Both Formats Doomed?? - Page 2

HD releases take anywhere from 15 to 50 gigs of space. Nobody wants to wait to download files of these sizes, it wont be plausible for quite a while yet.

Even when it does become possible people aren't just going to switch over from having actual copies on disk to storing movies on hard drives overnight (which can crash etc)

Eventually we may have some sort of nearly foolproof storage medium and insane bandwidths but even the necessary components of this type of HD media distribution
is really a long way off.

Matt,

Perfect -- I would buy into that. As a chair of a patent committee in a high tech company (and holder/filer of nearly 30 patents) I would have suggested you patent that baby.

Except, by posting this you have now put the idea in the open press. You have one year to file in the US, and your non-US patent rights are pretty much gone.

Hope someone is working on this one, though....

Ken

Sorry, I should have been more clear. It would work the same as existing Netflix service. For example, I have unlimited movies per month, with no more than 3 out at a time. The box would work the same, unlimited movies per month, with between 5 and 10 on your box at any given time.

See above. Considering they are downloads and you can get them faster if you go 480p, you'd could probably do more than 15-20 per month total.

If you mean broadcast NTSC, the original format was defined in 1941. The standard was revised in 1953 to add color and was backward compatible. So the standard has been around for 66 years. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC.

On Demand movies like Comcast has will begin to take over.

on Demand over the air...that's what I'm waiting for....or else the "in your hand" format better not die.

I don't have cable / satellite and don't plan to anytime in the near future.

On Demand is another competitor..but if we are whining about HD DVD's costing $20(as opposed to $5-$10 dvd's) are people going to be willing to pay $8 or so for a one time viewing?

My problems with the On-Demand system are few, but significant:

- Very small selection
- (As I understand it) Cable bandwidth limitations mean selection can't grow too much
- Less than DVD resolution (<480p)
- Usually not widescreen
- As Zappcatt mentioned... way too costly

For me the quality and selection just aren't there. I would much rather have access to a larger library at higher quality even if I had to wait a day or two to download (aka my Netflix dream box). My $0.02.
-Matt

I'm talking about HD On Demand, although if you add SD to the mix there are at least 200 titles available at any time on Comcast here. HD only has a few dozen available at any time.

Nope. The BD or HD DVD is the far better choice economically. 8 dollars every time I want to watch the matrix? I dont think so. Heck an HBOHD sub only costs 10-12 bucks a month. LOL

Interesting, my Charter On-Demand service doesn't offer HD movies. And they only have <100 movies at a time or so. 200+ is great, but compared to the 75,000+ selection on Netflix it is still very, very small in my opinion. Especially considering I still can't find everything I want on NF!

The way I envision my dream NF box above, it wouldn't so much as supplement my movie watching (aka an HBO subscription here, a movie on demand or two there, etc...) as it would become the center of it. In essence, it would replace my existing system which is a large DVD collection + NF subscription. 480p streaming for last minute impulse watches, with HD downloads for the planned out list. Simple.

Had Apple not crippled the Apple TV, it could basically do everything I want minus the 1080p processing. Now I'm counting on Netflix... give it to me already!
-Matt

So no one has OTA HD on demand? I don't think that will work to kill the "hard format" unless you can somehow get 100% of the people. With DVD's you can, the users just have to buy a single $30 player and no revolving charges....a little easier to handle than ~$100 a month + rental for HD On Demand.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as combative... crippled is probably a bit harsh as I'm sure it works great for some people's needs. It just doesn't work for my needs. It seems to me they split the difference between a Tivx-like media server box and a download box, while not really hitting the mark on either. As a media server, the formats it supports are way too limited... no ripped DVDs, no MPG, Divx, Xvid, etc.

As a download box, I don't really like their pricing scheme. I don't mind buying content, but I want to own it, transport it, use it on many devices of my choosing, etc... like with DVDs. And on top of paying for DRM'd digital content, you have to pay $300 for the device itself. I personally don't like buying DRM'd digital only media... I want more future flexibility than it offers. I don't buy online music either. You get less quality with more restrictions, I'd rather just buy the CD and rip it. I'm not saying it doesn't work for tons of people out there... just not me.

If I'm to be subject to all those limitations, I would prefer to just rent... ala Netflix.

And yes, 2-channel is also a deal killer for me.
-Matt

But Matt don't you envision your netflix dream box working the same way? Wouldn't it most likely be a sealed box with DRM'ed movies that can only be shared via P2P with other netflix dream boxes and then ONLY with the blessing of a Netflix server that keep tab of the number of flicks you watch?

TIM

my cable company launched an on demand HD movie channel recently. I can tell you that if they constantly add content as quickly as they have to this point, I would never need to buy media again, soon.

Yes, which is why I said this at the end of my post:


Apple's model is to have users purchase heavily restricted content, not rent it cheap. In my mind there is a big difference.
-Matt

I do not agree. If that was the case then new HD TV's would not be selling so well. Every guy that I know either has or wants a HD TV. I think it is cost rather than do not care.

But it's a limited size library. As new titles move in, old move out. And there's even fewer choices in HD.

I have Verizon FIOS, and I believe we're a long way from VOD in any form replacing physical media that people can buy once and own forever. And I think that the final form VOD in the longer run won't be what most here are talking about. I think it will probably be used more like current TIVO's and DVR's. TV shows will get aired, and then offer subsequent viewings on VOD. HBO already does this. And frankly, it's the only time I've every even used my VOD.

What has more chance to doom both formats is probably not as much hd downloads as it is PIRACY.

How long will studios find it profitable to support optical formats if they end up just as easily pirated and sold on the street as dvd is but with only a tiny fraction of the consumer base to offset the losses of piracy?

, piracy can be a mild concern, but still only mild. DVD has made record breaking profits for all company's involved and it has been readily cracked and pirated since the first year or so since inception. If Piracy was such a massive leak for them DVD would have died years ago. Piracy is a concern in any format, but the cries of piracy from the studios has been blown waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion. Many cable company's have been hacked and allowed to DVR stuff that has a no-record flag etc... Piracy will exist in whatever format, whether Physical or Digital, the studios release on. If you can see it, you can copy it some way or another.

Seems to me the debate of HD downloads was addressed quite nicely in the closing editorial from the most recent issue of Pefect Vision:

1. Slow download speeds,
2. Quality-degrading compression to speed download,
3. People are collectors by nature,
4. Hard drive as poor long-term storage medium, and
5. Portability of files given DRM.

All lead to the inevitable conclusion that there is plenty of life left for physical media.

And lets be quite clear: SACD/DVD-A failed in deference to MP3 because very few people can atually hear the difference when/where they listen to music.

Simon

Why do people rent movies? The way I see it either go to the theater or get DISH with every single channel they offer or BUY a movie that you really love. If you absolutely HAVE to see something just out at home you've still got pay per view.

Renting movies is so yesterday--who does that--the trailer park people who star on Jerry Springer?

Yes, I live in a "golf course community" trailer park....come on. I don't have dish, I don't have cable...I don't like going to the theater by myself, so yes, I rent (online and in store). I refuse to pay over $100 a month to watch 2-3 channels that I can't pick up over the air.

If I really love the movie after I rent it, I will go out and buy it.

I don't think you will make many friends by insulting people that live in trailer parks and saying that anyone that still rents movies lives in trailer parks....Netflix and Blockbuster online are still doing pretty well last time I checked.

what if you miss a movie at the theatre and you want to watch it right at this moment, you can go out and hire it for $3 bucks. whats so wrong with that?

Hell, if you rent enough movies per month at Netflix or BB online It's less then 89 centers per movie .

I hate paying exorbitant prices at the theater for movies, thus I usually wait, netflix the movie and If I like it go out and buy the movie at 4 for $20 at Hollywood video or BB when they sell off their new release stock

for Hi-def films I'm kinda forced by finances (and now an ultimatum by the wife ) to be moderate in the films I buy.

no i don't live in a trailer. i have cable.(analog, digital and HD) everything TWC has to offer. also OTA antenna. DISH compressed crap sux IMO. I'd much rather rent DVDs and watch them at home, in my chair, in my controlled environment on my 60" TV and pop my own corn than go to a theater and have to deal with multitudes of people that cant shut up long enough to enjoy the movie. sorry but the group of kids talking smack, or the momma who just had to bring her crying newborn to the movies does not enhance the movie experience. i don't care to hear people laughing at what i don't think is funny or screaming at what i don't think is scary. they ruin the movie for me. I'd pose the question, Why would any fool want to go to the theater?
as for PPV i can usually rent a movie 1 or 2 weeks before it is available on PPV. rent DVD for 5 days watch as many times as i like, when i like, and loan to friends.
it is very rare that i purchase a movie to own.

now back to the topic of this thread. i just don't see downloads making disc's obsolete. not for movies anyways. music is another story(to my dismay). people for some reason just cant hear the difference. I can. the days of the CD album are numbered unless the manufacturers add more multimedia content to the disc and lower prices. there was a time when you could buy a whole album and like every song on it. that is rare anymore, causing a lot of people , especially the younger generations to just want the popular single. why pay $16 for a disc with 1 good song on it when you can download that song for $0.99 or free from P2P. then burn a compilation disc of what you like. i still know people who only have cassette players in their cars and haven't got a clue what an MP3 is. but download sales have topped CD sales and where do you find cassettes these days.

movies would have to burnable to disc after download, playable anywhere and be quick to download before the DVD-vs download war could start. people like having a movie they can loan out, watch anytime, anywhere (my house, your house, in the car). the war right now is not BD-vs-HDDVD. its HD-vs-SD. when Walmart has a $200hd player and the shelves at the rental store have a BD and/or HDDVD section it will mark the beginning of the end for SDDVD. however i feel like unless the HD disc makers add the SD version to the disc as well it will be a tough sell. at one time all disc were full screen then we began seeing dual full and wide, now most are wide and a few are available in both. disc makers need to have the HD version of a film packaged with the SD version at a reasonable price point before people begin to see the benefit of HD. heck theres only one other person in my hood with an HDTV and out of 300 people i work with only 5 of us have HD. i ask at a local Hollywood video when they would be carrying HD or BD and the managers reply was "thats the first time I've been asked that" "i have no idea" "probably when more people request it".

I've read that downloading movies may ultimately account for about 20% of sales - who really knows at this time? I know I don't want to depend on downloads for movies I want to watch more than once (otherwise, I'd just wait for them to show up on HBO or ShowTime).

Only a small percentage of people are currently interested in HD content. This is normal (there were a lot of VHS tapes sold, even after DVDs were available). BUT - once people experience HD, they won't want to go back. It will be interesting to revisit this topic in a year or two...

Piracy of dvd is balanced by the large number of legitimate sales.

The point is what would make high def formats worth investing much money and content into if there is not that large number of legitimate buyers to make up for the piracy?