Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Vetteman94 said:
Kasz216 said:
Except it wasn't more expensive than VHS.
Even in the early days it cost about 70 cents to replicate a DVD vs $.250 to replicate a VHS tape.
The profit motivation behind DVD for companies was that once it became the mean DVD would be cheaper then VHS.
http://www.proactionmedia.com/dvd_media_production.htm DVDs were always cheaper then VHS tapes. It was the extra fixed costs that made early DVDs cost more... the kind of thing you'd want to get rid of fast by aggressivly pushing the format. Blu-ray does not have this luxuary. |
Those numbers for DVD are from 2003, which was 7 years after DVD was released.
|
where do you see that? |
Last paragraph in that article:
Videotapes don't really have a mastering cost, and they run about $2.40 for replication. CDs cost about $1,000 to master and $0.50 to replicate. Laserdiscs cost about $3,000 to master and about $8 to replicate. As of 2003, DVDs cost about $1000 to master and about $0.70 to replicate. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $0.30 more to replicate, since all that's required is stamping data on the second substrate (and using transparent glue for dual layers). Double-sided, dual-layer discs (DVD-18s) are more difficult and more expensive
|
Regardless... blu-rays will NEVER be cheaper then DVDs. At some point it may become as cheap... but there is no motivation that blu-ray could ever offer a 1.50 worth of savings per DVD. There was still more reason to push it. |
And where did I ever say that Blu-ray would be cheaper than DVD?
|
Well that's the point you kept missing. There was a much more vested financial advantage in agressivly pushing DVD then, then there is Blu-ray now. DVD was going to be more profitable... Blu-ray... after it beats DVD at best is going to be as profitable... hence the real money making is made BEFORE it goes mainstream when they can charge a premium.
It's in a lot of companies vested interest to prolong Blu-ray.
As you can see, the actual production costs actually were cheaper... even in 97. Unless you think VHS reduced prices less then 10 cents in 7 years.
|
No I am not missing the point, so much in fact that I even stated it in an earlier post. Again, you people are not reading my posts.
You can easily make up for the lower profits when you drop the prices with the increased volume you would see. Charging a premium for a product with a limited user base does not make you money.
No I cant see I guess, where is the price of VHS in 1997?
|
Sure you can... when your also selling the other product.
The big movie companies STILL make money off DVDs you know. They make more charging DVDs at a regular price, and Blu-rays at a premium then they would if blu-ray went mainstream and they had to charge DVD prices for Blu-ray.
