 million. The average US household size is 2.59. So there are 115 million households. Divide 57 by 115 and you get approximately 50%. More than likely, what the group you looked at did was estimate that there were only 100 million households in the US. Then they get the 57%. Because the actual number of households is unknown and varies by geographic location, very few people are likely to call them on it. Instead, scientists will assume you know that the two numbers are the same thing and can look at them objectively.

They used different numbers, but their calculation is exactly the same. The two numbers are the same thing. Trying to say one is more important than the other is worthless. They are the same thing. They have the same meaning. They are a statistical quantity.

This in and of itself is the largest reason I have a problem with your continued insistence on using the 57% number. You don't know how they got it. Numbers I have seen (http://www.freepress.net/docs/shooting_the_messenger.pdf) paint a much different story. They say that 50 million households have broadband access, with 60 million who do not. Which is right? Doesn't matter. Both are a statistical quantity and should be treated as such - not an absolute truth.

IMO, it doesn't really matter though. Sure people in rural areas are less likely to have broadband and it's probably slower, but they make up a smaller portion of the population as well. As of 2000 only 21% of the US population (http://www.nemw.org/poprural.htm) was "rural".

You don't have to be "rural" to fall in the area of not having high speed infrastructure available. If you haven't figured it out yet, density is the problem. New York City for instance has 20 million people (this is the area that is one city, not the area named for the city itself If you don't understand what that means, don't Google New York and try to post an 8 million number) f. By itself, it counts for 7% of the nations population. So Verizon can run fiber optic cable in New York - an area that geographically is very tiny, and cover 7% of the US population.

THOSE type of areas are the areas being covered. On the other hand, take a county like Salt Lake County. 1.2 million people live there. However, that area does NOT have fiber running to homes. As a matter of fact, there are areas less than 10 minutes from Salt Lake that still do not offer DSL or cable internet. The problem is that the population in Salt Lake covers about the same area as the population in New York. The population density is not high enough to run cable everywhere. So you end up with isolated spots that have access to high speed internet.

Note there is a significant difference between "broadband" and "high speed" in my book. ISDN is often counted as broadband in these studies, and it has a max download speed of 128kbs. It really isn't that much better than a modem. You will note that someone pointed out the median to you earlier and showed it is far below the "average" you quoted. This is important because it gives you hints as to the shape of the distribution.

I bet if you looked, you would have a multi-peaked distribution with peaks at the most common cap speeds (8kb/s, 4kb/s, 1.5kb/s, 640kb/s, 256kb/s, 128kb/s). The majority of people lie in that sub 1.5kb/s range. That is why the median is so low. However, a large peak at 8kb/s for cities like New York would skew the average, even if they did not represent the population as a whole.

But to be purely scientific, lets assume that everywhere that isn't "rural" gets high speed internet instead of just generic broadband. That means that 21% of the population still cannot use downloads as their source for movies. Sit back and think about that. That percentage of the population is large enough to justify the existance of physical formats.

No I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying that those who can't get broadband make up a very small portion of the population.

But this argument doesn't matter. However, according to the last stats I saw, around 10 million households had no service options at all. Around 50 million face connections that are too expensive or too slow. Of the 50 million who do subscribe, the median download speed is low enough that it is obviously not suited for content delivery.

Those are not small numbers to me. Of course small becomes a matter of semantics here - but I think it can be more objectively stated as it is a large enough percentage of the market to prevent the download model from becoming the primary means of distribution.

Obviously I've not been careful or clear enough with my comments. I don't see a service available today that can take on DVD (or Blu-ray), what we have today are just hints of what's possible. What I've been saying is the technology is there for a service that can "run away with the market" as you say. Again, I've said before, "downloading" as we think of it today will not factor into that service, and nobody has created it. Yet.

Once again, I don't think that this is the case. We've covered the talking points against the infrastructure - but lets look at just economics.

Oh, I'm sure age factors in as well. My grandparents don't have broadband, not because they can't get it (and they live in a rural town), but because they don't care. They barely use the internet for anything. They don't buy DVDs, they rarely watch movies.

My parents have broadband, but they don't really "use" it, or care about the speed. They don't buy DVDs but they do rent a lot.

Most of the people I know closer to my age do care about their broadband speed.

This is what is known as anecdotal evidence. It doesn't really provide a basis for anything other than "those you know". Really - everything I have read points specifically to population density being a much larger factor in who has and doesn't have high speed internet than age.

Seriously, I think you drastically underestimate the availability of broadband.

I worked for a large internet backbone service provider to pay my way through school. I still have friends there are talk to people there (Ikano is the name if you want to google it). The problem I am having is that I actually got to work with the technology on a nationwide level for a long time. I got to see it from the other side.

To an extent, we are both basing our opinions on our own experiences. You say you would have a hard time finding connections less than 5-10Mbps. However, from my experience most people in the US would have a hard time finding connections over 1.5Mbps. The median supports my view of things. There are serious problems with the infrastructure that many people don't know about. Many areas of the country still run on outdated copper wire and analog switches. These severely reduce the ability to get high speed internet access. Cable internet is slightly better because cable is a more recent service so lines tend to be newer, but ever there you run into bandwidth issues. Even in the heart of larger cities (I mentioned Salt Lake, but other cities I worked in have similar problems).

That doesn't even begin to address the issue of cumulative bandwidth and backbone space. You do realize that companies like Comcast and many other major internet providers are starting to cap downloads per month and charge extra? The speed estimates you get are based upon you not using a lot of internet. They do that so they can give you big shiny numbers. However, if everyone with broadband today started downloading anything at 1Mbps even it would bring the internet to a halt.

There are serious problems with infrastructure that you just aren't considering here.

No I'm claiming that those who are more likely buy movies are the same type of people who are more likely to be "active internet users", and as the study pointed out, 90% of them have broadband.

This assertion is baseless though. As a matter of fact, I would suggest the opposite to be true if anything. People with internet have another option for entertainment. People without don't.

Iowa (where I live) has almost four times the proportion or rural population to Utah, and like I said a few times, I'd have to look pretty hard to find somewhere without broadband in the state.

Anecdotal evidence.

This is an area you would have done very well to research though. I say that because you are taking a state that is most certainly not "normal" and trying to use it as a basis for your opinion.

What do I mean by not "normal"? Simple, in 2004 a study was done that showed less than 50% of Iowa's households had access to broadband internet. This prompted the Iowa government to put in place programs to fix that. They recently published a report claiming they have upped that number to 92.9% of rural communities through their plan. Unfortunately, they define broadband as anything better than 200Kbps. If you actually looked, you would find that many communities in your own state are limited to slow download speeds. According to your own government, high speed cable services (the ones that can reach the 5-10Mbps region) is limited to 31.6% of communities in Iowa according to their last report (here (http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/docs/reports/InternetAccess_2006Revised.pdf)).

If you check, you'll find that non-rural communities are much more likely to have access in Iowa than rural communities.

Do you see how that doesn't exactly jive with your depiction of things?

And all of that is in a state where the government intervened.



Here's a more up to date report (also using NPD numbers that paints a slightly different picture) of note:

No offense, but I linked the NPD press release those articles were citing. They were most certainly up to date and they were most certainly the more accurate information. The 10% number was as of the end of 2007. It was most certainly current and an accurate picture. However, because you want to debate it:

48% of Teenagers bought no CDs in 2007.

Number in a vacuum. Means nothing.

iTunes Music Store is the number 2 music seller in the US (behind Walmart)

Number in a vacuum. Means nothing. Let me give you the real number. iTunes is worth 7% of all downloads in the US and 70% of digital downloads.
They are still less than 10% of the total market

CD sales were down 19% while "digital" sales were up 45% in 2007.

Number in a vacuum. Means nothing.

But just to be impressive, did you know that I increased the number of cats in my household by 100% last year? Impressive isn't it. I now have a grand total of 2. I bet you that number is small compared to the actual number of cats in the world though - even if my percentage of increase was large.

Once again, I don't think your representation of things is accurate. It really isn't accurate even for Iowa where you live according to your local government. I have a hard time believing it is accurate for the entire country.

Xalion is my hero, that's all I have to say.

I really don't care who is "right" and "wrong" in this discussion, but it is just so, so refreshingly great to see someone on the Internet who actually backs up their stance with facts and logical statements rather than spouting off at the mouth thanks to internet anonymity.

You sir, deserve a cookie. Many of them. Well done.

Seriously: most of EU is already aheead of us when it comes to bandwidth speed and in terms of monthly charge our only 'blessing' (pun intended) is the low dollar otherwise we would look even worse in a cost/value comparison.
Once again corporate greed killed something.:mad:

Really? You must be kidding.

Europeans do actually think the same thing about the US and that they are technically already far ahead (1990 VS 2008).

Really? You must be kidding.

Europeans do actually think the same thing about the US and that they are technically already far ahead (1990 VS 2008).

Umm I was born and raised in Europe and beyond my mother tongue I speak 3 more languages so I read A LOT, let alone the info from my family in Europe. However I never thought that after ~2003-2004 (I moved here a decade ago), as far as I know we lost this 'race' somewhere around there.

100% of people in urban centers and rural areas have access to HDTV,one way or the other. Access means nothing if they choose not to use it.

However I agree that the FCC has shorted us on broadband accessibility compared to some other countries, so our usage is low. Same policy thought that gives us bad cell phone service coverage and non-competitive service providers. Take note none of them go under Chapter 11 like in a real deregulated competitive industy, the airlines.

Why all of a sudden to people think VOD is going to ever replace owning a movie?

Because it makes for a good way to grind an axe :)

Note there is a significant difference between "broadband" and "high speed" in my book. ISDN is often counted as broadband in these studies, and it has a max download speed of 128kbs. It really isn't that much better than a modem. You will note that someone pointed out the median to you earlier and showed it is far below the "average" you quoted. This is important because it gives you hints as to the shape of the distribution.

I bet if you looked, you would have a multi-peaked distribution with peaks at the most common cap speeds (8kb/s, 4kb/s, 1.5kb/s, 640kb/s, 256kb/s, 128kb/s). The majority of people lie in that sub 1.5kb/s range. That is why the median is so low. However, a large peak at 8kb/s for cities like New York would skew the average, even if they did not represent the population as a whole.

But to be purely scientific, lets assume that everywhere that isn't "rural" gets high speed internet instead of just generic broadband. That means that 21% of the population still cannot use downloads as their source for movies. Sit back and think about that. That percentage of the population is large enough to justify the existance of physical formats.

My thoughts exactly.


You do realize that companies like Comcast and many other major internet providers are starting to cap downloads per month and charge extra? The speed estimates you get are based upon you not using a lot of internet. They do that so they can give you big shiny numbers.

And when brought to their attention, the response was "so what?"

Brandon

How come NO ONE wants to even address the issue the VOD or downloads in no way actually replaces owning anything as far as movies go?

I've addressed it I think. I buy movies because buying them is largely more convenient than any of the other alternatives. VOD has the potential (not there yet) to be far more convenient than buying.

Netflix has shown us just how great it is to be able to simply sign up for a service and get access to a "complete" collection of movies.

AppleTV, Xbox Live, and cable VOD services are beginning to show how great it is to be able to access a movie instantly.

It's only a matter of time before these two ideas are brought together is a service that is unlike anything we've seen so far.

We have had PPV and VOD type of services since the 80's and physical media for movies has thrived.

Because all VOD options so far are severely limited, poor selection, poor quality, poor speed, high cost, etc.

Why all of a sudden to people think VOD is going to ever replace owning a movie?

Because when you can simply have a service and a box (like we do with cable today) and be able to access any movie at any time, what's the point of owning a disc?

This is the problem with and statistics. People just see the number. They don't understand that number. They quote it over and over again - but never actually figure out what it means.

When they do market research, they cannot count who "has" broadband per say. It is impossible to do. So instead, they count the number of people PAYING for broadband access. They come up with the 19% number.

True

Now, the US population can be estimated at 300 million. If 19% of those "pay" for broadband, then the number of people who "pay" for broadband is 57 million. The average US household size is 2.59. So there are 115 million households. Divide 57 by 115 and you get approximately 50%. More than likely, what the group you looked at did was estimate that there were only 100 million households in the US. Then they get the 57%.

Agreed. And that 57% is a reasonable extrapolation based on the known data, ie the number of people who subscribe, presumably 1 per household, the average number of household (2.59), to get an estimate of the number of people with access, presumably those in a household with a subscriber also have access.

Because the actual number of households is unknown and varies by geographic location, very few people are likely to call them on it.

If we know the average size of household, and the population, you can come up with a reasonable approximation of number of households.

Instead, scientists will assume you know that the two numbers are the same thing and can look at them objectively.

Scientist also won't try use the 19% subscribe metric to say only 19% have access like some in this thread were doing.

They used different numbers, but their calculation is exactly the same. The two numbers are the same thing. Trying to say one is more important than the other is worthless. They are the same thing. They have the same meaning. They are a statistical quantity.

I never said one was more important, what I was saying is that you have to use the same units when comparing two things, namely subscribers and population. If we want to know how many people have access to broadband, and know the number of subscribers, we can make an educated guess, or approximation of the number with access if we assume broadband subscribers are in "average" households. That's an assumption that is close, but not right as you point out right below.

This in and of itself is the largest reason I have a problem with your continued insistence on using the 57% number. You don't know how they got it. Numbers I have seen (http://www.freepress.net/docs/shooting_the_messenger.pdf) paint a much different story. They say that 50 million households have broadband access, with 60 million who do not. Which is right? Doesn't matter. Both are a statistical quantity and should be treated as such - not an absolute truth.

Why didn't you just point out that in the first place? But that essentially backs up my point, the 19% number isn't representative of the proportion of the population with access because it ignores those living in a household with a subscriber. Apparently broadband access is biased toward below-average sized households.

Of course that paper backs up another of my points, it say only 10 of 110 million households is unable to get broadband, 50 million have broadband, and 50 million opt not to subscribe.

You don't have to be "rural" to fall in the area of not having high speed infrastructure available. If you haven't figured it out yet, density is the problem. New York City for instance has 20 million people (this is the area that is one city, not the area named for the city itself If you don't understand what that means, don't Google New York and try to post an 8 million number) f. By itself, it counts for 7% of the nations population. So Verizon can run fiber optic cable in New York - an area that geographically is very tiny, and cover 7% of the US population.

Yes, I understand. My grandparents live in a town with ~2400 people, broadband access is available there. My aunt and uncle live in a town of ~1700 people with broadband access. Both towns are over an hour from the the nearest thing that could be called a city (nothing with >10,000 people within an hour).

Note there is a significant difference between "broadband" and "high speed" in my book. ISDN is often counted as broadband in these studies, and it has a max download speed of 128kbs. It really isn't that much better than a modem. You will note that someone pointed out the median to you earlier and showed it is far below the "average" you quoted. This is important because it gives you hints as to the shape of the distribution.

When I'm talking broadband I mean DSL or cable.

I bet if you looked, you would have a multi-peaked distribution with peaks at the most common cap speeds (8kb/s, 4kb/s, 1.5kb/s, 640kb/s, 256kb/s, 128kb/s).

I agree, 56kbps (modem), 128kbps, 256kbps, 512kbps, 1.5Mbps, 5Mbps, 10Mbps, 15Mbps, 30Mbps, I'm sure it's multi-peaked around those.

The majority of people lie in that sub 1.5kb/s range.

Where'd that number come from? Even a 56kbps modem can do better than that (usually closer to 3-4kb/sec).

That is why the median is so low. However, a large peak at 8kb/s for cities like New York would skew the average, even if they did not represent the population as a whole.[QUOTE]

True.

[QUOTE]But to be purely scientific, lets assume that everywhere that isn't "rural" gets high speed internet instead of just generic broadband. That means that 21% of the population still cannot use downloads as their source for movies. Sit back and think about that. That percentage of the population is large enough to justify the existance of physical formats.

I never said physical formats would cease to exist, well they will eventually. But again, I'm not saying downloads over the internet will take over, never have (if I did, I misspoke).

But this argument doesn't matter. However, according to the last stats I saw, around 10 million households had no service options at all. Around 50 million face connections that are too expensive or too slow. Of the 50 million who do subscribe, the median download speed is low enough that it is obviously not suited for content delivery.

Less than 10% can't get broadband, that's pretty good. As for the half who could but choose not to, it's impossible to draw any conclusions from that.

Those are not small numbers to me. Of course small becomes a matter of semantics here - but I think it can be more objectively stated as it is a large enough percentage of the market to prevent the download model from becoming the primary means of distribution.

But what do you say about HDTV penetration, it's about the same as broadband, somewhere on the order of 50% of households had an HDTV last time I saw. Does the fact that 50% of households don't have an HDTV mean Blu-ray can't become the primary means of distribution? Of course not. HDTV penetration will increase, so will broadband.


Once again, I don't think that this is the case. We've covered the talking points against the infrastructure - but lets look at just economics.

According to NCTA, 117 million homes were "passed" (as they say) by high-speed cable data service (34 million homes subscribe to cable).
http://www.ncta.com/Statistic/Statistic/Statistics.aspx

This is what is known as anecdotal evidence. It doesn't really provide a basis for anything other than "those you know". Really - everything I have read points specifically to population density being a much larger factor in who has and doesn't have high speed internet than age.

Never said it was anything but anecdotal.

I worked for a large internet backbone service provider to pay my way through school. I still have friends there are talk to people there (Ikano is the name if you want to google it). The problem I am having is that I actually got to work with the technology on a nationwide level for a long time. I got to see it from the other side.

To an extent, we are both basing our opinions on our own experiences. You say you would have a hard time finding connections less than 5-10Mbps. However, from my experience most people in the US would have a hard time finding connections over 1.5Mbps. The median supports my view of things. There are serious problems with the infrastructure that many people don't know about. Many areas of the country still run on outdated copper wire and analog switches. These severely reduce the ability to get high speed internet access. Cable internet is slightly better because cable is a more recent service so lines tend to be newer, but ever there you run into bandwidth issues. Even in the heart of larger cities (I mentioned Salt Lake, but other cities I worked in have similar problems).

Yeah, DSL is more troublesome access wise, I agree there. I know plenty of areas around here without DSL access (my friend for instance) but those areas are almost always covered by cable, and generally in IA that means 5Mbps+ (that's the cap of course not necessarilly actual bandwidth).

That doesn't even begin to address the issue of cumulative bandwidth and backbone space. You do realize that companies like Comcast and many other major internet providers are starting to cap downloads per month and charge extra? The speed estimates you get are based upon you not using a lot of internet. They do that so they can give you big shiny numbers. However, if everyone with broadband today started downloading anything at 1Mbps even it would bring the internet to a halt.[QUOTE]

True.

[QUOTE]There are serious problems with infrastructure that you just aren't considering here.

Obviously the infrastructure needs help. But we're at the beginning, maybe it won't catch up, maybe it will, only time will tell.

This assertion is baseless though. As a matter of fact, I would suggest the opposite to be true if anything. People with internet have another option for entertainment. People without don't.

Your assertion is just as baseless.

Anecdotal evidence.

Did I say it wasn't?

This is an area you would have done very well to research though. I say that because you are taking a state that is most certainly not "normal" and trying to use it as a basis for your opinion.

What do I mean by not "normal"? Simple, in 2004 a study was done that showed less than 50% of Iowa's households had access to broadband internet. This prompted the Iowa government to put in place programs to fix that. They recently published a report claiming they have upped that number to 92.9% of rural communities through their plan. Unfortunately, they define broadband as anything better than 200Kbps. If you actually looked, you would find that many communities in your own state are limited to slow download speeds. According to your own government, high speed cable services (the ones that can reach the 5-10Mbps region) is limited to 31.6% of communities in Iowa according to their last report (here (http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/docs/reports/InternetAccess_2006Revised.pdf)).

If you check, you'll find that non-rural communities are much more likely to have access in Iowa than rural communities.

Do you see how that doesn't exactly jive with your depiction of things?

And all of that is in a state where the government intervened.

Fair enough.

No offense, but I linked the NPD press release those articles were citing. They were most certainly up to date and they were most certainly the more accurate information. The 10% number was as of the end of 2007. It was most certainly current and an accurate picture. However, because you want to debate it:

Sorry, you linked two NPD articles, I got confused, I only noted the one from 2004.

I was actually just thinking yesterday about how ridiculous the pricing is for broadband.

And people think Blu-Ray doesn't have as much incentive to drop prices, what about broadband providers? I want those prices to drop but who knows when/if it'll ever happen.

No competition. Broadband is most likely to be cable either the Cable company, or the Telephone company. Cable is a monopoly in most areas, Telephone lines are a monopoly in most areas. So I am stuck with Atlantic Broadband, without even a chance for Verizon DSL because I do not live close enough to a hub. And Atlantic Broadband extorts $65 a month from me to get a piddling 6mb at best with measured speeds around 4mb. I can pay less for something approaching DSL at 768kb. Gee wow zooey on that.

And you might be surprised how many folks have DSL. Of the friends and family I know with broadband, one has Comcast, one has Adelphia, and five have DSL including one business run on DSL. Two others with computers have dial up, one has nada.

Because all VOD options so far are severely limited, poor selection, poor quality, poor speed, high cost, etc.



Because when you can simply have a service and a box (like we do with cable today) and be able to access any movie at any time, what's the point of owning a disc?

In my personal opinion, we are a long ways off from this happening. Even still, it doesn't address the issue of actual ownership. It may seem like an antiquated concept in the future, but there will be a good amount of people that are still into "owning" their media, for a number of reasons.

(Not the least of which is hosing MTV's "Cribs" show at your house and showing off your movie collection :cool:)

Brandon

Just wanted to pick one nit on your otherwise excellent analysis:
Note there is a significant difference between "broadband" and "high speed" in my book.
As there should be. The two are wholly different concepts and are neither synonymous nor mutually exlusive. Interchanging the two is analogous to equating "red" with "porsche" because there are many red 911s running around. But a Porsche need not be red, nor need every red car be a Porsche.

ISDN is often counted as broadband in these studies, and it has a max download speed of 128kbs. It really isn't that much better than a modem.
If they do indeed count ISDN as broadband, then unfortunately the study should be discounted, because the people performing it obviously don't know anything about what they're attempting to measure. ISDN is NOT broadband, by its very definition, and bandwidth/transfer rate has absolutely nothing to do with it. ISDN, like all telephone and ethernet protocols, uses baseband signaling. DSL will always be broadband, even if it runs half as fast as an analog modem. Likewise telecom links will always be baseband, even if it's an OC192 running at 10Gb/s. Broadband != high speed.