do people not understand the side effect of the analog switch off?

Tons and tons of bandwith becomes available. Through cable, Digital broadcasting through the air.
The freed up bandwidth will be carved up for all kinds of consumer applications.

There is enough bandwidth on the doorstep to address a very large user base.
The raw infrastructure is already in place. They just need to fill in the details.

A standard tv channel has a bandwidth of 6MHz. On a cable system using 256QAM, they can put 40Mbps in a 6MHz channel. Good quality 1080i takes at least 15Mbps, and even at 28Mbps isn't enough to compleatly eliminate all artifacting. Keep in mind that without replacing their infrastructure in the form of all existing cable boxes and cable cards and without FCC permission cable can't use the advanced codecs that HD-DVD and BD can to provide better compression.

The results is for every analog channel we loose we can get one and only one artifact free 1080i HDTV channel and maybe enough bandwidth to sneak in one SD DTV channel.

Thats why people keep bringing up digital downloads from the internet since it is not as restricted as cable since they don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. The problem is the bandwidth to stream at HD-DVD/BD quality is not there yet and won't be in all of the US for a decade. FOIS could do it, but how many people have FOIS or is likely to be able to get it anytime in the near future?

Yes, You got me! I am an assassin and I am here to kill Blu ray! For proof that I mean business I'll even admit that I do have Comcast!

I think some people may be confusing support for being prepared for it (and I dont mean you are confused, I mean the hd-dvd supporters may be confusing what it means to be prepared for the coming of something new & actually wanting it to happen). If HD-DVD supporters had embraced blu-ray from the beginning, we'd probably not be feeling the way we feel right now- our choice lost, the choice we'd come to oppose (even dislike?) won and our options are now limited. But I think the HD-DVD fans may now come to realize that HDM, even in a blu-ray 'verse, isn't necessarily going to last very long because of digital downloads. So why fight digital downloads if it's just going to kill off blu-ray, just as blu-ray killed off HD-DVD? And if it means watching people who are gloating now eat a little crow in a few years, that would explain an awful lot of this sentiment we're seeing.

DD is going to evolve... there isnt even 1 single format of how it works yet. And until studios start doing exclusive deals with specific providers, there's going to be a fair amount of experimentation, a lot of different set top boxes sold, and alot of services forming & going out of buisness & a lot of money wasted.

Well put. Which is why I am now skipping out on HDM and looking into the future at more future looking products such as DD.

The Bill Gates/Microsoft strawman atttack is getting old and it actually makes you look bad.

What exactly did Bill Gates have to do with HD DVD losing? Not a single thing. Warner cast the stone that ended HD DVDs chances of continuing, not Microsoft.

The claims that Microsoft was never really on board for HD DVD and was sabotaging HDM for it's own purposes is not only unfounded, but uninformed and borderline paranoia.

Sort of like the paranoia it takes to believe that some pissed off HDM owners whose chosen format lost out would come together as part of a conspired plot to bring down Blu-ray right from inside an internet discussion forum...

I'm guessing they're also demanding 1 million dollars and asking for sharks with laser beams.:rolleyes:


When you're not so sure your format is the successor to DVD, you need scapegoats in order to have excuses ready... Microsoft and the "HD DVD terrorists" are the perfect scapegoats. In the end it won't matter.

Believe? lol maybe you missed some of the reactions last week.. posters boycotting warner, vowing never to buy HDM, convincing other people not to buy HDM. This kind of behaviour isnt at all off from the op's accusations.

Yes, people were in shock to discover their format of choice suddenly had no future. Some of course felt suckered by Warner's continued claim throughout the last few months that they had no plans to go exclusive to either format and reacted predictably, out of distrust for the company. Some others felt burned by the format war, and some questioned whether Warner's move was for long term support of HDM or to cash in while the getting is good.

Is this behavior erratic? Somewhat? Irrational? Not really. Predictable given the implication of the move? Absolutely.

But the behavior does not imply that these salty persons are on a crusade to ensure Blu-ray doesn't claim it's rightful place as the successor of DVD. That kind of assumption is borderline paranoia and unintelligent.

Talk of DD scares people who would never dream of watching movies that didn't come on an optical disc, but it is coming, and discussions should be able to be had about it in a Software forum about HDTV without unamed accusations of foul play.

When you're not so sure your format is the successor to DVD, you need scapegoats in order to have excuses ready... Microsoft and the "HD DVD terrorists" are the perfect scapegoats. In the end it won't matter.

Oh, I know. I'm just tired of hearing it and trying to appeal to the intelligence of those carrying on the claim.

Or it could be used to talk about things like the OP...HDM Assassins hellbent on destroying all things HDM and more realistic things like alien abductions.:eek:
:D

All I see is Denial denial denial, with evasion mixed in your answer.
1) It clearly states that 15 year olds have more songs than audiophiles who have 50K worth of audio equipment. So they have thousands of songs. Yeah... of course they paid for those songs... And if they got them free... how does that help the movie industry? a generation of people who are used to getting downloads for Free? Thats what the industry wants? Can I hear some more denial.

2) Uh if you didnt know the music industry is getting killed by downloading. Lets see, an ipod user buys 2-3 popular songs of an album for $2-$3(if they actually paid for it)... yeah thats a lot better for the industry than a person buying a full album for $13. Even CD singles are $5.00 to encourage sales of full albums

3) So what itunes makes $.10 centers per song. Do you really think the industry is happy making $0.69 cents per song, when most people only buy 1-3 songs of an album. And most songs are downloaded free... IE NOT paid for.

4) Are you denying that MP3s are more portable than CDs? Are you serious. Come on. Really? Denial isnt just a river in egypt. Kids download songs because it has a lot of advantages over CD, and costs them almost nothing. Those advantages... are not there for High Definition Video downloads

1. Your reply as well as your post illustrate a major problem... which is why you latch onto hysteria the same as Sketcha. Anecdote is just that... are we discussing some golden rule that states all 15 year olds have larger music collections than all audiophiles with $50k invested in equipment? The point is there are "some" 15 year olds who have more music than "some" audiophiles with $50k in equipment.

2. The music industry is not getting killed by DD... thats just too convenient and is exactly the kind of propaganda the labels want you to believe. You do realise that movie spending via DVDs has been a major contributing factor to how people spend their entertainment dollars? And why not? You can pick up movies for cheaper than you can buy most albums. You also realise that the gaming industry is growing every year... all those WOW players aren't giving those record labels their money as much as expected. You do also realise that less music is being released right? You do realise that artists today have a choice to sell their music via other means right. My main question to you is... why are you so keen to support the music industry by buying entire albums even if you only like 1 song on there? What is so evil about purchasing only the tracks you like. Do you honestly think the record labels would be singing the same tune if they thought of an iTunes like setup before Apple?

3. Who the heck cares what iTunes makes for the music industry, why do you care first of all? How come you are not complaining about bargain bin CDs, you can pick up entire albums for $2 complete with cover art, jewel cases and all that hoopla.

4. I'm sorry but where have I denied MP3s have more convenience than CDs, I'd encourage you to read my post properly before firing off some silly response.

Yes, people were in shock to discover their format of choice suddenly had no future. Some of course felt suckered by Warner's continued claim throughout the last few months that they had no plans to go exclusive to either format and reacted predictably, out of distrust for the company. Some others felt burned by the format war, and some questioned whether Warner's move was for long term support of HDM or to cash in while the getting is good.

Is this behavior erratic? Somewhat? Irrational? Not really. Predictable given the implication of the move? Absolutely.

But the behavior does not imply that these salty persons are on a crusade to ensure Blu-ray doesn't claim it's rightful place as the successor of DVD. That kind of assumption is borderline paranoia and unintelligent.

Talk of DD scares people who would never dream of watching movies that didn't come on an optical disc, but it is coming, and discussions should be able to be had about it in a Software forum about HDTV without unamed accusations of foul play.

+100

The Bill Gates/Microsoft strawman atttack is getting old and it actually makes you look bad.

What exactly did Bill Gates have to do with HD DVD losing? Not a single thing. Warner cast the stone that ended HD DVDs chances of continuing, not Microsoft.

The claims that Microsoft was never really on board for HD DVD and was sabotaging HDM for it's own purposes is not only unfounded, but uninformed and borderline paranoia.

Sort of like the paranoia it takes to believe that some pissed off HDM owners whose chosen format lost out would come together as part of a conspired plot to bring down Blu-ray right from inside an internet discussion forum...

I'm guessing they're also demanding 1 million dollars and asking for sharks with laser beams.:rolleyes:
Good post! Pretty funny.

But I'll say it, yet again; I am only talking about a very select few... as in less than a half-dozen and more than one. I probably should have had a mod amend the title for me to better reflect that, but this took off so fast, I just let it go.

Too many of you seem to be taking this personally when it wasn't meant to be. And, BTW, FWIW, none of the usual suspects I was referring to have posted on this thread.

Cheers.

A standard tv channel has a bandwidth of 6MHz. On a cable system using 256QAM, they can put 40Mbps in a 6MHz channel. Good quality 1080i takes at least 15Mbps, and even at 28Mbps isn't enough to compleatly eliminate all artifacting. Keep in mind that without replacing their infrastructure in the form of all existing cable boxes and cable cards and without FCC permission cable can't use the advanced codecs that HD-DVD and BD can to provide better compression.

The results is for every analog channel we loose we can get one and only one artifact free 1080i HDTV channel and maybe enough bandwidth to sneak in one SD DTV channel.

Thats why people keep bringing up digital downloads from the internet since it is not as restricted as cable since they don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. The problem is the bandwidth to stream at HD-DVD/BD quality is not there yet and won't be in all of the US for a decade. FOIS could do it, but how many people have FOIS or is likely to be able to get it anytime in the near future?

You have no idea what you're talking about. In my country of origin, they have been doing live streaming of TV channels for subscribers on copper phone lines for years. Granted, it's only SD, but a few years ago, everybody would have said the same thing as you do today : no way they can do VOD and 24/7 live TV on copper phone lines. Well guess what, not only they distributes dozens of channels that way, but the same line brings VOIP and broadband Internet.

Have you heard of DOCSIS 3 ? They can go as high as FIOS on all the coax infrastructure. Have you heard of stream switching ? They don't have to shuttle all channels at once from source to endpoint, they can only send 2 or 3 at a time (for as many boxes there is in the house), saving tons of bandwith. Trust me, when there's a will, there's a way, and they'll get it done if that means getting rid of replication costs, packaging, distribution middle-men such as Best Buy, and so on.

Yes, You got me! I am an assassin and I am here to kill Blu ray! For proof that I mean business I'll even admit that I do have Comcast!
And who are you again?

Case in point for the whole "taking it personally" thing.

You still don't (or won't) get it.
VOD is heavily compressed because each user has a dedicated stream. To scale it you need to compress it. 100 simultaneous users using a unique 20.0Mbps takes 200Mbps. Just the number of users to 1000 and you need 10x the bandwidth. Don't have 10x the bandwidth only get 5x the bandwidth then compress each stream in half.

This service isn't a 1:1 like internet or VOD. It is a single high bandwidth stream. Unless the studios start releasing 20000+ new releases each month there is enough bandwidth all the content. Compressing the stream would simply result in more dead air. It doesn't take 1byte more bandwidth to send the same stream to 10 million subscribers as it does to send it to 10 dozen.

The analogy would be me saying "yeah BD are 50GB NOW but once the market gets bigger they are going to start compressing them because the total bandwidth requirements will go up". Doesn't make any sense. Neither does your argument. The same 50GB movie takes 50GB of bandwidth. It doesn't matter if you sell it to 1 person or 100 million people. The same 11.7TB stream takes 11.7TB stream. It doesn't matter if one person pulls content from it or 100 million.

Now come on Hanky. I know you can understand it. Drop the act. Your not very good at it.

So since it's a looping stream we can
1. Get 11.5 TB settop boxes to cache it all and have any movie in the stream on demand. Good system, expensive set top box:eek:
2. Watch the channel at stream time once a month with no repeating.
3. Add some cache in between 11.5 TB and no cache and hope there is enough space to save what we want to see when we want to see it (all my favorites get streamed in a couple of days so I have to grab all months viewing on their schedule)

Imagine you want to watch Transformers, but it just played last night. No problem, just wait 30 days and you can see it again :D

What can forum members do to kill blu-ray? Who are these members who are so *important* that they can do it? These would be the same *experts* who were wrong about HD-DVD? I think their credibility is in question.

What you are referring to are a few of the Sony hating lunatics who aren't of any value to the AV Science of this forum. The group of "I'll go back to DVD before I'll buy a Sony product" folks aren't hard to pick out in their posts, and the silent, sensible majority sees right through this.

+1

A standard tv channel has a bandwidth of 6MHz. On a cable system using 256QAM, they can put 40Mbps in a 6MHz channel. Good quality 1080i takes at least 15Mbps, and even at 28Mbps isn't enough to compleatly eliminate all artifacting. Keep in mind that without replacing their infrastructure in the form of all existing cable boxes and cable cards and without FCC permission cable can't use the advanced codecs that HD-DVD and BD can to provide better compression.

The results is for every analog channel we loose we can get one and only one artifact free 1080i HDTV channel and maybe enough bandwidth to sneak in one SD DTV channel.

Thats why people keep bringing up digital downloads from the internet since it is not as restricted as cable since they don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. The problem is the bandwidth to stream at HD-DVD/BD quality is not there yet and won't be in all of the US for a decade. FOIS could do it, but how many people have FOIS or is likely to be able to get it anytime in the near future?

I work in the cable industry and I can tell you, bandwidth solutions are not only available beyond what's simply coming down the line with the analog spectrum auction, they're being implemented as we speak. Switched Digital programming is one of those solutions. Instead of wasting bandwidth by sending out all the channels to all subscribers at once, many providers are sending out only the channels being watched, while they're being watched. The bandwidth saved from the channels not being sent out is being reclaimed and makes it possible add additional HD channels and HD VOD services.

The analog switch off means MSOs will no longer have to carry analog broadcasts of channels available in digital format which frees up the bandwidth you've pointed out above, but solutions like Switched digital allows for that bandwidth to be used far more efficently.

As for your speculation on the limited ability of cable providers to use more advanced codecs, quite a few are already working toward implementing MPEG4, and the settop box manufacturers are always ahead of the curve on the hardware side.

As Comcast evidenced at CES, cable has seen far too strong a response to HD and HD VOD to ignore it. And they won't be outdone by DD either. As cable caught on to the growing popularity of TiVO and adopted settop boxes accordingly, they'll likely adopt settops and strategy that allow them to capture a piece of the DD market as well.

Imagine you want to watch Transformers, but it just played last night. No problem, just wait 30 days and you can see it again :D
That's the problem with a broadcast. If they were able to set up a tivo-like device alongside then perhaps you could record while playing. It'd be easy setup a device like sirius replay technology. Throw in a ~350 GB hdd for starters. Still a bs system imo. Not really different than hd tivo and satellite now.

I work in the cable industry and I can tell you, bandwidth solutions are not only available beyond what's simply coming down the line with the analog spectrum auction, they're being implemented as we speak. Switched Digital programming is one of those solutions. Instead of wasting bandwidth by sending out all the channels to all subscribers at once, many providers are sending out only the channels being watched, while they're being watched. The bandwidth saved from the channels not being sent out is being reclaimed and makes it possible add additional HD channels and HD VOD services.

The analog switch off means MSOs will no longer have to carry analog broadcasts of channels available in digital format which frees up the bandwidth you've pointed out above, but solutions like Switched digital allows for that bandwidth to be used far more efficently.

As for your speculation on the limited ability of cable providers to use more advanced codecs, quite a few are already working toward implementing MPEG4, and the settop box manufacturers are always ahead of the curve on the hardware side.

As Comcast evidenced at CES, cable has seen far too strong a response to HD and HD VOD to ignore it. And they won't be outdone by DD either. As cable caught on to the growing popularity of TiVO and adopted settop boxes accordingly, they'll likely adopt settops and strategy that allow them to capture a piece of the DD market as well.


Exactly my point, thank you.

And who are you again?

Case in point for the whole "taking it personally" thing.

You can't detect sarcasm very well... just thought I'd let you know.

The analog switch off means MSOs will no longer have to carry analog broadcasts of channels available in digital format which frees up the bandwidth you've pointed out above, but solutions like Switched digital allows for that bandwidth to be used far more efficently.
Just to understand you correctly: Would this turn into a circumstance similar to ISPs selling Internet service to more customers than their DHCP IP pool, hoping all their customers will not all-at-once request IPs and the ISP is then lacking addresses necessary to fill all IP requests. As a analogy of course.

.
For those of you that missed this, I'm going to say it again...

I'm talking about "a few" people here... as in less than a half-dozen and more than one!

I'm sorry that some of you have taken this so personally. And the irony that I am called arrogant. I don't know MOST, if not nearly ALL of you, and had no idea I was talking about YOU when I posted this.

Had I known the phenomenon were so rampant, I would not have posted this. I just figured it was just the usual suspect, bad-eggs stirrin' it up.

If you want to wait for downloads, good for you. The rest of us will be waiting for it too while we watch some good films in glorious, High Definition. As I've already said, including in my OP, I will be enjoying both along with you.


I must admit, after I posted this, markrubin told me that people were pissed at Warner right now. I had no idea it was so bad. I guess I didn't take the time to read every post (of which there are a few) in the HD Software forums to get the tone. I apologize for that. I honestly had no intention to stir up $hit myself. I'm just pissed at a few bad eggs... the usual suspects. I thought some other folks might be as well.

As for the rest of you (all on this thread,) I wish you all the best in your HDM and downloading endeavors.

Cheers

And who are you again?

Case in point for the whole "taking it personally" thing.

Well your the one that started this ridiculous thread, Why shouldn't the post be the same! :rolleyes:

You can't detect sarcasm very well... just thought I'd let you know.
And what about my post makes you think I missed that?

He was being sarcastic as Hell! And if you look at his post above, he clearly is not thrilled with this thread.

Good post! Pretty funny.

But I'll say it, yet again; I am only talking about a very select few... as in less than a half-dozen and more than one. I probably should have had a mod amend the title for me to better reflect that, but this took off so fast, I just let it go.

Too many of you seem to be taking this personally when it wasn't meant to be. And, BTW, FWIW, none of the usual suspects I was referring to have posted on this thread.

Cheers.

Thanks. I think your thread caused some people to think anyone talking download was by default downtalking HDM and some people here have been reacting to that. Definetly not the crowd you were looking to reach if you were speaking of a select few.

And if your thread hasn't reached out to those folks, maybe sending them a PM and starting a dialogue about why they feel the way they do could go a long way to understand their reasoning rather than speculate.

And when I say dialogue about why they feel the way they do, I mean just that, not accusing them of wanting HDM or trying to convert them. Just genuine interest in what's driving their feelings on the matter.

You might be surprised at the response you get.

A standard tv channel has a bandwidth of 6MHz. On a cable system using 256QAM, they can put 40Mbps in a 6MHz channel. Good quality 1080i takes at least 15Mbps, and even at 28Mbps isn't enough to compleatly eliminate all artifacting. Keep in mind that without replacing their infrastructure in the form of all existing cable boxes and cable cards and without FCC permission cable can't use the advanced codecs that HD-DVD and BD can to provide better compression.

The results is for every analog channel we loose we can get one and only one artifact free 1080i HDTV channel and maybe enough bandwidth to sneak in one SD DTV channel.

Thats why people keep bringing up digital downloads from the internet since it is not as restricted as cable since they don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. The problem is the bandwidth to stream at HD-DVD/BD quality is not there yet and won't be in all of the US for a decade. FOIS could do it, but how many people have FOIS or is likely to be able to get it anytime in the near future?

Ah but they can pair channels together.. 2.. 3...4.. theoretically boosting bandwidth 4x or more. Nothing is stopping them from sending video as data.. it doesn't need to be treated like current VOD.

All they need to do is design a set top box (like a computer) that does real time decoding as the data is received and they can run 80mb/s video without batting an eyelash.

You are also keeping faith that coax is still the route of the future. Cable companies have fibre running right to your street today... the only thing stopping them from running fiber to your house.. thereby eliminating ANY issues with bandwidth is cost.. a cost that is decreasing day by day...

The future (within 5 years) is a fiber optic VOD solution offered by the cable companies. Imagine a menu where every movie, every TV episode and every documentary exists in a massive IMDB type database with a giant "WATCH NOW" button.

Where movies are ordered for a few bucks and charged to your account. Once you've purchased a movie, you retain rights to watch it whenever you want.. with the click of a button... just like Xbox Live is already doing with their software purchases... If I buy a add-on for a game.. I can re-download that add-on as often as I wish.

I'll start downloading HDM as soon as I'm able to do so for a fraction of the price of blu-ray, while using the device I'm downloading on to burn a BD of the download and print cover art for the downloaded movie.

Until then I'll stick to actually COLLECTING the movies I like to watch, rather than leaving them on some finite storage medium that is not at all stable over the long term (5 years+)

I work in the cable industry and I can tell you, bandwidth solutions are not only available beyond what's simply coming down the line with the analog spectrum auction, they're being implemented as we speak. Switched Digital programming is one of those solutions. Instead of wasting bandwidth by sending out all the channels to all subscribers at once, many providers are sending out only the channels being watched, while they're being watched. The bandwidth saved from the channels not being sent out is being reclaimed and makes it possible add additional HD channels and HD VOD services.

The analog switch off means MSOs will no longer have to carry analog broadcasts of channels available in digital format which frees up the bandwidth you've pointed out above, but solutions like Switched digital allows for that bandwidth to be used far more efficently.

As for your speculation on the limited ability of cable providers to use more advanced codecs, quite a few are already working toward implementing MPEG4, and the settop box manufacturers are always ahead of the curve on the hardware side.

As Comcast evidenced at CES, cable has seen far too strong a response to HD and HD VOD to ignore it. And they won't be outdone by DD either. As cable caught on to the growing popularity of TiVO and adopted settop boxes accordingly, they'll likely adopt settops and strategy that allow them to capture a piece of the DD market as well.
Cool!

I have been hearing about the "switched digital" deal. Is there going to be any lag time when you change channels?

I'll start downloading HDM as soon as I'm able to do so for a fraction of the price of blu-ray, while using the device I'm downloading on to burn a BD of the download and print cover art for the downloaded movie. Unless they've revolutionized coax and fiber such that they can beam the case, disc and cover art over my cable connection.

Until then I'll stick to actually COLLECTING the movies I like to watch, rather than leaving them on some finite storage medium that is not at all stable over the long term (5 years+)

Actually if I can get downloads that are completely free of copy protection and DRM (as is currently happening with music), and is similiar in quality, I would be happy to take that over HDM. Otherwise, I am not interested in downloads.

Good post! Pretty funny.

But I'll say it, yet again; I am only talking about a very select few... as in less than a half-dozen and more than one. I probably should have had a mod amend the title for me to better reflect that, but this took off so fast, I just let it go.

Too many of you seem to be taking this personally when it wasn't meant to be. And, BTW, FWIW, none of the usual suspects I was referring to have posted on this thread.

Cheers.

Nonsense others are right. This is tin foil hat stuff.

What sort of capacity do a very select few group of people who are not CEOs of major companies have to kill off Blue Ray?

It is not anyone's (with I guess a couple of notable VIPs here) responsibility here to assure the success of HDM. Is the responsibility of companies pushing HDM to make us/me want to buy it.

If you dont want others to talk about downloads or other HD alternatives here in this forum then just report the threads and dont start a thread of your own on said subject.

Thanks. I think your thread caused some people to think anyone talking download was by default downtalking HDM and some people here have been reacting to that. Definetly not the crowd you were looking to reach if you were speaking of a select few.

And if your thread hasn't reached out to those folks, maybe sending them a PM and starting a dialogue about why they feel the way they do could go a long way to understand their reasoning rather than speculate.

And when I say dialogue about why they feel the way they do, I mean just that, not accusing them of wanting HDM or trying to convert them. Just genuine interest in what's driving their feelings on the matter.

You might be surprised at the response you get.
Thanks griffon.

I think the OP speaks for itself, but, as you are pointing out, folks seem to be unable to get past the title to read it. I'm going to go ahead and ask Mark to amend it before it bums anyone else out.

As for the usual suspects, thanks, but there is a long history there and the atonement ship has sailed.

well fm did not kill cd's
digital downloads of hd will not kill blu ray
to many collectors of media out there.
and hard drives never crash thats not a stable enough
platform for collectors.

Cool!

I have been hearing about the "switched digital" deal. Is there going to be any lag time when you change channels?

Transparent:

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

You have no idea what you're talking about. In my country of origin, they have been doing live streaming of TV channels for subscribers on copper phone lines for years. Granted, it's only SD, but a few years ago, everybody would have said the same thing as you do today : no way they can do VOD and 24/7 live TV on copper phone lines. Well guess what, not only they distributes dozens of channels that way, but the same line brings VOIP and broadband Internet.

Have you heard of DOCSIS 3 ? They can go as high as FIOS on all the coax infrastructure. Have you heard of stream switching ? They don't have to shuttle all channels at once from source to endpoint, they can only send 2 or 3 at a time (for as many boxes there is in the house), saving tons of bandwith. Trust me, when there's a will, there's a way, and they'll get it done if that means getting rid of replication costs, packaging, distribution middle-men such as Best Buy, and so on.


Well in my country of origin, the USA we don't have DOCSIS 3 and we do have massive amounts of existing infrastructure that will need to be replaced to get there. Reference below

Verizon to Comcast : Beat 400Mbps FiOS
May, 2007
Telco responds to DOCSIS 3.0 love in...

The press spent most of the week fawning over Comcast's demonstration of 150Mbps DOCSIS 3.0 technology (dubbed "superfast modems!" by most), a few bothering to point out that those speeds -- while promising -- won't be seen for a very long time. Early Comcast deployment of new channel bonding gear will be seen only in the limited areas where there's FiOS competition, and initial speeds -- still a year or two out -- won't be anywhere near 150Mbps.

Out there in the real world, the DOCSIS 3.0 standard hasn't been solidified yet. While Comcast will be using pre-cert gear to achieve faster speeds starting next year, many less deep-pocketed cable operators will be sluggish at upgrading aging networks. Also, many live in markets not deemed profitable enough to upgrade, be it FiOS, U-Verse or DOCSIS 3.0. Not to rain on the parade, but 150Mbps is a long way off for most of us.

The good news for Comcast is that the deployment will cost significantly less than what Verizon is spending on FiOS. Comcast's Steve Craddock telling NCTA Cable Show attendees that Comcast can deploy DOCSIS 3 for just "couch change" (assuming you have a few billion in quarters in your sofa) in only a few years. This compared to Verizon, who'll be spending $23 billion on FiOS deployments that Craddock insists will reach just 14% of the country when completed.

Verizon alerts us they've responded to all of the Comcast press attention over at their blog here and here. Verizon Communications exec John Czwartacki notes that Verizon's GPON upgrades could allow them to theoretically offer 400Mbps to consumers (which you also won't see anytime soon):
"149Mbs down and - er - no news on upstream, is great, but as they say, 'you ain’t seen nothing yet.' FiOS engineer Brian Whitton discussed here at PolicyBlog equipment being installed this summer that can deliver speeds up to 400Mbs. Four-hundred Mbs! On equipment being installed this summer! We won’t light up that speed right away because there’s nothing yet out there in wide use that can use it. Rest assured, that day is coming."
Verizon shouldn't get too excited, since via channel bonding, cable should be able to stay competitive. We love the fact that these industry giants are battling for our consumer affections with promises of sweet bandwidth, but it's time to bring on the Mbps

Nonsense others are right. This is tin foil hat stuff.

What sort of capacity do a very select few group of people who are not CEOs of major companies have to kill off Blue Ray?

It is not anyone's (with I guess a couple of notable VIPs here) responsibility here to assure the success of HDM. Is the responsibility of companies pushing HDM to make us/me want to buy it.

If you dont want others to talk about downloads or other HD alternatives here in this forum then just report the threads and dont start a thread of your own on said subject.
Now who's telling who what not to do.

The thread seems to be pretty popular and if you weed through it, there is a lot of good information in it.

Thank you, but I'm glad I started the dialog.

Don't have time to download and store all those files in HDD or on a disc. I'd rather have a disc, put it in and boom, press play.

I don't share your opinion that my thread was "baiting." I apologize to you if it came off that way.

If it gets nuked, I will get over it... pretty quickly.

I am pointing to a select few members here. And I'm guessing they and most of us know who they are. And as far as future civility at AVS is concerned, it will not, likely happen until the type of posts, from the type of members that I mentioned, cease!

If you want civility around here its not going to happen untill the mods force or the blu fanboys here stop rubbing their(as in the select few) noses in it. If it would have been the other way around Blu boys would have been touting the same shiit. I was format neutal and enjoying the deals untill my choice to buy HDDVDs was taken away. I just purchased Planet Earth on Bluray from walmart during boxing week before this news hit so I probably helped sway Warner.

Most Bluray only fans here are happier hddvd lost than they are that bluray has won the biggest prize so far...Warner. I just hope we still see the great deals we have been getting up to this point.

Just to understand you correctly: Would this turn into a circumstance similar to ISPs selling Internet service to more customers than their DHCP IP pool, hoping all their customers will not all-at-once request IPs and the ISP is then lacking addresses necessary to fill all IP requests. As a analogy of course.

Not quite, but a good question. It wouldn't be the same because you're working with a ton of bandwidth that if you didn't reclaim would be going out to all of your customers at the same time anyway.

You'd be surprised at how many channels get small viewership or no viewership.

Out of 250 channels available, about 20 or so are highly watched, and rarely by all viewers at the same time unless there is a major event. Given that you're only using bandwidth for those 20 or so and saving the bandwidth of 230. (hypothetically)

In short, because the viewership of channels are constantly in flux, the bandwidth is always there. Unless of course, somehow every subscriber in your market decided to view every single channel available all at the same time.

Not very likely.

Don't have time to download and store all those files in HDD or on a disc. I'd rather have a disc, put it in and boom, press play.

How about turn on your TV... and press play... no disc needed... It's all stored on someone ELSES HDD and instantly delivered to your home over a 1tb/s fiber link with a fancy IMDB like interface.

Search any movie or show and press play within 10 seconds.

Transparent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video
Sweet! I'm sure that Charter will be the last to go that route, but I'm looking forward to it! Even just the switch from analog is going to be GREAT!!! Moxi is cool in that external HDD is enabled (got a 500G,) but the analog tuner just plain SUCKS!

Thanks Lee

I work in the cable industry and I can tell you, bandwidth solutions are not only available beyond what's simply coming down the line with the analog spectrum auction, they're being implemented as we speak. Switched Digital programming is one of those solutions. Instead of wasting bandwidth by sending out all the channels to all subscribers at once, many providers are sending out only the channels being watched, while they're being watched. The bandwidth saved from the channels not being sent out is being reclaimed and makes it possible add additional HD channels and HD VOD services.

The analog switch off means MSOs will no longer have to carry analog broadcasts of channels available in digital format which frees up the bandwidth you've pointed out above, but solutions like Switched digital allows for that bandwidth to be used far more efficently.

As for your speculation on the limited ability of cable providers to use more advanced codecs, quite a few are already working toward implementing MPEG4, and the settop box manufacturers are always ahead of the curve on the hardware side.

As Comcast evidenced at CES, cable has seen far too strong a response to HD and HD VOD to ignore it. And they won't be outdone by DD either. As cable caught on to the growing popularity of TiVO and adopted settop boxes accordingly, they'll likely adopt settops and strategy that allow them to capture a piece of the DD market as well.

Your describing a blocking system like the telephone company has used for decades to maximize bandwidth. As long as you don't over subscribe a blocking system they work pretty darn good. I actually agree with you on all of the above, but none of that is in place TODAY like we get with HD-DVD or BD. When "I" can actually get these coming goodies depend on where I am as naturally the largest markets will be done first. With HD-DVD and BD I can get the very best HD has to offer TODAY and get it regardless of the size of the market I'm in.

Let me ask you since you work in the cable industry, how long till the majority of subscribers will have this in hand? My guess is a decade to reach 100% of the existing/projected customer base.

Like any forum has the power to kill Blu-Ray. What a joke.

Well in my country of origin, the USA we don't have DOCSIS 3 and we do have massive amounts of existing infrastructure that will need to be replaced to get there. Reference below

Verizon to Comcast : Beat 400Mbps FiOS
May, 2007
Telco responds to DOCSIS 3.0 love in...

The press spent most of the week fawning over Comcast's demonstration of 150Mbps DOCSIS 3.0 technology (dubbed "superfast modems!" by most), a few bothering to point out that those speeds -- while promising -- won't be seen for a very long time. Early Comcast deployment of new channel bonding gear will be seen only in the limited areas where there's FiOS competition, and initial speeds -- still a year or two out -- won't be anywhere near 150Mbps.

Out there in the real world, the DOCSIS 3.0 standard hasn't been solidified yet. While Comcast will be using pre-cert gear to achieve faster speeds starting next year, many less deep-pocketed cable operators will be sluggish at upgrading aging networks. Also, many live in markets not deemed profitable enough to upgrade, be it FiOS, U-Verse or DOCSIS 3.0. Not to rain on the parade, but 150Mbps is a long way off for most of us.

The good news for Comcast is that the deployment will cost significantly less than what Verizon is spending on FiOS. Comcast's Steve Craddock telling NCTA Cable Show attendees that Comcast can deploy DOCSIS 3 for just "couch change" (assuming you have a few billion in quarters in your sofa) in only a few years. This compared to Verizon, who'll be spending $23 billion on FiOS deployments that Craddock insists will reach just 14% of the country when completed.

Verizon alerts us they've responded to all of the Comcast press attention over at their blog here and here. Verizon Communications exec John Czwartacki notes that Verizon's GPON upgrades could allow them to theoretically offer 400Mbps to consumers (which you also won't see anytime soon):
"149Mbs down and - er - no news on upstream, is great, but as they say, 'you ain’t seen nothing yet.' FiOS engineer Brian Whitton discussed here at PolicyBlog equipment being installed this summer that can deliver speeds up to 400Mbs. Four-hundred Mbs! On equipment being installed this summer! We won’t light up that speed right away because there’s nothing yet out there in wide use that can use it. Rest assured, that day is coming."
Verizon shouldn't get too excited, since via channel bonding, cable should be able to stay competitive. We love the fact that these industry giants are battling for our consumer affections with promises of sweet bandwidth, but it's time to bring on the Mbps

There is a difference between not having or being capable of implementing DOCSIS 3 and simply deploying it when you're ready.

If the need arises to get faster speeds out there (ie. a speed war)the top cable companies would roll them out with speed. The dark fiber is there
to be used, what's missing is the reason to invest in using it. Currently FiOS is offering and providing a majority of their subscribers the same speeds cable is. If they decide to test the water, they may get surprised.

Comcast Sets Switched-Video Rollout

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6410009.html

Motorola Passing 24 Million Homes with Switched Digital Platform

http://connectedhome2go.com/2007/12/05/motorola-passing-24-million-homes-with-switched-digital-platform/

If you want civility around here its not going to happen untill the mods force or the blu fanboys here stop rubbing their(as in the select few) noses in it. If it would have been the other way around Blu boys would have been touting the same shiit. I was format neutal and enjoying the deals untill my choice to buy HDDVDs was taken away. I just purchased Planet Earth on Bluray from walmart during boxing week before this news hit so I probably helped sway Warner.

Most Bluray only fans here are happier hddvd lost than they are that bluray has won the biggest prize so far...Warner. I just hope we still see the great deals we have been getting up to this point.

I can only speak for my self, but if HD-DVD had won I would keep my BD player and proudly purchased an A35 or Xa2 in the next few months. To me, having the best PQ/AQ TODAY is the most important thing, not what may happen in HDM over the next few years.

If you want civility around here its not going to happen untill the mods force or the blu fanboys here stop rubbing their(as in the select few) noses in it. If it would have been the other way around Blu boys would have been touting the same shiit. I was format neutal and enjoying the deals untill my choice to buy HDDVDs was taken away. I just purchased Planet Earth on Bluray from walmart during boxing week before this news hit so I probably helped sway Warner.

Most Bluray only fans here are happier hddvd lost than they are that bluray has won the biggest prize so far...Warner. I just hope we still see the great deals we have been getting up to this point.
Yeah. I guess I maybe could have done more to pull the reigns, but it seemed that most of the attacks (not on me necessarily) were coming from the red side. I guess that is only inevitable as you are the ones who feel slighted and just plain pissed!

Want some more irony?

Here is one of the few posts I made at HDD after the Warner announcement. Warning... there's a little clue in it...

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showpost.php?p=592171&postcount=452

Cheers

And who are you again?

Case in point for the whole "taking it personally" thing.

Lodef is apparently someone who only posts about how inappropriate he thinks other peoples posts are, and doesn't actually add to the discussion.

This can be seen by looking at his last half dozen posts in a row:

Hey Rob, it's over, You can go to bed now or no milk and cookies for You!

There are more gracious HD DVDers in defeat than there are Blu ray people in victory, Just read the post and you will see that! Example: most of us are saying it is over but the Blu folks are clamoring for more studios to make the decision right now even though it's a no brainer thats it's going to happen anyway. To me a call to a healthcare professional might not be a bad idea for some of these folks, they really seem to not be able to control themselves.

Yes, You got me! I am an assassin and I am here to kill Blu ray! For proof that I mean business I'll even admit that I do have Comcast!

I Agree, I recommend a ban or suspension. Mods Please!

Rob, you already reached your low many times in this thread, but you just keep trying to beat it. Your not doing yourself any favors. Trust me.

Well your the one that started this ridiculous thread, Why shouldn't the post be the same! :rolleyes:

Lodef, why don't you try spending less time policing everyone's posts and try adding to the discussions instead? :confused:

Comcast Sets Switched-Video Rollout

http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6410009.html

Motorola Passing 24 Million Homes with Switched Digital Platform

http://connectedhome2go.com/2007/12/05/motorola-passing-24-million-homes-with-switched-digital-platform/
I'm always happy with more HD channels for my monthly subscription fee.

I still won't buy/rent movies via HD VOD until significant hurdles are removed.

And what about my post makes you think I missed that?

He was being sarcastic as Hell! And if you look at his post above, he clearly is not thrilled with this thread.

Too funny. You claim to know it is sarcasm and yet you respond to sarcasm as though it is an attack.

Just to understand you correctly: Would this turn into a circumstance similar to ISPs selling Internet service to more customers than their DHCP IP pool, hoping all their customers will not all-at-once request IPs and the ISP is then lacking addresses necessary to fill all IP requests. As a analogy of course.

Exactly, but that does work pretty well IMO

Yeah. I guess I maybe could have done more to pull the reigns, but it seemed that most of the attacks (not on me necessarily) were coming from the red side. I guess that is only inevitable as you are the ones who feel slighted and just plain pissed!

Your people skills must be the best in the world.

Your describing a blocking system like the telephone company has used for decades to maximize bandwidth. As long as you don't over subscribe a blocking system they work pretty darn good. I actually agree with you on all of the above, but none of that is in place TODAY like we get with HD-DVD or BD. When "I" can actually get these coming goodies depend on where I am as naturally the largest markets will be done first. With HD-DVD and BD I can get the very best HD has to offer TODAY and get it regardless of the size of the market I'm in.

Let me ask you since you work in the cable industry, how long till the majority of subscribers will have this in hand? My guess is a decade to reach 100% of the existing/projected customer base.

In the industry it's not really always the largest markets that get the toys first. Usually there's a test market and depending on how that goes, the goodies are rolled out to all.

Part of it does depend on your provider though. The top cable providers don't usually have a problem rolling out to all markets because of their size and the resultant revenue and cash to play with. The smaller providers work a bit slower but do get there eventually.

Where are you located and who's the provider in the area?

Too funny. You claim to know it is sarcasm and yet you respond to sarcasm as though it is an attack.
Have you never heard a sarcastic attack?

O.K. You win dude. Enjoy.

Cool!

I have been hearing about the "switched digital" deal. Is there going to be any lag time when you change channels?

It's possible only if you're the first to request a certain channel (bandwidth/stream is being requested) but in practice its extremely rare.

Your people skills must be the best in the world.
Thanks!

This may be impossible for you to believe, but, at least outside of AVS I'm actually very well known for them!

And there are several long-time, red opponents that can attest to this, but I don't think there is much that will sway your vote. That's O.K. Your approval is not a requirement.

Ah but they can pair channels together.. 2.. 3...4.. theoretically boosting bandwidth 4x or more. Nothing is stopping them from sending video as data.. it doesn't need to be treated like current VOD.

All they need to do is design a set top box (like a computer) that does real time decoding as the data is received and they can run 80mb/s video without batting an eyelash.

You are also keeping faith that coax is still the route of the future. Cable companies have fibre running right to your street today... the only thing stopping them from running fiber to your house.. thereby eliminating ANY issues with bandwidth is cost.. a cost that is decreasing day by day...

The future (within 5 years) is a fiber optic VOD solution offered by the cable companies. Imagine a menu where every movie, every TV episode and every documentary exists in a massive IMDB type database with a giant "WATCH NOW" button.

Where movies are ordered for a few bucks and charged to your account. Once you've purchased a movie, you retain rights to watch it whenever you want.. with the click of a button... just like Xbox Live is already doing with their software purchases... If I buy a add-on for a game.. I can re-download that add-on as often as I wish.

To me, its not what can be done, and even more importantly when it can reach all users (highly debatable), but what is available TODAY that is equal to HD-DVD or BD. Easy answer - nothing.

It's possible only if you're the first to request a certain channel (bandwidth/stream is being requested) but in practice its extremely rare.
Ahhh. That makes sense!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=973209

i've read it. sounds promising. do i believe that it will succeed and be available to me at a reasonable price any time in the near future? no. but if it comes, i'm definitely interested.

for the record, i'm more of a renter than a buyer. if a movie is great and i'll watch it over and over, i'll buy it. if not, i like my unlimited rental plan at the video store, where i watch dozens of movies a month for one low price (yes, they carry blu-ray).

therefore, my investment in blu-ray will be one player ($399 - $1000) plus a handful of movies. that's it. no fear of "what's around the corner" for me. i'll be looking forward to any way that i can get my content at the quality available to me right now with blu-ray.

Calling it a night, guys.

Gonna' make an effort not to respond to personal attacks tomorrow. No need to muddy up the thread more than it already is. So if I let one of your posts go unanswered, no offense intended.

Cheers

Now who's telling who what not to do.

The thread seems to be pretty popular and if you weed through it, there is a lot of good information in it.

Thank you, but I'm glad I started the dialog.

Merely pointing out the irony that you rail against a few others for discussing the subject then start a thread of your own on same subject. Only a moderator can tell you what you can or cannot do here.

I have weeded through it and it is interesting. So are we to interpret what you say above that you do recognize that there is some merit in talking about HDMs future as opposed to the future of alternative HD sources?

Personally, I am somewhat ambivalent about downloads and VOD - it has its place I guess. It does give me the ability to view that movie once where I wouldn't even think of adding that title to my collection of "permanent" media. I haven't used Blockbuster or other B&M rental stores for years - VOD replaced that need for me oh probably about 3 years ago... Since I bought into HD DVD late June I think I have seen maybe one VOD movie and that was over at my parents house.

In the industry it's not really always the largest markets that get the toys first. Usually there's a test market and depending on how that goes, the goodies are rolled out to all.

Part of it does depend on your provider though. The top cable providers don't usually have a problem rolling out to all markets because of their size and the resultant revenue and cash to play with. The smaller providers work a bit slower but do get there eventually.

Where are you located and who's the provider in the area?

Comcast, Nashville TN
I'm very happy with the service, we have about 25 or so HD channels (just got 5 more including Scifi:D). This does not include the PPV or VOD services. Not very cheap @ ~$150 per month including internet, digital service and two digital boxes, main one is a DVR and no PPV movie channels

Good night all,
Wishing you good health, long life and may you always have the very best in HDM regardless of its format.

Merely pointing out the irony that you rail against a few others for discussing the subject then start a thread of your own on same subject. Only a moderator can tell you what you can or cannot do here.

I have weeded through it and it is interesting. So are we to interpret what you say above that you do recognize that there is some merit in talking about HDMs future as opposed to the future of alternative HD sources?

Personally, I am somewhat ambivalent about downloads and VOD - it has its place I guess. It does give me the ability to view that movie once where I wouldn't even think of adding that title to my collection of "permanent" media. I haven't used Blockbuster or other B&M rental stores for years - VOD replaced that need for me oh probably about 3 years ago... Since I bought into HD DVD late June I think I have seen maybe one VOD movie and that was over at my parents house.
(Well, I WAS about to call it a night, but it was refreshing to see such a civil reply)


Glad you were able to weed through the thread, Lonny. And I appreciate the civility of this post.

I guess I can see the irony you point out, somewhat. As I have said, my only agenda here is choice... well that and venting about those usual suspects. The more I learn about VOD, the more I know I will want to, occasionally exercise that choice too.

I actually prefer to have some discussion and debate about the subject, rather than try to hide it. The posters I am speaking of are much more sinister than that.

Plenty of us can have this discussion without espousing the pending death of HDM in favor of VOD. Glad to see you are one of those.

Thanks!

This may be impossible for you to believe, but, at least outside of AVS I'm actually very well known for them!

And there are several long-time, red opponents that can attest to this, but I don't think there is much that will sway your vote. That's O.K. Your approval is not a requirement.

I'll leave you to return to your fantasy world...

But in case you find yourself pondering why people haven't taken to your posts... here are a few hinters.

* quit with the whole "them" vs "us" mentality
* quit characterizing people's disappointment as their being "pissed off"
* refrain from characterizing those with open minds as having hidden agendas
* if you want to speak of amir, do so instead of claiming to be "pointing fingers" as it's pretty silly to attempt to point fingers in an online forum.

I can only speak for my self, but if HD-DVD had won I would keep my BD player and proudly purchased an A35 or Xa2 in the next few months. To me, having the best PQ/AQ TODAY is the most important thing, not what may happen in HDM over the next few years.
More irony?

I don't even HAVE a BD player; just an A2. If it had gone the other way this week, I would've let loose hard on the BOGOs!!!

Plenty of us can have this discussion without espousing the pending death of HDM in favor of VOD.

I see so few people "espousing the pending death of HDM in favor of VOD". I see far more people claiming DD is impossible. I see far more people mischaracterizing those who consider DD/VOD to be a possibility as anti-HDM.

I see so few people "espousing the pending death of HDM in favor of VOD". I see far more people claiming DD is impossible. I see far more people mischaracterizing those who consider DD/VOD to be a possibility as anti-HDM.
Agreed.

Sorry, but you gotta' admit. That's pretty funny. I'm pretty sure I was talking about "so few people" the whole time. You DID read the OP, right?

But I DO see your point. There are quite a few that refuse to keep an open mind on VOD; more than I had anticipated. I think if this were another thread; one strictly in regards to VOD, I'm sure we would be in agreement more than otherwise.

Personally, I have always, fully planned to order HD PPV or HD VOD when Charter implements it. It would be a good option to catch a film with the Mrs.; one that I wouldn't care to spend the dough on, to own. These days I rarely watch a movie twice. No damn time. That whole responsibility thing.

(Again, I tried to turn away, but then I see a chance for common ground. This time it's for good!)

Good night

Obviously companies like XtremeHD are showing us all that higher quality VOD in HD is right around the corner. Movies with bitrates that more than double Blu ray are months away, not years.

It looks to me like investing in blu ray, at this point, as the best home HD movie format, is a premature and possibly bad decision.

It very well could be that Warner just jumped in front of the VOD/DD bullet for everyone.

A track can be anything from a $0.99 single track on iTunes to a $2.99 ringtone.

But since the average CD has 10 tracks, sales are actually more like:

5 Billion Physical Tracks vs. 800 Million Digital Tracks

Comparing apples to apples, physical media still dominates.

Ah but why I like lossless tracks, if I only want a few songs I dont have to buy the others. Thats not always the case - but sometimes it does work out to my advantage.

Isn't that exactly what BR supporters want ? Only the movie, no extras ?

Look guys, there's really only two ways this can go now that there's really only 1 format :

1) Blu-Ray becomes the new DVD, and almost all HDM supporters are happy
2) Blu-Ray does NOT become the successor, only a niche, kind of like LD

I know everybody that is a BR afficionado believes in 1), I choose to believe in 2).

Why ? Because unless the BDA makes a complete change of reason why they are even in this to start with (higher margins on both software and hardware), BR is only a mid-term stop on the way to another distribution format. BR is only here to compensate for the slowing sales of DVD, not to replace it.

And if you think about it, that is why the cost of building completely new replication lines in the millions of dollars that can only do one thing, replicate BR, doesn't matter : they won't even need more than a few lines, by the time a new distribution format is here, that investment will not be needed. I've always wondered why they would want to trash DVD/HD DVD replication lines to replace them with brand new BR-only lines. The answer is because BR is a temporary format on the way to what they really have in mind, their dream come true : people not owning anything and paying for repeated viewings, just the way they had hoped it would go with DIVX. And that, I don't care which side of the fence you are or were, we will see it happen in our lifetime, I have no doubt.

You and I are on the same page. Blu-Ray will be the "Laser Disc" niche format over the next decade. HD Movie downloads controlled by the studios is the ultimate goal of Hollywood. Supporters of Blu-Ray will need the price of hardware and software to drop siginifcantly within the next 18 months, to have any hopes of replacing for Standard DVD as the defacto standard of HD.

I have owned Laser Discs and currently HD-DVD....enjoyed both formats. It was sad to see Laser Discs go unsupported and the same for HD-DVD.

Obviously companies like XtremeHD are showing us all that higher quality VOD in HD is right around the corner. Movies with bitrates that more than double Blu ray are months away, not years.

Months away for a very select audience maybe, for a pilot of the technology maybe. Definitely years away from any sort of wide scale implementation however. Many years away from being implemented to the point of eliminating physical media.

Until people who work in the telecommunications industry start posting and telling me that 75%+ of the US population has fiber optic connections straight into their homes already then I'm not buying the super high quality DD being right around the corner.

I have owned Laser Discs and currently HD-DVD....enjoyed both formats. It was sad to see Laser Discs go unsupported and the same for HD-DVD.

So you have a track record for picking up unsuccessful products....

Well, maybe the third times a charm... Perhaps you should pick up this XtremeHD for $399+ movie costs, if you are so confident in Digital downloads.

So you have a track record for picking up unsuccessful products....

Well, maybe the third times a charm... Perhaps you should pick up this XtremeHD for $399+ movie costs, if you are so confident in Digital downloads.

Actually, Laser Discs was the best available source for movie watching during its time....the only other choice was VHS. I am not a proponent of digital downloads, just stating it will be the way of the future if Hollywood get its way. You cannot deny that currently HD-DVD offered the best value and performance....it just lost the backing of movie studios because of Blu-Ray's copyright protection technology.

I "MAY" one day purchase a Blu-Ray player, but it will have to be under the right circumstances....price, performance, etc. I believe a majority of folks who enjoy great picture/audio quality will pay the price if they can afford it.

Months away for a very select audience maybe, for a pilot of the technology maybe. Definitely years away from any sort of wide scale implementation however. Many years away from being implemented to the point of eliminating physical media.

Until people who work in the telecommunications industry start posting and telling me that 75%+ of the US population has fiber optic connections straight into their homes already then I'm not buying the super high quality DD being right around the corner.

Close to 60% or more have or are having laid fiber coax connections that are capable today of providing HD content available.

Positive reaction to HD VOD around providers who currently offer it in the telecommunications industry has been very high.

It may not meet your bar of super high quality, but for many it's good enough and welcome in their home.

Actually, Laser Discs was the best available source for movie watching during its time....the only other choice was VHS. I am not a proponent of digital downloads, just stating it will be the way of the future if Hollywood get its way. You cannot deny that currently HD-DVD offered the best value and performance....it just lost the backing of movie studios because of Blu-Ray's copyright protection technology.

I "MAY" one day purchase a Blu-Ray player, but it will have to be under the right circumstances....price, performance, etc. I believe a majority of folks who enjoy great picture/audio quality will pay the price if they can afford it.

What kind of value are you getting... if the movies you want are not there?

If you buy a car for 10K and it lasts 2 years... are you getting a better value than a car that last 8 years for 20K?

From a practical point of view, Digital downloads only have one advantage over their physical media counterparts. Instant gratification. Other than that, there are no other real benefits... but there are a lot of disadvantages compared to physical media.

1) Lack of portability - Other than cost, this is MP3s main attraction.

2) lower picture and audio quality

3) loss of features

4) possible data loss due to hardware failure

5) ability to move between services and maintain rights to previously purchased items.

6) costs of implementing and maintaining a service


I am going to go out on a limb and state that you WILL buy a Blu ray player before you buy(not rent) 20 HD movies via digital download.

Months away for a very select audience maybe, for a pilot of the technology maybe. Definitely years away from any sort of wide scale implementation however. Many years away from being implemented to the point of eliminating physical media.

How is that any different than HD DVD or Blu-ray, either of them are years away from any wide scale "uptake", HD optical is only 3.5% of the market.

Until people who work in the telecommunications industry start posting and telling me that 75%+ of the US population has fiber optic connections straight into their homes already then I'm not buying the super high quality DD being right around the corner.

Everyone with cable has 5Gbps of bandwidth to their homes, all it takes is for cable companies to start using that more efficiently. Each analog channel occupies 40Mbps of bandwidth, reducing/eliminating them will be a huge increase in bandwidth, then there's Switched Digital Video, which will free enormous amounts of "to the curb" bandwidth.

Comcast has announced that it will make "Wideband" available to millions of homes this year, with bandwidth of 100Mbps, they say it will allow "download" of an HD movie in 4 minutes.

Comcast, XstreamHD, Xbox Live Marketplace, VuDu....

Non physical delivery is coming, and it's coming fast, faster than most expect or want to believe. Faster, perhaps, than HDM is going.

What kind of value are you getting... if the movies you want are not there?

If you buy a car for 10K and it lasts 2 years... are you getting a better value than a car that last 8 years for 20K?

From a practical point of view, Digital downloads only have one advantage over their physical media counterparts. Instant gratification. Other than that, there are no other real benefits... but there are a lot of disadvantages compared to physical media.

1) Lack of portability - Other than cost, this is MP3s main attraction.

And HD DVD/Blu-ray prevent that with all the CP/DRM they contain.

2) lower picture and audio quality

Not necessarilly, see XstreamHD with it's 80Mbps peak video bitrate (2x BD) and 7.1 DTS-HD MA lossless audio.

3) loss of features

XstreamHD promises all sorts of supplimental material.

4) possible data loss due to hardware failure

Vs possible loss of data due to, eg, kids.

5) ability to move between services and maintain rights to previously purchased items.

What if the service doesn't require you to buy movies to view them?

6) costs of implementing and maintaining a service

Isn't stopping Comcast, XstreamHD, Microsoft, Sony....

Close to 60% or more have or are having laid fiber coax connections that are capable today of providing HD content available.

Positive reaction to HD VOD around providers who currently offer it in the telecommunications industry has been very high.

It may not meet your bar of super high quality, but for many it's good enough and welcome in their home.

So here is my problem with all this. If the studios want this because it cuts out production costs and middle-men in the rental market, they are going to pretend it's a massive home-run long before it is just to put people off HD and our old friend DVD.

If I only had listened to Disney or Fox's talking-points about HDM six months ago, I would think HDM was the next big thing too, not something that was barely registering on the charts.

I don't think the push for downloads has anything to do with what's good for me, it the studios maximizing profit, and restricting long term access, and yes I think its DIVX all over again and to be approached with extreme caution. Disk are reliable, dirt-cheap to press, and croaking them for the ephemeral advantages of what's really just a melding of pay-per-view with TiVo seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

If I only had listened to Disney or Fox's talking-points about HDM six months ago, I would think HDM was the next big thing too, not something that was barely registering on the charts.
But always remember neither of these studios have ever wanted you to own the media - their game plan from the outset has been that every time you want to watch the movie you pay for it - they detest pay for it once & watch it as many times as you'd like. They also detest buy it once & then have your friends over to watch it - their take on that seems to be "f*** that, if they want to watch they can pay".

Divix & VoD - see a trend here?

How many HD DVD supporters were espousing the advent of Digital Downloads BEFORE WB made it's decision to go BD exclusive?

If you want download, then go and start downloading them. It's your choice... Have a nice day.

I'll bite. How are you going to watch your digital downloads in the car?

Video IPods - my kids have one each, they download movies and TV shows from iTunes at a rate of one or two per week. Not HD, but they do not seem to care. This is happening now.

How many HD DVD supporters were espousing the advent of Digital Downloads BEFORE WB made it's decision to go BD exclusive?
Many, myself among them. I could search up some quotes, but I'm lazy :D

Often stated is "don't worry, eventually HDM will take hold - in 3 to 5 years......." and "look how long DVD took to surpass VHS". My opinion, and I'm not alone is that at this moment we live in a more time compressed environment. DVD had the luxury of a long (ish) adoption cycle........I don't believe HDM has such a luxury, things are changing too fast. Given the studios would FAR prefer you buy a movie every time you want to watch it I believe HDM needs a faster adoption schedule.

Blu-Ray will be killed ultimately by the greed of Sony itself. No body needs to do anything to kill it.

I think BD and HD DVD will be niche markets. I dont sense people thinking that DVD needs to be improved. I cant watch DVD anymore, but I see people with Apple tv (and I love Apple) and it makes me cringe. Or watching movies on their iphones and thinking the quality is great, ugh!

i think if xtremehd does well, it might be a big competitor

too be honest, i can give a damn about extra features and more additional commentary... i just want the movie in HD

1) Lack of portability - Other than cost, this is MP3s main attraction.


What do you mean by this? How portable is either HD format? I require a big bulky player and TV to watch.



2) lower picture and audio quality


Wait and see


3) loss of features


Wait and see


4) possible data loss due to hardware failure


BluRay and HD-DVD have the same problem. Scratch the disc and you are SOL.


5) ability to move between services and maintain rights to previously purchased items.


This is where I think a netflix would rule. 15 bucks a month for HD on demand. Who needs to own the movie at that price?


6) costs of implementing and maintaining a service


Already beign paid for or have been paid.


Comcast is stating 160Mbps to the home with services for on demand HD movies. I really think this will give the physical formats all they can handle.

and yes, I have been talking about HD downloads\on demand for a long time. This is like the mid 1990s with MP3s. It doenst seem feasible but the capacity of our internet will grow to meet the demands.

Blu-Ray will be killed ultimately by the greed of Sony itself. No body needs to do anything to kill it.

+1

(First time I ever did that!:p)

So here is my problem with all this. If the studios want this because it cuts out production costs and middle-men in the rental market, they are going to pretend it's a massive home-run long before it is just to put people off HD and our old friend DVD.

Studio's wan't a mix of both revenue streams.
HDM and SD releases for new releases and a VOD stream that supports the secondary market.

Studio have vaults full of material and with the current business model based on disc based material is very expensive to maintain.
For example: Robin Hood or Casalanca in both SD and HD sold an embarrissingly low number of copies. But to reach that tiny consumer base they have to push over ten thousound copy's into the traditional retail market.



If I only had listened to Disney or Fox's talking-points about HDM six months ago, I would think HDM was the next big thing too, not something that was barely registering on the charts.


It's just a sales pitch. The have to sell HDM.



I don't think the push for downloads has anything to do with what's good for me, it the studios maximizing profit, and restricting long term access, and yes I think its DIVX all over again and to be approached with extreme caution. Disk are reliable, dirt-cheap to press, and croaking them for the ephemeral advantages of what's really just a melding of pay-per-view with TiVo seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

I think discs will be for the short window after the release where they can get te most profit with high retail prices.

The VOD model will replace the aftermarket to maximize profits by not having to support the very expensibve to sustain disc based market.

Not HD but there is different pricing for viewing once, for an extended amount of time or 'indefinitly' already.

http://www.dvdempire.com/index.asp?userid=99366004260250&tab_id=54&site_id=55&site_media_id=0

These kind of services will pop up all over the place from now on.


Now I like to collect, or think I do, but recently doubt started to creep in. After buying lots of DVD's from the beginning the allocated storage space started to overflow. Now I'm relocating the collection into a hallway where I can install 3 meter of DVD racks. 80% of these DVD I am relocation are only viewed once or twice. and with the better quality of the recent HDM discs these dvd hold little value anymore.

It is basic economics for me. If I go with HD VOD and pay for vieuwing once I can always buy the movies I truly value later for unlimited viewing.

Overall it could save me a lot of money and floor space.

I think we should also have a thread titled:

"Are some trying to Kill HD DVD in favor of Blu-ray?"

Of course the answer is yes, but it puts this silly thread in perspective.

Rumored mind you, but digital downloads through iTunes supposedly allow you to burn a SD version of HD for the car.

Now. I know that is rumored. But the OP is about why everyone is talking downloads. That is my *biggest* issue with Bluray. They have no solution to that problem as of yet. People are talking about iTunes giving you that ability and that would be huge.

Again, just rumor, but rumor is the same as talking. And, Bluray would have to change the spec again to fix this issue. With downloads, some things can change after the fact and not *catch* people with useless equipment or early adopters.

Now keep in mind, I hope the BDA can solve this issue. I would love it. But no single sign of anything yet.

MarkS.
If there was market demand, its is very easy to put one BD disk and one DVD disk in a case and call it a combo.

Interesting comments from Seagate's CEO.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9845372-7.html?tag=nefd.top

January 8, 2008 11:20 AM PST
Seagate CEO: Blu-ray won the battle but lost the war
Posted by Michael Kanellos
LAS VEGAS--The winner in the Blu-ray and HD DVD war is the hard drive, according to Bill Watkins, CEO of Seagate Technology.

"People are saying Blu-ray won the war but who cares? The war is over physical distribution versus electrical distribution and Blu-ray and HD lost that," he said during a breakfast meeting at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this week. "In this, flash memory and hard drives are on the same side. The war is over and the physical guys lost."


Wow, every time I installed a hard drive I used screwdrivers. Everytime I inserted a flash drive I held physical media. I didn't know they were producing etherial drives now. AMAZING! :D

so they are building hard drives that don't fail better tell the guys in the computer
forums there is a heated debate between brands failing in those also just not as
heated as this holy war between 2 disc formats.

I think we should also have a thread titled:

"Are some trying to Kill HD DVD in favor of Blu-ray?"

Of course the answer is yes, but it puts this silly thread in perspective.
If this thread is so silly, why have you given it so much of your time?

If there was market demand, its is very easy to put one BD disk and one DVD disk in a case and call it a combo.
I think they would have to be labeled very prominently. Even then, I think there would be confusion and frustration amongst the non-tech savvy. Before either format was ever created, I had high hopes for a DVD layer as a compliment to the HD side. Unfortunately, last I heard, that was not possible on blu-ray. Bummer.

If this thread is so silly, why have you given it so much of your time?

Its like watching a comedy!:D

Why spend $25 on WildHogs on Blu-ray, when this provides more laughs.

"HDM Assassins!"... makes me laugh every time!

BluRay and HD-DVD have the same problem. Scratch the disc and you are SOL.
Not the "same" problem.

1. If you take care of the disc, it will still play.

2. If you take care of the HDD, it still may fail. If not, there would be no need for backup drives.

Its like watching a comedy!:D

Why spend $25 on WildHogs on Blu-ray, when this provides more laughs.

"HDM Assassins!"... makes me laugh every time!
Well they say laughter is the best medicine. Tell me, does that apply to mental health as well?

j/k :)

Glad I could help

What kind of value are you getting... if the movies you want are not there?

If you buy a car for 10K and it lasts 2 years... are you getting a better value than a car that last 8 years for 20K?

From a practical point of view, Digital downloads only have one advantage over their physical media counterparts. Instant gratification. Other than that, there are no other real benefits... but there are a lot of disadvantages compared to physical media.

1) Lack of portability - Other than cost, this is MP3s main attraction.

2) lower picture and audio quality

3) loss of features

4) possible data loss due to hardware failure

5) ability to move between services and maintain rights to previously purchased items.

6) costs of implementing and maintaining a service


I am going to go out on a limb and state that you WILL buy a Blu ray player before you buy(not rent) 20 HD movies via digital download.

Please take care when that limb breaks....:D

Wait and see
So what you're saying is that you're 100% behind vaporware?

Do you have a time machine that whisks you into the future?

I enjoy living in the present.

A quote of an HDD moderator posted over there by Grubert. The Moderator adds a reply at the bottom of page 3 of the thread.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?t=35401

So why is that?

So what you're saying is that you're 100% behind vaporware?

Do you have a time machine that whisks you into the future?

I enjoy living in the present.

Oh look, the resident luddite has chimed in.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-01-07-comcast_N.htm?csp=34

Some highlights for you

Comcast in 2008 will offer Internet speeds as fast as 160 megabits per second, up from its current top of 16 mbps. "We're going to download a two hour-plus movie in high-definition in three minutes and 56 seconds," he says. The price will depend on demand.



By the end of 2008, Comcast will be testing Project Infinity, an initiative to increase its high-definition VOD capacity. Roberts says VOD servers across the country will offer 6,000 movies, half in HD, in 2009.

Now on that last quote, if Comcast offer 3000 HD movies that is about 10x the number of actual HD movies released :D

Studio have vaults full of material and with the current business model based on disc based material is very expensive to maintain.
For example: Robin Hood or Casalanca in both SD and HD sold an embarrissingly low number of copies. But to reach that tiny consumer base they have to push over ten thousound copy's into the traditional retail market.


Well, where did you hear that Robbin Hood and Casablanca sold "embarrassingly poor" on SD? Both releases proceeded their HD DVD counterparts with more than enough lead time for Warner to pull the plug on the hi-def version. Surely they wouldn't have bothered had they not shown a profit on SD. In fact Warner has released and continues to release massive amounts of even less well-known vintage titles on SD DVD. Some are already on their second incarnation. If they sold poorly on HD, it has more to do with HD DVD having had a 1% market share.

I also think you have this a little backwards, I think day-and-date releases appeal more for downloads than vintage catalog titles. Catalog buyers and collectors are used to (and in many cases prefer to) own these films. They aren't the kind of thing that Blockbuster or Best Buy goes out of their way to stock, and outside of Netflix, buying is often the only option. New release titles appeal to a much broader segment, but many buyers are just hot to have the latest big title, that's why many show up on Ebay and Amazon at 1/4 their price in a couple weeks. Vintage releases depreciate far more slowly.

I'm not really getting why people who like the idea of downloads are eager to dictate to disk buyers why they should no longer support disk, it's not like the same titles won't be offered on download if that's what you prefer.

Almost all video masters are first created with the idea TV syndication packages in mind, and home releases are the afterthought.

Not the "same" problem.

1. If you take care of the disc, it will still play.

2. If you take care of the HDD, it still may fail. If not, there would be no need for backup drives.

Well backup your drive, duh. Consider maintenance like you would when taking care not to scratch your disc.

Oh look, the resident luddite has chimed in.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-01-07-comcast_N.htm?csp=34

Some highlights for you

Comcast in 2008 will offer Internet speeds as fast as 160 megabits per second, up from its current top of 16 mbps. "We're going to download a two hour-plus movie in high-definition in three minutes and 56 seconds," he says. The price will depend on demand.



By the end of 2008, Comcast will be testing Project Infinity, an initiative to increase its high-definition VOD capacity. Roberts says VOD servers across the country will offer 6,000 movies, half in HD, in 2009.

Now on that last quote, if Comcast offer 3000 HD movies that is about 10x the number of actual HD movies released :D
Again, 100% vaporware. None of that exists now, and I'll bet anyone here roll out of 160Mbps broadband will not happen in 2008.

2-3 years minimum; 5-7 years before it's available to a significant portion of the population (Blu-Ray is available to 100% of the population because its a physical format not dependent on infrastructure that doesn't exist).

Again, 100% vaporware. None of that exists now, and I'll bet anyone here roll out of 160Mbps broadband will not happen in 2008.

2-3 years minimum; 5-7 years before it's available to a significant portion of the population (Blu-Ray is available to 100% of the population because its a physical format not dependent on infrastructure that doesn't exist).

So what you are saying is this guy is spreading false information? Interesting..........................you base this on your obvious vast knowledge of comcasts network?

Well backup your drive, duh. Consider maintenance like you would when taking care not to scratch your disc.

If I scuff up a disk, which I have yet to do myself, it's repairable. If a sector in a drive that effects 30 of the say 400 movies, and I haven't watched them to know that the backup is also corrupt, how do I salvage those titles?

What if I get a virus?

Well backup your drive, duh. Consider maintenance like you would when taking care not to scratch your disc.
Yes, I can just imagine it now, a Best Buy Sales Associate teaching mothers and grandfathers across the nation how to build RAID arrays to backup their movies.

Yes, I can just imagine it now, a Best Buy Sales Associate teaching mothers and grandfathers across the nation how to build RAID arrays to backup their movies.

What does RAID have to do with backing up your movies?

This ought to be fun to hear this response.........

So what you are saying is this guy is spreading false information? Interesting..........................you base this on your obvious vast knowledge of comcasts network?
No, he's just trumpeting a new fledgling technology that won't be available to the mass market for years.

I've got a news flash: 160Mbps internet isn't around the corner in any way, shape or form. I'm paying $50/month for 6Mbps cable. Most of the country is paying more for less.

If I scuff up a disk, which I have yet to do myself, it's repairable. If a sector in a drive that effects 30 of the say 400 movies, and I haven't watched them to know that the backup is also corrupt, how do I salvage those titles?

What if I get a virus?

What if your house burns down taking all of your movies with it?

A quote of an HDD moderator posted over there by Grubert. The Moderator adds a reply at the bottom of page 3 of the thread.

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?t=35401

So why is that?

Many believe HDM is a small niche like SACD and DVD-A, or like many of the other things that people post about here on AVS.

I myself have an FP, a HTPC and other things that I know will never be mainstream. HDM can be include in that list.

That is what forums are for, finding other peolple who enjoy the same niche as you do.

No, he's just trumpeting a new fledgling technology that won't be available to the mass market for years.

I've got a news flash: 160Mbps internet isn't around the corner in any way, shape or form. I'm paying $50/month for 6Mbps cable. Most of the country is paying more for less.

I pay 39.99 for 5 mbps, my dad pays 29.99 for 10mbps and there are people on the East coast paying 70 bucks for 30mbps with FIOS. You think what you pay is in any way representative of the entire country?

So what you are saying is this guy flat out lied about what his company plans to do this year. That is interesting. Got proof beyond what you know in your small corner of the world?

Many believe HDM is a small niche like SACD and DVD-A, or like many of the other things that people post about here on AVS.

I myself have an FP, a HTPC and other things that I know will never be mainstream. HDM can be include in that list.

That is what forums are for, finding other peolple who enjoy the same niche as you do.

I think it may eventually account for a 25-35% market share, big niche.

I don't think the push for downloads has anything to do with what's good for me, it the studios maximizing profit, and restricting long term access,

Depends, yes that's why the studios want electronic delivery, but the CE and "infrastructure" industries want in too, and for them, they want in because what's good for the customer is good for them (the content industry has forgotten that or hasn't figured it out yet).

...and yes I think its DIVX all over again and to be approached with extreme caution.

The real problem with DivX, IMO, was that it confused two different things, it tried to combine "sales" and "rentals" into a single product. Those two things just don't go together. But yes, we do have to approach digital distribution with caution, we need to make sure our desires/requirements are met.

However the same is true of HD DVD and Blu-ray, both have unprecedented levels of CP/DRM on them, yet far too few even batted an eye about it. Blu-ray and HD DVD are, by far, the most restrictive physical formats created thus far.

Disk are reliable, dirt-cheap to press, and croaking them for the ephemeral advantages of what's really just a melding of pay-per-view with TiVo seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

But the packaging, shipping, storing and display of discs is what really eats the bucks. And I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't think Pay-per-view is the future, I think the Netflix model is the future of electronic delivery.

How many HD DVD supporters were espousing the advent of Digital Downloads BEFORE WB made it's decision to go BD exclusive?

Me too! :) That is, espousing the coming of non-physical delivery (not "downloads"). XstreamHD is (from what we know) as close to the ideal model as I've seen. Basically your own personal Kaleidescape system, but without the cost/hastle of maintaining a personal collection.

If you want download, then go and start downloading them. It's your choice... Have a nice day.

I would if there was a really good service. Actually, I may well use Live Marketplace as my HD movie fix in the near term.

Not the "same" problem.

1. If you take care of the disc, it will still play.

Discs can fall appart too.

2. If you take care of the HDD, it still may fail. If not, there would be no need for backup drives.

The big reason/need for backups is due to software/user error (or malicious intent), not drive failure. Also if installed correctly (adequate cooling) drives last a very long time.

Again, 100% vaporware. None of that exists now, and I'll bet anyone here roll out of 160Mbps broadband will not happen in 2008.

2-3 years minimum; 5-7 years before it's available to a significant portion of the population

Why do you think it will take that long? As I noted above, everyone with cable has a 5Gbps link to their house.

(Blu-Ray is available to 100% of the population because its a physical format not dependent on infrastructure that doesn't exist).

And yet it's used by less than 3% of the market. It really won't take much for electronic delivery to surpass HDM at this point. Heck, maybe it already has...

What if your house burns down taking all of your movies with it?
Downloads a fire-proof?
If you just want to broaden into sillyville, then there is little point debating real-world concerns.

I think you guys forget one thing. Look around you. What do you see kids with? Iphones, Ipods, PSPs, DSes. These kids are growing up in a technological world.

They are watching their movies on Ipods, PSPs, or through the Xbox. They don't care about the quality or the sound, they just know it's new and cool and that their parents don't understand it so it must mean it's good.

This is the generation that the digital distribution model is aiming for. We are just going to be the beta testers :D

But the packaging, shipping, storing and display of discs is what really eats the bucks. And I've said before and I'll say it again, I don't think Pay-per-view is the future, I think the Netflix model is the future of electronic delivery.


Who's bucks, their's or mine? Some of us like some form of decent-looking packaging. The studios are selling product, I'm just saying what type of product I gravitate toward, if they want my $ and that of people like me, they gotta sell me what I want or lose my $.

Everyone with cable has 5Gbps of bandwidth to their homes, all it takes is for cable companies to start using that more efficiently. Each analog channel occupies 40Mbps of bandwidth, reducing/eliminating them will be a huge increase in bandwidth, then there's Switched Digital Video, which will free enormous amounts of "to the curb" bandwidth.
I'm assuming you mean 5Mbps, but the statement is essentially false. Yes, most people have a theoretical max of 5Mbps, but that is assuming everyone in your local network is not calling it up at once. People aren't sitting at their computers all day streaming HD content. There's no way 5Mbps would hold up if everyone started using even 25% of it consistently.

Comcast has announced that it will make "Wideband" available to millions of homes this year, with bandwidth of 100Mbps, they say it will allow "download" of an HD movie in 4 minutes.
Those numbers do not even add up. A smaller HD movie is in the neighborhood of 10-15GB. Do the math and that comes out to 41MBps required (capital B). The theoretical max on 100Mbps is roughly 12.5MBps.

Non physical delivery is coming, and it's coming fast, faster than most expect or want to believe. Faster, perhaps, than HDM is going.
As long as they can mail you a 10 cent disc for 37 cents, physical delivery will stick around. Which is why the Netflix and Blockbuster mail services are so popular now.

And HD DVD/Blu-ray prevent that with all the CP/DRM they contain.
But downloads would surely have some big time DRM on them. No way the studios would allow unrestricted full HD movies to be downloaded to any device.

Not necessarilly, see XstreamHD with it's 80Mbps peak video bitrate (2x BD) and 7.1 DTS-HD MA lossless audio.
But this is for a limited number of channels which are being multicast. Not a server of thousands and thousands of HD movies which have to all be streamed to individual endpoints.

What if the service doesn't require you to buy movies to view them?
Then how will they make money?

Isn't stopping Comcast, XstreamHD, Microsoft, Sony....
None of these companies are doing anything on the scale of something that would even remotely replace SD-DVD. Much less Blu-ray or HD-DVD any time soon.

It's all about bandwidth people. It's simply not there, and won't be there for a long time. Shoot, HD channels have been around for what, eight years or so, and we still have not seen more than a 15% or so market penetration.

It's surprising to me that even though streaming SD-DVD quality movies is still an infinitesimal market share, people on here would think that streaming HD quality movies is up and coming and ready to take over physical HDM.:rolleyes:

Again, 100% vaporware. None of that exists now, and I'll bet anyone here roll out of 160Mbps broadband will not happen in 2008.

2-3 years minimum; 5-7 years before it's available to a significant portion of the population (Blu-Ray is available to 100% of the population because its a physical format not dependent on infrastructure that doesn't exist).

160Mbps is definitely vaporware, but the speeds needed for HD downloads are almost here. I get 20M down 1M up via cable modem here in New York City for a premium ($74 a month). Similar speeds are popping up in major metropolitan areas around the country. And, whether or not you pay for a cable modem, these speeds are available to set top boxes.

So, a box could download an HD movie in about half an hour at those current 20M down speeds (or proportionally faster as the networks speed up). It's not the instant buy it and get it deal. But it is technically already fast enough to stream an HD movie down to the set.

Of course, the whole HD via stream or DL doesn't have bandwidth as its biggest stumbling blocks. Legal and buearocratic issues hold that honor.

Well backup your drive, duh. Consider maintenance like you would when taking care not to scratch your disc.

Thanks.

:rolleyes:

I have Charter with Moxi. I have a 500G external drive hooked up to it. Due to copyright protection, I can not back it up. Some have tried and have failed miserably.

I'm guessing it will almost certainly be the same with any similar form of media distribution.

What if your house burns down taking all of your movies with it?

The odds of an HDisk crashing is a lot higher than burning your house down. Plus if you burn your house down... homeowners insurance should cover it.

Losing your entire collection because a company goes out of business or your hard disk crashes, or because you want to switch service providers.... is a lot worse than your kids scratching up a disc or two.

As far as the comparisons to BD and XstreamHD... since you guys have so much faith in it... put your money where your mouth is. Buy it, and let us know how it goes. It probably will be a great experience... until they go bankrupt.

See how well that 80MBps goes, when they have a library of tens of thousands of movies.

...
I'm not really getting why people who like the idea of downloads are eager to dictate to disk buyers why they should no longer support disk, it's not like the same titles won't be offered on download if that's what you prefer.

Almost all video masters are first created with the idea TV syndication packages in mind, and home releases are the afterthought.

Why do you think black and white? Disc and VOD can complement each other greatly.

The original SD RH sold in the hundreds I recal from reading an article about it.
I assume Casablanca did not do much better.
In general sales of older catalog titles are too low to sustain the traditional retail model.

Now that video masters are created for TV syndication packages the step to VOD to tap that growing content library can bring in a new revenue stream.

The moment the revenues from VOD greatly exceed that of disc based catalog releases you will see them dissappear.

It's sad but economic realities will dictate that to happen.

At retail the high movers are from new releases bins and bargain bins.
60..70% of shelf space is allocated to items that are hardly moving.

You can directly compare shelf space with available bandwidth.
In the futere VOD busines model the 60..70% shelf space will be used far more effectivly.


It's inevitable. An entire new generation of future customers is already used to that.

Do you see retail bins packed with disc offering 'greatest ringtone hits' ?
That is already download all the way.

Yes, I can just imagine it now, a Best Buy Sales Associate teaching mothers and grandfathers across the nation how to build RAID arrays to backup their movies.
:D

Discs can fall appart too.
Yes and not only that, monkeys might fly out of your butt! Anything can happen!

That just might be THE silliest thing I've heard yet.

Out of some thousand or so optical discs, not one of mine has ever fallen apart.

Please. :rolleyes:

And HD DVD/Blu-ray prevent that with all the CP/DRM they contain.

Not necessarilly, see XstreamHD with it's 80Mbps peak video bitrate (2x BD) and 7.1 DTS-HD MA lossless audio.

XstreamHD promises all sorts of supplimental material.

Vs possible loss of data due to, eg, kids.

What if the service doesn't require you to buy movies to view them?

Isn't stopping Comcast, XstreamHD, Microsoft, Sony....

1) If you think HDDVD and BD are bad with DRM, then what do you think will happen with digital downloads? If you bring it to your friends house, who has the same media player... can they play your downloaded files? Probably not

2) Peak bandwidth? Great, lets see how that holds up if they have tens of thousands of different movies that need to be streamed. Should be fun to sit at home on a rainy day... and watch these 80MBps streaming downloads

3) Great.

4) Data loss of a disc or two because of kids... vs losing your entire collection because of hardware failure, company bankrupcy, changing service provider. I would rather lose a disc or two. If/when HDDVD dies, your discs still work. If said DD provider loses solvancy, that could mean the end of your collection

Look at these Tivo's over the years. Plenty have hardware failures. Can you get those recorded shows after a disk failure? No. Hell, I just bought a 500GB seagate external drive. It crashed a day later. 1 Friggin DAY. I have a ReplayTV, and it could go at any moment. I dont even know who owns the company anymore.

5) If you dont buy movies, its just like any other rental. You are better off comparing the service to netflix or Blockbuster. People still buy even though you can rent from these guys for less than the cost of 1 or 2 DVDs.

Why do you think black and white? Disc and VOD can complement each other greatly.

The original SD RH sold in the hundreds I recal from reading an article about it.
I assume Casablanca did not do much better.
In general sales of older catalog titles are too low to sustain the traditional retail model.


Sorry, but your going to have support that, it simply doesn't ring true. As I said Warner issues massive amounts of catalog titles of similar vintage with far less name recognition than those two. They couldn't possibly all be selling in the 100's. Again, why issue them on HD DVD if they flopped on SD?

Your making a lot of claims without stats to back it up.

I won't argue that downloads are going to gut much of the rental market, nor that they are a bad option for that use.

Downloads a fire-proof?
If you just want to broaden into sillyville, then there is little point debating real-world concerns.

There are a million whatif's as was blatently pointed out. I am simply adding to the sillyness.

There are a million whatif's as was blatently pointed out. I am simply adding to the sillyness.
And I want to say that you're doing a bang-up job, too! keep up the good work!

Downloads are even already out. The new way is just movies on demand. You pay to watch. If it's always available.. why do you need to worry about owning it?

If I charge you 4$ each time you watch a movie in high definition... why bother owning it? Are you planning to watch each one of your DVDs four times at least (which might cover the cost of buying the disc) -- remember.. EVERY SINGLE DVD has to be watched four times to break even....

And HD? You would need to watch 5 or 6 times.

It doesn't make sense. Think about it. Why take up 100 sq/ft of your house with a collection of movies you watch once or twice (maybe 4-5 if it's good) when you can just pay a small fee and watch any movie from a collection of 10,000 without even spending more than 10 seconds to search for it.. and click it.

How long does it take for you to find a movie in your collection? How much time/money is wasted going to the store to buy the movie. How much space is taken up by all those movies.

Broadband video on demand is the future.. whether we like it or not. It's even environmentally friendly!

Gee, I haven't the time to read this whole thread but did anyone see Brian Roberts' Keynote address at CES yesterday of their new DOCSIS 3.0 profile with Wideband internet? They at the begiining are taking 4 analog channels and banding them together to give a speed of 100 with increases to come in 2009 and beyond. All the cable companies will be deploying ths. A download of Batman Begins in full HD with an HD trailer for The Dark Knight was done in 4 minutes, yes 4 minutes with incredible PQ and AQ and boy does The Dark Knight look like an excellent sequel. Comast is rolling this out the second quarter of THIS year. Don't look now but I think it is pretty clear that the future is here already.

Who's bucks, their's or mine? Some of us like some form of decent-looking packaging. The studios are selling product, I'm just saying what type of product I gravitate toward, if they want my $ and that of people like me, they gotta sell me what I want or lose my $.


We can agree on that Tim! If the studios wants my cash physical media is the only way you can get it.

Gee, I haven't the time to read this whole thread but did anyone see Brian Roberts' Keynote address at CES yesterday of their new DOCSIS 3.0 profile with Wideband internet? They at the begiining are taking 4 analog channels and banding them together to give a speed of 100 with increases to come in 2009 and beyond. All the cable companies will be deploying ths. A download of Batman Begins in full HD with an HD trailer for The Dark Knight was done in 4 minutes, yes 4 minutes with incredible PQ and AQ and boy does The Dark Knight look like an excellent sequel. Comast is rolling this out the second quarter of THIS year. Don't look now but I think it is pretty clear that the future is here already.

Your assuming Comcast is not going to charge a hefty premium for this. Downloading is not the way to go especially if you like a pay once watch anytime model. These downloads are going to be pay for a viewing time frame and pay again once that timeframe is over. Sorry it is just DIVX without the disc.

Downloads are even already out. The new way is just movies on demand. You pay to watch. If it's always available.. why do you need to worry about owning it?

If I charge you 4$ each time you watch a movie in high definition... why bother owning it? Are you planning to watch each one of your DVDs four times at least (which might cover the cost of buying the disc) -- remember.. EVERY SINGLE DVD has to be watched four times to break even....

And HD? You would need to watch 5 or 6 times.

It doesn't make sense. Think about it. Why take up 100 sq/ft of your house with a collection of movies you watch once or twice (maybe 4-5 if it's good) when you can just pay a small fee and watch any movie from a collection of 10,000 without even spending more than 10 seconds to search for it.. and click it.

How long does it take for you to find a movie in your collection? How much time/money is wasted going to the store to buy the movie. How much space is taken up by all those movies.

Broadband video on demand is the future.. whether we like it or not. It's even environmentally friendly!

Exactly,

And on top of that regular HD channels broadcasting movies will become a commodity over time.

I always smile if I fans root for James Bond collections in HD. All the Bond movies are recycled on television channels in a 5 year cycle anyway.

Downloads are even already out. The new way is just movies on demand. You pay to watch. If it's always available.. why do you need to worry about owning it?

If I charge you 4$ each time you watch a movie in high definition... why bother owning it? Are you planning to watch each one of your DVDs four times at least (which might cover the cost of buying the disc) -- remember.. EVERY SINGLE DVD has to be watched four times to break even....

And HD? You would need to watch 5 or 6 times.

It doesn't make sense. Think about it. Why take up 100 sq/ft of your house with a collection of movies you watch once or twice (maybe 4-5 if it's good) when you can just pay a small fee and watch any movie from a collection of 10,000 without even spending more than 10 seconds to search for it.. and click it.

How long does it take for you to find a movie in your collection? How much time/money is wasted going to the store to buy the movie. How much space is taken up by all those movies.

Broadband video on demand is the future.. whether we like it or not. It's even environmentally friendly!

Blockbuster Total Access gets me 4 BD rentals a month for about $8. And BD is real HD audio and video. Not some overly compressed OnDemand crap. Also OnDemand is not unlimited bandwidth. The more people that use it, the more the quality is reduced.

How is that any different than HD DVD or Blu-ray, either of them are years away from any wide scale "uptake", HD optical is only 3.5% of the market.



Everyone with cable has 5Gbps of bandwidth to their homes, all it takes is for cable companies to start using that more efficiently. Each analog channel occupies 40Mbps of bandwidth, reducing/eliminating them will be a huge increase in bandwidth, then there's Switched Digital Video, which will free enormous amounts of "to the curb" bandwidth.

Comcast has announced that it will make "Wideband" available to millions of homes this year, with bandwidth of 100Mbps, they say it will allow "download" of an HD movie in 4 minutes.

Comcast, XstreamHD, Xbox Live Marketplace, VuDu....

Non physical delivery is coming, and it's coming fast, faster than most expect or want to believe. Faster, perhaps, than HDM is going.



And HD DVD/Blu-ray prevent that with all the CP/DRM they contain.



Not necessarilly, see XstreamHD with it's 80Mbps peak video bitrate (2x BD) and 7.1 DTS-HD MA lossless audio.



XstreamHD promises all sorts of supplimental material.



Vs possible loss of data due to, eg, kids.



What if the service doesn't require you to buy movies to view them?



Isn't stopping Comcast, XstreamHD, Microsoft, Sony....


The above arguments from tqlla are old and tired. Sony and BD, further, so was HD-DVD are/were in a foot race. BD needs cheap (sub $200 - final spec machines next Christmas!). Why??? Because they need to battle this inevitability argument of the companies who are supporting digital distribution. Inevitability is compelling because consumers are tired of formats, they want better quality (PQ more so than AQ- from what I read on here), and they will pay more but only marginally for that. How do you get that extra margin from consumers and grow your business beyond the traditional? DD is the only way. Another physical medium while it will sell is just a stop-gap. Frankly, BD needs to beat out the sense (not the reality) that DD is inevitable or the mass market will not buy into it. CES has advanced the argument so rapidly that BD could be as big of an afterthought as HD-DVD will be in two weeks. The danger here, and it is real, is that the HDM war over BD/HD was not thought out by either side. The good question from those burned by buying into HD-DVD is will the same happen with BD. Thus, I bought a combo and I hope to God it works on late model BD's but if it doesn't it will play what I've got and upscale the old fairly well.

I think it may eventually account for a 25-35% market share, big niche.

Interesting. I would put it in exactly that range as well.

And certainly if it gets to that point, HDM would be considered a success, and certainly not niche.

Blockbuster Total Access gets me 4 BD rentals a month for about $8. And BD is real HD audio and video. Not some overly compressed OnDemand crap. Also OnDemand is not unlimited bandwidth. The more people that use it, the more the quality is reduced.

You are assuming that technology will not improve quickly? What we see available now is actually old technology still being tested on the market. You do realize that fiber optic (which is already run to your street) has bandwidth limits above 1tb/s (how's that for bitrate?)

The future has nothing to do with Internet. It has nothing to do with cable modems. It's going to be delivered, on demand, over an insanely fast connection at the click of your remote and for a reasonable price. Nothing is that convienent.. not even in-the-mail rental.

I want to watch "Gone with the Wind" -- Click... Click... Click... it's on... 4$

How can it get any better than that? Unless you intend to watch Gone With The Wind 7 times. Then you should buy the disc.

Downloads are even already out. The new way is just movies on demand. You pay to watch. If it's always available.. why do you need to worry about owning it?

If I charge you 4$ each time you watch a movie in high definition... why bother owning it? Are you planning to watch each one of your DVDs four times at least (which might cover the cost of buying the disc) -- remember.. EVERY SINGLE DVD has to be watched four times to break even....

And HD? You would need to watch 5 or 6 times.

It doesn't make sense. Think about it. Why take up 100 sq/ft of your house with a collection of movies you watch once or twice (maybe 4-5 if it's good) when you can just pay a small fee and watch any movie from a collection of 10,000 without even spending more than 10 seconds to search for it.. and click it.

How long does it take for you to find a movie in your collection? How much time/money is wasted going to the store to buy the movie. How much space is taken up by all those movies.

Broadband video on demand is the future.. whether we like it or not. It's even environmentally friendly!
Agreed. I'm a pretty serious renter. Have been for a long time. These days I prefer to watch most movies just once.

When it becomes viable, I will most likely be dabbling in VOD along with renting and making HDM purchases mainly on the films I wish to collect and know I will want to watch more than once.

Gee, I haven't the time to read this whole thread but did anyone see Brian Roberts' Keynote address at CES yesterday of their new DOCSIS 3.0 profile with Wideband internet? They at the begiining are taking 4 analog channels and banding them together to give a speed of 100 with increases to come in 2009 and beyond. All the cable companies will be deploying ths. A download of Batman Begins in full HD with an HD trailer for The Dark Knight was done in 4 minutes, yes 4 minutes with incredible PQ and AQ and boy does The Dark Knight look like an excellent sequel. Comast is rolling this out the second quarter of THIS year. Don't look now but I think it is pretty clear that the future is here already.
Sweet! Someone tell Charter to get off their asses and do this!

Sorry, but your going to have support that, it simply doesn't ring true. As I said Warner issues massive amounts of catalog titles of similar vintage with far less name recognition than those two. They couldn't possibly all be selling in the 100's. Again, why issue them on HD DVD if they flopped on SD?

Your making a lot of claims without stats to back it up.

I won't argue that downloads are going to gut much of the rental market, nor that they are a bad option for that use.

Movie industry is stuck in the old business model that is slowly falling apart in the real world. They stil do it because it makes them money overall.

If they can move on to a more cost effective business model they will make that move. Economics will dictate that.

Low sales numers for catalogs are acceptable if a new format needs to be established. They do not make money but there is value pr wise too. Early adopters like to see support on all fronts.

I'm assuming you mean 5Mbps, but the statement is essentially false. Yes, most people have a theoretical max of 5Mbps, but that is assuming everyone in your local network is not calling it up at once. People aren't sitting at their computers all day streaming HD content. There's no way 5Mbps would hold up if everyone started using even 25% of it consistently.

You are misunderstanding what he is saying. Many people think that copper (coax) doesn't have enough bandwidth. Copper deployed by cable co operates on a frequency of 5Mhz - 1000Mhz (1GHz). Using QAM256 you can get about 42Mbps (39Mbps usable) per 6MHz channel. That works out to about 6.5 Mbps per 1MHz of available frequency.

995MHz of frequency x 6.5Mbps means that cable running into your house has a capacity of 6.5Gbps of bandwidth.

The problem right now is 2 things:
* Some cable companies deployed equipment only rated 600Mhz, 750MHz, 850Mhz in the late 80s early 90s to save money.
* Analog channels use 6Mhz of bandwidth (for legacy compatibility with NTSC sets). 70-80 channels in analog WASTE over 3Gbps of bandwidth.

Many people are focused on fiber and it's insane bandwidth potential but coax has (relatively speaking) lots of bandwidth once cable companies move everything digital.

This will allow cable speeds to be boosted 10x and HD VOD options to grow exponentially. Another way to look at it is currently the 70 or so analog channels (that look horrible) use more bandwidth than all the digital and HD channels on your cable lineup. Each analog channel that goes away allows 2 full OTA bandwidth HD channels or 8 SD digital channels.

BTW Fiber is in a whole new league. The fiber being laid today is rated at 10Gbps per wavelength (and likely 100Gbps will be possible) PER frequency and up to 20 frequencies multiplexed on the same fiber (yeah that's an insane 2Tbps potential and likely much more is possible).

You are assuming that technology will not improve quickly? What we see available now is actually old technology still being tested on the market. You do realize that fiber optic (which is already run to your street) has bandwidth limits above 1tb/s (how's that for bitrate?)

The future has nothing to do with Internet. It has nothing to do with cable modems. It's going to be delivered, on demand, over an insanely fast connection at the click of your remote and for a reasonable price. Nothing is that convienent.. not even in-the-mail rental.

I want to watch "Gone with the Wind" -- Click... Click... Click... it's on... 4$

How can it get any better than that? Unless you intend to watch Gone With The Wind 7 times. Then you should buy the disc.

I don't have a problem with downloads as long as they coexist with a physical media. Once physical media is gone all control is in the hands of those who control the distribution.

And with 4 BD rentals for $8 that's still 50% percent cheaper than your $4/viewing frame. BTW, Comcast currently thinks they can charge $5.99 for HD OnDemand and PPV. Again I'll take my $2/BD rental.

Also I have been hearing that arguement about fiber optic for 10 years. The problem is running the last mile of cables to homes.

BTW Fiber is in a whole new league. The fiber being laid today is rated at 10Gbps per wavelength (and likely 100Gbps will be possible) PER frequency and up to 20 frequencies multiplexed on the same fiber (yeah that's an insane 2Tbps potential and likely much more is possible).

More than enough to allow streaming of 4320p video right to your set at the click of a button.

The ONLY technology with the room to grow is a video on demand system. All the others will eventually involve some type of material that consumers will be throwing into the garbage dumps at some point in their life. I just finished doing that with my music CD's about a year ago. DVD's will likely be next within 3-5 years.

You are misunderstanding what he is saying. Many people think that copper (coax) doesn't have enough bandwidth. Copper deployed by cable co operates on a frequency of 5Mhz - 1000Mhz (1GHz). Using QAM256 you can get about 42Mbps (39Mbps usable) per 6MHz channel. That works out to about 6.5 Mbps per 1MHz of available frequency.

995MHz of frequency x 6.5Mbps means that cable running into your house has a capacity of 6.5Gbps of bandwidth.

The problem right now is 2 things:
* Some cable companies deployed equipment only rated 600Mhz, 750MHz, 850Mhz in the late 80s early 90s to save money.
* Analog channels use 6Mhz of bandwidth (for legacy compatibility with NTSC sets). 70-80 channels in analog WASTE over 3Gbps of bandwidth.

Many people are focused on fiber and it's insane bandwidth potential but coax has (relatively speaking) lots of bandwidth once cable companies move everything digital.

This will allow cable speeds to be boosted 10x and HD VOD options to grow exponentially. Another way to look at it is currently the 70 or so analog channels (that look horrible) use more bandwidth than all the digital and HD channels on your cable lineup. Each analog channel that goes away allows 2 full OTA bandwidth HD channels or 8 SD digital channels.

BTW Fiber is in a whole new league. The fiber being laid today is rated at 10Gbps per wavelength (and likely 100Gbps will be possible) PER frequency and up to 20 frequencies multiplexed on the same fiber (yeah that's an insane 2Tbps potential and likely much more is possible).


And unless the cable companies force everyone to get a settop box for digital cable to get the bandwidth back it is not going to change anytime soon.

Plus do you think cable companies will pay for these upgrades out of the goodness of thier hearts? I smell more rate hikes. I am already paying $150 for HSI, Digital Cable with two DVRs. They hike it anymore and I am going to be downgrading service.

More than enough to allow streaming of 4320p video right to your set at the click of a button.

The ONLY technology with the room to grow is a video on demand system. All the others will eventually involve some type of material that consumers will be throwing into the garbage dumps at some point in their life. I just finished doing that with my music CD's about a year ago. DVD's will likely be next within 3-5 years.
You mention room to grow, but mention nothing about how much growth.

Digital music downloads are growing, yet only account for 10% of music sales overall (90% are still physical media). I guess the market should ignore the physical media revenue stream?

Digital video downloads are growing, yet they don't even show up on the radar of home video sales compared to physical media. And yet you think in 3 years, DVDs will be filling up landfills.

Pipe dream. Vaporware.

I'm assuming you mean 5Mbps, but the statement is essentially false. Yes, most people have a theoretical max of 5Mbps, but that is assuming everyone in your local network is not calling it up at once. People aren't sitting at their computers all day streaming HD content. There's no way 5Mbps would hold up if everyone started using even 25% of it consistently.

No, I mean 5Gbps, cable has 125 RF channels, each with about a 6MHz bandwidth. Data is modulated on those carriers using QAM256 modulation such that each channel carries about 40Mbps of data. 40Mbps * 125 = 5Gbps.

Analog NTSC channels account for about half to 2 thirds of those, so those occupy about 2-3Gbps of bandwidth. The digital channels take up the majority of the rest.

There is a huge amount of waste there, the typical home is probably actively using 1-5% of that. Switched Digital Video will free up probably on the order of 95% of that bandwidth because it will only use the bandwidth that the customer is actually using (ie if you're watching 1 HD channel, 10-20Mbps total), today with the broadcast system, each user is getting 5Gbps of data regardless of if they're even actively viewing anything.


Those numbers do not even add up. A smaller HD movie is in the neighborhood of 10-15GB. Do the math and that comes out to 41MBps required (capital B). The theoretical max on 100Mbps is roughly 12.5MBps.

Sorry, I think I combined numbers from two distinct parts of the article. That and the article I looked at before was confused, the real story was 4GB in 4 minutes.

As long as they can mail you a 10 cent disc for 37 cents, physical delivery will stick around. Which is why the Netflix and Blockbuster mail services are so popular now.

Netflix is pushing electronic delivery though. Netflix and BB are popular because of the model, $x/month for unlimited access to huge collections. I think a service that was modeled the same way, but without the hastle of mailing or scratched discs (eg XStreamHD) would be even more popular.

But downloads would surely have some big time DRM on them. No way the studios would allow unrestricted full HD movies to be downloaded to any device.

If it's something like netflix, where for $20/month I just pick up the remote and choose from thousands of titles, and they just play when I select them, no "buying", no "renting", just play any movie, whenever, who cares? I don't care that I can't copy a movie I get from netflix, I'm subscribed to a service.

However I do care that I can't put a copy of Transformers on my media server from the HD DVD that I purchased.

But this is for a limited number of channels which are being multicast. Not a server of thousands and thousands of HD movies which have to all be streamed to individual endpoints.

But you can multicast even to groups of individuals. Look at SDV or IPTV. IPTV is the proof that you don't need gobs of end-user bandwidth to deliver tons of content.

Then how will they make money?

The same way Netflix or Blockbuster make money.

None of these companies are doing anything on the scale of something that would even remotely replace SD-DVD. Much less Blu-ray or HD-DVD any time soon.

SD DVD I'll give you, but HD DVD and Blu-ray are only 3.5% of that market, it would not be hard to overtake them today.

It's all about bandwidth people. It's simply not there, and won't be there for a long time.

Sure it is, as I said, cable has a 5Gbps pipe to every customers home, SDV and the converstion to all digital will free up tons of that.

Shoot, HD channels have been around for what, eight years or so, and we still have not seen more than a 15% or so market penetration.

That's got little to do with bandwidth. Lack of content is the big issue.

It's surprising to me that even though streaming SD-DVD quality movies is still an infinitesimal market share, people on here would think that streaming HD quality movies is up and coming and ready to take over physical HDM.:rolleyes:

Streaming HD is only slightly more technically challenging than streaming HD.

5) If you dont buy movies, its just like any other rental. You are better off comparing the service to netflix or Blockbuster. People still buy even though you can rent from these guys for less than the cost of 1 or 2 DVDs.

But why do people really buy movies? Really, sit back and really ask yourself that.

The hassle of driving to the video store to pick it up and take it back.
The hassle of waiting for the movie to get to you in the mail.
The hassle of returning the movie if it shows up scratched/unplayable
The inconvenience of having to wait for a movie because the rental place s out.
The inability to watch the movie again on a whim.
The cost per rental
The redundant cost to watch again

Electronic delivery has the potential to eliminate every single one of those inconveniences that make renting "unattractive" to so many of us. I used to buy every movie that I wanted to see. I've got almost 500 DVDs to prove it.

Last year I signed up for Netflix because I wanted to try out HD but was unwilling to buy into either of the DRM incumbered formats. Over the past year I've watched a lot of movies via netflix, and there are several things I really like:
It's far cheaper than buying.
Most movies I really don't care to watch more than once
It's "no risk" I'll watch stuff I'd never consider buying because it's too "questionable" as to whether I'd like it (I've discovered a few gems this way).
I can watch almost anything

However in the last few months I've found myself moving away from Netflix and back to buying, why?
[LIST] New releases take weeks to arrive
I've had too many scratched discs arrive unplayable (or with issues)
Some things I really like, I want to be able to watch on a whim later[/QUOTE]

Notice though that none of those reasons for buying are anything inherent to physical media (in fact, one is because the media is physical), and none preclude electronic delivery.

Beyond that, what do I do with the movies I buy, I put them on my media server, most never touch a player. It's my own personal library, but the costs and logistics of maintaining that are not to be trivailized (specifically the cost of acquiring the media in the first place)

Things like XstreamHD are very exciting to me, because they take the best Netflix, (low cost, large selection), but eliminate all the things that cause me to buy physical media. It's like my own Kaleidesape system, only with thousands of titles, and without me having to spend tens of thousands to buy that content. Especially when there's the potential for physical media matching (or exceeding) quality.

I think for most people, buying is primarily a matter of convenience, it's easier to just buy the movie when you're at the store (or pre-order and have it arrive on your door) and have it there to watch on a whim than it is to drive to the rental store when you want to watch something, or wait for something you want to get sent to you from your queue.

I think when a service appears that eliminates the problems with renting that I lay out above, a lot of "buyers" like me, who are buyers buy "necessity" (not desire), will "defect" to become subscribers. I guess to put it another way, I think digital distribution will obsolete the personal collection.

Of course there will always be those collectors, who have to own every movie they watch, but I think they are far smaller in number than those who just want convenient access to lots of movies on a whim.

And unless the cable companies force everyone to get a settop box for digital cable to get the bandwidth back it is not going to change anytime soon.

Plus do you think cable companies will pay for these upgrades out of the goodness of thier hearts? I smell more rate hikes. I am already paying $150 for HSI, Digital Cable with two DVRs. They hike it anymore and I am going to be downgrading service.

The analog shutoff date is not that far away.

I can't wait for cable free up that bandwith.

Anyone who keeps going on about vaporware or downloads won't this or that are not seeing the whole picture. In fact remove that stupid useless vaporware term from the english language. It has become the defining word or mantra for naysayers and it is old! :mad:

Wait till the local broadcast stations start using their freed up analog OTA channels bandwidth and or using cell companies with Wimax and download into boxes that can either compress and or decompress, stream and have terrabyte plus storage.

Now many keep saying this is vaporware, but it will happen.

Also look into google's purchase of 'dark fiber' which many haven't even heard of it. Links below.

These three are in order from oldest to newest.

http://www.news.com/Google-wants-dar...3-5537392.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759...119TX1K0000594

http://www.dailytechrag.com/story/go...dia/2007-01-22

Anyone who thinks HD downloads are years off or not going to happen are wrong. They will in under five years. My guess is starting in two years or less, even by the end of this year and full adoption by 2012.


The logistics of it are being worked out, yet we have some claiming it will never happen or be 10 years or more away. :rolleyes:

And unless the cable companies force everyone to get a settop box for digital cable to get the bandwidth back it is not going to change anytime soon.

There are reports (I've seen them on the SageTV forums) that Cable companies are already telling subscribers they're going to pull all analog channels.

Plus do you think cable companies will pay for these upgrades out of the goodness of thier hearts? I smell more rate hikes. I am already paying $150 for HSI, Digital Cable with two DVRs. They hike it anymore and I am going to be downgrading service.

With the HD race going on with satellite, they need to add new services to keep/attract customers.

You mention room to grow, but mention nothing about how much growth.

Digital music downloads are growing, yet only account for 10% of music sales overall (90% are still physical media). I guess the market should ignore the physical media revenue stream?

That's 3x larger percentage than HD DVD/BD have.

Digital video downloads are growing, yet they don't even show up on the radar of home video sales compared to physical media. And yet you think in 3 years, DVDs will be filling up landfills.

HD DVD/BD aren't hardly a blip on the radar either.

Pipe dream. Vaporware.

Frankly I'm amazed at the number of people who just don't understand that physical media is on it's last legs, electronic distribution is the future, it's only a matter of time. It's not going to be in every household in the next year or two, but it is the next big thing, and it's really a race between Blu-ray and electronic delivery at this point, though they probably will co-exist.

I don't have a problem with downloads as long as they coexist with a physical media. Once physical media is gone all control is in the hands of those who control the distribution.

And with 4 BD rentals for $8 that's still 50% percent cheaper than your $4/viewing frame. BTW, Comcast currently thinks they can charge $5.99 for HD OnDemand and PPV. Again I'll take my $2/BD rental.

Also I have been hearing that arguement about fiber optic for 10 years. The problem is running the last mile of cables to homes.
Agreed on the coexistence.

For 2 bucks you can watch them anytime you want, as many times, over several days.

If I can watch them fast enough, I can get as many as 24 a month for 20 bucks. That's less than $1 EACH!!!

The online rental programs are beautiful things!

Movie industry is stuck in the old business model that is slowly falling apart in the real world. They stil do it because it makes them money overall.

Bingo! Music downloads have been a reality for years, yet still hold a less-than 12% market share compared to CD sales. Music in general has slumped in sales, but that that's because the download generation is also likes to ride without paying the fare.

The analog shutoff date is not that far away.

I can't wait for cable free up that bandwith.
Yes, that magical analog shutoff date.

Once the clock hits midnight on that wonderful day, our cable companies hit a button and our bandwidth will increase 10-fold in a matter of seconds.

No extra charge! They'll just upgrade us from 6Mbps to 160Mbps out of the goodness of their hearts, instantly.

All those grainy compressed HD broadcasts will turn into crystal clear VC-1 encodes right before our eyes.

Even better, all rental/purchase prices will be cut 50%, so we're not paying the same as physical media.

All by the end of 2008, I might add.

Agreed. I'm a pretty serious renter. Have been for a long time. These days I prefer to watch most movies just once.

When it becomes viable, I will most likely be dabbling in VOD along with renting and making HDM purchases mainly on the films I wish to collect and know I will want to watch more than once.


If you could get near quality HD and near quality sound for the same price as Netflix or Blockbuster would you buy it for the same or similar price?

Folks, that's the standard. Most people on this forum have already stated they don't have 7.1 and the number of sets sold per viewer of TV tell us that most don't have 1080P sets. HDM is battling the enemies of time, cost, convenienve and just good enough.

I rent to play on my purple machine. I would much rather not bet the farm that future technology will not figure out advanced codecs beyond ExtremeHD, which require less memory size over faster networks with format neutral media or substantially ubiquitous accessibility.

As oil nears $100 a barrel, shipping costs are getting expensive. As networks get faster and WiFi/wireless lan systems become progressively faster, distribution networks can be eliminated. Advanced codecs, bandwith utilization and decoding technologies eliminate cost.

Ultimately, the success or failure of HDM isn't about the AV enthusiast, it is simply business. It may sound silly, but some rapper once said, "If it doesn't make dollars, it doesn't make cents (sense)."

When pontificating on the future, the first question is where is the money? Don't be naive, this advance toward DTV, HDTV, HDM and ultimately DD has never been about you...it has always and will remain about the money.

For 2 bucks you can watch them anytime you want, as many times, over several days.
The future could be bright, but the reality of today is:

$6 rentals
24-hour rental periods

Yes, that magical analog shutoff date.

Once the clock hits midnight on that wonderful day, our cable companies hit a button and our bandwidth will increase 10-fold in a matter of seconds.

No extra charge! They'll just upgrade us from 6Mbps to 160Mbps out of the goodness of their hearts, instantly.

All those grainy compressed HD broadcasts will turn into crystal clear VC-1 encodes right before our eyes.

Even better, all rental/purchase prices will be cut 50%, so we're not paying the same as physical media.

All by the end of 2008, I might add.

You must have every dollar invested in BD.

I will watch HD on cable, hd dvd, bd, and comptuer.

The delivery system is going to be huge. We already knew this before this HD DVD and BD came out.

It is more options. NOt everyone is going to invest into a physical format when they don't have too. What happens when comcast changes your box and then tells you you have a library of hd movies of over 5000 at your fingertips and some of them actually free.

If you dont like the idea of hd video other than bd then your not a movie lover. YOur a format lover. I like my movies and I could care less where it comes from as long as I enjoy it and I can AFFORD it.

The future could be bright, but the reality of today is:

$6 rentals
24-hour rental periods
Are you talking about physical or VOD?

I was talking about optical media and THAT is the "reality of today."

Bingo! Music downloads have been a reality for years, yet still hold a less-than 12% market share compared to CD sales. Music in general has slumped in sales, but that that's because the download generation is also likes to ride without paying the fare.

Careful with stats. The same issue comes up with movie rentals. While movie sales may count for more revenue in terms of dollar amounts, actual numbers of people who rent are greater.

I am sure CD's might still be ahead of downloading in terms of revenue, but I wouldn't be surprised if more people are downloading.

You are misunderstanding what he is saying. Many people think that copper (coax) doesn't have enough bandwidth. Copper deployed by cable co operates on a frequency of 5Mhz - 1000Mhz (1GHz). Using QAM256 you can get about 42Mbps (39Mbps usable) per 6MHz channel. That works out to about 6.5 Mbps per 1MHz of available frequency.

995MHz of frequency x 6.5Mbps means that cable running into your house has a capacity of 6.5Gbps of bandwidth.

The problem right now is 2 things:
* Some cable companies deployed equipment only rated 600Mhz, 750MHz, 850Mhz in the late 80s early 90s to save money.
* Analog channels use 6Mhz of bandwidth (for legacy compatibility with NTSC sets). 70-80 channels in analog WASTE over 3Gbps of bandwidth.

Many people are focused on fiber and it's insane bandwidth potential but coax has (relatively speaking) lots of bandwidth once cable companies move everything digital.

This will allow cable speeds to be boosted 10x and HD VOD options to grow exponentially. Another way to look at it is currently the 70 or so analog channels (that look horrible) use more bandwidth than all the digital and HD channels on your cable lineup. Each analog channel that goes away allows 2 full OTA bandwidth HD channels or 8 SD digital channels.

BTW Fiber is in a whole new league. The fiber being laid today is rated at 10Gbps per wavelength (and likely 100Gbps will be possible) PER frequency and up to 20 frequencies multiplexed on the same fiber (yeah that's an insane 2Tbps potential and likely much more is possible).
The physical ability of the cables to carry the bandwidth isn't where I was going with the argument. It's where all those cables end up that's the question. What method/technology is some company going to use to serve up their entire multi-thousand HD(heck even SD) movie library to millions of people?

Maybe think about it this way: How many people do you believe are watching a movie in their home right this second? Multiply that times a reasonable HD bandwidth, divide by 2-3 major providers, and you come up with an absolutely insane requirement on the provider side to make this work. Sure, it will probably happen eventually, but not nearly as quickly as physical media is progressing. By the time we have the bandwidth and providers equipped to serve the current HD media, we'll have a higher res/bitrate/sound HD. It's just my opinion, but we've progressed from 480->720->1080 in 10 years. The internet has been around as long if not longer, and still does not have a mainstream service to provide 480 to consumers.

No, I mean 5Gbps, cable has 125 RF channels, each with about a 6MHz bandwidth. Data is modulated on those carriers using QAM256 modulation such that each channel carries about 40Mbps of data. 40Mbps * 125 = 5Gbps.

Analog NTSC channels account for about half to 2 thirds of those, so those occupy about 2-3Gbps of bandwidth. The digital channels take up the majority of the rest.

There is a huge amount of waste there, the typical home is probably actively using 1-5% of that. Switched Digital Video will free up probably on the order of 95% of that bandwidth because it will only use the bandwidth that the customer is actually using (ie if you're watching 1 HD channel, 10-20Mbps total), today with the broadcast system, each user is getting 5Gbps of data regardless of if they're even actively viewing anything.




Sorry, I think I combined numbers from two distinct parts of the article. That and the article I looked at before was confused, the real story was 4GB in 4 minutes.



Netflix is pushing electronic delivery though. Netflix and BB are popular because of the model, $x/month for unlimited access to huge collections. I think a service that was modeled the same way, but without the hastle of mailing or scratched discs (eg XStreamHD) would be even more popular.



If it's something like netflix, where for $20/month I just pick up the remote and choose from thousands of titles, and they just play when I select them, no "buying", no "renting", just play any movie, whenever, who cares? I don't care that I can't copy a movie I get from netflix, I'm subscribed to a service.

However I do care that I can't put a copy of Transformers on my media server from the HD DVD that I purchased.



But you can multicast even to groups of individuals. Look at SDV or IPTV. IPTV is the proof that you don't need gobs of end-user bandwidth to deliver tons of content.



The same way Netflix or Blockbuster make money.



SD DVD I'll give you, but HD DVD and Blu-ray are only 3.5% of that market, it would not be hard to overtake them today.



Sure it is, as I said, cable has a 5Gbps pipe to every customers home, SDV and the converstion to all digital will free up tons of that.



That's got little to do with bandwidth. Lack of content is the big issue.



Streaming HD is only slightly more technically challenging than streaming HD.



But why do people really buy movies? Really, sit back and really ask yourself that.

The hassle of driving to the video store to pick it up and take it back.
The hassle of waiting for the movie to get to you in the mail.
The hassle of returning the movie if it shows up scratched/unplayable
The inconvenience of having to wait for a movie because the rental place s out.
The inability to watch the movie again on a whim.
The cost per rental
The redundant cost to watch again

Electronic delivery has the potential to eliminate every single one of those inconveniences that make renting "unattractive" to so many of us. I used to buy every movie that I wanted to see. I've got almost 500 DVDs to prove it.

Last year I signed up for Netflix because I wanted to try out HD but was unwilling to buy into either of the DRM incumbered formats. Over the past year I've watched a lot of movies via netflix, and there are several things I really like:
It's far cheaper than buying.
Most movies I really don't care to watch more than once
It's "no risk" I'll watch stuff I'd never consider buying because it's too "questionable" as to whether I'd like it (I've discovered a few gems this way).
I can watch almost anything

However in the last few months I've found myself moving away from Netflix and back to buying, why?
[LIST] New releases take weeks to arrive
I've had too many scratched discs arrive unplayable (or with issues)
Some things I really like, I want to be able to watch on a whim later

Notice though that none of those reasons for buying are anything inherent to physical media (in fact, one is because the media is physical), and none preclude electronic delivery.

Beyond that, what do I do with the movies I buy, I put them on my media server, most never touch a player. It's my own personal library, but the costs and logistics of maintaining that are not to be trivailized (specifically the cost of acquiring the media in the first place)

Things like XstreamHD are very exciting to me, because they take the best Netflix, (low cost, large selection), but eliminate all the things that cause me to buy physical media. It's like my own Kaleidesape system, only with thousands of titles, and without me having to spend tens of thousands to buy that content. Especially when there's the potential for physical media matching (or exceeding) quality.

I think for most people, buying is primarily a matter of convenience, it's easier to just buy the movie when you're at the store (or pre-order and have it arrive on your door) and have it there to watch on a whim than it is to drive to the rental store when you want to watch something, or wait for something you want to get sent to you from your queue.

I think when a service appears that eliminates the problems with renting that I lay out above, a lot of "buyers" like me, who are buyers buy "necessity" (not desire), will "defect" to become subscribers. I guess to put it another way, I think digital distribution will obsolete the personal collection.

Of course there will always be those collectors, who have to own every movie they watch, but I think they are far smaller in number than those who just want convenient access to lots of movies on a whim.[/QUOTE]

Great post!

If you could get near quality HD and near quality sound for the same price as Netflix or Blockbuster would you buy it for the same or similar price?
Actually, I am heavy into audio. I would take a HiDef audio track on DVD over DD 5.1 on a HiDef video. Both are preferred.

But I'm not J6P. Your point is well taken.

Are you talking about physical or VOD?

I was talking about optical media and THAT is the "reality of today."
I'm talking about VOD today.

The physical ability of the cables to carry the bandwidth isn't where I was going with the argument. It's where all those cables end up that's the question. What method/technology is some company going to use to serve up their entire multi-thousand HD(heck even SD) movie library to millions of people?

Maybe think about it this way: How many people do you believe are watching a movie in their home right this second? Multiply that times a reasonable HD bandwidth, divide by 2-3 major providers, and you come up with an absolutely insane requirement on the provider side to make this work. Sure, it will probably happen eventually, but not nearly as quickly as physical media is progressing. By the time we have the bandwidth and providers equipped to serve the current HD media, we'll have a higher res/bitrate/sound HD. It's just my opinion, but we've progressed from 480->720->1080 in 10 years. The internet has been around as long if not longer, and still does not have a mainstream service to provide 480 to consumers.

You must have missed my post. To answer your question, right here:



google's purchase of 'dark fiber' which many haven't even heard of it. Links below.

These three are in order from oldest to newest.

http://www.news.com/Google-wants-dar...3-5537392.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759...119TX1K0000594

http://www.dailytechrag.com/story/go...dia/2007-01-22

Analog OTA towers and Wimax are a couple of others

Yes, that magical analog shutoff date.

Once the clock hits midnight on that wonderful day, our cable companies hit a button and our bandwidth will increase 10-fold in a matter of seconds.

No extra charge! They'll just upgrade us from 6Mbps to 160Mbps out of the goodness of their hearts, instantly.

All those grainy compressed HD broadcasts will turn into crystal clear VC-1 encodes right before our eyes.

Even better, all rental/purchase prices will be cut 50%, so we're not paying the same as physical media.

All by the end of 2008, I might add.


Hey...wait a minute! Are you making mock?:rolleyes:

I'm talking about VOD today.
Like I've been saying since the OP, I could see doing VOD on occasion.

However, rethinking that... it would require the death of online rentals to make it worthwhile. As of now, there is always a fresh disc on my shelf and it costs me 1 to 2 bucks! For 6 bucks, I can keep the disc a whole month and watch it whenever and as many times as I want!

How is VOD going to beat that?

But why do people really buy movies? Really, sit back and really ask yourself that.

People buy movies, because people buy movies. People rent movies because they rent movies. Its just the way people are.

I buy movies, even though its cheaper to go to netflix or BB.

Some people are renters, some people are buyers. VOD is closer to a Renters market. Which is why the comparison to it ending HDM is silly. Most people buy SD DVDs the week its released, and these days its available on cable around the same time. It hasnt killed SDDVD. Nor has unlimted rentals killed SDDVD sales.

HOWEVER, I will say, I think Renters will have problems paying $400 for a streaming media box thats dedicated soley for rentals .....esp.... from a company that they are not sure will be around a year from now.

I'm talking about VOD today.

You know VOD/PPV has been around for a long time. Why do you think all of a sudden its the end of optical media?.... because HDDVD is dead?

You know VOD/PPV has been around for a long time. Why do you think all of a sudden its the end of optical media?.... because HDDVD is dead?
I don't; in fact, I think it's laughable that AVS has seen such a surge in support of VOD since 01/04/2008.

Optical media offers a long list of benefits over current VOD. All the optical media detractors are busy talking about technology that is years away, with no estimated cost, because current VOD solutions are so pitiful.

Like I've been saying since the OP, I could see doing VOD on occasion.

However, rethinking that... it would require the death of online rentals to make it worthwhile. As of now, there is always a fresh disc on my shelf and it costs me 1 to 2 bucks! For 6 bucks, I can keep the disc a whole month and watch it whenever and as many times as I want!

How is VOD going to beat that?


By offering you discs that are never scratched, and a library of 10,000 to your 1 with near quality audio / video that you can get to start playing 5 minutes or less...or at least by the time, you've got the popcorn popped in a bowl and poored a cold in your beer mug!! :-)

Careful with stats. The same issue comes up with movie rentals. While movie sales may count for more revenue in terms of dollar amounts, actual numbers of people who rent are greater.

I am sure CD's might still be ahead of downloading in terms of revenue, but I wouldn't be surprised if more people are downloading.

The issue with the music industry is that people are less willing to pay $20..$25 for new releases. Most of the disc sales are generated from the bins in the $5..$10 price range.

70% of the items they push into retail are sitting in bins for years and are not moving. That is a lot of capital not moving. The losses where recouped by selling new releases for premium prices they could get away with for a short period after the release.

Now music industry is facing a new genertation of consumers downloading the songs they like instead of buying the new disc with the high premium prices associated with new release windows.

Download now and buy the $10 disc a few weeks later.

Before download became significant the Music industry was already operating at a loss several years in a row. The old business model was failing apart.

Now the downloads keeps the retail business affloat.

By offering you discs that are never scratched, and a library of 10,000 to your 1 with near quality audio / video that you can get to start playing 5 minutes or less...or at least by the time, you've got the popcorn popped in a bowl and poored a cold in your beer mug!! :-)
We'll all be ready for this by 2012 when it actually shows up.

In the year 2008, however?

Careful with stats. The same issue comes up with movie rentals. While movie sales may count for more revenue in terms of dollar amounts, actual numbers of people who rent are greater.

I am sure CD's might still be ahead of downloading in terms of revenue, but I wouldn't be surprised if more people are downloading.

I'm just saying they will probably continue to do both because it will continue to be profitable to both, and for a lot longer than some here are suggesting.

By offering you discs that are never scratched, and a library of 10,000 to your 1 with near quality audio / video that you can get to start playing 5 minutes or less...or at least by the time, you've got the popcorn popped in a bowl and poored a cold in your beer mug!! :-)

i would be happy if they could give me what is available now without sound
dropping out and occasional pixelating.

You know VOD/PPV has been around for a long time. Why do you think all of a sudden its the end of optical media?.... because HDDVD is dead?


But what we are talking about is a very near future. CES, not the death of HD-DVD, has really amped this debate. All HD-DVDs death did was poor a little fuel on the fire. If having one studio leave can instantly kill HD-DVD, what happens to BD when a studio begins to offer on-line versions through their own distribution channels on their own host servers? The studios aren't worried about the early adopters...they are in this to make money and react to longterm trends.

And no VOD has not been around that long. The ability to transmit HD or near quality over the internet didn't exist until early last season. NBC HD downloads didn't exist until then. Further, what is important there is that those start almost instantly, provide Dolby Digital sound and are just good enough that advertisers began complaining about the falling viewship and lost ratings. That is exactly why the majors went after You Tube so hard and heavy. They had to.

Too many folks on here live in a fairy tale. This is about business...nothing else, pure and simple. And smart businesses are always about the future!! :-) The question isn't how good BD is...it is whether it is good business or a better business than DD!

No, I mean 5Gbps, cable has 125 RF channels, each with about a 6MHz bandwidth. Data is modulated on those carriers using QAM256 modulation such that each channel carries about 40Mbps of data. 40Mbps * 125 = 5Gbps.

Analog NTSC channels account for about half to 2 thirds of those, so those occupy about 2-3Gbps of bandwidth. The digital channels take up the majority of the rest.

There is a huge amount of waste there, the typical home is probably actively using 1-5% of that. Switched Digital Video will free up probably on the order of 95% of that bandwidth because it will only use the bandwidth that the customer is actually using (ie if you're watching 1 HD channel, 10-20Mbps total), today with the broadcast system, each user is getting 5Gbps of data regardless of if they're even actively viewing anything.
You guys quoting these outrageous bandwidth numbers seem to forget that some device has to process these signals. Just because I could drive 500mph on the highway doesn't mean my truck will theoretically go that fast.

Netflix is pushing electronic delivery though. Netflix and BB are popular because of the model, $x/month for unlimited access to huge collections. I think a service that was modeled the same way, but without the hastle of mailing or scratched discs (eg XStreamHD) would be even more popular.
How would it be more popular though? Are people going to stop watching movies in their living room and start watching them from their computer? They'll need a box. How are you going to convince people to go out and purchase a proprietary box for $x and pay $x/month to watch movies? What happens when the kids want to watch movies in their room? Or go to someone else's house and watch that movie? And ok netflix may be pushing it, but how many people are really doing this instead of the mail service? Not to mention the point of the thread was that downloads would kill blu-ray. While I have not seen the quality of the netflix dowloads, do you really believe that they will be up to the quality of Blu-ray enough to kill it as a format??

But you can multicast even to groups of individuals. Look at SDV or IPTV. IPTV is the proof that you don't need gobs of end-user bandwidth to deliver tons of content.
"Tons of content" is not really a comparison when you're talking about every available movie. A couple hundred channels vs multilple tens of thousands of movies isn't something you're going to multicast.

The same way Netflix or Blockbuster make money.
Netflix and Blockbuster make money by having someone pay them $20 to mail them 2-3 $0.10 discs.

SD DVD I'll give you, but HD DVD and Blu-ray are only 3.5% of that market, it would not be hard to overtake them today.
And what % of the market is streaming HD downloads? ZERO. Heck, what is the market % of movie downloads total? I'd guess it's lower then HDM.

Sure it is, as I said, cable has a 5Gbps pipe to every customers home, SDV and the converstion to all digital will free up tons of that.
Yeah again, sure we'll all have 5Gbps of bandwidth to our houses next year:rolleyes:

That's got little to do with bandwidth. Lack of content is the big issue.
So if there's a lack of content how would streaming HD take any more of a market share than HDM?

Streaming HD is only slightly more technically challenging than streaming HD.
Yeah... that's why we have 500 SD channels and at most 30 HD channels.

But why do people really buy movies? Really, sit back and really ask yourself that.
-to watch them more than once
-to watch them at home, avoid the theater
-don't want to pay for a monthly service or pay $5 to rent them
-gifts

But buying movies isn't the only thing we're talking about here. The topic is that streaming HD will kill Blu-ray. Renting/netflix still keeps HDM alive.

The simple fact is: If I wanted to watch a high definition movie right this second, I could drive to the store, purchase it, get some food on the way home, and watch the entire movie in the time it would take to download the same movie. There will not be some astronomical change in bandwidth that changes this before Blu-ray or HD-DVD takes more of a mainstream hold.

Not to mention the reliability of your connection. Halfway done with Transformers HD and *boom* there goes your connection. Guess you gotta wait until it comes back up to watch the rest.

But what we are talking about is a very near future.
Do you have a date?

You must have missed my post. To answer your question, right here:



google's purchase of 'dark fiber' which many haven't even heard of it. Links below.

These three are in order from oldest to newest.

http://www.news.com/Google-wants-dar...3-5537392.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759...119TX1K0000594

http://www.dailytechrag.com/story/go...dia/2007-01-22

Analog OTA towers and Wimax are a couple of others

So, something nobody has even heard of yet is going to be setup, installed, and out in the mainstream in time to overtake blu-ray and/or hd-dvd?

You know VOD/PPV has been around for a long time. Why do you think all of a sudden its the end of optical media?.... because HDDVD is dead?

Yes, SD VOD has been around for quite some time, but HD VOD is just starting to make its presence. HDTV sales have been rapidly increasing over the last 3 years, and people want more high definition content. If they can pay a few extra bucks and get a HD movie via VOD, you think they won't? SD VOD isn't very popular because DVDs are virtually everywhere - your mailbox, local rental store, in the $5.99 bargain barrel, they're essentially commodities.

So, something nobody has even heard of yet is going to be setup, installed, and out in the mainstream in time to overtake blu-ray and/or hd-dvd?
Don't forget, even after those VOD technologies hit the market, they'll have to compete with cheap Blu-Ray players/media.

In two years, Blu-Ray players have gone from $1000 to $300 retail. In two more years?

95% of people on AVS haven't spend a dime on buying/renting HD VOD movies. But apparently it'll own the market in 12 months.

Interesting Stuff . . .VOD:

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

We'll all be ready for this by 2012 when it actually shows up.

In the year 2008, however?

We are on the edge of this trend right now. I can go home and order one of 25 movies using my Comcast cable box via its antiquated MPEG-2 and watch 720P or 1080i video and listen to DD sound.

For most people without a Yamaha RX-Z11 and Martin Logans plastered all over the walls this would be good enough. The fact is that most people don't care about the ultimate driving machine or BMW's M5 would be the world's most purchased family sedan. Instead, Honda and Toyota reign supreme.

Now, let's modify this box that I have at home in the next 6 months...add in MPEG-4 decoding, free up additional bandwith by killing off analog channels that use up 67% of the signal band currently, and start sending the data in advanced packets like those used by ExtremeHD. Seriously, you can't believe this is 5 years away. HDTVs came out 10 years ago...check Wikipedia...and in less than that time it is the dominant TV, same is true for DVD. If you regress these trends in technology, you will find ever faster and faster adoption, implementation and critical mass points. The reality is that BD's cycle will be faster than DVD's just like it was faster than Videocassette was faster than 8mm...I wish I could find that article where this study was conducted.

Be truthful with yourself here, and I love pure HD, wish we had UltraHD systems and sound systems to take advantage of my 11.2 channels of amplification, but the reality is that the mass market doesn't care what I want nor do the manufacturers and content providers...what they do care about is being just good enough for the right cost and delivering just good enough for what people will pay for. :-)

The issue with the music industry is that people are less willing to pay $20..$25 for new releases. Most of the disc sales are generated from the bins in the $5..$10 price range.

70% of the items they push into retail are sitting in bins for years and are not moving. That is a lot of capital not moving. The losses where recouped by selling new releases for premium prices they could get away with for a short period after the release.

Now music industry is facing a new genertation of consumers downloading the songs they like instead of buying the new disc with the high premium prices associated with new release windows.

Download now and buy the $10 disc a few weeks later.

Before download became significant the Music industry was already operating at a loss several years in a row. The old business model was failing apart.

Now the downloads keeps the retail business affloat.

I would like to see the actual financials from the music industry as no one or no business can actually have negative income and stay in business over several years. Generally when we hear about a business losing money, it really means they made less profit than previous, but they still made a profit. Then again with cooking the books and the mob being involved in the legit end of business' like the movies and music, who knows what the real numbers are.

Do you have a date?

I would argue within the next 6 months to 1 year....digital distribution will hit a critical take-off point. The arguments for physical media don't make as much financial sense as they do for DD.

There is a reason that on the same day that Paramount went BD exclusive they also signed a not well known MOU to deliver online to MS. Further, MS also announced Disney and MGM would start going to DD. This was not a coincidence or an accident. :-)

So, something nobody has even heard of yet is going to be setup, installed, and out in the mainstream in time to overtake blu-ray and/or hd-dvd?

Just because you, I, AVS members or most people haven't heard of something doesn't mean it won't happen. I can gaurantee laser tvs are a great example. Even at AVS I bet there are many who havn't heard about laser tv's, but they are poised to become the potential replacement for all the current tv's that have some sort of issue that laser doesn't. That is really beside the point. We are talking mainly about infrastructure with the references I listed. Most people don't know or care about infrastructure. They just want the product or service.

I would argue within the next 6 months to 1 year....digital distribution will hit a critical take-off point. The arguments for physical media don't make as much financial sense as they do for DD.

There is a reason that on the same day that Paramount went BD exclusive they also signed a not well known MOU to deliver online to MS. Further, MS also announced Disney and MGM would start going to DD. This was not a coincidence or an accident. :-)
Great, I've bookmarked this post and will be happy to revisit it 6-12 months from now.

As a Comcast customer, I have a funny feeling my service will be almost exactly the same at the end of this year.

Just because you, I, AVS members or most people haven't heard of something doesn't mean it won't happen. I can gaurantee laser tvs are a great example. Even at AVS I bet there are many who havn't heard about laser tv's, but they are poised to become the potential replacement for all the current tv's that have some sort of issue that laser doesn't. That is really beside the point. We are talking mainly about infrastructure with the references I listed. Most people don't know or care about infrastructure. They just want the product or service.

They want it at the price they can afford with the level of quality that they can live with. I think too little credence is given to what MP3s did to high-definition sound on CDs. Folks that enjoyed the highest levels of fidelity but could live without made the decision to forego the highest quality for just good enough and much more convenience and less cost (when you consider that the vast majority of MP3s are singles and not entire albums). When they figure out which codec can be widely supported and get close enough but provide the convenience of storing, transporting and cataloging movies...the timebomb will start.

Yeah, I hear you that CDs are still around, but the ticker on the bomb has been started!! And that is the big deal. :-)

Yeah, I hear you that CDs are still around, but the ticker on the bomb has been started!! And that is the big deal. :-)
If the ticker on the 10-second countdown timer for music has been started, only 1-second has elapsed in the 4-years since iTunes has been introduced. 90% of music sales are still on optical disc.

By offering you discs that are never scratched, and a library of 10,000 to your 1 with near quality audio / video that you can get to start playing 5 minutes or less...or at least by the time, you've got the popcorn popped in a bowl and poored a cold in your beer mug!! :-)
In something like 600 online rentals, I think I've had maybe 3 or 4 that wouldn't play. So I'll take the 0.5% risk and save a few grand in the process

VOD estimate
600 X $5.99 = $3,594

BB Online
$18/mo x 36 mo = $648

If the ticker on the 10-second countdown timer for music has been started, only 1-second has elapsed in the 4-years since iTunes has been introduced. 90% of music sales are still on optical disc.


$ amounts as I said earlier. There is more money in sales than rentals it seems for music and movies. Dollars matter to companies, but I want to know percentages of people who buy cd's compared to how many download. I am sure cd sales out weigh downloads, but how many are downloading for free. :confused:

Great, I've bookmarked this post and will be happy to revisit it 6-12 months from now.

As a Comcast customer, I have a funny feeling my service will be almost exactly the same at the end of this year.

Comcast has not roughly doubled or presented imminent plans (I mean hard marketing and offers for sale...NOT PRESS RELEASES) to do whole-heartedly embrace digital distribution, it will be because of only one of several reasons:

#1 - They were stupid and didn't want to put Netflix, Blockbuster, MS and Sony out of the dd business.

#2 - They are either out of business or going out of business.

#3 - The convergence of the presently known technologies was either impossible or not a good business decision.


And all of these are related to business...they have absolutely nothing to do with the technology. What I am imploring people to think about is that just because you've got the technology doesn't mean it will get fully deployed. VOD / discrete Cable HD-Lite (for lack of a better term) is already present. The runup from its prelude to first act is already taking place. By the way, I am attorney on the Multi-media Patent Trust vs. MS case so I have a lot of first hand knowledge of what is being planned and planned roll-out dates. :-)

If the ticker on the 10-second countdown timer for music has been started, only 1-second has elapsed in the 4-years since iTunes has been introduced. 90% of music sales are still on optical disc.


It is hard to disable established distribution mechanism where there are already sunk costs and do it in a fashion that garners sustainable competitve advantage. For HD with its limited production lines, higher media and player costs, the business models are not clearly established. The sales of stand-alone HDM units is too small to really matter and the attach rate of any format is too low and statistically insignificant to draw conclusions of what is data from noise.

Further, as had been stated long before, there is a difference between 1 million people buying a whole CD (older folks like my uncle who could never imagine buying an IPOD) and 70 million people buying 2 or 3 tracks. In addition, MP3 has made pirating so easy and ubiquitous that market data is not entirely reliable as an indication of the supply/demand curves. :-)

In something like 600 online rentals, I think I've had maybe 3 or 4 that wouldn't play. So I'll take the 0.5% risk and save a few grand in the process

VOD estimate
600 X $5.99 = $3,594

BB Online
$18/mo x 36 mo = $648

You are using the wrong termonology. As your example sits - it is not VOD. That would be PPV . . . Pay-per-View.

Also you forgot to add the cost of the player to the BBI number.

And does BBI allow 600 titles in 18 months? I thought they had a cap of some kind. That would be 33 movies per month.

In something like 600 online rentals, I think I've had maybe 3 or 4 that wouldn't play. So I'll take the 0.5% risk and save a few grand in the process

VOD estimate
600 X $5.99 = $3,594

BB Online
$18/mo x 36 mo = $648

Eliminate that risk and add a slice of convenience to it. :-) Further, let's compare apples to apples. VOD is what studios want, but subscription services via dd is the more likely outcome of what the market will pay for. :-) Those two curves must always coexist on the same graph. If they don't, you ain't got a business!! :-)

You are using the wrong termonology. As your example sits - it is not VOD. That would be PPV . . . Pay-per-View.

Also you forgot to add the cost of the player to the BBI number.

And does BBI allow 600 titles in 18 months? I thought they had a cap of some kind. That would be 33 movies per month.
1. You're right, of course. Thanks.

2. Cost of player MORE than offset by lease of STB, but thanks for bringing that up. I should've added it to my savings calculation. ;)

3. You misread. It was 18 DOLLARS over 36 months.

Cheers

1. You're right, of course. Thanks.

2. Cost of player MORE than offset by lease of STB.

3. You misread. It was 18 DOLLARS over 36 months.

Cheers

Very interesting...just for aw schucks and giggles....given the average consumer...is it cheaper to do PPV at $5.99 per movie or does it cost less to do Netflix on the per month?

Further, the other thing nobody has mentioned is about the disappearing Blockbuster B&M store. They have closed 4 in Houston since last year. It merely aids my hypothesis of what the trends are doing. ;-)

Also you forgot to add the cost of the player to the BBI number.
Add $399 for a player and you're still saving $2500 over PPV, not counting set-top box lease costs.

Let me say that I have enjoyed this discussion tremendously. IT is funny in some places, but all in all, it is fairly well discussed among some pretty knowledgeable folks.

I believe there is a race here, and it is simply this:

#1 - Can the BD coalition develop a box that plays the highest resolution PQ/AQ that we have had to date, sell it to a public that loves DVDs and make a profit while overcoming the hesitation and confusion that having two formats brought to that buying public?

or

#2 - Can Apple, MS and content providers completely abandon a physical format that consumers love (DVDs), get them to pick up boxes (which have to be as cheap or cheaper than BD players), and convince consumers to either buy the right to own, rent or subscribe to a service with a catalog enphasizing convenience over superior technical standards (I don't believe DD will ever eclipse BD discs in AQ/PQ- probably be eating my words here)?

That is the $100 billion question....or maybe some combo of the two will still exist. Heck, some video stores in West Texas still sell videocassettes. Don't ask how I got there...it was to check out some novel parts for the oil bidnez'. :-)

People buy movies, because people buy movies. People rent movies because they rent movies. Its just the way people are.

You totally dodged the question, what makes a buyer a buyer, and a renter a renter?

I buy movies, even though its cheaper to go to netflix or BB.

Why though, there's got to be a reason? (Note I'm not saying there isn't a good reason to buy vs rent, I listed some above, but there must be a reason).

Some people are renters, some people are buyers.

Again, what makes someone a buyer or a renter?

VOD is closer to a Renters market. Which is why the comparison to it ending HDM is silly. Most people buy SD DVDs the week its released, and these days its available on cable around the same time. It hasnt killed SDDVD. Nor has unlimted rentals killed SDDVD sales.

But VOD has the potential, the likelihood even to "convert" buyers into renters, that's the reason the comparison, or perhaps better "discussion" is valid. VOD falls somewhere in between the two, I think it has broad appeal to both groups, such that it could well take the lions share of both.

HOWEVER, I will say, I think Renters will have problems paying $400 for a streaming media box thats dedicated soley for rentals .....esp.... from a company that they are not sure will be around a year from now.

I use XStreamHD as an example of the idea of a good VOD system, I have very modest hopes for it actually going anywhere, but as far as the service model and technical features go, I think it's a winner.

You guys quoting these outrageous bandwidth numbers seem to forget that some device has to process these signals. Just because I could drive 500mph on the highway doesn't mean my truck will theoretically go that fast.

Devices to process that are nothing.

How would it be more popular though? Are people going to stop watching movies in their living room and start watching them from their computer?

This has nothing to do with computers or "The internet".

They'll need a box. How are you going to convince people to go out and purchase a proprietary box for $x and pay $x/month to watch movies?

You won't need to, you sign up for the service you get the box. How do cable companies convince people to get a box, or satellite companies?

What happens when the kids want to watch movies in their room?

802.11n, gigabit ethernet, or maybe just a different box plugged into a different cable outlet.

Or go to someone else's house and watch that movie?

Do you guys really take movies to other people's houses much?

And ok netflix may be pushing it, but how many people are really doing this instead of the mail service?

I think, of all the people I know who use netflix, if they could "flip a switch" and have those movies delivered instantly to their TV instead of in the mail, they'd switch in a heartbeat.

Not to mention the point of the thread was that downloads would kill blu-ray. While I have not seen the quality of the netflix dowloads, do you really believe that they will be up to the quality of Blu-ray enough to kill it as a format??

I believe VOD has to potential to be the dominate video delivery system.

"Tons of content" is not really a comparison when you're talking about every available movie.

"Tons of content" doesn't refer to library sizes. It refers to the modest bandwidth requirements. Qwest already delivers TV on par with cable and sat over DSL (~20-50Mbps to the house). What cable does with 5Gbps can be done in 1/100th that.

A couple hundred channels vs multilple tens of thousands of movies isn't something you're going to multicast.

Sure it is, by the time you factor in those watching the same thing, those not watching anything, etc, you don't need a "channel" for each of 20,000 movies.

Netflix and Blockbuster make money by having someone pay them $20 to mail them 2-3 $0.10 discs.

Exactly, and electronic services will make money by people paying them $xx to get some bits shot to them over a network.

And what % of the market is streaming HD downloads? ZERO. Heck, what is the market % of movie downloads total? I'd guess it's lower then HDM.

No idea. How much of HDM is Netflix/Blockbuster, how much of HD is VOD?

Yeah again, sure we'll all have 5Gbps of bandwidth to our houses next year:rolleyes:

I never said next year, but say your typical house has 4 TVs active, SDV will drop the bandwidth requirements for providing 4 HD channels to that house from ~5Gbps to 80Mbps. That's a dramatic "freeing" of bandwidth.

So if there's a lack of content how would streaming HD take any more of a market share than HDM?

The point is, providers (mainly satellite, but cable too) are only now, with the spurt of HD channels in the last year, really having trouble finding bandwidth to carry all the HD channels available, and even then, it's only because of the massive waste inherent to parallel linear broadcasting.

Yeah... that's why we have 500 SD channels and at most 30 HD channels.

Like I said, it's not bandwidth that held that back, it's that there were only a handful of HD channels in existence. Notice that as soon as new channels became available, they were up on Dish and DirecTV.

-to watch them more than once
-to watch them at home, avoid the theater

VOD doesn't prevent either of them.

-don't want to pay for a monthly service or pay $5 to rent them

You won't find me defending PPV anywhere (traditional renting is PPV). But you'd honestly rather pay $100/month to watch a movie each week than say $20?

The simple fact is: If I wanted to watch a high definition movie right this second, I could drive to the store, purchase it, get some food on the way home, and watch the entire movie in the time it would take to download the same movie.

Again, not "downloads", most of us talking about non-physical delivery are talking things like VOD.

Press enter
It starts.

There will not be some astronomical change in bandwidth that changes this before Blu-ray or HD-DVD takes more of a mainstream hold.

You fail to realize/acknowledge that both are in their infancy, both are growing, VOD isn't going to just "wait" until HDM is mainstream, it will be growing right along side HDM. The problem for HDM is that there just doesn't seem to be a lot of excitement about it, VOD has a lot of people interested in it, and (due to the model and those pushing it) is potentially easier to get into people's homes. ie service providers offer it as an incremental upgrade to your TV/internet service.

Not to mention the reliability of your connection. Halfway done with Transformers HD and *boom* there goes your connection. Guess you gotta wait until it comes back up to watch the rest.

How often does that happen to your TV. Some people just can't get past "the internet", non-physical deliver won't be over "the internet", it won't be http streaming.

PPV and VOD offer something that rentals can't do . . .

They satisify the impulse urge that people get and matches it to the highly desireable convinence factor.

The numbers being used in Sketcha's example have clearly been slanted to favor the BMR (By Mail Rental) because of the huge amount of PPV's.

Is there a time that you ask for a movie and you don't get it right away? I have heard that happens alot with BBI and NF. As I have neither I can only ask a question about what I have heard.

And we do have something new. A new service (or at least new to me). Just read an article (I will try to locate it) about a company that is going to offer movies in 1080i and 1080P via a Seagate HDD. You will pay $159 for 10 movies. Let me see if I can locate the article. . . . something GIANT.

Very interesting...just for aw schucks and giggles....given the average consumer...is it cheaper to do PPV at $5.99 per movie or does it cost less to do Netflix on the per month?

Further, the other thing nobody has mentioned is about the disappearing Blockbuster B&M store. They have closed 4 in Houston since last year. It merely aids my hypothesis of what the trends are doing. ;-)
1. Can't speak for the "average consumer." That would probably require a fairly large focus group or poll.

It would depend on the average number of movies the average consumer watches. For me it is much cheaper to do BB. As I said, I get around 6 movies per week if I can watch them all. I average a bit less than that, but not too much. All for about 20 bucks a month.

So if you watch less than 4 movies per month, you may want to consider PPV.

2. The manager at my BB told me (prior to Warner) that they are getting blu-ray by the end of the month come Hell or high water. His superiors told him they would rob from one of the neighboring town's stores if they had to because, apparently my store's members have been demanding blu-ray for quite awhile.

Anecdotal, of course, but both of my BBs are busy all of the time and would more likely expand than close.

Of course your experience is anecdotal as well.

:)

Let me say that I have enjoyed this discussion tremendously. IT is funny in some places, but all in all, it is fairly well discussed among some pretty knowledgeable folks.

I believe there is a race here, and it is simply this:

#1 - Can the BD coalition develop a box that plays the highest resolution PQ/AQ that we have had to date, sell it to a public that loves DVDs and make a profit while overcoming the hesitation and confusion that having two formats brought to that buying public?

or

#2 - Can Apple, MS and content providers completely abandon a physical format that consumers love (DVDs), get them to pick up boxes (which have to be as cheap or cheaper than BD players), and convince consumers to either buy the right to own, rent or subscribe to a service with a catalog enphasizing convenience over superior technical standards (I don't believe DD will ever eclipse BD discs in AQ/PQ- probably be eating my words here)?

That is the $100 billion question....or maybe some combo of the two will still exist. Heck, some video stores in West Texas still sell videocassettes. Don't ask how I got there...it was to check out some novel parts for the oil bidnez'. :-)
Glad to hear it! Seems like we've mainly gotten past the attack posts (knock on wood.) Hopefully that's a trend.

Also... you know we DO have emoticons on this forum. All you have to do is click on an emoticon to the right of the message area.

:)

Cheers

And we do have something new. A new service (or at least new to me). Just read an article (I will try to locate it) about a company that is going to offer movies in 1080i and 1080P via a Seagate HDD. You will pay $159 for 10 movies. Let me see if I can locate the article. . . . something GIANT.

It's called XStreamHD, 1080p video @ up to 80Mbps and up to 7.1 DTS-HD MA audio.

http://www.xstreamhd.com/

I think at least, hadn't heard prices yet.

I have a lot of money invested into HD DVD, I will not go through the process of repurchasing all my titles in physical media again. For me, I will continue to buy HD DVD titles up to the day they stop selling them. Once that day comes, I will build or purchase a HTPC specifically designed for the downloading, storage and playback of large content HD movies. I will then convert all of my exsisting HD DVD's and DVD's to the HD. It's a logical progression for me. No longer will I have to worry about the storage issues that will accompany a fifth physical media (VHS, DVD, HD DVD, & CD are the other 4, yes I still have all my VHS's). That's my plan for the future and fear not Blu loyalists my actions will not in any way impact the Blu overlords and they're outspoken minions of evil. If they did, all studios would be producing for HD DVD right now.

1. Can't speak for the "average consumer." That would probably require a fairly large focus group or poll.

It would depend on the average number of movies the average consumer watches. For me it is much cheaper to do BB. As I said, I get around 6 movies per week if I can watch them all. I average a bit less than that, but not too much. All for about 20 bucks a month.

So if you watch less than 4 movies per month, you may want to consider PPV.

2. The manager at my BB told me (prior to Warner) that they are getting blu-ray by the end of the month come Hell or high water. His superiors told him they would rob from one of the neighboring town's stores if they had to because, apparently my store's members have been demanding blu-ray for quite awhile.

Anecdotal, of course, but both of my BBs are busy all of the time and would more likely expand than close.

Of course your experience is anecdotal as well.

:)


If you google Blockbuster closings, you will find several surprsing articles. :-)

http://www.slate.com/id/2133995/

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2007/06/25/daily39.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Emoticons are for new school, I'm old-school. :p

PPV and VOD offer something that rentals can't do . . .

They satisify the impulse urge that people get and matches it to the highly desireable convinence factor.

The numbers being used in Sketcha's example have clearly been slanted to favor the BMR (By Mail Rental) because of the huge amount of PPV's.

Is there a time that you ask for a movie and you don't get it right away? I have heard that happens alot with BBI and NF. As I have neither I can only ask a question about what I have heard.

And we do have something new. A new service (or at least new to me). Just read an article (I will try to locate it) about a company that is going to offer movies in 1080i and 1080P via a Seagate HDD. You will pay $159 for 10 movies. Let me see if I can locate the article. . . . something GIANT.
1. Of course you're right about the impulse factor. For me it's a non-issue. There are always movies that we want to watch on our shelf. If we didn't want to watch it, we wouldn't have ordered it. Also, I regularly show up at 10AM on Tuesday with my trade ins and am ALWAYS able to get the new releases first day! FOR FREE!!!

2. My numbers are not "slanted." Those are actual estimates and they are pretty accurate! The fact is, if I would have had to do all of those on PPV, it would have cost me 5 times as much. For a renter that watches half the movies I do, 2.5 times.

3. I'm very happy with BB! I generally get the stuff at the top of my queue. And now the have a new piece of software (finally) that tracks the freebies you got at the store and will remove them from your queue so you don't get one in the mail that you just watched from the store.

If you google Blockbuster closings, you will find several surprsing articles. :-)

http://www.slate.com/id/2133995/

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2007/06/25/daily39.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Emoticons are for new school, I'm old-school. :p
1. I don't think you'll see them going belly up anytime soon. And I think my locals will be around for quite awhile. But I live in a fairly-rapidly, growing community.

2. Well at 38 I'm not exactly a whippersnapper. Here's my version...

{ =^ )

How many people who were renters of VHS became buyers of DVD?
(myself, I owned a handful of Disney movies on VHS, owned hundreds of movies on DVD)

How many people who were renters of LD became buyers of DVD?
(rented hundreds of LD, owned maybe 20 (@ $100 a pop it wasn't an easy decision))

How many people who were buyers of DVD became renters of HDM?
(have yet to get into the HDM market...)

There are people who never buy and those that will never rent, but you can't just say there are buyers and there are renters. There are many people in between and many people who transition from one group to the next depending on the value/convenience proposition.

@bombzombie

Got any pics of your 11.2 setup? Is it 5 across the front and 6 across the back?

It's called XStreamHD, 1080p video @ up to 80Mbps and up to 7.1 DTS-HD MA audio.

http://www.xstreamhd.com/

I think at least, hadn't heard prices yet.

Nope - that isn't it. This is something different. You go to a store and buy (I think) the HDD with the 10 movies on it already. Then you plug it into a media server/docking station to access the movies.

XstreamHD is being done by satellite.

In something like 600 online rentals, I think I've had maybe 3 or 4 that wouldn't play. So I'll take the 0.5% risk and save a few grand in the process

VOD estimate
600 X $5.99 = $3,594

BB Online
$18/mo x 36 mo = $648

No doubt netflix and BBO are amazing deals. I will NEVER go to a DD system unless it adopts a netflix type model just as some people will never adopt DD unless it has an easy, secure, and backupable way to own the content. (I might be waiting a LONG time but I don't think so).

On the unrelated and somewhat scary topic 600 movies in 18 months. Thats almost 9 movies a week! :eek: You need to experience the real world more. If you eyesight is 20/20 it is "HD" also.

Nope - that isn't it. This is something different. You go to a store and buy (I think) the HDD with the 10 movies on it already. Then you plug it into a media server/docking station to access the movies.

XstreamHD is being done by satellite.

I saw what you are talking about, VideoGiants:

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/01/ces-videogiants.html


MusicGiants calls this "the first time it's been legal to load high-definition movies onto a media server," because users won't have to commit a felony by bypassing copyright protection in order to load the 1080p/1080i (depending on the source) movies onto a hard drive.

The movies are delivered in the DRM-ed WMV format on Seagate hard drives; as of today, $159 will get you ten movies, but the company plans to offer a la carte movie downloads within the next couple of months.

No doubt netflix and BBO are amazing deals. I will NEVER go to a DD system unless it adopts a netflix type model just as some people will never adopt DD unless it has an easy, secure, and backupable way to own the content. (I might be waiting a LONG time but I don't think so).

On the unrelated and somewhat scary topic 600 movies in 18 months. Thats almost 9 movies a week! :eek: You need to experience the real world more. If you eyesight is 20/20 it is "HD" also.
Talk about eyesight!

:)

You're the second person to read that wrong. I have no idea how.

It's 36 months.

So more like 4/week. Between my wife, our daughter and myself, does THAT sound so unreasonable? I feel like we've been slackin'! Could've easily sqeezed 6/week out of BB, but some weeks we do 6 and some we get busy and do a just a few or none. I guess 4 is a fair average.

You are assuming that technology will not improve quickly? What we see available now is actually old technology still being tested on the market. You do realize that fiber optic (which is already run to your street) has bandwidth limits above 1tb/s (how's that for bitrate?)

The future has nothing to do with Internet. It has nothing to do with cable modems. It's going to be delivered, on demand, over an insanely fast connection at the click of your remote and for a reasonable price. Nothing is that convienent.. not even in-the-mail rental.

I want to watch "Gone with the Wind" -- Click... Click... Click... it's on... 4$

How can it get any better than that? Unless you intend to watch Gone With The Wind 7 times. Then you should buy the disc.

I hope I live long enough to see that. People talk about whats here now, but the latest estimate on Internet connected homes in NA is 237,168,545 - thats a lot of fiber transceivers and new set top boxes to make and a lot of cable electronics to drive it all with to replace. It really doesn't matter about fiber, its there and good to go, but the electronics to connect it all is brand new and there is not much of it.

It took Toshiba two years to get 1,000,000 boxes out there. If we can get 23,700,000 boxes a year (23 times the number of HD-DVD players created in two years) it would only take 10 years to reach 100% market penetration (provided no additional growth) if we start right now.

It's so amusing to see people saying over and over ITS AVAILABLE NOW when they mean it's POSSIBLE NOW to start in small test communities of like 30,000 people. These numbers are HUGE and so is NA. THINK about it.

BTW Fiber is in a whole new league. The fiber being laid today is rated at 10Gbps per wavelength (and likely 100Gbps will be possible) PER frequency and up to 20 frequencies multiplexed on the same fiber (yeah that's an insane 2Tbps potential and likely much more is possible).

Got any links to 2Tbps muxes and the cost for each?
Agree its theoretically possible, but from theory to hardware can be a long tedious path

No doubt netflix and BBO are amazing deals. I will NEVER go to a DD system unless it adopts a netflix type model just as some people will never adopt DD unless it has an easy, secure, and backupable way to own the content. (I might be waiting a LONG time but I don't think so).

On the unrelated and somewhat scary topic 600 movies in 18 months. Thats almost 9 movies a week! :eek: You need to experience the real world more. If you eyesight is 20/20 it is "HD" also.
Vongo is already here. $10/mo nets you every movie available on Starz plus the option to rent newer releases (basically everything available on PPV) for $3 each. Works with Windows Media Center too.

No, the selection isn't as large as Netflix, but it's a start.

Back in this thread someone asked for more details on the PS3 -> PSP copy thinking that it may be managed copy. This is the latest news I have found on that. It reads as though it is an extra copy of the movie (1GB in size) on the disk. Also, Sony is having DRM issues at this point.

http://gizmodo.com/342980/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-blu+ray+to+psp-movie-transfers

Not a lot of concrete details though.

The only other note I have seen is that the PSP must be married to the PS3 for it to work. It will be PSP only. (Going to try to find something official on that though)

I live on a street with underground utilities- We'll be last to see fiber, even though I'm less than 100 feet from a pole.

While some in the industry namely Softwre companies, wand digitila downloads, I like having a physical disk. It happens that my PS3 is internet connected (wireless) but not my 360 unless I run a 50' cable to my router.

I love my netflix sub. Gets me loads of content. I catch Modern Marvels on ON Demand, and I'm set. Life with a 6 month old.... :)

I think we should also have a thread titled:

"Are some trying to Kill HD DVD in favor of Blu-ray?"

Of course the answer is yes, but it puts this silly thread in perspective.
So you've pretty well legitimized and confirmed my thesis, then.

Thanks!

So you've pretty well legitimized and confirmed my thesis, then.

Thanks!

Does that make you an HD DVD assassin?:D

Hey, check out my questions in the insiders thread. I am asking if we can turn HD DVD players in to players that will play downloads.

Bwahhhahahaha! (evil laugh)

the facts are that when i want a HDM, i would rather go to a store and pick it up. not wait hours for it to download and have crappy sound. who has the infrastructure so consumers can download 1080p24 w/ pcm, truehd, or dts-ma?
Check this out.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/08/xstreamhd-details-continue-to-emerge/

I hope I live long enough to see that. People talk about whats here now, but the latest estimate on Internet connected homes in NA is 237,168,545 - thats a lot of fiber transceivers and new set top boxes to make and a lot of cable electronics to drive it all with to replace. It really doesn't matter about fiber, its there and good to go, but the electronics to connect it all is brand new and there is not much of it.

It took Toshiba two years to get 1,000,000 boxes out there. If we can get 23,700,000 boxes a year (23 times the number of HD-DVD players created in two years) it would only take 10 years to reach 100% market penetration (provided no additional growth) if we start right now.

It's so amusing to see people saying over and over ITS AVAILABLE NOW when they mean it's POSSIBLE NOW to start in small test communities of like 30,000 people. These numbers are HUGE and so is NA. THINK about it.

FIOS subscriptions stood at 700,000+ at the end of September, having grown 39% in one quarter. The bandwidth available is huge for video delivery, including of course regular live channel delivery, but also IPTV based VOD. Since the VOD is based on the MoCA standard, which specifies 100 MBit/s delivery, FIOS has to deliver that functionality right now. Three streams are provided currently: 155MBit/s, 622MBit/s, 870MHz for regular video delivery. These will be expanded to 1.2GBits/s, 2.4GBits/s when Verizon upgrades the infrastructure to GPON.

One thing that has sped up the installations is the ability to spool the fiber around existing Verizon telco lines, making the physical deployment much easier.

Given the pricing schemes for FIOS, yes, PPV VOD is available (soon) at 1080i / 5.1, but a lot of free VOD content is also available as is subscription based content: I subscribe to HBO, I get HBO movies, comedy... VOD as an added benefit. I can also record movies available on high bit rate channels like HDNet movies.

All of this is available now or soon (HD VOD is on beta, to be released this month, supposedly), my kids have been hitting the VOD pretty hard.

Look, I will probably buy a Blu-ray player when they become more affordable, I have an HD DVD player in a Toshiba laptop which I connect pretty easily, so I have a few HD DVD's, so I intend to get some form of tangible media, but with Tivos, other DVR's and CableCard PC's, you have the reality of many people collecting HD (lite if you like) in an immediately accessible way. It's not as far away as it seemed.

Devices to process that are nothing.
Routers & switching equipment that run at 5Gbps speeds are nothing? Sure you can go down to the store and grab a 5 port 1Gbps router for $50, but that's not what these companies use. Multiply that times the number of people who watch movies / the number of ports on a switch and it is most definitely more than "nothing". Not to mention all the backend and support you need for all this new infrastructure.

This has nothing to do with computers or "The internet".
Uh... so how are people going to download and view these movies? How do the netflix online movie watchers (which you've been tauting as up & coming) watch their movies?

You won't need to, you sign up for the service you get the box.
So all boxes will work with all services? After all I'm sure all these movie studios get along and can unify under a single format right? :rolleyes:

How do cable companies convince people to get a box, or satellite companies?
Because it's TV, not movies. People watch TV way more than they watch movies. J6P probably watches 1-2 movies a week at the most, but cannot live without a few hours of TV a day.

802.11n, gigabit ethernet, or maybe just a different box plugged into a different cable outlet.
Oh so now they have to buy a box for every room, and have a very high speed wireless router or have an outlet in every room they want to watch something in.

Do you guys really take movies to other people's houses much?
All the time. Or they bring them to my house. Or we let each other borrow movies, etc. Do you not think portability is important?

I think, of all the people I know who use netflix, if they could "flip a switch" and have those movies delivered instantly to their TV instead of in the mail, they'd switch in a heartbeat.
If I could flip a switch and teleport myself to Hawaii I'd do that too. Just that minor little technicality of someone making that switch work. ;)

I believe VOD has to potential to be the dominate video delivery system.
I agree completely, but not soon enough to overtake HDM.

"Tons of content" doesn't refer to library sizes. It refers to the modest bandwidth requirements. Qwest already delivers TV on par with cable and sat over DSL (~20-50Mbps to the house). What cable does with 5Gbps can be done in 1/100th that.
But again, these are multicast signals. They're not point to point streaming of individual movies.

Sure it is, by the time you factor in those watching the same thing, those not watching anything, etc, you don't need a "channel" for each of 20,000 movies.
So how many channels do you need to multicast then to satisfy every single person on the planet who wants to watch a movie? You gonna go from 300 digital channels + 30 HD channels to 5000 HD channels overnight? You guys are dreaming up all these possibilities which aren't even on paper yet and think these services will overtake a physical media format with over a year on the shelf already???

Exactly, and electronic services will make money by people paying them $xx to get some bits shot to them over a network.
Provided that same consumer who is enjoying their cheap movie service will not purchase a box and internet service fast enough to recieve the movies.

No idea. How much of HDM is Netflix/Blockbuster, how much of HD is VOD?
Yeah, no idea. Do you even know anyone using netflix to watch movies on their PC instead of their TV? I sure don't. I know more people with HDM players than who use that service, and they use netflix.

I never said next year, but say your typical house has 4 TVs active, SDV will drop the bandwidth requirements for providing 4 HD channels to that house from ~5Gbps to 80Mbps. That's a dramatic "freeing" of bandwidth.
But isn't that the point of this whole thread? That streaming downloads will somehow overtake blu-ray and kill it? It won't happen in that amount of time. I welcome the day that I have virtually unlimited bandwidth, but I'm not waiting 5-10 years for it to happen, I'm going to enjoy some 1080p blu-ray goodness right now.

The point is, providers (mainly satellite, but cable too) are only now, with the spurt of HD channels in the last year, really having trouble finding bandwidth to carry all the HD channels available, and even then, it's only because of the massive waste inherent to parallel linear broadcasting.

Like I said, it's not bandwidth that held that back, it's that there were only a handful of HD channels in existence. Notice that as soon as new channels became available, they were up on Dish and DirecTV.
This is about movies not HDTV. The content is exactly the same for both streaming movies and off the shelf HDM.

VOD doesn't prevent either of them.
You asked why people buy DVDs so I answered the question. Conviently you ignored the other answers ;). Although watching more than once is a legit beef. These boxes you're selling to people for streaming downloads, how much space will they have? Or is that about to become infinite too? You'll have to start deleting movies that you purchased to make room for more. Then what happens when you want to watch that movie again? Will you have to purchase it every time? You'd definitely have to re-download it.

You won't find me defending PPV anywhere (traditional renting is PPV). But you'd honestly rather pay $100/month to watch a movie each week than say $20?
There's no way you'll watch 4 streaming HD movies from any of these services for $20/month. Not to mention the cost of your internet service needing to be factored in. Or is that going to be free too?

Again, not "downloads", most of us talking about non-physical delivery are talking things like VOD.
The video has to get from the provider to you, it doesn't matter what word you use to describe it. If the movie is 20GB, then you have to have the capacity to download 20GB of data in the time it takes to watch the movie.

You fail to realize/acknowledge that both are in their infancy, both are growing, VOD isn't going to just "wait" until HDM is mainstream, it will be growing right along side HDM.
I didn't say VOD was goign to just sit and wait until HDM is mainstream, I just said that HDM will become mainstream before VOD/downloads/streaming/whatever term you want to use.

The problem for HDM is that there just doesn't seem to be a lot of excitement about it,
Coulda fooled me, walk into a Best Buy and see what the first things you see are. Blu-ray discs, ads and specials about "purchase a blu-ray player w/your tv and get X% off", etc.

VOD has a lot of people interested in it, and (due to the model and those pushing it) is potentially easier to get into people's homes. ie service providers offer it as an incremental upgrade to your TV/internet service.
I live in the 4th largest city in the country and still cannot get VOD service worth a crap. And how is it potentially easier to get into people's homes? How is Dish/DirecTV going to market VOD?

How often does that happen to your TV. Some people just can't get past "the internet", non-physical deliver won't be over "the internet", it won't be http streaming.
Again, the movie has to get there somehow, and it won't be multicast. If you don't want to call it "the internet" that's fine. Either way, that 20GB has to get from them to you in some way shape or form.

Don't get me wrong here bud, I think downloadable/streaming/VOD/whatever you want to call it, will be huge some day. But it will not ever overtake physical media. Physical media grows at a rate exponential when compared to bandwidth.

IMHO the way we'll end up is memory cards. There are 32GB SD cards on the market already, and 1GB cards are laughably cheap now. Computers will eventually overtake people's houses in every facet, and you'll be able to go over to the comp, purchase a movie, download it to your card, then watch it, take it with you, do whatever you want with it. That's probably 5-10 years away though at best. In the meantime I'll enjoy my blu-ray, and you can enjoy your choppy, pixelated, streaming movie :)

Does that make you an HD DVD assassin?:D
Nope. Someone already beat me to it.

:)

Uh... so how are people going to download and view these movies?

How do the cable companies get TV to your house, not over the internet.

How do the netflix online movie watchers (which you've been tauting as up & coming) watch their movies?

I "tout" Netflix as an example of a large company that is pushing electronic delivery. But electronic delivery does not require the internet. Seems many of the "detractors" want to lump the two together as if the internet is a requirement.

So all boxes will work with all services? After all I'm sure all these movie studios get along and can unify under a single format right? :rolleyes:

Does your Cox box work with Comcast? Who cares if you don't have to buy the box. You sign up for the service they provide the compatible box, cable and sat have been doing this for years.

Because it's TV, not movies. People watch TV way more than they watch movies. J6P probably watches 1-2 movies a week at the most, but cannot live without a few hours of TV a day.

What's that have to do with anything? Everything requires a box these days, Blu-ray and HD DVD require boxes.

Oh so now they have to buy a box for every room, and have a very high speed wireless router or have an outlet in every room they want to watch something in.

Satellite requires a box and a drop in each room, so what? Same thing. Cable requires RG6 run to every room.

All the time. Or they bring them to my house. Or we let each other borrow movies, etc. Do you not think portability is important?

I think I've lent movies I think twice, ever. Nobody ever brings movies over to my place, I don't think I've ever taken any to anyone else's.

If I could flip a switch and teleport myself to Hawaii I'd do that too. Just that minor little technicality of someone making that switch work. ;)

My point was, nobody I know is using the mail service because they like mailing discs back and forth.

I agree completely, but not soon enough to overtake HDM.

That assumes HDM gains traction rather quickly, and I'm not convinced that will happen.

But again, these are multicast signals. They're not point to point streaming of individual movies.

You don't need point-to-point.

So how many channels do you need to multicast then to satisfy every single person on the planet who wants to watch a movie? You gonna go from 300 digital channels + 30 HD channels to 5000 HD channels overnight? You guys are dreaming up all these possibilities which aren't even on paper yet and think these services will overtake a physical media format with over a year on the shelf already???

It's not HD "channels", go read up on IPTV a bit.

Provided that same consumer who is enjoying their cheap movie service will not purchase a box and internet service fast enough to recieve the movies.

Huh?

Yeah, no idea. Do you even know anyone using netflix to watch movies on their PC instead of their TV? I sure don't. I know more people with HDM players than who use that service, and they use netflix.

That's not what I said, the question I posed was, how big is the group that rents HDM via Netflix/BBI compared to the group that get's their HD movies via VOD?

But isn't that the point of this whole thread? That streaming downloads will somehow overtake blu-ray and kill it? It won't happen in that amount of time. I welcome the day that I have virtually unlimited bandwidth, but I'm not waiting 5-10 years for it to happen, I'm going to enjoy some 1080p blu-ray goodness right now.

I have dramatically lower expectations for Blu-ray than you apparently. We amount to not even a drop in the bucket, Blu-ray is tiny, it wouldn't take much for some service to overtake it.

This is about movies not HDTV. The content is exactly the same for both streaming movies and off the shelf HDM.

You brought up HD penetration.

You asked why people buy DVDs so I answered the question. Conviently you ignored the other answers ;).

No, I was pointing out that the reasons you gave do not require physical delivery.

Although watching more than once is a legit beef.

With Pay-Per-View I agree completely, which is why I don't think PPV will go very far.

These boxes you're selling to people for streaming downloads, how much space will they have? Or is that about to become infinite too? You'll have to start deleting movies that you purchased to make room for more. Then what happens when you want to watch that movie again? Will you have to purchase it every time? You'd definitely have to re-download it.

I'm not selling any boxes, again, the type of solution I'm suggesting we will see:
Does not "download" anything.
Does not require "purchasing" a movie
Does not require buying any hardware

It will be very much like cable or satellite TV in that you subscribe to the service and the hardware is installed free, and you watch whatever you want, whenever. The difference will be that instead of 500 linear channels, you'll have access to tens or hundreds of thousands of videos with all the associated information.

There's no way you'll watch 4 streaming HD movies from any of these services for $20/month. Not to mention the cost of your internet service needing to be factored in. Or is that going to be free too?

These services do not require the internet anymore than your cable service does today.

The video has to get from the provider to you, it doesn't matter what word you use to describe it. If the movie is 20GB, then you have to have the capacity to download 20GB of data in the time it takes to watch the movie.

And cable today uses 5Gbps of bandwidth (from the pole to your house) to deliver you 500 channels of which you watch maybe 4 at a given time. Technologies like Switch Digital Video and IPTV make bandwidth concerns between provider and you moot.

I didn't say VOD was goign to just sit and wait until HDM is mainstream, I just said that HDM will become mainstream before VOD/downloads/streaming/whatever term you want to use.

I think there's a distinct possibility that that won't happen. I see very little interest in HDM, despite lots of interest in HD in general.

Coulda fooled me, walk into a Best Buy and see what the first things you see are. Blu-ray discs, ads and specials about "purchase a blu-ray player w/your tv and get X% off", etc.

There's lots of marketing behind it to be sure, but I know two people with HDM players, many more with HD, and I work with engineers. Most don't really care about it.

I live in the 4th largest city in the country and still cannot get VOD service worth a crap. And how is it potentially easier to get into people's homes?

Because they can just enable the service to their customers without the customers doing anything. HDM requires the customer to go out and pick a player and buy it. It's like the PS3, the PS3 made BD much easier to get into people's homes because a next-gen console has much greater appeal than HDM.

How is Dish/DirecTV going to market VOD?

They're basically screwed unless they partner with people like Qwest (as they do with high-speed internet).

Again, the movie has to get there somehow, and it won't be multicast. If you don't want to call it "the internet" that's fine. Either way, that 20GB has to get from them to you in some way shape or form.

The problem with streaming today is the internet, by that I mean the web between your service provider (ISP/Cableco) and the streaming server. 99% of the time any bottleneck you run into on the web is due to the web, not the link between you and your provider. That's why I think it's very important to make the distinction between "internet" downloads as we see today, and electronic delivery to be.

Don't get me wrong here bud, I think downloadable/streaming/VOD/whatever you want to call it, will be huge some day. But it will not ever overtake physical media. Physical media grows at a rate exponential when compared to bandwidth.

How is that? Blu-ray is only incrementally bigger than DVD, roughly 10x the size. DVD came out in about what 95? I think 56k modems were the big thing those days. Blu-ray came out last year (10x the size) and broadband internet is routinely 5Mbps or above, that's what a 100x increase in bandwidth in about the same time physical media has increased 10x.

Storage grows exponentially, but basically everything in the computer world does, except physical media, specifically things like discs.

IMHO the way we'll end up is memory cards. There are 32GB SD cards on the market already, and 1GB cards are laughably cheap now.

I think we'll have the bandwidth to make physical delivery obsolete long before we get to the point where say 64GB flash is "disposable" like the polycarbonate discs we store movies on are today.

Computers will eventually overtake people's houses in every facet, and you'll be able to go over to the comp, purchase a movie, download it to your card, then watch it, take it with you, do whatever you want with it. That's probably 5-10 years away though at best. In the meantime I'll enjoy my blu-ray, and you can enjoy your choppy, pixelated, streaming movie :)

I don't think I ever said not to buy Blu-ray, my only point is I think there's a strong possibility electronic delivery will overtake DVD before Blu-ray does. I think we could learn a lot from the audio side of things. Even though CD was superseded by new superior physical formats, they are not going to end CDs reign, electronic distribution will. Electronic distribution will probably be what ends DVDs reign, not Blu-ray.

I don't share your opinion that my thread was "baiting." I apologize to you if it came off that way.

If it gets nuked, I will get over it... pretty quickly.

I am pointing to a select few members here. And I'm guessing they and most of us know who they are. And as far as future civility at AVS is concerned, it will not, likely happen until the type of posts, from the type of members that I mentioned, cease!



I don't like the idea of DD and don't consider it practical at this point. I also acknowledge that DD is a solution for some subset of the viewing population. Stifling conversation about DD, or participants who want to talk about DD won't change anything WRT to the success or failure of HDM. Moreover, the forum will suffer for it IMO.

Funny nobody has corrected you so far.

By your logic, CDs are faster than DVD as they had 52X speed burners and DVD is still at 18X. You really need to get up to speed on read rates of the various media.

Try reading and I'll get back to you and the others who have major comprehension problems with the english language.

Check this out.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/08/xstreamhd-details-continue-to-emerge/

Sounds very interesting to me, what's the catch?

Re: [back on topic]Are some trying to Kill blu-ray in favor of Downloads?

Yes. The quick un-emotional switch for some that post dozens/hundreds of entries here and elsewhere per day (you know who you are) that unequivocally supported HD DVD, and then without a pause, started espousing the merits of downloads are a clear indication. You can read the same drivel now in many forums/retailer-reviews.

You're experiencing the "scorched-earth" syndrome. This is different from the "sour grapes" syndrome, which is a normal part of grieving. QED.

Re: [back on topic]Are some trying to Kill blu-ray in favor of Downloads?

Yes. The quick un-emotional switch for some that post dozens/hundreds of entries here and elsewhere per day (you know who you are) that unequivocally supported HD DVD, and then without a pause, started espousing the merits of downloads are a clear indication. You can read the same drivel now in many forums/retailer-reviews.

You're experiencing the "scorched-earth" syndrome. This is different from the "sour grapes" syndrome, which is a normal part of grieving. QED.

Does paranoia actually give you this kind of clarity? I'll have to try it sometime.

People are talking about Digital Downloads because various businesses in and surrounding Hollywood have been talking about it.

No vast conspiracy exists to assassinate Blu-ray. And if there was, posting in a forum certainly wouldn't do the job.

So you've pretty well legitimized and confirmed my thesis, then.

Thanks!

Is someone trying to kill CD's for MP3's?

Is someone trying to kill DVD's with digital download?

What major CE/software company isn't trying to get into the digital download market? Sony, Apple, Sun, everyone is trying to position themselves there.

Sony favored BD and downloads. MS favored HD DVD and downloads. The reasons are pretty straight forward - that is where they have their IP, so that is where they make the most money. If BD had used HDi, MS would have stayed neutral.

This MS hatered/conspiracy stuff is really played out.

Re: [back on topic]Are some trying to Kill blu-ray in favor of Downloads?

Yes. The quick un-emotional switch for some that post dozens/hundreds of entries here and elsewhere per day (you know who you are) that unequivocally supported HD DVD, and then without a pause, started espousing the merits of downloads are a clear indication. You can read the same drivel now in many forums/retailer-reviews.

You're experiencing the "scorched-earth" syndrome. This is different from the "sour grapes" syndrome, which is a normal part of grieving. QED.


I abhor the idea of DD for EVERYTHING. I can live with the option, but I don't want it obsoleting physical media (and I don't think it will very soon). I like physical media, and I have supported HDDVD, but I accept that Bluray's Warner score has cinched the war. OTOH, I think there are many hurdles left to overcome for Bluray to win public over from DVD. The same could've been said had HDDVD won out.

I've been more optimistic about HDM in the past, but the public's lackluster uptake of HDM media has me worried. I'm not convinced that anything is a slam dunk for HDM at this point. I want HDM first. I preferred HDDVD, but I'll take Bluray in it's stead because that's the cards that have been dealt. Not my choosing.

I don't like the idea of DD and don't consider it practical at this point. I also acknowledge that DD is a solution for some subset of the viewing population. Stifling conversation about DD, or participants who want to talk about DD won't change anything WRT to the success or failure of HDM. Moreover, the forum will suffer for it IMO.
Thank you for your input, but you completely missed the point. I was never wishing to "stifle" download speak. If you read through the thread, you will find many posts of my own (uh, including the OP, BTW) that espouse my support for it and show my own plans to use it is a supplement.

The point was that I and most of the people in this forum want the choice and don't want HDM killed.

Personally I think it would be a difficult task to pull off, but more and more members are taking a sour grapes, "if my format didn't win, then no one should" approach. When I posted the OP, I felt there were just a few bad eggs. Since then I have learned it's progressed beyond that. And since I've learned this I have adopted more of a "whatever" :rolleyes: -type attitude.

But thanks again for posting based on the title while neglecting to read the OP or any of the thread.

Cheers

Sounds very interesting to me, what's the catch?
Yeah, does anyone know what the membership or rental charges will be?

Yeah, does anyone know what the membership or rental charges will be?
Nobody knows, but we do know the timing of the WB's announcement just gave XStreamHD a lot of support on this forum overnight.

I abhor the idea of DD for EVERYTHING. I can live with the option, but I don't want it obsoleting physical media (and I don't think it will very soon). I like physical media, and I have supported HDDVD, but I accept that Bluray's Warner score has cinched the war. OTOH, I think there are many hurdles left to overcome for Bluray to win public over from DVD. The same could've been said had HDDVD won out.

I've been more optimistic about HDM in the past, but the public's lackluster uptake of HDM media has me worried. I'm not convinced that anything is a slam dunk for HDM at this point. I want HDM first. I preferred HDDVD, but I'll take Bluray in it's stead because that's the cards that have been dealt. Not my choosing.
I choose to believe Warner's research. I know they have more research resources than I and I'm willing to bet more than you do as well.

They believe that two formats were a major cause in market confusion and lackluster adoption, thus their recent move.

As time progresses, it will become clear to J6P that the war is over (plenty of average Joes DO actually know there is a VHS/Beta-type war going on right now) and they will have no fear of choosing the wrong format. If some form of stronger adoption does not occur then, well I guess you will end up right then, won't you.

It's going to be another interesting year for HDM!

Cheers

I'd buy into Downloads if they met these requirements.

1. Unlimited downloads for a flat rate.
2. Selection of all movies, not just some rotating selection.
3. PQ and AQ that rivals the leading physical format.

I'd buy into Downloads if they met these requirements.

1. Unlimited downloads for a flat rate.
2. Selection of all movies, not just some rotating selection.
3. PQ and AQ that rivals the leading physical format.


I can see a flat rate for a specific amount of downloads but not unlimited.
I can't see a selection of all movies. That won't happen unless all distributors had a contract with the service which is unlikely.
PQ and AQ that rivals discs. That will happen when XStreamHD launches. It will have very high bitrate 1080P video with DTS-MA audio.

Nobody knows, but we do know the timing of the WB's announcement just gave XStreamHD a lot of support on this forum overnight.

I want a show of hands on people who are really going to put their money where there mouth is, and buy this XstreamHD.

It sounds pretty interesting. But still I dont think it will catch on, at least on a large scale. Hopefully, their business plan doesnt require more than a niche market.

BTW, it does require internet access, for older titles. Newer titles are streamed.

I think we'll have the bandwidth to make physical delivery obsolete long before we get to the point where say 64GB flash is "disposable" like the polycarbonate discs we store movies on are today.


I truly believe that flash memory holds the potential to obsolete other physical media eventually. It's small, portable, and can be played in many different devices- very sexy stuff if you think about it. I'm sure there are limitations in terms of capacity, cost and the like before the idea is marketable though. I wouldn't mind one iota having a movie (that I buy) on an sd or PCMCIA type card. As long I can have a collection of HD movies in some physical format I'll be happy.

I want a show of hands on people who are really going to put their money where there mouth is, and buy this XstreamHD.

It sounds pretty interesting. But still I dont think it will catch on, at least on a large scale. Hopefully, their business plan doesnt require more than a niche market.

BTW, it does require internet access, for older titles. Newer titles are streamed.



Of course it won't catch on large scale. It has 1080P video and DTS-MA audio. Your average consumer doesn't have the equipment to either play that or hear the difference.
Besides it won't even launch until 4th quarter. I will try it out if it isn't cost prohibitive and I'm able to use the location where I have my old DirecTV dish.

Of course it won't catch on large scale. It has 1080P video and DTS-MA audio. Your average consumer doesn't have the equipment to either play that or hear the difference.
Besides it won't even launch until 4th quarter. I will try it out if it isn't cost prohibitive and I'm able to use the location where I have my old DirecTV dish.

Yes, I highly doubt that this will reach 1 million customers within a year of launch. 2 years from now, there will be probably 30+ million PS3s, and however many BD players. So all this talk about it, "Taking down discs" is pretty premature. Esp, if this isnt launching till the end of this year.

Supposidly its $400 for the satelite dish, a main hub(500GB) and one receiver. It also comes with 1TB, and 2TB configs... for more $$$. And then you tack on the costs of movies or service fees.

And if you have a PS3, you can use that as a receiver as well.

Well I hope the PS3 enables DTS-MA decoding by then.

I want a show of hands on people who are really going to put their money where there mouth is, and buy this XstreamHD.

It sounds pretty interesting. But still I dont think it will catch on, at least on a large scale. Hopefully, their business plan doesnt require more than a niche market.

BTW, it does require internet access, for older titles. Newer titles are streamed.Ill be one of the first to jump on the competant DD solution.. but after getting Apple TV the first day it came out, its just so obvious the medium isnt even close to being ready.

just adding my experience here.
I have my PC connected to my Plasma. We download all our TV shows off Itunes for viewing. We also have downloaded movies from them as well. I also use Amazon download service, which isnt nearly as good as Itunes but they carry some films I like. We also use our cable video on demand weekly. I stopped buying disks because i was running out of room to store them. I for one would love to download all my content and not rent or buy physical disks. Yes right now it takes forever and Im not talking about Hd either but i find it very convient. I set my download up befor i leave for work in the morning and watch when i come home. I for one hope all my future HD viewing will be possible by by this method. It just works for me.

I want a show of hands on people who are really going to put their money where there mouth is, and buy this XstreamHD.

It sounds pretty interesting. But still I dont think it will catch on, at least on a large scale. Hopefully, their business plan doesnt require more than a niche market.

BTW, it does require internet access, for older titles. Newer titles are streamed.
"Sure is quiet."

"Yeah, too quiet."

"Sure is quiet."

"Yeah, too quiet."

We know so little about this new HD delivery system that IMO - don't be too quick to judge until there is a real product and available content.

The graveyard of stillborn products is MUCH larger than the showcase of successful ones though.;)

Everyone see this article?

CES: Studios see big swell ahead for online distribution
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6517889.html?industryid=47275

Everyone see this article?

CES: Studios see big swell ahead for online distribution
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6517889.html?industryid=47275
Do you think the PS3 will remain viable post blu-ray as a download machine?

Do you think the PS3 will remain viable post blu-ray as a download machine?

If the Xbox 360 can do it (which it is) then sure - the PS3 would be an excellent platform.

There is already a kit that turns it into a DVR.

Am I the only one that thinks there should be a separate forum for digital downloads?

Am I the only one that thinks there should be a separate forum for digital downloads?

May was well just rename one of the HD-DVD forums! *runs* :D

j/k