^ I'm agreeing that Blu Ray has better graphics than DVD, just as DVD has better graphics than VHS. My point is that DVD added functionality and additional features, as well as graphics and sound, hence why it suceeded. Blu Ray only added graphics/sound, hence why it is not doing so well.

Anyone who saw DVD-Audio and SACD fail to be adopted by the market had all the information they needed to understand why Blu-Ray would not become the dominant format. The vast majority of people in the world are not audiophiles or videophiles, and after audio/video quality becomes "good enough" most consumers are unwilling to spend more money for audio/video quality alone.

i wouldn't say that basically everyone has a blu ray now unless your poor then gtfo

I highly doubt that ...

Just as a personal observations, I don't know anyone  with a stand-alone Blu-Ray player, and very few stores seem to have a decent selection of these players (compared to their DVD players) because they don't seem to sell that well. While I do know many PS3 owners who buy Blu-Ray movies, I would estimate that they're buying 1 Blu-Ray movie for every 20 they're downloading from the internet and streaming to their TV.

hehehe

Use some punctuation please.

Did you mean to say;

I wouldn't say that - basically everyone has a Blu Ray [player] now, unless you're poor, then you should gtfo.

This implies that you believe that Blu Ray is doing very well.

I wouldn't say that 'basically everyone has a Blu Ray [player] now unless you're poor, then you should gtfo'.

This implies that you do not believe that Blu Ray is doing all that well.

This is not me being uptight about grammar, if it were, I would be pointing out the many other things you got wrong. Your setance is completely ambiguous and it makes it impossible to respond to your post.

Betamax isn't superior to VHS. It holds less film, and is vastly more expensive compared to VHS. Not the case of DVD vs Blu-ray. Laserdisc is simply very flimsy, which is why it never caught on.

People don't care to check what's the best for them if they're used to something.

A) Only in the shortrun.

B) No Laserdisc wasn't flimsy.   Not any flismier then a DVD, have you ever known anyone with a Laserdisc player?

No most consumer's arent dumb,they just don't feel the need to keep up with every little advance in technology. Not everybody is tech savy,but that does'nt mean there dumb.

You could see why Blu-Ray was going to have a long road ahead of it when even technophiles such as myself don't care much about the improvements over DVD. Sure, it has better picture than DVD. So does most Netflix content, which generally falls under the "good enough" bridge between DVD and Blu-Ray. Plus, I already have six speakers hooked up to my sound system. I'm in no hurry to fight with the girlfriend, spend a bunch more money on a new receiver and speakers, and find space to add two or three more speakers to take advantage of Blu-Ray's improved sound capabilities. It's gone to the point of excess and the actual sound difference between 5.1 and 7.2 is so bloody minimal that it's just not worth the expense and hassle of upgrading my system. I can already rattle the shit out of my windows; that's good enough.

In favor of Blu-Ray, sometime in computing's near future we're going to need more disc space than the 9 gigs offered by dual layer DVD. When that happens, the PC industry will help support the technology but I never see Blu-Ray fully displacing DVD in the living room. There is just too much competition in the market and streaming services just work too well to ignore. THEY are the future, not another form of physical media.

With all that said, I'm going to buy the shit ouf of LOTR Extended and Star Wars when they release on Blu-Ray.