THX Chief Scientist: ...it's too late for Blu-ray - Page 6

I guess it's easy to generalize, isn't it? There's a difference between price and value. And realize, many HD DVD owners got in well before player prices dropped through the floor. And many of us still don't see value in the current BD hardware options. The picture is more complex than you appear to see it.

A guy in the industry makes a perfectly reasonable opinion about blu-rays chances of replacing DVD and all the smarty pants chime in trying to out do each other with "clever" derogatory comments and wild hyperbole. Why not try to analyze the issue with some common sense and actually contribute?

Think of it. BD & HD had to develop new encodes for audio and video, develop a new media (or two), start up new production facilities, design new players/lasers, build them, sell them and compete for floor space, etc, etc, etc. Then two formats delayed and fractured the market move away from DVD - which incidentally gave alternatives two years of breathing room.

With flash the format is already developed, standardized, implemented and in a robust distribution channel. The content and encoding mechanisms for audio and video already exist as does the capability of loading the encoded content onto the format. Add to that the simplicity of players that have no moving parts and no constraints or relatively high costs of new technology (i.e. blu lasers). Those are some pretty significant advantages that flash starts with to dismiss out of hand. Mr. THX dude didn't say STOP-WAIT, he just said BD probably is too late and flash may be the eventual successor to DVD. Pretty reasonable to me.

HD-DVD was always cheaper. HD-DVDs choice was to focus mainly on price. Even their head guy was quoted as saying something to the effect of "HD-DVD will always be cheaper. If Blu Ray cuts their prices, we will cut ours even more"

That was the main focus from beginning to end.

So let me ask you this. You bought it before prices hit rock bottom? When was that and at what price? $250 or $300 for a 1080i player with no 6-ch analog output, that had less blockbuster new releases.... and in a few weeks wont ever have another blockbuster releases. So you found value in that?

But dont see the value in a $400 1080p machine with a 40GB hard drive, wifi, internet, Memory card readers, media server capabilities, and will have the ability to play all the new major releases in true high definition?

I thought this thread was about flash & BD?

Old habits die hard.

A kiosk with 5000 titles sounds like a good start. I'd be willing to wait 45 seconds for a hidef movie.

http://www.news.com/Coming-soon-Movi...3-6232651.html

Of course even 5000 titles is limiting. Using Amazon rankings to determine who is in and who isn't:

Local Hero--yes
Rain Man--No
Longest Day--yes
Amacord--no
The Birds--yes

But perhaps you could email the kiosk a special order...

That is so so true.......

For $289 in June of last year, I thought it was worth the plunge. I don't buy in to the "Full HD" marketing, so 1080i was not an issue. Needed an AVR and upgraded to a HDMI 1.3 receiver for advanced audio codecs. Actually started with the plan to purchase Blu-ray at the time, but decided to wait for the profile situation to sort out. No profile situation at the time with HD DVD. Didn't foresee the format war ending so soon.



I'm sorry, where is that machine? Is it the PS3? If so, I'll consider it when it decodes or bitsreams DTS HD codecs. Seriously, although a game machine with a bluetooth remote is not my dream for Blu-ray.

You come across as rather hostile regarding this whole Blu-ray/HD DVD thing. What exactly is your problem? Congratulations. You were right. You chose the WINNER. Some of us who chose the losing format are just waiting for the value to be there with Blu-ray. It'll be all right. No reason to point out my idiocy when I try to post rationally about where I see value in Blu-ray. After all, my opinion is worth nothing because I'm a fool for my choice to support HD DVD in the first place, right?

As for the statements of the THX Chief Scientist, I find them of little consequence. These days talk is cheaper than ever, and any statement can be overanalyzed, spun, and propagated to make any point, however irrational.

My question is, where are the releases? Where are the 2.0 players? If Blu-ray is to make it big, it will have to make a sincere effort. If they don't to that by the end of the year, then the no one's opinion will matter much at all. Of course, opinions matter very little anyway, don't they?

1) I bought both HD-DVD and Blu ray. i never had any prejudice against jumping ship, if I thought BD was going to fail.

2) It is irrational to state that you bought a 1080i HD-DVD player for $290. Then turn around and say... you cant see the value in the PS3. Which plays more movies in HD, than HD-DVD.... and will have new releases in HD. Which HD-DVD wont have. Heck, you cant even buy a disc at the local best buy anymore.

The ability to play new HD movies, Wifi, built in hard drive, Media Server, photo viewer, internet access.... those... you cant see the value in. But the 1080i HD-A2 player for $290was packed with value?

3) Does the HD-A2 decode DTS master? No. So why are you holding that against the PS3?

4) I have 2 2.0 profile Blu rays players. One, I bought over a year ago.

Although you do not seem to believe me, it is not prejudice that has kept me from buying Blu-ray yet.


Packed with value? No. Appropriate value to fulfill a need/curiosity about HD optical media? Yes. And obviously, I'm not advocating getting in to HD DVD as a value right now. Since I've explored the HD DVD path, I'm more clear about what I am looking for with Blu-ray. As for the other features of the PS3, I have WiFi Apple TV for media streaming and photo viewing and WiFi Wii for internet access and gaming for the family. I don't need the other PS3 features, and as a Mac only household, some of PS3's features are limited.

It is irrational to say that I'd prefer a dedicated player to a PS3 as my Blu-ray player? I just don't see it that way. Times and thoughts change. Purchasing the HD DVD player filled the need to own HD optical for a time. I'll be fine with getting a Blu-ray player when I see sustainable value in it.



Your terminology of "holding that against" PS3 makes it seem so emotional. The reality is that I did not fully understand all the advanced codecs when I purchased the A2. During my ownership of the unit, I have only had one disc from which I could not access advanced audio codecs. With Blu-ray, there are many Fox titles that fall into that category.

If HD DVD had succeeded, I would not have purchased another player that did not access DTS HD codecs, so why would I consider it with Blu-ray?


Congratulations.

Why the need to evangelize for Blu-ray and PS3? If you're paying attention to what I'm writing, you will see that I am not uninformed and that I fully understand what you are saying. With the options available to me right now and with what will evolve in the next 6 months, one way or the other, Blu-ray is not a great value to me at this time.

Again, these prognostications by industry "experts" are worth absolutely nothing. There is a discussion to be had here about Blu-ray's timing and strategies for expanding their market in light of current and upcoming competition. Trying to persuade everyone that Blu has arrived and should be had by all, mainly through the PS3, is not adding anything to the discussion.

People want what they want. However, I had stated that many people had bought into HD-DVD when prices came crashing through the floor.

To which you responded

Inferring that HD-DVD was the value proposition. I just find it curious that you would say something like "Maybe HD-DVD owners dont see value in Blu Ray".... then turn around and tell me you paid $289 for a 1080i HD-DVD player, which has less resolution, is slow as molasses, plays less HD movies, no wifi, no hard disc.. etc.

And now, you are saying that Value didnt lead you to choose HD-DVD... but value is keeping you away from BD. I just find it interesting. That is all.

You know, I didn't say value didn't lead me to HD DVD. This is what I said:


I also said I didn't see value in current BD hardware offerings, not in the format itself.

Look, it's clear that you have trouble with the whole format war situation still. I don't. I purchased HD DVD, enjoyed it, watched it fail, and moved on. I'm planning on moving in to Blu-ray when I find value in the hardware offerings.

This thread interests me because someone is speculating that it's too late for Blu-ray. I have no idea if that's true, but I do not suspect that it is. As one who is waiting for Blu-ray hardware to provide what I'm looking for, discussing the pace of Blu-ray's penetration against current and future competition is of interest. I'm sure our bickering over my purchasing choices is of no interest to anyone else in this thread (if there's anyone else left).

The companies involved in this are interesting:

If anything, the company has lined up legitimate technology partners. IBM helped it developed the transaction system. The drives come from Seagate Technologies (which has said for about a year that we will see video rental kiosks with hard drives), while Samsung provides the flash memory. Toshiba is fabricating the chips that make up the high-speed interface. Investors include former film execs like Jay Emmett and Lindsay Gardner.

No, this is the present. And we 'presently' have BD as our source for HD. DVD is still a success, and BD is just simply an upgrade.

It's fine that you have the belief you do. But I don't think the facts are in agreement with you.

I bought 2GB USB memory a year ago on Black Friday (November 2006) -- that's about an 18 month period. They were an outstanding price at $40/each. I can now buy them for $10. That's a 75% drop in ~18 months.

16GB USB flash was 160 and is now routinely selling for ~100. Granted you will always pay a premium for the highest capacity (which is currently 32GB) but with the number of companies getting into the flash memory game (including Intel) I think it will drop to reasonable prices sooner than you do.

My guess? Blu-ray equivalent storage (50GB, realistic size is 64GB) will be at ~$20 by mid 2010, and they haven't even introduced it yet.

Currently anticipated lifetimes for wear leveled Solid State Disks (a flash hard drive if you will) are measured in years (5-10 is typical) if you are writing upwards of 10GB/day. These do wear leveling. It's not such a stretch to add this to some type of transportable media.

Reading the data doesn't affect the longevity one bit.

Having met and spoken to Laurie Fincham on several occasions, I have to wonder who you're talking about when you say "THX Lady" 'cause Laurie is a guy.

He's a positively brilliant man and highly respected in the audio industry.

I think the key part of your post is, "and they haven't even introduced it yet." Sounds like Pie in the Sky. Whereas BD is already here with set specs and studio support.

Taking over the head to head copies sold would be a good starting point. It's either that or revenue.

Are you in the technology industry? I am.

I can currently buy 32GB flash from several sources for a price of about $6/GB. The highest capacity always exacts a cost premium and the 4-8GB sticks are the sweet spot in price/GB.

As I said in another post, we've gone from ~$20/GB to ~$5-6/GB in about 18 months. That's a 50% compounded drop every 9 months. At that pace, which will continue or accelerate as more flash is manufactured, we are talking about 64GB (to be introduced by years end) at the same actual out of pocket cost as 32GB which puts us at $3/GB. Another 9 months? $1.50/GB. 9 Months after that $.75/GB. 9 months after that ~$0.40/GB. So if the pace continues we'll have 64GB at the ~$25 price point.

Cheers,

Media cost will need to cost less than $1 before the studios will adapt a format to replace DVD's or Blu-Ray - the studios will not give any more than a few percentage points to the cost of media for any consumer product. I am sure CD's and DVD costs are no more than a few pennies now and even when the format's where introduced I am sure they were no more that $1 - $2 per unit.

Now I know there have been a few trial runs where albums have been released on CF or SD cards, but they were done as a publicity stunt.

My guess studios are waiting for digital downloads to become accepted where is no additional cost for media and the consumer will pick-up the costs for bandwidth - in this scenario, they get get it all, and it cost next to nothing.

I have seen the promise of solid state drives for years, but let get serious, only in the past 3 months have any major computer manufacture offered a SSD option in their laptops - and you seen what they are charging? The current offerings are no where close is price and capacity to be considered by the mainstream buying public.

These industries need to walk before it can run...

And so what? I don't see any movie studios putting out HD movies on Flash Drives. Moreover, even if it's on their minds, it will be sometime before they even consider it since we just went through an expensive format war with optical discs. I think Blu-ray would have to bomb big time before the studios would even think about supporting another HD format at this time.

This guy is too funny.
Talk about wet dreams.

I wonder what the margin is on these, that compared to replication costs of a format that will be maturing by the end of 2010. It seems like (from an outsiders perspective) that this is stretching it to think that by the time the cost is close that all concerned will then be ready to drop everything for another format. I guess the fact that the present audio and video codecs are established might make the transition simpler than it was forom DVD to BD but, I still don't see it happening in less than five years.


Art

I totally agree. Plus, in five years I just don't see people lining up to dump their HD discs just to move to a stick. It takes more than just a different package to get people to change formats.

I'd imagine we have no idea how all of this will look in 5 years. Things just change too quickly right now. I'm interested in Blu-ray, but only once 2.0 players are out and playing nice with 2.0 discs. Also waiting for sub-$300 prices on 2.0 players and more catalog/smaller releases.

Will Blu-ray make it to my expectations in the next year? It's not clear to me. Meanwhile, we have Warner experimenting with day-and-date HD availability on Apple TV and On Demand. If Vudu, Apple TV, and On Demand continue to expand title selection at their current rates, they will dwarf what is available on Blu-ray within a year.

These download/streaming services already offer the opportunity to provide HD content without the need to produce and distribute hard media. My guess would be that the market will fragment significantly in the next two years. It'll be interesting to see where the studios' end up putting their strongest efforts.

Then you need to be clear on what you define as "Pie in the Sky" -- do you mean 64GB media or do you mean distribution on flash media?

Why do they have to support "another HD format" when the flash could be inserted into a player with a USB memory slot and read from there?

Margin on what? Flash memory? There has to be sufficient margin for big hitters like Intel to be getting into the game, even with lowering costs / GB.

Keep in mind that using the more advanced build lines (think 62nm or 45nm) and you start talking about dramatically increasing yield/wafer which lowers cost (and several other factors that aren't germane to this discussion).

Now, is it going to happen? I don't know -- but I don't see it as impossible as others do.

Why would it require a different format?

Load it as an iso on the media and a player could have firmware upgraded to read a movie from that media with literally a minimal amount of changes.

NYT tech guy...it's too late for Flash memory chips.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...t-doesnt-work/

His not very convincing take, by the time flash could be a player, downloading will have worked out the kinks.

His reasoning-each movie on its own flash chip would be more expensive than buying it on an optical disk. Kiosks? People like a box, it could "easily take an hour" to download.