@ bdbdbd

Not for new movie releases and movie rentals. Putting the 44% of US households figure into perspective:

Currently about 9% of US households own a high definition player (Blu-Ray or HD DVD). The recently released movie Hitman already sold 12.6% of its total unit sales on Blu-ray Disc.

"At the end of the 90s, only 6.7 percent of households owned a DVD player, compared with 88.6 percent owning VCRs." (almost 3 years after introduction on the US market)

To put things even more into perspective:

December 2006: "For the first time, more American households have a DVD player than have a VCR, according to a survey by Nielsen Media Research." (Note that new releases and rentals vastly outperformed their VCR counterparts before this regardless)

"81.2 percent of all US households reported owning at least one DVD player compared to 79.2 percent for VCRs"

That's only a few years ago, DVD penetration was (and is) nowhere near 100% of the market a decade later.


Did DVD perform so badly then? Blu-Ray outperforming DVD at this point isn't an impressive achievement?

Answer: No, DVD adoption wasn't lacklustre, yes Blu-Ray enjoying faster adoption is impressive:

"DVD has become the fastest growing consumer electronics technology of all time,
growing much faster than CD or VHS did in their first few years.
• DVD-Video was launched in 1997 in the USA and within five years has achieved a
25% penetration."

I just read through the entire OP and I agree with the whole thing. Since the whole Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD format war started, I've been laughing at both of them. Neither have a chance. They are completely irrelevant, as DVD will be passing the torch to digital distribution before either can take over.

MikeB said: @ bdbdbd So, USA would make 1/3 from total sales by 2012 Not for new movie releases and movie rentals. Putting the 44% of US households figure into perspective: Currently about 9% of US households own a high definition player (Blu-Ray or HD DVD). The recently released movie Hitman already sold 12.6% of its total unit sales on Blu-ray Disc. "At the end of the 90s, only 6.7 percent of households owned a DVD player, compared with 88.6 percent owning VCRs." (3 years after introduction on the US market) To put things even more into perspective: December 2006: "For the first time, more American households have a DVD player than have a VCR, according to a survey by Nielsen Media Research." (Note that new releases and rentals vastly outperformed their VCR counterparts before this regardless) "81.2 percent of all US households reported owning at least one DVD player compared to 79.2 percent for VCRs" That's only a few years ago, DVD penetration was (and is) nowhere near 100% of the market a decade later. Did DVD perform so badly then? Blu-Ray outperforming DVD at this point isn't impressive achievement? Answer: No, DVD adoption wasn't lacklustre, yes Blu-Ray enjoying faster adoption is impressive: "DVD has become the fastest growing consumer electronics technology of all time, growing much faster than CD or VHS did in their first few years. • DVD-Video was launched in 1997 in the USA and within five years has achieved a 25% penetration."

I have to apoligize, since i should have been more specific. Now we were talking about apples and oranges.
The question isn't about can BD compete DVD, but can it compete DD.

The penetration itself isn't bad and because of PS3, BD players have been adopted at a good rate. But now the thing is, you did mention prediction, that would mean USA having around 45 million BD players and the rest of the world around 90M.
When we put it into perspective with number of people who have high-speed internet access (by 2012), meaning the number of people having access to DLC, and the amount of money spent around the world, BD adoption seems to be a bit small to compete DD.

@ bdbdbd

Broadband internet usage growth has seen a significant slowdown. Downloads will increase, but this does not mean the average consumer will suddenly prefer pay to download their high quality movies instead of buying movies on disc for reasons mentioned earlier.

Broadband internet usage does compete with DVD sales and Cinema visits, but not so much with regard to Digital Distribution sales at this point and probably for a very, very long time to come. Free (usually low quality) illegal downloads of pirated movies is the main concern.

Still I think many prefer to own or rent to watch the full HDTV quality experience, coming in nice box with lots of extras. You could easily copy VCR tapes and illegal copies were floating around en masse as well, likewise with regard to on CD (DivX) and DVD (usually downloaded over the internet, so this is where DD and disc media meet).

MikeB said: @ bdbdbd When we put it into perspective with number of people who have high-speed internet access (by 2012), meaning the number of people having access to DLC, and the amount of money spent around the world, BD adoption seems to be a bit small to compete DD. Broadband internet usage growth has seen a significant slowdown. Downloads will increase, but this does not mean the average consumer will suddenly prefer pay to download their high quality movies instead of buying movies on disc for reasons mentioned earlier. Broadband internet usage does compete with DVD sales and Cinema visits, but not so much with regard to Digital Distribution sales at this point and probably for a very, very long time to come. Free (usually low quality) illegal downloads of pirated movies is the main concern. Still I think many prefer to own or rent to watch the full HDTV quality experience, coming in nice box with lots of extras. You could easily copy VCR tapes and illegal copies were floating around en masse as well, likewise with regard to on CD (DivX) and DVD (usually downloaded over the internet, so this is where DD and disc media meet).

That made me think of an interesting point. If people aren't willing to pay to upgrade to Blu-Ray players or start buying more expensive Blu-rays over DVDs (both of which will inevitably drop drastically in price), why would they start paying for unnecessary bandwidth just to download movies? Sure, the infrastructure for faster internet speeds may be there, but companies like AT&T are perfectly fine charging an arm and a leg for higher internet speeds, and the average person feels no need to upgrade (like my dad), because what they have now is just fine for surfing the web, gaming online, etc.

It's probably a bit too early for digital distribution to become the primary format for movies, especially since HD is on the way. Download speeds aren't quite where they'd need to be to stream stuff directly, and the industry has its head up its arse with DRM.

I can see Blu-ray getting pretty big eventually, but nowhere near the size of DVD. The only real advantage is better picture, while DVD against VHS offered better picture in a vastly more convenient physical package. There's also the issue of needing a new TV, as well as knowing the difference between a DVD and BR player, which is surprisingly hard for a lot of people. =P

makingmusic476 said: MikeB said: @ bdbdbd When we put it into perspective with number of people who have high-speed internet access (by 2012), meaning the number of people having access to DLC, and the amount of money spent around the world, BD adoption seems to be a bit small to compete DD. Broadband internet usage growth has seen a significant slowdown. Downloads will increase, but this does not mean the average consumer will suddenly prefer pay to download their high quality movies instead of buying movies on disc for reasons mentioned earlier. Broadband internet usage does compete with DVD sales and Cinema visits, but not so much with regard to Digital Distribution sales at this point and probably for a very, very long time to come. Free (usually low quality) illegal downloads of pirated movies is the main concern. Still I think many prefer to own or rent to watch the full HDTV quality experience, coming in nice box with lots of extras. You could easily copy VCR tapes and illegal copies were floating around en masse as well, likewise with regard to on CD (DivX) and DVD (usually downloaded over the internet, so this is where DD and disc media meet). That made me think of an interesting point. If people aren't willing to pay to upgrade to Blu-Ray players or start buying more expensive Blu-rays over DVDs (both of which will inevitably drop drastically in price), why would they start paying for unnecessary bandwidth just to download movies? Sure, the infrastructure for faster internet speeds may be there, but companies like AT&T are perfectly fine charging an arm and a leg for higher internet speeds, and the average person feels no need to upgrade (like my dad), because what they have now is just fine for surfing the web, gaming online, etc.

First off, good points from both.

Now the growth has seen significant drop a) where b) the market has reached the point where growth is slowing down, which means it's already huge.
Another things to factor is the mobile connection internet to compete with wired internet, even with similar speeds.

I give my wifes mother as an example, she upgraded 56k internet connection to 1M broadband. Why? Because, the 22€ she needs to pay for her broadband in comparision to her average 15€ phonebill wasn't much to pay for 18 times as fast connection with unlimited internet access. Since she had unlimited access, she didn't anymore needed to work so much offline as before, which made internet usage more comfortable.

And when we are talking about DD competing BD, it's not the quality or technical specs we are talking about, it's the amount of content available and service.

@ Parokki

I don't quite agree, the jump from NTSC to 720p and especially 1080p HDTVs is huge. Blu-Ray players allow to get the most out of such TV sets, better audio and will include many additional features.

The move from VHS to DVD was IMO far more troublesome, as DVD players weren't backwards compatible with VHS releases. The jump in quality from VHS and DVD displayed on a NTSC TV wasn't really that big, not as big of a difference in picture quality compared to DVD on NTSC TV vs Blu-Ray displayed in full quality on a 1080p HDTV.

One thing which may hold Blu-Ray back somewhat is the minimal feature set, which requires even a harddisk (or other large storage). This will make price cuts more difficult, but also puts the PS3 in a good position as one of the best Blu-Ray movie players available, combined with being the best specced gaming console.

MikeB said: @ Parokki The only real advantage is better picture, while DVD against VHS offered better picture in a vastly more convenient physical package. I don't quite agree, the jump from NTSC to 720p and especially 1080p HDTVs is huge. Blu-Ray players allow to get the most out of such TV sets, better audio and will include many additional features. The move from VHS to DVD was IMO far more troublesome, as DVD players weren't backwards compatible with VHS releases. The jump in quality from VHS and DVD displayed on a NTSC TV wasn't really that big, not as big of a difference in picture quality compared to DVD on NTSC TV vs Blu-Ray displayed on a 1080p HDTV. One thing which may hold Blu-Ray back somewhat is the minimal feature set, which requires even a harddisk. This will make price cuts more difficult, but also puts the PS3 in a good position as one of the best Blu-Ray movie players available, combined with being the best specced gaming console.

I don't think the move from vhs to dvd was that hard, you didn't even have to buy a new tv to see the difference.

All you needed was a ps2 or a cheap dvd player a few years later... 

 

ToastyJaguar said: MikeB said: @ Parokki The only real advantage is better picture, while DVD against VHS offered better picture in a vastly more convenient physical package. I don't quite agree, the jump from NTSC to 720p and especially 1080p HDTVs is huge. Blu-Ray players allow to get the most out of such TV sets, better audio and will include many additional features. The move from VHS to DVD was IMO far more troublesome, as DVD players weren't backwards compatible with VHS releases. The jump in quality from VHS and DVD displayed on a NTSC TV wasn't really that big, not as big of a difference in picture quality compared to DVD on NTSC TV vs Blu-Ray displayed on a 1080p HDTV. One thing which may hold Blu-Ray back somewhat is the minimal feature set, which requires even a harddisk. This will make price cuts more difficult, but also puts the PS3 in a good position as one of the best Blu-Ray movie players available, combined with being the best specced gaming console. I don't think the move from vhs to dvd was that hard, you didn't even have to buy a new tv to see the difference. All you needed was a ps2 or a cheap dvd player a few years later...

NTSC TVs are IMO pretty sucky to begin with. IMO buying a HDTV allows to much better enjoy the improvement of DVD if well scaled (most newer DVD capable players, including the PS3 do a good job at this). But I think when people own a HDTV most will want high definition content and vice versa (for 2007 HDTV sales were pushed an additional 18% just because of more consumers owning a high definition games console).

I still keep my VCR due to my backlog of movies and recordings, my dedicated DVD player is now pretty much redundant.