Originally Posted by OtherSongs
For others from amirm's prior ref:
You might want to read it:Digital Video Revolution: Did We Miss a Step?
1st paragraph: "Can you imagine still using DVD at one sixth the resolution to power our large screens?"
That's an eerily strange sentence. Agreed that a Blu-ray movie offers more resolution than a DVD movie, but how important is that really?
This is a thread where people say 1080p is not enough and 4K is it. And you are saying it is odd to talk about getting 6X the resolution?
Meaning that I've a very decent 37" Panasonic flatscreen TV as well as a very decent Panasonic Blu-ray player, and while some Blu-ray movies show a clear improvement over the same movie via DVD format, it doesn't impress me that much.
I don't know how far back you sit from that smallish display. So sure, it is possible that you are not getting much of a benefit. But what does that have to do with a 12 foot wide projection screen?
And BTW sitting at 4 or 5' from the screen does show the hi-rez benefit from Blu-ray, but it's nothing to get overly excited about.
Well, OK. You are not the target my my article then.
So how big of a flatscreen does one need for a Blu-ray movie to become compelling?
It is a function of viewing distance in addition to display size. *And* being an enthusiast. My wife doesn't care about BD either. But I didn't write the article for her
Similarly what percentage of families own TV projectors?
I didn't write the article for US Today or post it in People magazine forum (do they have one?). It was written for a magazine called Widescreen Review where vast majority of their readers have one. And you are in $20,000 part of AVS Forum where similar percentage do the same.
2nd paragraph: "We saw the music industry go through similar transformation with the resulting format being lower fidelity music compared to where we started (Compact Disc)."
A true but misleading comment.
Steve Jobs simply had the insight (genius (?)) to "rip off" (pun not intended) the easily rippable CD into the mp3 format.
He didn't use MP3 but AAC. And he didn't invent this at all. Nor did he invent the iPod. A different dude led that project (he is making thermostats now). The key innovation in the original ipod was a small Toshiba hard disk that they got an exclusive on for a time period. The allowed them to make a much smaller hard disk based portable music player. Combine that with Apple's talent in user interface and industrial design and you had a hit. Job saw the potential and went all out marketing the product with tens of millions of dollars spent on a product category that belonged to geeks before that. The rest as they say is history.
The point above though, had nothing to do with people ripping their own. It is about the music industry and what they provide today for digital distribution of new content. There are already music tracks that are only available in compressed music and not CD. Over time that trend will continue.
anyone can legally do this for themselves if they own the CD. Jobs' genius was in seeing the convenience of offering it legally via Apple's iPod devices.
People have a choice of bit rate and format when they compress their own CDs. I rip into lossless format as do many others. But when I wanted to buy an album recently that was only available in download form, I had to settle for 256kbps. I was not happy about that.
Meaning that without the CD being able to be legally ripped by the CD owner, I rather doubt that the iPod would have ever gotten off the ground.
There was nothing in the article about ripping CDs.
3rd paragraph: "At high level, the transformation is occurring due to two factors: what the consumer wants and what the business owner wants."
It isn't what the consumer wants so much as what the consumer will pay for.
If they can get something they want without much additional cost, then sales volume will explode. And everyone benefits.
Both Gates and Jobs understood this when they were in charge of M.S. and Apple.
As an ex VP at Microsoft in charge of digital media division, there is not much you can teach me there
. None of the points you are making are relevant to my article. My article is not about history of music. But rather the fact that video is appearing to follow its footsteps in a narrow area relative to quality of distributed content. The proof point is perfectly there and explained in the article.
I continue to think that the execs in the AV biz don't see this.
I hope present company is excluded
Doesn't surprise me as I've seen it before. Meaning copy protection has been the AV mantra for the past 25+ years and they can't see past it.
Don't want to rat hole into there
One thing I remember about early PC software was that copy protection often made the software unusable on a 2nd install attempt, even when you were the legal owner and had removed it from the 1st PC. And that many (most?) of those companies went out of business.
Given that you worked for MS, odds are you've an opinion on that?
I do. But as I said, it is for another topic and discussion. For now, it is not possible to preserve the revenue model of studios by doing away with copy protection. They have built a business from sequential releases of the same movie. The movie comes out in theater, goes on PPV, then home video, then cable premium and then broadcast. No one sells software 8 times in a row and make money from it but that is what they do.
You can go further and consider the author who writes the story and gets printed in paperback and hardback making double income. It then gets converted to a script for a movie and the cash register rings again. So the history of making money multiple times from copyrighted material goes well beyond movies.
Or maybe you weren't really that connected with sales and what makes sales work?
You must have a habit of telling your doctor that he must not have finished medical school.
I ran a division at Microsoft. A division is one that is end to end from making the product to selling it. My marketing team alone had 40 people in it. But maybe you can teach me something I don't know. Hopefully that will come in the next post.
Of course you're now in the high end music biz, so maybe you've new insight?
I am not into high-end music. I don't deal with distribution of music which is what the article is about
: distribution of video. You seem to have missed the very purpose of the article.
THE CONSUMER NEED
"The consumer is always looking for convenience."
This is seriously incomplete.
You need to add that the consumer is always looking for what is free or so low cost that it is almost free.
Non-sense. Was the iPod free? Nope. It was one heck of an expensive device. The smaller version retailed for $400 and the "larger" 10 Gigabyte version $500. Millions of people bought them anyway. The iPhone competes with free phones yet it sells in huge volume. iPad sells for lots of money.
Consumers routinely pay for convenience. DVRs are another example. So are automatic transmission in cars. Air Conditioning. Jet flights, etc.
Not to mention: whatever is not a hassle. And copy protection is a hassle. Not insurmountable, but a hassle nonetheless; and one that leads to lower overall volume sales.
Apple products used copy protection for music for years. Didn't seem to hold them back. DVD has copy protection. Didn't stop it from making more money than theatrical release of the movie. Poorly done copy protection is poor. Poorly done software is poor too. So what?
THE CONTENT INDUSTRY NEED
The key thing you missed is that they need/want volume. Yet their pricing and copy protection of the Blu-ray discs has led to low volume sales. The opposite of what they want.
I didn't miss that. From the article:
"One could say that Blu-ray is part of the problem as its higher retail pricing actually encourages more rentals as opposed to purchases. "
Studios opted for higher margin thinking this is a chance to up the margins that were being eroded by likes of Wal-Mart pushing prices down as loss leaders to get you into the store. If it were me, I would have priced it the same, give everyone the right to make a few copies, and see how well it did.