I am not trying to pounce on BD and give another reason for it fail. I am an Movie fanboy (not HD DVD).

I started out with HD as most do with either broadcast HD or HD VOD with a cable subscriber. I thought is was what HD was and was content with DVD upscaled. In Jan of 2008, I jumped on HD DVD with an HD-A3 with prices falling knowing full well the risk involved. I went purple in April when I added a BD drive to my HTPC. I am now looking for a standalone BD player as I am moving away from HTPCs for disk playback.

With HD DVD, it was alot easier. The HD-A3/A2/A1 was the entry level 720p/1080i player that got you into the game. The HD-A30/A20 got you 1080p. The A35 got you analog out audio for the higher codecs. The XA2/XA3 gave you post processing of the video. All of them could bitstream the codecs out HDMi and downconverted to DD/DTS for optical output.

It is so much harder with BD. I was very confused with all these profiles, but I understand now what they are and think too much is made about 2.0. Quite frankly, I don't need more than 1.0.

Yet spec-wise, it is a hodge podge of options. some seem to give you post processing, but don't bitstream TrueHD or DTS-MA. Others will process the TrueHD and not the DTS-MA. Others will Process the TrueHD, but not bitstream it. and so on and so on.

Of course the exception is the uber expensive players.

I just seems confusing... and I am an AV enthusiast.

I own an HD-A3, xbox addon, DV-HD805, liteon bluray drive. Probably will get the BD-P1400 even though it does not post process like the 1200 although it will decode analog out for TrueHD and bitstream both. Someone mentioned a Panny to me - it has 5.1 analog out but only processes DD/DTS internally which I just don't get - I could send that out optical or coaxial anyway. The advantage of having analog out on HDM players is that it can send the advanced codecs out to non HDMI 1.3 receivers via analog.

Just an observation. Of course, I am a bluray noob so forgive if I am wrong on a fact here or there, but it is how it is coming across to me. And I am not even a J6P.

Personally none at all.

If the consumer is intrested. They go to best buy and ask. He where are the blu-ray players. Done. Of course if Best buy tries to upsell they might get a disertation on profiles and what not but unless specifically asked they won't get mentioned.

Personally none at all.

If the consumer is intrested. They go to best buy and ask. He where are the blu-ray players. Done. Of course if Best buy tries to upsell they might get a disertation on profiles and what not but unless specifically asked they won't get mentioned.

the problem is that most folks don't do that with big purchases anymore. They usually research online first and then go buy. And not just the younger gen.

I am in the advertising portion of the automotive industry. 86% of car purchasers research online first. It isn't that different with high end electronics. In fact, they are actually probably more apt to buy online. But many that buy in the store, usually research first so they know what to ask for when they do go in and pick one up. Not so much for lower end products like Cd players, wires and such, but the big purchases... yes.

Since HD-DVD = Toshiba (with one very late to the game China box - Venturer), it was easy. On the Blu-ray side, BD is NOT = Sony, but the BDA with a number of companies making product. When you add a mix, things get more complex.

I like to listen to the news when working around the house and my last TV (a Toshiba) provided audio on the RCA jacks regardless of what output I selected. My new one (Mits) does not and I miss that "feature" as I now must power on my amp when I’m using my Bluetooth headset. Different manufactures, different features.

the problem is that most folks don't do that with big purchases anymore. They usually research online first and then go buy. And not just the younger gen.

I am in the advertising portion of the automotive industry. 86% of car purchasers research online first. It isn't that different with high end electronics. In fact, they are actually probably more apt to buy online. But many that buy in the store, usually research first so they know what to ask for when they do go in and pick one up. Not so much for lower end products like Cd players, wires and such, but the big purchases... yes.

Incorrect

they research blu-ray as much as car buying. Which means for most, they look at price and MPG and perhaps options. The last one being very unlikely with the first two being priorities. I should know as one of the business I run is to educate the potential car buyer on what they want to know and you will be surprised the reseach they have done prior (usually none).

In my opinion. None to negligible. Prices are a bigger factor since at most stores, the top end DVD players end at $199 while Blu Ray players start at $399 or so.

More importantly, at most big box retailers their Blu Ray demos lack the 'wow'! factor since there are so many displays with colorful HD content viewing for attention. If anything, for many it's more a case of - wow! I want to watch that football game in HD! rather than, I want to watch Narnia on Blu Ray.

For many, DVD upconversion is already offering HD movies at 1080p, albeit at a lower quality than Blu Ray. But the movies are cheaper.

Just putting myself in the average buyers shoes :)

Since HD-DVD = Toshiba (with one very late to the game China box - Venturer), it was easy. On the Blu-ray side, BD is NOT = Sony, but the BDA with a number of companies making product. When you add a mix, things get more complex.

I like to listen to the news when working around the house and my last TV (a Toshiba) provided audio on the RCA jacks regardless of what output I selected. My new one (Mits) does not and I miss that "feature" as I now must power on my amp when I’m using my Bluetooth headset. Different manufactures, different features.

Problem is the use of Java. There are many JVMs, each different from the other. HD DVD as far as I know was not Java based.

DVD has way more vendors than Blu Ray.

But I don't see this being a problem in the long run. I can't recall a single recent title with incompatibility issues.

Incorrect

they research blu-ray as much as car buying. Which means for most, they look at price and MPG and perhaps options. The last one being very unlikely with the first two being priorities. I should know as one of the business I run is to educate the potential car buyer on what they want to know and you will be surprised the reseach they have done prior (usually none).

I have million dollar studies that disagree with you.

86% of car buyers do research online before purchasing a car. Of those, only 15-20% actually send in for a quote. of those, only 30 actually will buy.

But people are doing reasearch online first. And it is not a small amount but the overwhelming majority.

These number vary between 72- and 92 % depending on whether the study was from Cobalt, Autotrader, KBB or a number of other sources. JD power associates came up around the same figure too.

When it comes to this, I am using real numbers.

I have been in the automotive business since 1996 (12 years). From a simple car salesmen to a sales manager, finance manager, internet manager. I now run multiple departments as a liason and am constantly attending different venues from multiple providers. The numbers are all the same give or take 10-15%. People shop online first whether it is just researching or actually buying. The majority still buy in a store, but most WILL research online.

The studies are copywright so I can't link them here, but they are real. And trust me, from a dealer end, very few people come in ahead of time without going online first.

Most popular sites we see:


OEM
KBB
Edmunds
Cars.com
Autotrader.com
Dealer Website
ConsumerReports.com
ebaymotors.com


They use this information to "hammer" us on price. In many ways it is killing the automotive business.

Don't be fooled by the few on here that talk down about the J6Ps and there dislike of technology. Those are carryover misconceptions from the 80s and early 90s. Most folks have internet access and know how to use a computer to atleast surf online. It is no longer just for tech oriented folks. It is why the newspapers are dying off. It is why direct mail is not nearly as effective as before. It is why online companies like amazon.com and google.com are multi-billion dollar companies.

I do all my home work online. I simply ask the dealer if they have a car with the specs I want and quote the offer.

I am usually rejected first time. But in the end I get it. Both our recent cars were bought that way. No haggling, nothing. Easy :)

I do all my home work online. I simply ask the dealer if they have a car with the specs I want and quote the offer.

I am usually rejected first time. But in the end I get it. Both our recent cars were bought that way. No haggling, nothing. Easy :)

that is exactly what I am saying. research online. not actually buying. The majority of our own "internet business" actually comes in on the phone and through the door.

In my opinion. None to negligible. Prices are a bigger factor since at most stores, the top end DVD players end at $199 while Blu Ray players start at $399 or so.



Upconvert players that do 1080p start at $49.
Best Buy, Wal-mart, Fred Meyer and Frys have Blu-ray players starting at $250-275.
I'm sure when J6P see's upconvert players selling for $150+, they wonder why when a blu-ray(new techonolgy) player is not much more.



In regards to the OP, I believe most people don't know about profiles.
They just see the PQ difference between Blu-ray and SD.
When they decide to buy a player in their budget, I doubt if they even ask or know about profiles.

The "Bonus View" bolded print on the boxes do nothing to sell players or help inform the general public what that means to them.

Next, we'll be mandating that these CE stores have a billboard with profile differences so the consumer can make an informed decision.

I have million dollar studies that disagree with you.

86% of car buyers do research online before purchasing a car. Of those, only 15-20% actually send in for a quote. of those, only 30 actually will buy.

But people are doing reasearch online first. And it is not a small amount but the overwhelming majority.

These number vary between 72- and 92 % depending on whether the study was from Cobalt, Autotrader, KBB or a number of other sources. JD power associates came up around the same figure too.

When it comes to this, I am using real numbers.

I have been in the automotive business since 1996 (12 years). From a simple car salesmen to a sales manager, finance manager, internet manager. I now run multiple departments as a liason and am constantly attending different venues from multiple providers. The numbers are all the same give or take 10-15%. People shop online first whether it is just researching or actually buying. The majority still buy in a store, but most WILL research online.

The studies are copywright so I can't link them here, but they are real. And trust me, from a dealer end, very few people come in ahead of time without going online first.

Most popular sites we see:


OEM
KBB
Edmunds
Cars.com
Autotrader.com
Dealer Website
ConsumerReports.com
ebaymotors.com


They use this information to "hammer" us on price. In many ways it is killing the automotive business.

Don't be fooled by the few on here that talk down about the J6Ps and there dislike of technology. Those are carryover misconceptions from the 80s and early 90s. Most folks have internet access and know how to use a computer to atleast surf online. It is no longer just for tech oriented folks. It is why the newspapers are dying off. It is why direct mail is not nearly as effective as before. It is why online companies like amazon.com and google.com are multi-billion dollar companies.

and you do give people to much credit.

I am on the other coin (Along with being a business man). I am in technology. Have been since 1992 officially and since late 80's unofficially.

Technology is one of the things the average person would like to know but are "afraid" (like it is going to bite them or something). They could care less about the hz, the sizing of the L2 cache, or the Hypertransport speed.

All they care about is. Does it do what I need it to do (play movie/open documents/open pictures/PLay games/ surf web etc). Why? Because most technology is correlated to a dreaded word. MATH. At least that is how they "connect the dots".

Guess what. Just like people buying cars. They might research the MPG, Pricing, options and perhaps HP rating.

They don't care about how the latest traction control incorporates slip based calculations and that input is used to modulate the drive by wire throttle which happens to be a CANbus based message with the highest priorty. (Technology is everywhere!) or how that same Traction control has 2/3 accelerometers to detect yaw rates and momentum of the car to detect an "out of control car" and apply the correct brake bias at the correct time. Or how the radio, AC and ECu are all interrelated via CANBus. What speed the CANbus is on the particular car, or how many CANBus's there are on the vehicle. (KBB, Edmunds won't go into that fine a detail).

They just want the 10,000 ft overview done via the sites you mentioned.


Only people clamoring about profiles are the tech savvy and those folks should not be clammoring as everyone here knows what the status of the profiles are down to each player.

I don't think there is any decent content yet for profile confusion. It may be another year before there is some really good BD 1.1 and BD live content for consumers to care about. It may be sooner and it may never come.

and you do give people to much credit.

I am on the other coin (Along with being a business man). I am in technology. Have been since 1992 officially and since late 80's unofficially.

Technology is one of the things the average person would like to know but are "afraid" (like it is going to bite them or something). They could care less about the hz, the sizing of the L2 cache, or the Hypertransport speed.

All they care about is. Does it do what I need it to do (play movie/open documents/open pictures/PLay games/ surf web etc). Why? Because most technology is correlated to a dreaded word. MATH. At least that is how they "connect the dots".

Guess what. Just like people buying cars. They might research the MPG, Pricing, options and perhaps HP rating.

They don't care about how the latest traction control incorporates slip based calculations and that input is used to modulate the drive by wire throttle which happens to be a CANbus based message with the highest priorty. (Technology is everywhere!) or how that same Traction control has 2/3 accelerometers to detect yaw rates and momentum of the car to detect an "out of control car" and apply the correct brake bias at the correct time. Or how the radio, AC and ECu are all interrelated via CANBus. What speed the CANbus is on the particular car, or how many CANBus's there are on the vehicle. (KBB, Edmunds won't go into that fine a detail).

They just want the 10,000 ft overview done via the sites you mentioned.


Only people clamoring about profiles are the tech savvy and those folks should not be clammoring as everyone here knows what the status of the profiles are down to each player.


But that doesn't mean that they don't know how to good bluray players, go to bestbuy.com or search online.

I guess it probably doesn't matter for enthusiats. Most folks are still using 2.0 tv speakers and could care less as long as it plays. Our finance guy insist that his sharp BD hooked up to his bose wave radio is giving him surround surround and is better than my onkyo with lossless.

I don't think it matters as long as the movie plays. I bought an HD DVD player that didn't have all the specs, functionality either, I just wanted to watch movies with it same with blu-ray. Everybody I know that has a blu-ray player doesn't care if it can hook up to the web or any other fluff.

I just can't see compelling Java apps that can be created to make people care about this BD Live feature.

I see this feature being deprecated over time.

I'd be perfectly happy with todays Blu Ray players.

unless something fantastic 1.1 or 2.0 material is being marketed with a certain movie, I see no reason why consumers would care.

That a certain movie doesnt play in a certain player is a bigger problem.

I guess it probably doesn't matter for enthusiats. Most folks are still using 2.0 tv speakers and could care less as long as it plays. Our finance guy insist that his sharp BD hooked up to his bose wave radio is giving him surround surround and is better than my onkyo with lossless.

until i read your op, i wasnt sure if i'd need anymore than a 1.0 player or not.
as i dont care about extras, connecting to the net, etc, my only care is to watch the movie, eject, and power off.

my current bd player should keep me happy as long as i keep fw updated. or it wears out (which should take a very long time as i only use it 2 or 3 times/month)-gotta few other format players to split the 'wear out' duties with.

I see the need for constant firmware upgrade as the most serious impediment to widespread adoption of Blu-ray. Unless the required FW is included in the disc, I would guess that 90% of general public are going to be returning their Blu-ray player to the store as being defective. The studios really need to get their head out of their a** and standardize on single DRM key or they're going to kill any public support for their golden goose.

I see the need for constant firmware upgrade as the most serious impediment to widespread adoption of Blu-ray. Unless the required FW is included in the disc, I would guess that 90% of general public are going to be returning their Blu-ray player to the store as being defective. The studios really need to get their head out of their a** and standardize on single DRM key or they're going to kill any public support for their golden goose.
To your first point:
So someone might wonder if BD is aimed at widespread adoption or is it aimed at another audience. Price/ ease of use and intended function are factors.
Grandma and grandpa seem to know little about PC related products, however, many younger folks knowledge base is quite impressive. Many of the things I learned to do as an adult with a pc, my 12 and 17 year olds have been doing for some time now. Firmware updates are part of the territory.

To your second point:
I would guess that people would return a player if a significant portion of their discs wouldn't play. If one disc wouldn't play, the disc itself would be returned as defective. Many returns of a particular disc (because it won't play) will impact the studio and cause change (or head removal if you prefer).

Everybody I know that has a blu-ray player doesn't care if it can hook up to the web or any other fluff.

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't want my BD player connecting to the web because I don't know what information it's sending. Having my PS3 connected to the Internet makes me nervous for the same reasons.

Devices that "phone home" without our permission remain a threat to our privacy.

For me, it's all about price. If I can get a reliable BD player for under 200, I'll bite. Until then, I'll stick with HDDVD and upconverting SD.

As I said before there isn't much content that matters yet.

I thought the German release of T2 with that showed all the "goofs" while the film played was pretty cool, and I heard that subtitles and some soundtracks can be added later after a film is purchased. It they dynamic part that will be cool.

I heard that in the future when you go to play a movie like Catwoman 2 - Revenge of the Mice, it will play the latest trailers and show interviews about upcoming movies Catwoman 3 and Glitter 2.

I remember hearing that HD DVD was planning some "director's screenings" where everyone would sync their movies to play at a certain time and then you ask questions and get answers as the movie plays. I think the director could even pause everyones film while giving answers.

I am sure there is a whole lot more that we can't even comprehend at this time that some studios are planning. I am sure someone will connect twitter, myspace, google maps and other things to players with BD-live.

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't want my BD player connecting to the web because I don't know what information it's sending.
What information does your Blu-ray player have that you're afraid of losing? Just curious.

John

I'm probably in the minority, but I don't want my BD player connecting to the web because I don't know what information it's sending. Having my PS3 connected to the Internet makes me nervous for the same reasons.

Devices that "phone home" without our permission remain a threat to our privacy.

I just don't because I don't care about the features. I figure Uncle Sam already has a hidden camera in there watching me in my boxers viewing Kate Beckinsale in Underworld.

As I said before there isn't much content that matters yet.

I thought the German release of T2 with that showed all the "goofs" while the film played was pretty cool, and I heard that subtitles and some soundtracks can be added later after a film is purchased. It they dynamic part that will be cool.

I heard that in the future when you go to play a movie like Catwoman 2 - Revenge of the Mice, it will play the latest trailers and show interviews about upcoming movies Catwoman 3 and Glitter 2.

I remember hearing that HD DVD was planning some "director's screenings" where everyone would sync their movies to play at a certain time and then you ask questions and get answers as the movie plays. I think the director could even pause everyones film while giving answers.

I am sure there is a whole lot more that we can't even comprehend at this time that some studios are planning. I am sure someone will connect twitter, myspace, google maps and other things to players with BD-live.

They had this on HD DVD. It can take awhile to download those trailers and features and can have problems depending on the net congestion. Neat feature for some, but I never really found it useful myself.

Network capacity can be a good thing.

If you have a BD player, you could by extenders that you can stream the movie to. Then you have a main player and cheap extenders, or that you can plug in your BD palyer to a storage device and stream from the storage device to the player etc etc.

Network capacity can be a good thing.

If you have a BD player, you could by extenders that you can stream the movie to. Then you have a main player and cheap extenders, or that you can plug in your BD palyer to a storage device and stream from the storage device to the player etc etc.

It's called a PS3 :)

For me, it's all about price. If I can get a reliable BD player for under 200, I'll bite. Until then, I'll stick with HDDVD and upconverting SD.
Just curious.
What is the intent of your post when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, Blu-ray profiles and adoption ?

It's called a PS3 :)

Yes, but what are the cheap extenders called?

I don't see it as being a problem at all right now. Most people don't pay attention to video profiles. That said, I can easily see people who bought cheap 1.0 players having fits when they try to use the extra features on Sleeping Beauty (or whatever) that will be heavily advertised with big bright stickers all over the BD box. There is potential for a serious backlash due to different video profiles.
I agree about the firmware updates-that too is a disaster waiting to happen.
J

Just curious.
What is the intent of your post when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, Blu-ray profiles and adoption ?

Simply put, my reason for not yet adopting bluray has nothing to do with confusion over specs and profile - it's all about price. And I'm sure I'm in the majority.

Originally Posted by 42Plasmaman
Just curious.
What is the intent of your post when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, Blu-ray profiles and adoption ?Simply put, my reason for not yet adopting bluray has nothing to do with confusion over specs and profile - it's all about price. And I'm sure I'm in the majority.

Maybe it's confusion about what thread to post replies in...:)

Just curious.
What is the intent of your post when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, Blu-ray profiles and adoption ?

Maybe it's confusion about what thread to post replies in...:)

FYI, when a thread is about "Bluray Adoption" and a guy posts his opinion on why some may not be "adpoting Blu-ray" yet, it DOES have something to do with the topic.

I don't know why people feel they have to slam someone who is just voicing his opinion about a topic. I am sorry if you don't agree with him, but don't try to run him out of the thread.

So back to the OP. I don't think player confusion (specs and profile) has had much of an effect on Blu-ray adoption...I do think pricing has (see the other thread where I say that once the Chinese players come and drive down price Blu-ray adoption will explode).

(btw frorule, you will notice that some here get upset when you cheer for their chosen technology. As a fellow Ohio person, I thought I stick up for your perfectly acceptable post. - Also I hope you have power mine came back Monday)

FYI, when a thread is about "Bluray Adoption" and a guy posts his opinion on why some may not be "adpoting Blu-ray" yet, it DOES have something to do with the topic.

I don't know why people feel they have to slam someone who is just voicing his opinion about a topic. I am sorry if you don't agree with him, but don't try to run him out of the thread.

So back to the OP. I don't think player confusion (specs and profile) has had much of an effect on Blu-ray adoption...I do think pricing has (see the other thread where I say that once the Chinese players come and drive down price Blu-ray adoption will explode).

(btw frorule, you will notice that some here get upset when you cheer for their chosen technology. As a fellow Ohio person, I thought I stick up for your perfectly acceptable post. - Also I hope you have power mine came back Monday)
How much of an effect has player confusion had on Bluray Adoption (specs and profile)

Please point out where it says anything about price in the thread cap. I've highlighted and bolded the text to make it easier.

One should try to at least make a slight reference to the topic at hand, as you did (before moving on to pricing)...

Bringing some other sub topic in to an exchange has the look of trying to hijack or derail a thread. Maybe that was not the intent but it sure played that way.
Additionally, the AVS Forum is pretty loose about allowing new thread formation so there is no need to hijack someones "train".

Back to the topic...

The fact might be that by the time many purchase BD players, most will be profile 2.0 and that 1.0 and 1.1 profiles will only be found on ebay and used electronic stores. Many won't know or care what previous versions did or did not do.
Although I purchased a 1.0 machine, I have no regrets as I fully researched the topic beforehand.

I have been telling everyone to wait for Q4 and buy either a PS3, Sony S350/550, or Panny 35/55.

So they should be covered. But most people I know will most likely not even have their players connected to the Internet, so I don't think it will be that big of a deal. Per Sony, only a minority of users are utilizing BD-Live on titles that contain it. So the vast majority would probably be fine with 1.0/1.1 players.

The fact might be that by the time many purchase BD players, most will be profile 2.0 and that 1.0 and 1.1 profiles will only be found on ebay and used electronic stores. Many won't know or care what previous versions did or did not do.

I disagree with this. As I understand it, 1.1 is mandatory but 2.0 is optional. I really don't think the majority of players will be 2.0 compliant. How important this will be is too soon to say.
J

I disagree with this. As I understand it, 1.1 is mandatory but 2.0 is optional. I really don't think the majority of players will be 2.0 compliant. How important this will be is too soon to say.
J
So can we agree that 1.0 is history?

The Memorex, a budget player, due out in November is a 1.1
2.0 will be the premium model until it it can no longer command a premium price.
2.0 content providers will push CE makers to include it faster by using some type of "carrot". There is revenue to made with DL content (no matter how little we think it is) so it is important to the studios.

How much of an effect has player confusion had on Bluray Adoption (specs and profile)

One should try to at least make a slight reference to the topic at hand, as you did (before moving on to pricing)...



He did...
Simply put, my reason for not yet adopting bluray has nothing to do with confusion over specs and profile - it's all about price. And I'm sure I'm in the majority.

Since YOUR comment came AFTER that post, you clearly knew what he was talking about and that it did relate to this thread, so let's drop it now an move on. If you want to make another post, go ahead I will not further derail this topic.


Back to the topic.
Player adoption has not been effected much by confusion over specs. It has been hindered by price of players and price of discs. As frorule stated in his post, "I'm sure I'm in the majority".

How much of an effect has player confusion had on Bluray Adoption (specs and profile)

Please point out where it says anything about price in the thread cap. I've highlighted and bolded the text to make it easier.

One should try to at least make a slight reference to the topic at hand, as you did (before moving on to pricing)...

Bringing some other sub topic in to an exchange has the look of trying to hijack or derail a thread. Maybe that was not the intent but it sure played that way.
Additionally, the AVS Forum is pretty loose about allowing new thread formation so there is no need to hijack someones "train".

Back to the topic...

The fact might be that by the time many purchase BD players, most will be profile 2.0 and that 1.0 and 1.1 profiles will only be found on ebay and used electronic stores. Many won't know or care what previous versions did or did not do.
Although I purchased a 1.0 machine, I have no regrets as I fully researched the topic beforehand.

The memorex releasing in November, which I may pick up as it decodes TrueHD, is 1.1. It is listed at $269 as an MSRP.

I think the fact that they are still releasing 1.1 players is proof to show that it will be some time before all are 2.0. My local walmart still only has 1.0 and 1.1 on the shelves with the exception of the PS3.

This is the other part that I was talking about in the lead. Perhaps I need to explain it better.

I wasn't just referring to the profiles. I am a little excited about this memorex as it offers alot for a little. 5.1 analog out. TrueHD decoding. DTS-MA & TrueHD bitstreaming.

Video stretching: The other thing that consfused the heck out of me was audio capability as well as video capability. Some of the players stretch 4:3 material (including the BH200 and UP5000). Some don't. For the life of me, I don't understand why the player forces this. Some people are ok with black bars. (so far I have read the BH200 and UP5000 due this)

Post Processing: There are some players that offer post processing. One such player is the Samsung BD-P1200. I don't see what the point of putting the expensive Reon chip in a unit that cannot bitstream TrueHD or DTS-MA. Post processing tends to be on players for AV enthusiasts. (samsung BD-P1200, UP5000)

TrueHD/DTS-MA decoding: I am not sure why it is so much harder to decode DTS-MA. I assume it is about licensing more than specs. Regardless, even some that can decode TrueHD cannot bitstream it. I could understand the other way around, but this just doesn't make sense. (BD10, BH100)

PS3: I considered the PS3. It has faults though. If Sony was pushing the BD drive into it to push their new product and pushing it as a media center, why wouldn't it have a port for an IR remote control? Why wouldn't it be fully compatible with Vista Media Center as a media extender? I understand Microsoft is a rival, but it doesn't mean you limit compatibility. (I personally opted out of this one because I don't want the kids begging me to let them play on the PS3 that would be my BD player in my HT with my projector. They have a Wii already.)

5.1 analog out and no TrueHD or DTS-MA internal processing? I could understand this a little. What if you have some with a really old receiver that doesn't even have optical/coaxial in? So I guess it will process the DTS and DD and send it out analog. Would make sense to me to assume most folks will have an optical or coaxial if they have a surround sound reciever. (BD30-has coax&opt, BDP9000, BDP7200, BD-P1000)

Decoding TrueHD to 2.0 analog out: Do I even need to give a reason why to question this? BH200

I could go over $500 like the BD50 (with no post processing)

--

I was really affected by this. I have a receiver that is not all that old, but does not have hdmi in. I do plan to eventually upgrade to one that does. So I wanted a player that could decode via analog and also bitstream. I quickly found my choices limited. It is getting better now with the newer players that will be released this fall, but it doesn't make sense to me the way it is now.

Granted you could solve these problems with a premium player, but I am one of those who will not pay more than $300 for a player.

And this is where price does come in. There are players out there that will does this and decode all the audio... but they cost alot more than $300. So the lack of a feature may cause a person to put off buying because while they could justify a $250 player, they can't rationalize the the $350.

Let me put this another way with funny numbers. A person has waited to buy a blueray player until they hit $10000. They have been $20000 for some time. He finally sees a player that he thinks might be ok from a major brand that is $12000. The reason he justified 10000 was for a combination of audio and video improvement. If it were just video, his value may have been 7500. If just audio, his value would have been 5000. So says to himself, "what is another 2000". He is getting ready to buy and realizes it wont give him the audio solution he needs. He searches and realizes that player will cost 15000. so now the 12000 dollar player has a value in his mind of 7500 while the 15000 is still now at 10000... at this point maybe 11-12 at most. So he puts off buying due to a higher price for a lack of features (specs) that he wanted.

In this example i is not just the price alone that drives down the possibility of a purchase. It is the features or lack there of that contribute to the value of the purchase.

I disagree with this. As I understand it, 1.1 is mandatory but 2.0 is optional. I really don't think the majority of players will be 2.0 compliant. How important this will be is too soon to say.
J

And this creates confusion. Imagine if they have two different profile DVD players. 2.0 will not be universal for 5 years. The reason is cost cutting. There will be players with out the web connectivity to shave the $5 or so that it costs to undercut the other in price. They should have mandated 2.0 or no offered it.

And this creates confusion. Imagine if they have two different profile DVD players.
Didn't we have that to an extent w/ progressive and interlaced players?

It seems now that most are progressive output.
It is no longer a premium option due to cost of manufacture?

Didn't we have that to an extent w/ progressive and interlaced players?

It seems now that most are progressive output.
It is no longer a premium option due to cost of manufacture?

it is different. there is a feature on the disc that is unplayable with 1.1. This is not the case with the progressive versus interlaced. As far as I know, you could still watch all the disc items with an interlaced player.

There is no difference with having a progressive player or an upscaling player.

You can build a DVD player tomorrow that upscale to 4K, and it would still be a standard DVD player with additional abilities.

The profiles of BD is more then just players with different abilities. Its also how you author disc, and if the player can have access to all material on the disc.

And this creates confusion. Imagine if they have two different profile DVD players. 2.0 will not be universal for 5 years. The reason is cost cutting. There will be players with out the web connectivity to shave the $5 or so that it costs to undercut the other in price. They should have mandated 2.0 or no offered it.


The problem now is that if some guy at a studio comes up with an awesome feature that uses BD Live, it will probably get nixed because not that many players support it and it would not be worth the cost. Now if every PS3 gets the latest FW update that may be different, but that brings up the can of worms where we try to figure out how many PS3s are are being used as BD players and how many have the latest FW.

The problem now is that if some guy at a studio comes up with an awesome feature that uses BD Live, it will probably get nixed because not that many players support it and it would not be worth the cost. Now if every PS3 gets the latest FW update that may be different, but that brings up the can of worms where we try to figure out how many PS3s are are being used as BD players and how many have the latest FW.

I do agree though that price is the biggest obstacle. I read this on a reply to a blog on another site about XDE.

I just bought a brand new 52" Samsung and I picked up an HD-DVD A30 dirt cheap... honestly, upscaled DVD's look so good that I have ZERO desire to go to Blu-Ray. The HD-DVD's do look better, but if I were to rate the difference in quality, on a scale of 10, between upscaled DVD's and true high def DVD's, I would give it a 2. The difference between VHS and DVD would be a 10. ...meaning I expect consumers to continue to buy DVD's for a long time. There's simply not enough value yet in Blu-Ray. When my upscale DVD player breaks and I can get Blu-Ray for around $99, then I'll jump in. Until then, I'll keep buying upscale DVD players.

I think alot of people are waiting for that $99 player. The sad part is that they probably could do it now. You put out something like the A3. A BD player that plays 720p/1080i in profile 1.1 (majority of HDTVs are 720/1080i anyway). Keep it basic but fully functional - bitstreams the HD audio codecs and downconverts the streams to DTS via optical/coax like the A3. Price them at $129 and let the stores discount them if necessary. Either way, they really should have 720p players out there.

Granted, you would take a loss as the cost would be around 160-200 I think. The BD group compensates the sold units to the manufacturers. They would make it back in increased BD sales anyway in 1-2 years at most.

They can hum and haul all they want about the players being rushed to the market, but they were late coming in anyway. It has been two years, and we still don't have a sub $200 player. Even a basic player. And I am not talking about reburbds at some no name site.

PS: See how he mentions value.

So can we agree that 1.0 is history?

.
No, they are still being sold. Amazon has quite a few of them in stock. If I'm not mistaken, they are still being made-just because they were introduced before the deadline, doesn't mean they had to stop making them.
They will be history when they are no longer being made and sold.
J

And this creates confusion. Imagine if they have two different profile DVD players. 2.0 will not be universal for 5 years. The reason is cost cutting. There will be players with out the web connectivity to shave the $5 or so that it costs to undercut the other in price. They should have mandated 2.0 or no offered it.
I agree about 2.0. It will come back and bite the BDA in the butt.
The problem is, since there really is no advertising or descriptions of the different video profiles on the boxes or ads, the confusion is after the purchase, not before. Many if not most people won't know about the different profiles, until they try to access the features, and either succeed or fail.
J

The reason is cost cutting. There will be players with out the web connectivity to shave the $5 or so that it costs to undercut the other in price. They should have mandated 2.0 or no offered it.
I don't think it's cost cutting. I think it's profit grabbing. Charge $100 more for a feature that cost $5 to add. I don't see anything wrong with that, but it might slow consumer adoption. Kinda of a balancing act.

I think it might also be that 2.0 wasn't ready for prime time until now. We're kinda seeing that with the 2.0 Ready machines. Put in the hardware now and code and test the feature later.

Basically, HD DVD forced the BDA's hand before they were ready. I think everyone would have prefered to have 1 profile (2.0) from the get go.

John

[QUOTE=fpconvert;14694456]So can we agree that 1.0 is history?

My local walmart has 1.0s that they stocked back in July - still on shelves.

So can we agree that 1.0 is history?]]

My local walmart has 1.0s that they stocked back in July - still on shelves.
1.0 are still on shelvs and are being phased out(Sony BPD-S300, etc) at $300 price points but they are no longer being produced.

What's really bad is at Frys, the Sony BPD-S300 is going for around $300 and the Panasonic BD-30 & Sony BDP-S350 are going for ruffly the same price or on some weeks, less & they are 1.1 players. :confused:

There was a lot of promises from the BDA that they would hold off the Chinese from the BD marked “for a long time” to not “underbid” the big names players in the same way as happened with DVD and take the "early profit" out of the marked. It was even used as an argument against HDDVD.
(Remember the Chinese has 94% of the DVD player marked and exported over 140 million DVD players last year.)
But the pipe “very fast got another sound” as there’s soon 20 BD licenses given to Chinese manufacturers. And they work fast.

This week the first “No Name” Chinese player was released in Scandinavia under the name TECSONIC BHD8866.
It’s a profile 1.1 player that decodes DD/DTS HD in the player and outputs MA over HDMI.
But the best is that it comes regionfree on DVD, and you can change the BD region with the remote with a 3 digit code. So, out the door went; hold back the Chinese CEM, the region code argument, and the region free chip modders.

Player specs here. (http://avforum.no/forum/997355-post16.html)
Pictures of box here. (http://avforum.no/forum/997439-post23.html)

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4756/tecsonicbhd8866gn9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The price is NOK 1990.- , which comparatively is half the price of a PS3. And if we deduct the 24% salestax, we end up with a player price of roughly $150.

The importer also announced another brand player, DMTECH BDP810 , for October.
They expect to offer a player of half this price again in early 2009, (my guess it will be the same player with different design and different “no name”).
And 6 months from now there will be a Chinese “no name” 2.0 player at an introductory price of ¾ of the PS3 price.
This will of course put pressure on the BD “name brands” and the founders of BD, but will be the necessary “bread and butter” for mass adoption of BD.

So the rush for mass adoption has started. But is it too soon in relation to how far the format has come in its pat to maturety?

What about the evolving profile problem?
If one reads the article; Verifying Blu-ray Disc, (http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?CategoryID=112&ArticleID=13868) it’s easy to see that while they work hard on disk compatability to all players, they are far from ready.
Then add in sales of some millions Chinese BD players with various Profile specs. from 20 different manufacturers, and we see that there might be a lot of trouble if all this different designs need to be verified for every title and updated in the hands of the customers to play all disks.
At some point it’s even possible that this will hinder further feature development of disks because the risk that changes will disable too many types of players, and that the backclash from the customers with disks that can’t play in their player will be too big.

HDDVD had an enormous advantage that it was only Toshiba that made the player designs and therefore could much easier adjust their designs to answer problems within the designs until they where secure and had a steady technology specification. ( an advantage many opponents to HDDVD didn’t appreciate.)
There where similar problems with DVD as BD has now in the start, but it took quite some time before the Chinese “no name” players entered the marked. And at that time most problems where solved.

The BDA faces a possible huge problem unless these “no name” players are just one design sold to the Chinese CEM. In such a way that a problem with that design will apply to all the Chinese makes of BD players.

Does BD specs and profiles and the organizing and implementing of them look too much like "Too many cooks.........."?

Then add in sales of some millions Chinese BD players with various Profile specs. from 20 different manufacturers, and we see that there might be a lot of trouble if all this different designs need to be verified for every title and updated in the hands of the customers to play all disks.
At some point it’s even possible that this will hinder further feature development of disks because the risk that changes will disable too many types of players, and that the backclash from the customers with disks that can’t play in their player will be too big.



That's why there is an entire company/division that handles title/player compatibility.

http://www.blufocus.com/

.

No, they are still being sold. Amazon has quite a few of them in stock. If I'm not mistaken, they are still being made-just because they were introduced before the deadline, doesn't mean they had to stop making them.
They will be history when they are no longer being made and sold.
J

From Wiki.:

"On November 1, 2007, the Grace Period Profile was superseded by Bonus View as the minimum profile for new players released to the market."

The grace period profile refers to 1.0.

Doesn't sound like they will still produce them.

Half way there.

From Wiki.:

"On November 1, 2007, the Grace Period Profile was superseded by Bonus View as the minimum profile for new players released to the market."

The grace period profile refers to 1.0.

Doesn't sound like they will still produce them.

Half way there.

If they are still making them, I'm sure there's a way to tell by looking at the serial number.
I've noticed at Frys that they had virtually no BPD-S300 players and now have a pallet of them on two end isles, which is about 50+ players.

Best Buy also seems to have more of them too.

If they are still making them, I'm sure there's a way to tell by looking at the serial number.
I've noticed at Frys that they had virtually no BPD-S300 players and now have a pallet of them on two end isles, which is about 50+ players.

Best Buy also seems to have more of them too.

Maybe they got them at Overstock.com :D

From Wiki.:
"On November 1, 2007, the Grace Period Profile was superseded by Bonus View as the minimum profile for new players released to the market."

That's for new player models. Existing models could still be produced.

John

That's for new player models. Existing models could still be produced.

John
So are they?

I see the need for constant firmware upgrade as the most serious impediment to widespread adoption of Blu-ray. Unless the required FW is included in the disc, I would guess that 90% of general public are going to be returning their Blu-ray player to the store as being defective. The studios really need to get their head out of their a** and standardize on single DRM key or they're going to kill any public support for their golden goose.

Agree with this completely! I don't think most mass consumers (or at least non-enthusiasts) will even know profile 1.0 versus profile 1.1 versus profile 2.0, or give a toss about lossless sound decoding, as long as the disc plays and the picture looks like HD.

Arguably Bluray is still in the early-adopter phase where consumers are, well, early-adopters, so we will buy in regardless. Players must stabilize to the point where a new firmware upgrade is not required every other week and pricing must come down to the point where is is a reasonable premium over dvd, but not an egregious one! Then we will see some traction into the mass-market.

I don't think I would buy a no-name brand. It is one thing to buy a no name brand on something cheap that really won't require manufacturer support, but I would be nervous with all the updates that are required on current players. Lack of long term FW support would scare me. It def will help the mass adoption though.

another thing to consider is the upsell. Alot of people may go in for a $150 BD player and walk out with a $200 player instead. Or even if they don't buy, it may get the bug in your head. I know once I get that bug in my head it is just a matter of time before I buy it at that point. Like buying a car.

I know this often happens to me.

What information does your Blu-ray player have that you're afraid of losing? Just curious.

How about the digital identifiers for every movie I watch tied to my IP address? Do they do this? Who knows? I have a static address; it wouldn't be hard to determine who I am.

I'm not saying BD players in particular are a threat; I'm more concerned about the fact that phone-home devices have become more common, and no one talks about the privacy implications of this type of technology.

So are they?
I believe Sharp still makes theirs.

I don't think I would buy a no-name brand. It is one thing to buy a no name brand on something cheap that really won't require manufacturer support, but I would be nervous with all the updates that are required on current players. Lack of long term FW support would scare me. It def will help the mass adoption though.
Being on my second name brand BD player, both of which have sucky customer support, I can see someone, possibly the BDA themselves setting up a website for updates on the generic players. Or, perhaps the BDA will forget all that FW upgrade BS and it wont even be needed. :eek:
The combination of constant FW upgrades and generic players could equal many unhappy customers and a possible backlash against Blu-ray.

J

How about the digital identifiers for every movie I watch tied to my IP address? Do they do this? Who knows? I have a static address; it wouldn't be hard to determine who I am.

They don't do that. You can easily sniff the packets and see. It's for value added content only, at least for now. If they did start trying to track that info, they would be found out and the back lash would be tremendous. It's happened before and has always been removed.

Your IP address is stamped to every web request you make. I'd be more concerned there, if I was concerned at all.

John

The combination of constant FW upgrades and generic players could equal many unhappy customers and a possible backlash against Blu-ray.

J
I agree that if they are going to start selling these mid-low $200 generic players that will attract the general consumer that FW updates need to be something of the past.
Only other PREFERRED option is some how when a new title is loaded that requires a FW update that it be on the disc and somehow it checks the player FW version and then prompts the user to update.

I agree that if they are going to start selling these mid-low $200 generic players that will attract the general consumer that FW updates need to be something of the past.
Only other PREFERRED option is some how when a new title is loaded that requires a FW update that it be on the disc and somehow it checks the player FW version and then prompts the user to update.

Here is a crazy notion. If these BD50 disks have that much storage, could there have been a way to include an auto update program on disk for the players out there. 1GB extra is .... about 500-1000 players.

Here is a crazy notion. If these BD50 disks have that much storage, could there have been a way to include an auto update program on disk for the players out there. 1GB extra is .... about 500-1000 players.

I supsect that this will be impossible to implement.

So far formwares are mainly performed by putting the file in the root directory.
This triggers the boot loader in the player to start up in an entirely differrent operating mode.

Also what happens when you put your older bluray disc in your player with the older firmware on the disc.

I think this has been done already. I have seen some suspicious PS3-Firmware-Files on the "3:10 To Yuma" BD.

How much of an effect has player confusion had on Bluray Adoption (specs and profile)?

None.

For most folks, you buy the player, put in a disc and it plays.

This worry about DTS MA / 2.0 etc only bothers folks in the know. For all other buyers, you hook it up to your TV and watch away. First of all, 1% of folks here have systems that could resolve the lossless tracks, so no loss their on some players' lack of decoding. 2.0 is PIP.... Not a ground breaking feature... Most buy Blu Ray for the hi def picture.

Even folks with a low IQ can figure it out... it works and plays just like your typical DVD player (except it takes a bit longer to load the disc).

[B]2.0 is PIP.... Not a ground breaking feature... Most buy Blu Ray for the hi def picture.

I thought PiP was 1.1?

But while I agree on most issues. That the player works like a normal DVD player is the most important stuff for the avarage consumer.

So in that area we need

Faster players
Faster discloading
Less firmware updates
And most of all, that every disc plays every time on every player.


But, there is one area were lack of PiP can be a problem, and that is when they market the PiP track, and people gets interesteed to play it, and discover that they cant.

But its rare that the PiP track is that interesting, aside for 300, most disc could be without it.

Blu Ray has a pnetration into the market of 2%. By the time it is wholly embraced, all players will be 2.0. All new models coming out in the next month are 2.0. Personally i think 2.0 is a waste, but it will end the lingering HD DVD supporters losing argument that players were 'unfinished'. Apparently, the only thing that happened with HD DVD's 'finished' players, is that HD DVD is finished.

Blu Ray has a pnetration into the market of 2%. By the time it is wholly embraced, all players will be 2.0. All new models coming out in the next month are 2.0. Personally i think 2.0 is a waste.

Yes, 2.0 will not be an issue if the cheap J6P players have it.

Right now 2.0 seems like a waste since most material can be put on the disc from the beginning. And newly produced material will rather be resold as deluxe editions 5 years later.

But there could be 2.0 stuff on the horizon that could be interesting?

Blu Ray has a pnetration into the market of 2%. By the time it is wholly embraced, all players will be 2.0. All new models coming out in the next month are 2.0. Personally i think 2.0 is a waste, but it will end the lingering HD DVD supporters losing argument that players were 'unfinished'. Apparently, the only thing that happened with HD DVD's 'finished' players, is that HD DVD is finished.

Thats not true. About half are 1.1.

The memorex for instance which is a mass market price leader at $269 is a 1.1

Also what happens when you put your older bluray disc in your player with the older firmware on the disc.

The same as direct x. It checks and doesn't update. It really isn't all that much new. direct x has done this for year on multiple platforms.

Thats not true. About half are 1.1.

The memorex for instance which is a mass market price leader at $269 is a 1.1

Don't forget that less than 2% of folks own Blu Ray... So, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Let's have this discussion next year when we have a 5% to 10% ownership rate..

Look at the folks that skipped Blu Ray and went with HD DVD because it was a 'finished' format..... Didn't get them very far. Fact is, folks could care less about 2.0 and likely 99.9% of them couldn't even define it for you.

Look at the folks that skipped Blu Ray and went with HD DVD because it was a 'finished' format..... Didn't get them very far. Fact is, folks could care less about 2.0 and likely 99.9% of them couldn't even define it for you.
You're having a hard time letting go of the war, aren't you? Is it possible to discuss Blu-ray without bring up HD DVD?

Or are you just trying to stir the pot?

John

You're having a hard time letting go of the war, aren't you? Is it possible to discuss Blu-ray without bring up HD DVD?

Or are you just trying to stir the pot?

John

Read the original post. Fully. It's a coyly worded synopsis of the old HD DVD rallying point of 'finished format'... and now being 'confused' about 2.0. C,mon....

Now, ask your question again....;)

Thats not true. About half are 1.1.

The memorex for instance which is a mass market price leader at $269 is a 1.1

2.0 will become standard offering...right now it's an "upgrade option".

By Christmas the Insig and Mag will be the $150 players, the 2.0 players will be $199(bundled w/ movies) and by the end of February, 1.1 will no be produced and 2.0 will be standard going forward. Finished.

At that point, studios can start adding 2.0 content to most releases.

Will the studios put out discs that won't play...sure...but they will be returned as 99% of discs will play and the uninformed will simply return them as damaged because "all my other movies play fine".

Read the original post. Fully. It's a coyly worded synopsis of the old HD DVD rallying point of 'finished format'... and now being 'confused' about 2.0. C,mon....

Now, ask your question again....;)

I am the Op. I am not a bluray hater. I already am purple with my HTPC and will eventually get a standalone. I have just found it more confusing on the blue side than the red.

I know I am not alone. There are a ton of threads here designed to just explain everything.

I just found it consfusing. I do think HD DVD had its act together on this much better than BDA. I am not saying it will be the end of BD. I hope not. Just wondering if this had any impact on your own purchase decision and if it held you back from purchasing. I know some use it as a crutch because they don't want to buy now and are justifying there reason. It held me back some as I need to figure out exactly what I wanted rather than going out and getting the wrong product. I almost did that at first picking up what I thought was a good player for me with the BD-P1200. Turns out it wasn't. Before that, I thought I needed a 2.0 until I actually read what the differences were ... and then realized that I didn't.

For those that are interested or think 2.0 is worth it or of interest, have you tried it?

I have. Simply, as others have said, it is a waste. It is a "special feature" which 95% of the public doesn't care about or watch special features anyway. Now make a special feature where you go to the net, log in, and ...ah...why go on. I think 2.0 will die or have to be changed into something way more interesting for anyone to give a good damn. As of now it is an annoying frustrating waste of time. Then again so is work. :D

Read the original post. Fully. It's a coyly worded synopsis of the old HD DVD rallying point of 'finished format'... and now being 'confused' about 2.0. C,mon....

Now, ask your question again....;)

The points the Op made are valid, as is the question. You're HD DVD reply, not so much. Let it go. Move on.

Just because the question or point was made during the so called war doesn't mean it's automatically invalid now.

Profiles were a bad idea (for the consumer). Not sure why people would argue other wise. Do you not think having a single, complete, profile/standard would be a good thing?

John

Not sure how anyone could be confused by the profiles. There are only 3 of them.

I do agree though that price is the biggest obstacle. I read this on a reply to a blog on another site about XDE.

I think alot of people are waiting for that $99 player. The sad part is that they probably could do it now. You put out something like the A3. A BD player that plays 720p/1080i in profile 1.1 (majority of HDTVs are 720/1080i anyway). Keep it basic but fully functional - bitstreams the HD audio codecs and downconverts the streams to DTS via optical/coax like the A3. Price them at $129 and let the stores discount them if necessary. Either way, they really should have 720p players out there.

Granted, you would take a loss as the cost would be around 160-200 I think. The BD group compensates the sold units to the manufacturers. They would make it back in increased BD sales anyway in 1-2 years at most.

They can hum and haul all they want about the players being rushed to the market, but they were late coming in anyway. It has been two years, and we still don't have a sub $200 player. Even a basic player. And I am not talking about reburbds at some no name site.

PS: See how he mentions value.
Internet news articles...

January 11, 1997 -
The first player models arrived in the United States Toshiba SD-2006 ($600), Samsung DVD-705 ($750), RCA RC-5200P ($600). Pioneer DVL-700 ($1000), Sony DVP-S7000 ($1000), Panasonic DVD-A100 ($600), Faroudja DV-1000 ($5495 w/ DTS


As for the price, the average cost of a DVD player in 2001 dropped to $158.88 from $202 a year earlier, according to estimates from eBrain Market Research. For 2002

So 1997 prices varies from $600 on the low end to over $5000 on the high end and fall to an average price of $158.88 in 2001. A span of only FOUR YEARS and they worked out of box with 100% of the TV's out there to give their best video and their only true competition was VHS. But they didn't have "profiles" only "optional features"

Video with and left and right stereo, Svideo, Composite, DTS, Superbit, single side, double sided, MP3, WMA......

Good thing DVD was so compatible out of the box. :D

Any you're proposing that we clear up the profile "confusion" and add model and feature confusion by adding a 720p/1080i only bare bone players. I'm not sure HOW that addresses the subject of How much of an effect has player confusion had on Bluray Adoption (specs and profile) :confused:

The combination of constant FW upgrades and generic players could equal many unhappy customers and a possible backlash against Blu-ray.
J

I hope the need for and FW upgrade goes away soon. My first step in the HD-DVD world was a A30. Had some free movies in the box and my box had one of the Borne movies. I stuck it in an I had freezes and lockups after about 1/2 of the movie had played. NP, dirty out of the box right? Cleaned it and still no joy. Then I pulled over an Internet connection and updated the firmware and was able to watch the rest of the movie. FIRMWARE updates on standalone players are just wrong.

Not sure how anyone could be confused by the profiles. There are only 3 of them.

You obviously are.............
2.0 is PIP.... Not a ground breaking feature...

:rolleyes:

You obviously are.............


:rolleyes:

Oh my gosh??!!! Yet I have still been able to enjoy Blu Ray movies for the last couple years??? I guess these profile definitions are important....;)

Oh my gosh??!!! Yet I have still been able to enjoy Blu Ray movies for the last couple years??? I guess these profile definitions are important....;)
Way to back track. There are only 3 profiles. How could you have gotten confused?

What do you tell the average person that tries access the new fangled BD-Live feature and can't?

"Sorry, but that Blu-ray player you just bought 2 months ago can't access all the content available on that Blu-ray disc. You'll need to get a new player for that."

That will go over well...:rolleyes:

John

Way to back track. There are only 3 profiles. How could you have gotten confused?

What do you tell the average person that tries access the new fangled BD-Live feature and can't?

"Sorry, but that Blu-ray player you just bought 2 months ago can't access all the content available on that Blu-ray disc. You'll need to get a new player for that."

That will go over well...:rolleyes:

John

You know that BB and CC sales reps are telling people, "this new 1.1 player is the latest profile and replaces the that outdated 1.0 profile, blah blah, etc."
So, it will be a big surprise to those buyers when they find out that the 1.1 player they bought is now quite what the sales guy said (imagine that!).

The other thing is that many 2.0 players are also incomplete. They need a memory card of some kind to work. That will drive people crazy too!

Way to back track. There are only 3 profiles. How could you have gotten confused?

What do you tell the average person that tries access the new fangled BD-Live feature and can't?

"Sorry, but that Blu-ray player you just bought 2 months ago can't access all the content available on that Blu-ray disc. You'll need to get a new player for that."

That will go over well...:rolleyes:

John

...know what your buying and you won't be disappointed.

...know what your buying and you won't be disappointed.
I agree, but that's easier said than done. As Everdog points out, the sales clucks at the big box stores aren't very knowledgeable.
J

They don't do that. You can easily sniff the packets and see. It's for value added content only, at least for now. If they did start trying to track that info, they would be found out and the back lash would be tremendous. It's happened before and has always been removed.

Your IP address is stamped to every web request you make. I'd be more concerned there, if I was concerned at all.

John

**This is devil's advocate and nothing else**


Not for anything but how exactly would you (or anyone) know this if the information is encrypted via SSLv3/TLS or some other encryption mechanism to include PGP?

Just looks like garbage until you run it through the decryption sequence.;)

What makes this all meaningless is that only 2% of the population owns a BD player. When mass adoption occurs, all players will be 2.0 and these points will be moot. Moreover, only a fraction of BD buyers even bother with extras... But to complain about consumer confusion in the 'Beta' stage of Blu Ray is simply sour grapes towards the format. If Blu Ray players were as ubiquitous as DVD players or cell phones, then the complaints would be legit. But certainly not now.

If you need to, the easy answer is to buy a 2.0 player, watch and enjoy.

What makes this all meaningless is that 2% of the population doesn't even own a BD player.

Holy jeepers! A 98% adoption rate!!! That is AMAZING! ;)

Holy jeepers! A 98% adoption rate!!! That is AMAZING! ;)

DOh!! What a way to defeat my own argument???:D

Changed it, now my argument is back to 'bullet-proof'.:)

But to complain about consumer confusion in the 'Beta' stage of Blu Ray is simply sour grapes towards the format. If Blu Ray players were as ubiquitous as DVD players or cell phones, then the complaints would be legit. But certainly not now.

Beta stage? Where has the BDA said we're currently in the beta stage? So now everything except 2.0 is a beta stage product?

This holiday season, when player pricing gets to levels that should spur normal consumer purchases, what profile do you think these cheaper players are going to so be? My guess, based on currently released information is 1.1. See the problem yet?

I'll give you that the earily adopter likely knew what he was getting into with a 1.0 or 1.1 player. We should be past the early adopter stage at this point though, shouldn't we?

If all the players that are available were 2.0, I'd be agreeing with your points.

John

Complaining about the lack of bd-live support on the 1.0 and 1.1 is like if your grandfather was complaining that is model T didn't come with power brake, automatic transmission, electric windows at the time and how it should have been standard and that those pesky car were built on an incomplete specification and he should have stuck with the more complete standard at the time the horses and buggy.

Of course that was all because of Sony err I mean Ford.

When people bought the 1.0 and 1.1 they knew what those player were able to do and what they didn't do. It was well documented. If they didn't know it is because they didn't take the time to know and so they are responsible for their action.

Complaining about the lack of bd-live support on the 1.0 and 1.1 is like if your grandfather was complaining that is model T didn't come with power brake, automatic transmission, electric windows at the time and how it should have been standard and that those pesky car were built on an incomplete specification and he should have stuck with the more complete standard at the time the horses and buggy.

Of course that was all because of Sony err I mean Ford.

When people bought the 1.0 and 1.1 they knew what those player were able to do and what they didn't do. It was well documented. If they didn't know it is because they didn't take the time to know and so they are responsible for their action.


ooh

do you mean like the people that purchase an "Ionic foot bath" or any other magentic bracelet/health doodad? They didn't take the time to know I mean geez, there is plenty of physics books out thier with calculus that show what is really happening along with biology!

Or the latest mileage per gallon increaser upper doodad. I mean heavens, thermodynamics, chemistry and Fluid mechanics books are abound so they should KNOW.

Those people?

When mass adoption occurs, all players will be 2.0 and these points will be moot.
Since 2.0 is optional not mandatory, I seriously doubt that will be true.

But to complain about consumer confusion in the 'Beta' stage of Blu Ray is simply sour grapes towards the format.
2 years is an awfully long beta stage. How long does it take the BDA to get it right? 3 years? 5 years?
J

ooh

do you mean like the people that purchase an "Ionic foot bath" or any other magentic bracelet/health doodad? They didn't take the time to know I mean geez, there is plenty of physics books out thier with calculus that show what is really happening along with biology!

Or the latest mileage per gallon increaser upper doodad. I mean heavens, thermodynamics, chemistry and Fluid mechanics books are abound so they should KNOW.

Those people?

Thank you for proving the point I was trying to make. People have the responsibility to educate themselves. It is not the responsibility of the CE manufacturer to do that. If people are too stupid to read up before shelling a few hundred on a device then they deserve to get burn.

And it is quite unreasonnable to ask that a legacy device be able to have all the feature of the brand new model. eck the first DVD player didn't have DTS decoding and some lacked the component output. Those who bought those model aren't complaining that their player can't upconvert to 1080 like the new DVD player can do they?

The 1.0 and 1.1 can and will do the main function of a BD player, that is play BD movies. If you wanted the BD-Live experience you just had to do what many other folks did that is wait for a 2.0 standalone or buy a PS3.

The 1.0 and 1.1 can and will do the main function of a BD player, that is play BD movies. If you wanted the BD-Live experience you just had to do what many other folks did that is wait for a 2.0 standalone or buy a PS3.
Everyone here knows this (except for the bland, he's a little confused. ;)), but you expect someone that walks into Wal-Mart and sees an end cap display to know that?

Believe it or not, there are people out there that don't take all this as seriously as we do. They'll see a commericial for Blu-ray or see a demo in Wal-mart and buy it (the demo will mention online features; as it has for a while now). They'll buy the latest Disney movie and see a cool online feature mentioned. They'll put it in thier new Magnovox player and...

John

They should have read up on it before. Same thing with people who buy a computer with linux installed and complain about not being able to install office on it or Halo 2.

You can't always aim for the lowest denomination. Such people were late in the DVD game also. hell some still use vcr as their main player.

Thank you for proving the point I was trying to make. People have the responsibility to educate themselves.


Sorry,

Only to a certain degree. I am lucky that I am educated in those topics and more (electronics, computers, law, mechanics). But to expect ANYONE to learn calculus from reading alone. Sorry NOT HAPPENING regardless of education background.

Same with all the fancy physics, chemistry subjects. Reading only takes you so far. Application and repition is the key. ;)

Everyone here knows this (except for the bland, he's a little confused. ;)), but you expect someone that walks into Wal-Mart and sees an end cap display to know that?

Believe it or not, there are people out there that don't take all this as seriously as we do. They'll see a commericial for Blu-ray or see a demo in Wal-mart and buy it (the demo will mention online features; as it has for a while now). They'll buy the latest Disney movie and see a cool online feature mentioned. They'll put it in thier new Magnovox player and...

John
...the player capable of web access doesn't allow access to online extras because they have no internet connection in their living room.
So, now they need to run an internet cable in to their living room or buy a wireless router system just for their blu-ray player.

...the player capable of web access doesn't allow access to online extras because they have no internet connection in their living room.
So, now they need to run an internet cable in to their living room or buy a wireless router system just for their blu-ray player.

ummm

most companies that do cable and DSL have the option for WiFi based router now (from Netgear). That is not a "deterant".

Any you're proposing that we clear up the profile "confusion" and add model and feature confusion by adding a 720p/1080i only bare bone players. I'm not sure HOW that addresses the subject of How much of an effect has player confusion had on Bluray Adoption (specs and profile) :confused:

I am surprised no one has buy now. Most HDTVs are 720p or 1080i. And most wouldn't know the difference anyway. (we would... but most wouldn't - 720p downconverted from 1080p still looks night and day better than 720p/1080i from Comcast HD and the likes)

It would theoretically bring down the price. theoretically.

I am not saying that is my solution. The problem is that there is no solution at this point. Even if you mandated 2.0 from here on out, there are alot of SA BD players out there that would be affected. I think 2.0 is a waste.... but how much can it really cost to add an ethernet card and some software to make a player 2.0? seriously. It is just one of those features that costs them $10 (at most), but they charge an extra 40-100 for.

Here is how I would have solved it.


make it mandatory to bitstream both TrueHD and DTS-MA. If HDMI is really where everything is going then it should be fully supported with the players. And it is bitstreaming anyway... not decoding so how much can it cost... other than licensing.
Stuck with 1.1 instead of introducing 2.0. From everything that I have followed over the last 2 years, 2.0 was more of a reaction to HD DVD web features than anything else. And in reality, it is a feature that will rarely be used by the consumer. It is already rarely used to any extent by the studio.
Offered video lite players (720/1080i). Two years ago... and now the majority of HDTVs are not 1080p. It will eventually become the standard, but we are still a number of years away from that.
Only included 5.1+ analog out if the player decodes TrueHD AND DTS-MA. Seriously, if a person is going to use surround out, they already have a receiver. Decoding DTS and DD via analog is a waste as any semi modern receiver is going to have optical/coax in and can decode these anyway. What is need for older recievers is the decoding of the new codecs.
Require support for both TrueHD and DTS-MA if the player decodes either. Only supporting one codec... well we all know the problem there. If you are only going to support 1 lossless codec.... its a waste.


And one last one... decide on a DRM scheme and be done with it.

Sorry,

Only to a certain degree. I am lucky that I am educated in those topics and more (electronics, computers, law, mechanics). But to expect ANYONE to learn calculus from reading alone. Sorry NOT HAPPENING regardless of education background.

Same with all the fancy physics, chemistry subjects. Reading only takes you so far. Application and repition is the key. ;)

Lets agree to disagree. I don't think CE should be held responsible for the bad or uninformed decision made by some when those information are easy to find. eck they could ask the sale rep for informations or to compare different player in the store instead of jumping on the el cheapo on sale at the back of the store but then again they would have to go to a REAL electronics store instead of cheapo Walmart.

...the player capable of web access doesn't allow access to online extras because they have no internet connection in their living room.
So, now they need to run an internet cable in to their living room or buy a wireless router system just for their blu-ray player.
Different problem. Let tackle one at a time. ;) Those power line network adapters are pretty easy to install though.

Built-in wireless networking would be a nice addition to a 2.0 player...

John

Different problem. Let tackle one at a time. ;) Those power line network adapters are pretty easy to install though.

Built-in wireless networking would be a nice addition to a 2.0 player...

John
We can't get people to pry their wallet open now to own the best video and audio machines available to the home market and you want to add a wireless device and another $50 to the cost? Great idea...wrong direction(for now).

We can't get people to pry their wallet open now to own the best video and audio machines available to the home market and you want to add a wireless device and another $50 to the cost? Great idea...wrong direction(for now).


no way!

even the cheapest PS3 has built in WiFi and those are at $399

Way to back track. There are only 3 profiles. How could you have gotten confused?

What do you tell the average person that tries access the new fangled BD-Live feature and can't?

"Sorry, but that Blu-ray player you just bought 2 months ago can't access all the content available on that Blu-ray disc. You'll need to get a new player for that."

That will go over well...:rolleyes:

John

BD live is internet content and not on the disc;)

Frankly, I don't believe that there is one single BD player on the market (other than Acme:eek:) that is bad. I would be willing to bet that there is not one single one of you that doesn't already have a CD player, a DVD player, etc. The burning desire to have companies make a BD player that can take off, go to Mars, extract the return fuel from the Mars atmosphere and return to Earth is ludicrus. There should be two options and two options only. One: A BD player that bitstreams the raw, uncompressed data to your state of the art receiver/processor and does nothing else for under $400. Two: A universal player that does every single function known to man and charge about two grand for it. End of story. No more whinning and bitching about the transport or the player. You'll have to focus your attention on other aspects of the home theater system where it belongs.

ummm

most companies that do cable and DSL have the option for WiFi based router now (from Netgear). That is not a "deterant".
Key word is option and options don't come for free.

Hum lets see. Quest says DSL router with no wireless capabilities for FREE or $90 for the wireless version.
I went with the free option. :)

Also, if I have my cable HS router in the computer room, will comcast provide me a FREE hook up near the TV?

BD live is internet content and not on the disc;)

Should have said feature. ;) Though the content could be on the BD, but needs an internet connection to function. :p

Anyway, I'll agree with most here and say the features released under 2.0 so far have been underwhelming. As explained before though, features sell. Even if they aren't worth much. ;)

I'll be happy with my 1.1 player for a while.

John

Hum lets see. Quest says DSL router with no wireless capabilities for FREE or $90 for the wireless version.
I went with the free option. :)

Verizon gives you the wireless router for free. Just to give another data point. ;)

John

Verizon gives you the wireless router for free. Just to give another data point. ;)

John

They do? Oh of course they do when they get paid monthly. ;)

They do? Oh of course they do when they get paid monthly. ;)

That was the point. Quest and comcast were mentioned in the post he responded to, so obviously the 'free' router is provided within the context of the service.

Key word is option and options don't come for free.

Hum lets see. Quest says DSL router with no wireless capabilities for FREE or $90 for the wireless version.
I went with the free option. :)

Also, if I have my cable HS router in the computer room, will comcast provide me a FREE hook up near the TV?

NOTHING is for free. NOTHING. You already paying for the Internet. $90 more a month for WiFi? Ummm you sure about that? I was paying $4/month more to lease the WiFi equipment. $90 more? I find that price suspect.

Stuck with 1.1 instead of introducing 2.0. From everything that I have followed over the last 2 years, 2.0 was more of a reaction to HD DVD web features than anything else.2.0 was always in the specs, and was always optional as the CE companies felt that having a network connection on a player would be confusing to the average consumer and increase cost for those that aren't interested in it.

Offered video lite players (720/1080i).Basic 1080p24 and 1080p60 outputs were done at zero incremental cost on the initial players, as it is a standard feature of our SoCs.

2.0 was always in the specs, and was always optional as the CE companies felt that having a network connection on a player would be confusing to the average consumer and increase cost for those that aren't interested in it.
Surprised at this comment. What is the incremental cost you think?

From my conversations, the main concern was around virus infection. They thought the same thing that happened to the PC would happen to these devices. Complexity of implementing was probably next in line.

2.0 was always in the specs, and was always optional as the CE companies felt that having a network connection on a player would be confusing to the average consumer and increase cost for those that aren't interested in it.


Also, those who do have a 2.0 player with a network connection noticed disc loading delays of any where from 20 minutes to a couple hours on the recently released Iron Man.
I can't even imangine a typical customer figuring out why it's taking so long to load the disc other than it might be broke.

For the 2.0 implementation, they should probably not do automatically downloading upon initial disc insertion and make it a feature that MUST be accessed from a menu.

Surprised at this comment. What is the incremental cost you think?That's what I was told, and I think we agree the increment cost these days is pretty trivial to the point it should have been a mandatory feature. BTW, one Chinese ODM said the additional cost at retail to have 7.1-ch analog audio outputs over 2.0-ch outputs on the BD player is ~$10. Surprisingly high...

From my conversations, the main concern was around virus infection.???? Everything is connected these days, so that would seem to be a strange concern...

That's what I was told, and I think we agree the increment cost these days is pretty trivial to the point it should have been a mandatory feature. BTW, one Chinese ODM said the additional cost at retail to have 7.1-ch analog audio outputs over 2.0-ch outputs on the BD player is ~$10. Surprisingly high...
Agree on both :).

???? Everything is connected these days, so that would seem to be a strange concern...
The comment is from 4 years ago when this stuff was being discussed. But even then, one could see that all devices would be connected by the time we had volume business here. All in all, I think folks just thought all of this was too much work relative the amount of business to be had so a lot of talking points put up as the reason.

Oh, one comment on the 7.1. Licensing cost goes up per channel decoded from what I recall. So a couple of dollars worth of cost goes there I suspect.

Amir,
What are you doing these days ?

Art

Amir,
What are you doing these days ?

Art
Writing articles for WideScreen Review from time to time. And kicking around an idea with a few friends. Too early to know what comes out of it though. If it comes to fruition, I will be sure to talk about it here....

Also, those who do have a 2.0 player with a network connection noticed disc loading delays of any where from 20 minutes to a couple hours on the recently released Iron Man.
I can't even imangine a typical customer figuring out why it's taking so long to load the disc other than it might be broke.

For the 2.0 implementation, they should probably not do automatically downloading upon initial disc insertion and make it a feature that MUST be accessed from a menu.

Format growing pains. Apparently Paramount authored the disc to immediately try to connect to its BD Live server when loading. Problem was that Paramount underestimated the demand and stress on its servers on release day. They issued a statement and have since added a message to decline connection when the disc is initially inserted.

Again its format growing pains, but BD NOT doing as bad according to some. Paramount was surprised at the how much stress their servers were put under. Good news, a lot of PS3 owners are buying Iron Man on BD.

Again its format growing pains, but BD NOT doing as bad according to some. Paramount was surprised at the how much stress their servers were put under. Good news, a lot of PS3 owners are buying Iron Man on BD.

That is called not having the right infrastructure person not being involved in a project where they needed to be involved. ;)

none of the companies get the involvement off IT yet. They did not get it with HD-DVD either so don't think I am lambasting the formats. I am not. I am lambasting the studios... the issue of lack of scaleability/performance is not new.


the file is 12 MB big.... @ 100,000 people (extreme low ball). 1.2 GB worth of file transfer. Now unoless Paramount got wise and upgrade to an OC-12 which I am going to go out on a limb and say, no way.

Proabably a T-3 tops and more than likely partitioned so not the full blow T-3 throughput = slow Download speeds. ;)

That is called not having the right infrastructure person not being involved in a project where they needed to be involved. ;)

none of the companies get the involvement off IT yet. They did not get it with HD-DVD either so don't think I am lambasting the formats. I am not. I am lambasting the studios... the issue of lack of scaleability/performance is not new.


the file is 12 MB big.... @ 100,000 people (extreme low ball). 1.2 GB worth of file transfer. Now unoless Paramount got wise and upgrade to an OC-12 which I am going to go out on a limb and say, no way.

Proabably a T-3 tops and more than likely partitioned so not the full blow T-3 throughput = slow Download speeds. ;)

Which brings up the point if DLs completely take over how well are networks going handle demand for even larger files and a larger number of users trying to get content. DLs being the main delievery stream is still quite a few years off when first released due to extremely high demand.

The internet may be able supplement our entertainment, but I doubt it will be a primary provider in the near to mid term future.

Can you imagine if every one had to download The Dark Knight on release day? There have already be outages and failures caused by a large number of users trying to download video game demos and such.

Which brings up the point if DLs completely take over how well are networks going handle demand for even larger files and a larger number of users trying to get content. DLs being the main delievery stream is still quite a few years off when first released due to extremely high demand.

The internet may be able supplement our entertainment, but I doubt it will be a primary provider in the near to mid term future.

Can you imagine if every one had to download The Dark Knight on release day? There have already be outages and failures caused by a large number of users trying to download video game demos and such.

I think the solution there is to have multiple streaming locations just like netflix has multiple mailing centers. Calls in. gets transferred to the most available site so as not to overload the net. Basically it could work like an array. That is how I would solve it. My understand is that this is how Guildwars handles it online network. I think this would be the most obvious solution. It would also reduce overall net congestion.

Just a thought.

You don't have to be plugged in do you? What if your standalone doesn't ahve this connectivity. I am using a an HTPC so I wouldn't know regardless as it is already online.

On a side note. Has anyone used the online NBC HD app. I watched heros on it. It was pretty impressive. Instead of trying to stream it like Netflix or ABC does, it actually downloads the whole episode in HD to your computer. It stays active for 48 hours. It was pretty good quality and it was atleast DVD+ on quality.. not HDM, but better than Comcast on demand HD. I think they removed alot of the motion frames to preserve detail so it was a little choppy.

None! I think most early adopters already have a player and those would have been the only ones that it would have effected. The general public just wants to play a movie on them and could care less about what profile it is. Besides you won't be able to find a CSR in any of the big box stores who would be willing to explain the differences to a customer because a) they don't know themselves, or b) it would be too much work and only would further confuse the consumer. Thats pretty much it in a nutshell!

Format growing pains. Apparently Paramount authored the disc to immediately try to connect to its BD Live server when loading. Problem was that Paramount underestimated the demand and stress on its servers on release day. They issued a statement and have since added a message to decline connection when the disc is initially inserted.

Again its format growing pains, but BD NOT doing as bad according to some. Paramount was surprised at the how much stress their servers were put under. Good news, a lot of PS3 owners are buying Iron Man on BD.

An excellent example of why my PS3 is not network enabled. Automatically connect to their servers with WHAT information and/or what purpose?

Anything like this to me (and maybe not to you) is infringing on my privacy and bypasses what I feel should be a mandatory default "Opt Out" with an option presented to "Opt In" and there should be an option to allow you to "Always Opt Out" so you are not constantly pestered to "Opt In".

But that's just me lol.

Cheers

An excellent example of why my PS3 is not network enabled. Automatically connect to their servers with WHAT information and/or what purpose?

It's just downloading some updated content/extras. You don't have to login or identify yourself at all.

It always cracks me up how people who browse the Internet and actively post to forums are concerned about their other electronic devices connecting to a server somewhere. Devices that have ALOT less information about you than you computer.

To each his own I guess.

John

It has been two years, and we still don't have a sub $200 player. Even a basic player. And I am not talking about reburbds at some no name site.

http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0926INGFS10100059&catid=25174&logon=&langid=EN

Canada does - a 1.1 player at that.

$199

It always cracks me up how people who browse the Internet and actively post to forums are concerned about their other electronic devices connecting to a server somewhere. Devices that have ALOT less information about you than you computer.

To each his own I guess.

John
To be fair though, both positions are right :). No question that both the industry and users tend to be more sensitive than they should be about such things. As you say, their PC is a lot more exposed than their CE devices.

However, it is also true that CE devices like this are in the dark ages of the Internet when it comes to privacy and other safeguards like this. Let me give you an example. When the music industry was trying to make the CD not rippable, they proceeded to put software on it that was getting installed on first insertion without any notice whatsoever to the user. We warned them that as a minimum, they should give notice to the user in the form of a EULA or other appropriate dialog, informing the user that they were modifying their system in ways they did not expect. Sadly, they ignored this feedback, only to get hit hard with the rootkit fiasco.

Likewise, we need proper notices to users telling them exactly what is or is not happening to their machine and user data. That is the only way some folks sleep easy, not worrying for example that their viewing behavior is being sent up, etc. We may also need seal of “safe housekeeping” and such. One has to keep in mind that there is no central agency managing any of this. There are tens of thousands of companies producing DVDs today. Once they move to these new platforms, who is to say they won’t make attractive offers to you that do bad things. Yes, we are protecting for the one in the million situation but just as we needed this for the web, we need the same for CE devices.

Alas, there is no good architecture to do this on a CE device. Popping up long legal statements to accept on every movie playback is not convenient nor effective (imaging trying to scroll and read such a thing on your TV). And I suspect little is built into the architecture of BD system to manage them centrally.

To be fair though, both positions are right :). No question that both the industry and users tend to be more sensitive than they should be about such things. As you say, their PC is a lot more exposed than their CE devices.

However, it is also true that CE devices like this are in the dark ages of the Internet when it comes to privacy and other safeguards like this. Let me give you an example. When the music industry was trying to make the CD not rippable, they proceeded to put software on it that was getting installed on first insertion without any notice whatsoever to the user. We warned them that as a minimum, they should give notice to the user in the form of a EULA or other appropriate dialog, informing the user that they were modifying their system in ways they did not expect. Sadly, they ignored this feedback, only to get hit hard with the rootkit fiasco.

Likewise, we need proper notices to users telling them exactly what is or is not happening to their machine and user data. That is the only way some folks sleep easy, not worrying for example that their viewing behavior is being sent up, etc. We may also need seal of “safe housekeeping” and such. One has to keep in mind that there is no central agency managing any of this. There are tens of thousands of companies producing DVDs today. Once they move to these new platforms, who is to say they won’t make attractive offers to you that do bad things. Yes, we are protecting for the one in the million situation but just as we needed this for the web, we need the same for CE devices.

Alas, there is no good architecture to do this on a CE device. Popping up long legal statements to accept on every movie playback is not convenient nor effective (imaging trying to scroll and read such a thing on your TV). And I suspect little is built into the architecture of BD system to manage them centrally.

But again, what private information do you store on your player that you don't want anybody to know about? Except for an IP adress and sending back what movie or type of movie you are watching with the player at that ip address that is about it. You leave way more information when browsing the web.

Those device don't store any personnal information about you. No name, no password or social security number. But these info maybe stored somewhere on your PC.

But again, what private information do you store on your player that you don't want anybody to know about? Except for an IP adress and sending back what movie or type of movie you are watching with the player at that ip address that is about it. You leave way more information when browsing the web.
What you specify is exactly what some users and even governments insist on being managed. That is, you cannot just send over user viewing habbits over to a server without their due knowledge. The Windows Media Player for example which I used to manage, has a specific policy and user control for this as do other media players I believe. We didn't do that work for nothing. You either take such things seriously or not.

So no, there is not an example of your entertainment habbits being captured without your knowledge in mainstream products on the PC. The same should be true for CE devices. If not, then I like to understand why we think users are entitled to less and for what reason?

I appreciate that you don't fear such info getting out. I don't either. But we live in a society where people have different standards and usage of technology. I don't watch rated MA stuff on my BD player. But what if someone did and the publisher of that BD stored your IP address on their server and what part of the "movie" you watched. Let's suppose someone steals their server and puts up the list on the Internet. How would that person feel to have their IP address and movies watched for all the world to see? And what did they get in return for allowing this?

The issue with privacy is that people usually don't think through all the bad things that can happen. Without due expertise here, it is easy to say nothing bad can happen. But trust me, when you have experts advising you on them, it is an eye openning experience as I went through in my last job.

To be clear though, consumers will consent to allowing such information if you give them a reason to do so. What they usually object to is having someone take the information without any value being passed back to you. In case of media players, allowing access to your library allows a service for example, to provide recommendations.

Those device don't store any personnal information about you. No name, no password or social security number. But these info maybe stored somewhere on your PC.
How do you know? What if there is an offer from a studio saying that if you provide your name and email address, they will send you a screen saver for your PC. What policy then governs where that data is stored? Is it in the player? In the server? You are entitled to know such things.

And remember, there could be bugs here. Data could get out in unintended ways. The best policy here is not to pray that software is bug free but that the user is put in control to decide the risks and benefits.

How do you know? What if there is an offer from a studio saying that if you provide your name and email address, they will send you a screen saver for your PC. What policy then governs where that data is stored? Is it in the player? In the server? You are entitled to know such things.

And remember, there could be bugs here. Data could get out in unintended ways. The best policy here is not to pray that software is bug free but that the user is put in control to decide the risks and benefits.

You may have a bit of a problem entering those info with your remote :p

And you know what, I just received a letter yesterday from my bank telling me that they lost one of their portable computer who just happened to have all my mortgage loan information on it. That would never happens if they lose a Panasonic BD50 I bet :p

It's just downloading some updated content/extras. You don't have to login or identify yourself at all.

It always cracks me up how people who browse the Internet and actively post to forums are concerned about their other electronic devices connecting to a server somewhere. Devices that have ALOT less information about you than you computer.

To each his own I guess.

John

Look, while I cannot wrap my brain around why some people don't care, I freely admit that no one has proven that there is any risk and that they are wrong.

That said, there is no way you can argue that I am not entitled to want control, a say or at least complete disclosure on what is going on in these matters. I also am not wrong here.

It frankly boggles my mind that you don't seem to care just as it probably makes no sense to you that I do. It doesn't matter in the least whether or not the activity is completely harmless or not. It's happening without my consent and with no disclosure on what it's doing and that is enough to be wrong. As a ridiculously extreme example, even if this activity were somehow used to cure cancer and eliminate famine I still have the right to say no without my permission. Maybe I am just used to stricter privacy laws here.

Arguing that I may be more exposed in one area so I shouldn't have any issue giving blanket access in another holds absolutely no water. Two wrongs do not make a right.

On the computer side, I have a hardware and software firewalls, anti-virus, ant-spy-ware etc, etc. When I install a program it outlines what and when it plans on communicating with whom and for what. I can agree to not.

If a program attempts to access anything I am notified and given the option to approve. I am not nieve enough to assume this is foolproof, but it doesn't make it right if it is somehow bypassed.

For the PS3 at least I have to pretty much either allow or deny its access at the router level. Having a disk load and automatically do anything without AT LEAST asking permission and telling me why is unacceptable to me. It's OK if it's fine with you, but it is also perfectly acceptable if it is NOT fine with me. This also allowed me to enjoy the movie immediately without any blu-circle bs lol.

To be clear, I had the same view of HD-DVD online stuff. I checked it out on the first disk or two, but my HD-DVD player was never and still is not permanently connected to the Internet.

Cheers

ll I'm saying is don't lose sleep over that.

Think about it a little. If, like me you went to school, worked and bought a house or a car then your personnal info are already floating somewhere in a few hundred of system and you don't have any control whatsoever over it. Compared to that the fact that your player may phone home to tell paramount what of their title is spinning in your player is trivial. Unless of course you are using pirated disk of course... But I wouldn't want to accuse you or anybody of anything and it isn't the point I'm trying to make.

Anything you do now, transaction wise, is loged, recorded and processed.

And you know what, I just received a letter yesterday from my bank telling me that they lost one of their portable computer who just happened to have all my mortgage loan information on it.

So... out of curiosity... what does that mean for YOU? No more mortgage? :)

ll I'm saying is don't lose sleep over that.

Think about it a little. If, like me you went to school, worked and bought a house or a car then your personnal info are already floating somewhere in a few hundred of system and you don't have any control whatsoever over it. Compared to that the fact that your player may phone home to tell paramount what of their title is spinning in your player is trivial. Unless of course you are using pirated disk of course... But I wouldn't want to accuse you or anybody of anything and it isn't the point I'm trying to make.

Anything you do now, transaction wise, is loged, recorded and processed.

OK, so seriously you do not at all get the part where someone having access to your info in one place does not mean it is OK for others to have access to it elsewhere without your permission regardless of the WHAT?

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree. You will NEVER convince me that anyone has the right to collect any info of any kind without my express permission, and I will obviously never convince you.

Cheers

That said, there is no way you can argue that I am not entitled to want control, a say or at least complete disclosure on what is going on in these matters. I also am not wrong here.

You have complete control. Profile 2.0 is optional. Don't want it? Don't connect to the Internet. So your concerns are completely covered.

Some people, however, might enjoy the benefits of 2.0. Those people might not be as concerned about privacy of a device that doesn't even have any personal information. Why do you want to deny those people access to the 2.0 features?

I don't understand the objections to a feature that is optional. Don't like it? Don't use it.

John

You have complete control. Profile 2.0 is optional. Don't want it? Don't connect to the Internet. So your concerns are completely covered.

....

I don't understand the objections to a feature that is optional. Don't like it? Don't use it.

John
Say, how would you like it if PCs worked that way? You know, you can create spreadsheets and word documents all you want. But if you connected it to the Internet, all was fair game. After all, network connection used to be an "optional" feature too...

The man paid for the features on disc. He should be entitled to use them without worry that something that he doesn't want from his unit gets out for no good reason whatsoever. The latter is key. If there was some benefit to someone, you could have an argument. But there isn't here. All the content provider needs to do is provide a clear statement of what they take and what they don't. That way, one can connect to the network with ease, no matter what their standard is in this area.

It is not like this is a brand new area with no precedence. What was done on the PC provides the precise blueprint of what needs to be done. No less. No more.

Say, how would you like it if PCs worked that way? You know, you can create spreadsheets and word documents all you want. But if you connected it to the Internet, all was fair game. After all, network connection used to be an "optional" feature too...

They do work that way. An Internet connect is optional and if you connect to it, you do increase your risks. You give up a lot of privacy when you connect to the Internet. Are you arguing otherwise?

I think I understand your point in that a privacy policy would be nice (or maybe a must to some), but the flip side to that is that no private data is being transmitted. Unless you consider your IP address private data, in which case you shouldn't connect to the Internet at all. That little number gets stamped on everything you do (with and without a privacy policy).

When there is something that actually has private data, that is required to to use a profile 2.0 feature, then I'll agree. I also won't use that feature until a proper privacy policy is in place. Right now though, I have no problems accessing the 2.0 features.

John

You have complete control. Profile 2.0 is optional. Don't want it? Don't connect to the Internet. So your concerns are completely covered.

Some people, however, might enjoy the benefits of 2.0. Those people might not be as concerned about privacy of a device that doesn't even have any personal information. Why do you want to deny those people access to the 2.0 features?

I don't understand the objections to a feature that is optional. Don't like it? Don't use it.

John

I have no issues with those that have no concerns about this. Honest I don't. I don't agree, but I respect their right not to care in the least. It's all good.

My problem is that deep down I would like my cake and be able to eat it as well. I would like to be able to access the 2.0 BD-Live features if I so chose (which I may from time to time depending) without having to give up my right to privacy or disclosure.

Maybe I am just being selfish lol.

At this point, from my perspective (mine, not projecting on anyone else), I have a choice between privacy or at the very least disclosure and BD-Live. As a consumer, I simply want both.

Cheers

So... out of curiosity... what does that mean for YOU? No more mortgage? :)

LOL, I wish... No it just mean that I'm now a proud member of the paranoia club and I have to monitor my credit record regulary to see if someone did something with the info. It also mean that if they try to raise my interest rate when I renew it I'll sue the hell out of them...

They do work that way. An Internet connect is optional and if you connect to it, you do increase your risks. You give up a lot of privacy when you connect to the Internet. Are you arguing otherwise?

I think I understand your point in that a privacy policy would be nice (or maybe a must to some), but the flip side to that is that no private data is being transmitted. Unless you consider your IP address private data, in which case you shouldn't connect to the Internet at all. That little number gets stamped on everything you do (with and without a privacy policy).

When there is something that actually has private data, that is required to to use a profile 2.0 feature, then I'll agree. I also won't use that feature until a proper privacy policy is in place. Right now though, I have no problems accessing the 2.0 features.

John

Say what?

Your lack of understanding in the basic of TCP/IP is showing. A user gives up as much privacy as they allow. Allow is the key word. Even if their computer is hooked up 24/7 to the inet.

IE a proper firewall with the correct rules makes your computer a phantom to all but the most experienced of security folks/hackers.

1024 bit encryption. No where to be touched as of yet. Once 1024b encryption does get comprimised, 2045, 4096 are working already and aon standby.

Security is a measure of users want not what the manufacture wants.

If I own that piece of equipment (in this case a PS3), I control were it connects to and what port it is using. If it is not an encrypted transmission (which from the PS3 itself should not be). I want to see exactly what is being sent and to who, the intervals of transmission and any replies back (syn-ack).

Hell with Sony's Rootkit fiasco, this is the only recourse there is (and yes, Sony owes me for about 100 hours worth of work to clean up their mess!) unless history repeats itself.

-Figgie

Say what?

Your lack of understanding in the basic of TCP/IP is showing. A user gives up as much privacy as they allow. Allow is the key word. Even if their computer is hooked up 24/7 to the inet.

IE a proper firewall with the correct rules makes your computer a phantom to all but the most experienced of security folks/hackers.

1024 bit encryption. No where to be touched as of yet. Once 1024b encryption does get comprimised, 2045, 4096 are working already and aon standby.

Security is a measure of users want not what the manufacture wants.

If I own that piece of equipment (in this case a PS3), I control were it connects to and what port it is using. If it is not an encrypted transmission (which from the PS3 itself should not be). I want to see exactly what is being sent and to who, the intervals of transmission and any replies back (syn-ack).

Hell with Sony's Rootkit fiasco, this is the only recourse there is (and yes, Sony owes me for about 100 hours worth of work to clean up their mess!) unless history repeats itself.

-Figgie

As if everybody in the world were doing just that. That would explain the thousands of zombie machine active presently. Mom and Pop doesn't use or even know about firewall and even less about anti-spyware and anti-virus.

Please get off your high horse. Plenty of people here make a living in IT and do know about the internet and its pitfall.

The point here that people are trying to make is that having a CE device that doesn't contain any personnal information can be hookup to the internet without protection. Most of the BD-Live is there to allow you to RECEIVE information not to send it. And even if it were to send information the only thing they could send is what disk you are presently playing or other statistical data. About the same data that is log when you bought the disk at a store especially if you bought it on a credit card or at Walmart with RFID. And they didn't ask your permission either when they did this.

Say what?

Your lack of understanding in the basic of TCP/IP is showing.
Lack of understanding? Please point out which part of my post is incorrect.

You quoted my whole post and then went off on firewalls, encryption, and rootkits. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make as it doesn't seem to address the topic at hand.

You really should understand someones background before making baseless claims about knowledge. You make yourself look silly when you do that.

John

It is a good point, though, that Figgie made. An educated user can prevent any outbound traffic, as well as inbound (of course).

I monitor and control all access on all ports incoming and outgoing. That said, I recognize I'm not a typical enduser, however, and to make this scalable, the content producers almost always err on the side of usability in that delicate balance of security versus convenience.

Internet connectivity for movies (if not music) will remain a niche, though, for at least the near future.

Well here you go. The first of what I am sure will be many avenues that will become available to us to "voluntarily" allow studios and others to gather usage information from us.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073120

At least they are being up front about it and offering something in return.

Between all of these types of things that will be cropping up (rewards points, regesting for one off contests or draws), enrolling in PS3 online memberships (or whatever its called) do you really honestly think that within a couple years they won't be able to cross reference exactly who you are whenever your machine connects lol.

Right. Sign up to get one step closer to having your Sony BD-Live experience custom tailored for you along with adds and promos ;-)

Cheers

Time