Vetteman94 said: A few of your points are quite wrong.  The BDA has more power than you give credit for.  They include every major movie production company in the world, if one starts doing something that will help with Blu-ray adoption,  the others will follow.  I believe this happened once before........, oh thats right it did,  DVD did the same to VHS.

You are wrong  about the influence of the BDA. They can try to suggest an action (which in reality always have to come from some of its members...) but they are in no position to do anything against members that act against their advice.

Although they are members of the same association they are direct competitors and do what they think is best for their own company.

You are right that 6they only have limited control about their market prices. They have direct control about the prices that the big distributors have to pay to them.

But if you try to compare it with VHS: It will not work. The end of the VHS Tapes had a combination of several elements:

1. The reproduction costs were quite high and set a lower boundary of the prices hat you always have to earn per tape.

2. In the place of one VHS tape you could put 2 DVDs aqnd after some adjustments theyx were able to put even more DVDs in the space that they previously used for VHS. At the same time tapes wer heavier and more expensive to ship. Both factors were HUGE advantages to retailers. So they were interested to push DVDs a bit more and lowered their ßprices in the hope of a higther turn around rate. DVDs that stay in the store don't earn money.

Blu-rays don't have these advantages compared to DVDs

Fair points about the VHS ---> DVD ----> Blu Ray differences

The public reaction to DVD was pretty much "Thank God, at last"

The public reaction to Blu Ray appears to "Why / Whats Blu Ray"

Nice post, very informative. In the UK just need more bluray selection on shelves rather than just online.

kars said: Vetteman94 said: A few of your points are quite wrong.  The BDA has more power than you give credit for.  They include every major movie production company in the world, if one starts doing something that will help with Blu-ray adoption,  the others will follow.  I believe this happened once before........, oh thats right it did,  DVD did the same to VHS. You are wrong  about the influence of the BDA. They can try to suggest an action (which in reality always have to come from some of its members...) but they are in no position to do anything against members that act against their advice. Although they are members of the same association they are direct competitors and do what they think is best for their own company. You are right that 6they only have limited control about their market prices. They have direct control about the prices that the big distributors have to pay to them. But if you try to compare it with VHS: It will not work. The end of the VHS Tapes had a combination of several elements: 1. The reproduction costs were quite high and set a lower boundary of the prices hat you always have to earn per tape. 2. In the place of one VHS tape you could put 2 DVDs aqnd after some adjustments theyx were able to put even more DVDs in the space that they previously used for VHS. At the same time tapes wer heavier and more expensive to ship. Both factors were HUGE advantages to retailers. So they were interested to push DVDs a bit more and lowered their ßprices in the hope of a higther turn around rate. DVDs that stay in the store don't earn money. Blu-rays don't have these advantages compared to DVDs

Again, you underestimate them, also you dont tend to read what I said.  I never said that they can do anything against the others, the others are just left behind because they fail to adapt.  But once one member starts to do something that is beneficial, the others will follow.  Digital copies of movies are a great example of this.  

I am going to compare it with VHS vs DVD,  because its basically the same thing. Plus comparing the end of the VHS vs DVD format war to the beginning of the Blu-ray vs DVD format war is a little ridiculous since there is no correlation.  

The points you mentioned are valid, sort of.

The part about the sizes is true,  it made sense from a logistics standpoint because you could get more product on the shelves.  But the same can be said for Blu-ray as well.   Blu-ray cases , while the same width, are shorter and much thinner.  Which means more shelves and more product on those shelves.

As for the costs of shipping, that is something that is passed onto the customer because it is figured into the cost of the product on the retailers side. Its not like the cheaper shipping was passed onto the consumer for DVDs, especially not early on

And here is why it is a great comparison.  DVDs when launched were around $40-50 a peice,  they didnt come down to an "affordable" stage until about year 4, which was the $20-25 range.  Which is basically identical to Blu-ray.  Plus in order to really make a dent into VHS, they had to start making exclusives to DVD.

Vetteman94 said: kars said: Vetteman94 said: A few of your points are quite wrong.  The BDA has more power than you give credit for.  They include every major movie production company in the world, if one starts doing something that will help with Blu-ray adoption,  the others will follow.  I believe this happened once before........, oh thats right it did,  DVD did the same to VHS. You are wrong  about the influence of the BDA. They can try to suggest an action (which in reality always have to come from some of its members...) but they are in no position to do anything against members that act against their advice. Although they are members of the same association they are direct competitors and do what they think is best for their own company. You are right that 6they only have limited control about their market prices. They have direct control about the prices that the big distributors have to pay to them. But if you try to compare it with VHS: It will not work. The end of the VHS Tapes had a combination of several elements: 1. The reproduction costs were quite high and set a lower boundary of the prices hat you always have to earn per tape. 2. In the place of one VHS tape you could put 2 DVDs aqnd after some adjustments theyx were able to put even more DVDs in the space that they previously used for VHS. At the same time tapes wer heavier and more expensive to ship. Both factors were HUGE advantages to retailers. So they were interested to push DVDs a bit more and lowered their ßprices in the hope of a higther turn around rate. DVDs that stay in the store don't earn money. Blu-rays don't have these advantages compared to DVDs Again, you underestimate them, also you dont tend to read what I said.  I never said that they can do anything against the others, the others are just left behind because they fail to adapt.  But once one member starts to do something that is beneficial, the others will follow.  Digital copies of movies are a great example of this.   I am going to compare it with VHS vs DVD,  because its basically the same thing. Plus comparing the end of the VHS vs DVD format war to the beginning of the Blu-ray vs DVD format war is a little ridiculous since there is no correlation.   The points you mentioned are valid, sort of. The part about the sizes is true,  it made sense from a logistics standpoint because you could get more product on the shelves.  But the same can be said for Blu-ray as well.   Blu-ray cases , while the same width, are shorter and much thinner.  Which means more shelves and more product on those shelves. As for the costs of shipping, that is something that is passed onto the customer because it is figured into the cost of the product on the retailers side. Its not like the cheaper shipping was passed onto the consumer for DVDs, especially not early on And here is why it is a great comparison.  DVDs when launched were around $40-50 a peice,  they didnt come down to an "affordable" stage until about year 4, which was the $20-25 range.  Which is basically identical to Blu-ray.  Plus in order to really make a dent into VHS, they had to start making exclusives to DVD.

I think your error is in thinking it will definitly be beneficial. It may just end up in movies doing less sales. There are MUCH less profit to be made in the switchover between blu-ray and DVD as there was VHS to DVD. DVDs cost less then VHS, and cost less then Blu-ray... once the market switches to Blu-ray as a majority you really can't charge a blu-ray premium anymore, you'll have to drop down to DVD prices, which if blu-ray costs haven't hit DVD level will actually HURT them. They're going to milk blu-ray as a luxuary format for a while i think.

Kasz216 said: Vetteman94 said: Again, you underestimate them, also you dont tend to read what I said.  I never said that they can do anything against the others, the others are just left behind because they fail to adapt.  But once one member starts to do something that is beneficial, the others will follow.  Digital copies of movies are a great example of this.   I am going to compare it with VHS vs DVD,  because its basically the same thing. Plus comparing the end of the VHS vs DVD format war to the beginning of the Blu-ray vs DVD format war is a little ridiculous since there is no correlation.   The points you mentioned are valid, sort of. The part about the sizes is true,  it made sense from a logistics standpoint because you could get more product on the shelves.  But the same can be said for Blu-ray as well.   Blu-ray cases , while the same width, are shorter and much thinner.  Which means more shelves and more product on those shelves. As for the costs of shipping, that is something that is passed onto the customer because it is figured into the cost of the product on the retailers side. Its not like the cheaper shipping was passed onto the consumer for DVDs, especially not early on And here is why it is a great comparison.  DVDs when launched were around $40-50 a peice,  they didnt come down to an "affordable" stage until about year 4, which was the $20-25 range.  Which is basically identical to Blu-ray.  Plus in order to really make a dent into VHS, they had to start making exclusives to DVD. I think your error is in thinking it will definitly be beneficial. It may just end up in movies doing less sales. There are MUCH less profit to be made in the switchover between blu-ray and DVD as there was VHS to DVD. DVDs cost less then VHS, and cost less then Blu-ray... once the market switches to Blu-ray as a majority you really can't charge a blu-ray premium anymore, you'll have to drop down to DVD prices, which if blu-ray costs haven't hit DVD level will actually HURT them. They're going to milk blu-ray as a luxuary format for a while i think.

When you line up the timeframes though,  Blu-ray and DVDs are the same prices.  Plus the cost to manufacture DVDs were still quite high then.  Why is everyone acting like when DVDs came out at $15 per movie and only cost a dime to make.  Blu-rays will come down in price when the cost comes down, just like DVDs did. 

Vetteman94 said: Kasz216 said: Vetteman94 said: Again, you underestimate them, also you dont tend to read what I said.  I never said that they can do anything against the others, the others are just left behind because they fail to adapt.  But once one member starts to do something that is beneficial, the others will follow.  Digital copies of movies are a great example of this.   I am going to compare it with VHS vs DVD,  because its basically the same thing. Plus comparing the end of the VHS vs DVD format war to the beginning of the Blu-ray vs DVD format war is a little ridiculous since there is no correlation.   The points you mentioned are valid, sort of. The part about the sizes is true,  it made sense from a logistics standpoint because you could get more product on the shelves.  But the same can be said for Blu-ray as well.   Blu-ray cases , while the same width, are shorter and much thinner.  Which means more shelves and more product on those shelves. As for the costs of shipping, that is something that is passed onto the customer because it is figured into the cost of the product on the retailers side. Its not like the cheaper shipping was passed onto the consumer for DVDs, especially not early on And here is why it is a great comparison.  DVDs when launched were around $40-50 a peice,  they didnt come down to an "affordable" stage until about year 4, which was the $20-25 range.  Which is basically identical to Blu-ray.  Plus in order to really make a dent into VHS, they had to start making exclusives to DVD. I think your error is in thinking it will definitly be beneficial. It may just end up in movies doing less sales. There are MUCH less profit to be made in the switchover between blu-ray and DVD as there was VHS to DVD. DVDs cost less then VHS, and cost less then Blu-ray... once the market switches to Blu-ray as a majority you really can't charge a blu-ray premium anymore, you'll have to drop down to DVD prices, which if blu-ray costs haven't hit DVD level will actually HURT them. They're going to milk blu-ray as a luxuary format for a while i think. When you line up the timeframes though,  Blu-ray and DVDs are the same prices.  Plus the cost to manufacture DVDs were still quite high then.  Why is everyone acting like when DVDs came out at $15 per movie and only cost a dime to make.  Blu-rays will come down in price when the cost comes down, just like DVDs did.

You're missing the point. DVD's didn't cost a dime then... but neither did VHS. There is less of a profit margin here, not because Blu-ray is expensive... but because DVDs are so cheap whe VHS was always kinda pricey.

Interesting excerpt from Wikipedia

====================================================

In 2006, a new format called Blu-ray Disc (BD), designed by Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic, was released as the successor to DVD. Another format, HD DVD, competed unsuccessfully with this format in the format war of 2006–08. A dual layer Blu-ray Disc can store 50 to 100 GB.

However, unlike previous format changes (e.g., audio tape to compact disc, VHS videotape to DVD), there is no immediate indication that production of the standard DVD will gradually wind down, as they still dominate, with around 87% of video sales and approximately one billion DVD player sales worldwide.

In fact experts claim that the DVD will remain the dominant medium for at least another five years as Blu-Ray technology is still in its introductory phase, write and read speeds being poor as well as the fact of necessary hardware being expensive and not readily available. Blu-ray players have struggled partly because the MPEG I-frames stored on DVD discs were based on JPEG, which carries DCT information that can be exploited to improve interpolation for higher resolutions

Consumers initially were also slow to adopt Blu-ray due to the cost. By 2009, 85% of stores were selling Blu-ray Discs.
A high-definition TV and appropriate connection cables are also required to take advantage of Blu-ray disc. Some analysts suggest that the biggest obstacle to replacing DVD is due to its installed base; a large majority of consumers are satisfied with DVDs.

The DVD succeeded because it offered a compelling alternative to VHS.

In addition, Blu-ray players are designed to be backward-compatible, allowing older DVDs to be played since the media are physically identical; this differed from the change from vinyl to CD and from tape to DVD, which involved a complete change in physical medium.

if Blu-ray can adapt to the possibility of the introduction of 3D movies in your living room, then it has a longer future imo

Kasz216 said: Vetteman94 said: Kasz216 said: Vetteman94 said: Again, you underestimate them, also you dont tend to read what I said.  I never said that they can do anything against the others, the others are just left behind because they fail to adapt.  But once one member starts to do something that is beneficial, the others will follow.  Digital copies of movies are a great example of this.   I am going to compare it with VHS vs DVD,  because its basically the same thing. Plus comparing the end of the VHS vs DVD format war to the beginning of the Blu-ray vs DVD format war is a little ridiculous since there is no correlation.   The points you mentioned are valid, sort of. The part about the sizes is true,  it made sense from a logistics standpoint because you could get more product on the shelves.  But the same can be said for Blu-ray as well.   Blu-ray cases , while the same width, are shorter and much thinner.  Which means more shelves and more product on those shelves. As for the costs of shipping, that is something that is passed onto the customer because it is figured into the cost of the product on the retailers side. Its not like the cheaper shipping was passed onto the consumer for DVDs, especially not early on And here is why it is a great comparison.  DVDs when launched were around $40-50 a peice,  they didnt come down to an "affordable" stage until about year 4, which was the $20-25 range.  Which is basically identical to Blu-ray.  Plus in order to really make a dent into VHS, they had to start making exclusives to DVD. I think your error is in thinking it will definitly be beneficial. It may just end up in movies doing less sales. There are MUCH less profit to be made in the switchover between blu-ray and DVD as there was VHS to DVD. DVDs cost less then VHS, and cost less then Blu-ray... once the market switches to Blu-ray as a majority you really can't charge a blu-ray premium anymore, you'll have to drop down to DVD prices, which if blu-ray costs haven't hit DVD level will actually HURT them. They're going to milk blu-ray as a luxuary format for a while i think. When you line up the timeframes though,  Blu-ray and DVDs are the same prices.  Plus the cost to manufacture DVDs were still quite high then.  Why is everyone acting like when DVDs came out at $15 per movie and only cost a dime to make.  Blu-rays will come down in price when the cost comes down, just like DVDs did.  You're missing the point. DVD's didn't cost a dime then... but neither did VHS. There is less of a profit margin here, not because Blu-ray is expensive... but because DVDs are so cheap whe VHS was always kinda pricey.

No I am not missing the point, just some people arent reading.   When DVD was released its manufacturing process was more expensive then VHS.  It did close this gap within a few years, but at first it was not.  Hence why when DVDs were released they were $40-50 and VHS tapes were only $15-20.  While Blu-ray may never be cheaper to produce than DVD due to the similar maufacturing but with much higher technology, it was in the same situation when it launched.  Like most products, it was expensive from the beginning to make, and the cost of manufacturing has come down quite significantly.  This is why we are seeing prices drop for Blu-ray.