Bodhesatva said:
windbane said:
Bodhesatva said:
windbane said:
Bodhesatva said:
The simplest and easiest explanation for the situation is this: If nothing else before it did so, the adoption of the MP3 format as the evolution to the CD format proves that most people care about convenience, and are only marginally concerned with increased audio/visual quality. Blu Ray only offers increased audio/visual quality. Digital downloads can offer improved audio/visual quality and increased convenience. Of course, as others have noted (I think Xenophon13 gave a very clear explanation), we may be farther from mass adoption of digital distribution than some here seem to think, and 5+ years is more than enough time to establish a new format like Blu Ray, so we'll see how it plays out. Still, for those of us keeping up with these sorts of things, it is a bit disturbing to see the next evolution already taking shape even as Blu Ray is just beginning to establish itself. It would be like Blu Ray already having been invented and on the fringes when DVD was just starting out. |
mp3s that are 192kbps are indistinguishable from cds (at least to most people). However, mp3s have not killed off cds. How many times do people have to make this argument? As others have said: the big thing about itunes and others is that you can download indivdual songs. However, you don't get a booklet with that, nor do you get any other special features. CDs are still around. Oops, I made the argument again. I agree we are years away from online distribution being used for purchases of full movies with special features. Until then, it will just be competing with rentals. In order for me to consider buying a movie online I would need several things: 1. 1080p streaming 2. special features 3. movie stored on server with instant access from any location I can sign in from The problem with that 3rd condition is no company can allow that because I could just share that account with other people. Therefore I will be tied to whatever box I'm using (apple tv, tivo, comcast, etc). That sucks. I can't let people borrow the movie and I can't watch it in multiple rooms without networking or multiple boxes. I also can't take those movies on a trip with me without location-free equipment. However, let's say I just want 1080p streaming with all the special features available instantly at just 1 location. Well, blu-ray bit rates can be quite high, and I'd need a broadband connection significantly faster (72Mb/s would require 9MB/s connection which is 9 times faster than I get). That would only work with no connection interruption. So yeah, I think it's pretty far off. Online distribution only competes with video rental stores. I look forward to trying Netflix's online rentals, but I will still buy movies. Most people buy and rent movies. |
It's like you agree with everything I'm saying, but somehow manage to make it seem like we disagree. CD and MP3 quality are nearly indistinguishable to most people? So... you agree it's a drop in audio quality? That there is no advancement in audio quality at all, but instead a (minor) drop? We agree on this then? Good. And the iTunes example only further proves my point as well, doesn't it? Not having to purchase entire albums is another convenience. You can just buy single songs! Add that to the list: you can buy single songs and not just albums, the players are smaller, they don't skip, and they hold significantly more songs without having to put in new data. I think we're going to keep repeating the MP3 adoption because.. it absolutely proves the point so clearly that it shouldn't be forgotten. I'm sure Sony is glad to hear that CDs are still alive (Which they are, but declining as every format does as its gradually phased out), but Sony clearly isn't happy about the near-complete collapse of their Walkman empire. That huge mistake was likely the single largest reason that Stringer was brought to the helm. He's done an admirable job since then, but the damage to their music-player empire was already done. |
As others have said, you can't just buy a single song in a movie, so the advantage is lessened. Itunes also has DRM that is annoying, which is why Universal, I believe, left them. mp3s are the same quality as cds to most people, but movie downloads are not on par with blu-ray quality. mp3s have been around for many many years, and yet cds are still around. I said we agree that if streaming movies happens it will be 5 years as mentioned by that article above, and even then blu-ray will still be successful. On this point: "Add that to the list: you can buy single songs and not just albums, the players are smaller, they don't skip, and they hold significantly more songs without having to put in new data." Just to respond in order concerning the comparison with movies: you won't buy single chapters of movies; the players are not smaller; blu-rays don't skip because they are unscratchable, but streaming movies can freeze and skip if your internet connection screws up (or cable connection); and you can hold more data when it is compressed but the quality of streaming is not 1080p. I just don't think it will be any time soon that movie downloads are as good of an option as mp3s, and it will still be more of a rental thing. |
I think I see the problem you're having here: you're defining "convenience" much too narrowly. Convenience can take a variety of forms; again, MP3 players benefitted hugely from being more portable, unskippable, and capable of carrying more songs at once. I think you've managed to convince yourself that the MP3 revolution is specifically and only about the ability to buy individual songs, when it isn't; that's a specific example of a general phenomenon, and that phenomenon is convenience. As a similar example, DVDs were adopted not particularly because of superior visual/audio quality, but because they lasted longer (VHS naturally deteriorated over time even when taken care of) and particularly and most especially because they eliminated the need to rewind or fast forward ever again. Convenience, convenience, convenience. Whatever shape that convenience takes isn't important -- it can be increased portability, removing the need to rewind and fastforward, or allowing you to buy individual songs instead of full albums -- the important thing is that you make the products easier to use. And while Blu Ray offers nothing but superior image/audio quality, I can name some pretty significant conveniences that Digital Downloads provide; you never have to leave your house to buy or rent a movie ever again. I can name another: your movies are un-losable, as any time you "lose" your downloaded copy you can re-download it. I'm sure there are more that I'm not thinking of, but those alone are pretty huge. Again, just for emphasis, I totally agree we're several years away from this being a remotely mass-marketable idea, so I think there's time for Blu Ray to grow. I'm pointing out why I personally expect Blu Ray adoption to be comparatively slow and less lucrative than DVD adoption was, and digitial distribution will be. |
