BD loses ground to DVD even with $199 BD players

[Jordahn]

tuoyo said:

Jordahn said:

frybread said:

DVD offered many advantages over VHS.

No rewinding, ability to skip to any scene, interactive features, widescreen (rare on vhs), took up less space, and finally: picture quality.


Blu-Ray offers just one advantage: picture quality...

 

...AND uncompressed sound, TWO noticable advantages. People need to realize that going the HD route is far more than just upgrading a 19" SDTV to a 32" SDTV. That's just a little more than incremental. Going from SD to HD (Blu-ray) is a whole new ball game. To really take fulll advantage of Blu-ray, you need a 1080p HDTV AND a sound receiver that supportS uncompressed sound. All your equipment pretty much needs to be new. But the sound quality still sounds better on a non-uncompressed audio supporting receiver. I think the main reason for the decline is because of a lagging economy and high gas prices. Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't be business as usual.

You are kidding right?  I have a £1000 HD projector, an £800 surround sound receiver and an £800 speaker package and I got a £300 Sky HD satellite box and pay £10 a month extra for HD sibscription.  I can tell you that even with these there is no way buying HD discs is worth the money.   HD does not offer any great advantage that makes it worth any substantial outlay.  I would still rather buy a DVD for £5 than a blu ray of the same movie for £10.  Now that's even with me already having all the required equipment.  Imagine how the average person that needs to upgrade all his equipment would think.

 

No I'm not kidding, and I'll tell you why.  The only way you are going to readily get 1080p with uncompressed sound and disc extras for the time being is with Blu-ray.  You are of the OPINION that Blu-ray isn't worth the money which I can respect.   If some people are willing to pay extra to get extra, then so be it.  CD's were more expensive that cassettes, and DVD's were more expensive than VHS.  Some people were willing to pay extra then, and some people are willing to pay extra now.  Nothing wrong with that.  You CANNOT fault someone for acting on their own preference when they can afford to.  And about the average person, the way I see it is that Blu-ray isn't for the average person for the time being.  HD is catering more towards the HD enthusist.  I for one never though that Blu-ray will be dominant/mainstream.  As long as it has its target audience, and it's worth the content providers' business venture when both parties are happy.