Blu-Ray's are better than downloads it supports Sony and Blu-Ray market.

Huge downloads would take ages to download. 

Broadband speeds in the U.S. very extremely(not sure about Euro) and the majoirty of poeple are no where close to proper speeds to want to download a movie over have it on a physical media. Music DLs can't be compare because movies can be well over 1000 times the size if not alot more. There is also a point of where is it going to be stored? Harddrive? Doubt it, people won't trust leaving a movie file they had to pay for in some folder on their harddrive with a chance of getting a virus and having to reformet, and if they have lets say USB stick or W/e they choose to carry it in... then were back to why not get a physical media in the first place? Digital tranfer is no doubt the future but by no means the immediate future; a giant chunk of console owners don't even have an internet connection to their console, as for sole movie buyers (most likely less orinted in technology) won't be taking the iniative.

Downloads wont take off for quite a few years if at all due to size,bandwith,and this only applies to tech junkies(a niche market) .By the time Downloads become mainstream if they become mainstream,Blu-Ray will be the dominant format.

Im pretty sure this thread has been designed to see how many people Kowenicki can get to say 'i prefer downloads over blu ray' so that he can then say 'ZOMG THERE WAS NO POINT IN THE PS3 HAVING A BLU RAY PLAYER HAHAHA'

By the time dvd eventually dies, broadband speeds will good enough for hd movie downloads

As much as I like the format, the only way BR-D will become the dominant format is if the majority of households have HD displays capable of making the added expense justifiable, or studios begin to taper off support for the DVD format.

That is what ultimately killed VHS. Eventually, there were fewer new releases available on the format than DVD.

High quality downloads on par with BR-D are a very long ways away yet. Consider me sold on the form of distribution only after 50GB downloads are possible in less time than it takes me to watch the video at a comparable price.

I'd be willing to pay a reasonable premium for faster bandwidth speeds if the price of the downloaded media was considerably less than physical media.

However, for any movie I wanted to archive in a collection, a DRM digitally downloaded file is no substitute for physical media.

Digital downloads are only best for rentals, or media files I won't miss if I lose the drive they're stored on or there's a problem with DRM preventing access to the files I've paid for (this has happened to me with iTunes).

Ideally, we wouldn't have to store the media file at all locally. If network speeds were magically upgraded to allow for such massive bandwidth loads, low compression HD video would be available for instant streaming off a remote server instantly 24/7 from any device capable of displaying such a signal.

But realistically speaking: not today, not tomorrow, not next year, or even this decade.

I don't think dowloads will make it anytime soon, maybe in 5-6 years if there is a massive change in prices, drm policy and ways to save the media.
With dowloads less than 10$, no drm (which is more annoying for customers than the others) and some solid state memories such as big cheap sdcards to save the file, it could work.

Actually, I agree with bleu-ocelot, bluray will be dominant before downloads become mainstream.

I buy blu-rays...this was taken a few months ago.  So I have another 40 or so blu-rays not in the pic.  I truly can't stand regular dvd's anymore--even if upscaled.  I watch on a 60" tv so the difference is VERY noticable.

Hang on....you obviously like sony products and buy them so....how can you say you dont love any specific corporations....?

 And dont call me junior grandpa

DRM is an issue because it's what keeps the file a temporary rental, and not a rental priced permanent file.

Digital download services already have two tiered pricing for movies. DRM is the only distinction between the two that determine if the file is a temporary rental, or a higher priced "purchase."

Anyway, I find the argument kind of pointless anyway because as of today, there is no service offering 50GB downloads in under two hours at consumer prices (or any price depending on where you're located). Download quality is "great" if it can match HD cable, but is not the same quality of BR-D.

And the most important point: I'm watching BR-Ds today. Right now. All the big releases. New ones constantly being released. Plus all my old favorites looking and sounding better than ever before.

Why would I keep waiting indefinitely for network speeds to catch up? It happens when it happens.

It's not even an issue until BR-D becomes defunct.