[icruise]

Yes, I understand the idea behind attach rate, and yes it does show that PS3 owners as a group don't buy as many movies per PS3 unit as owners of HD-DVD devices. (Unlike with BR there are no multifunction devices that also happen to play HD-DVDs -- even the Xbox 360 drive has to be bought separately for the express purpose of watching movies). But I'm taking issue with the idea of pointing to attach rate to make conclusions about the purchasing patterns of PS3 owners.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

If you guys were trying to sell us on the idea that a HD-DVD player has to be under $100 for the masses to take it on what makes you think are willing to pay $230 + High Speed internet for something that lets them do little more than rent movies?

Many High speed packages also have unreasonable data caps that renting movies online isn't going to help. Also a year from now I bet the ISP's are going to want a slice of the pie for all the increased data.

Originally Posted by goMac 

The problem with an HD-DVD player is that it doesn't offer very many benefits a consumer can easily recognize over DVD. Yeah, it has better image quality, but that's an intangible to a consumer. They know that DVD's already look good on their TV with an upscaling DVD player, there isn't a pressing need to go HD-DVD or Bluray. Because the consumer doesn't see much benefit over DVD, you have to be price competitive with DVD players.

The AppleTV bring convenience to the table. A consumer doesn't have to leave the house to buy or rent a movie. They just sit down and pick what they want to watch. This is a clear upgrade over DVD that a consumer can understand. I think consumers will be willing to pay more of a premium for a more clear advantage over DVD. I think $230 is a pretty good price point for what Apple is offering, $200 will definitely be the sweet spot.

I think it's pretty damn inconvenient to have to wait a month to rent a new movie. The fact that you have to pay $230 for the privilege certainly doesn't impress.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Well, to be fair, you've also been posting a heck of lot in this thread. You're third after Eug and gomac, and if you add in your other nicks, I think you'd be in second.

Ya but I am waaaay behind them in the past year from them not to mention I stick to the subject with short replies and don't write essays about stereo shelves, downloadable content, internet connections, what stereo equipment people have, DLP vs. LCD, and most of all MY PREDICTIONS TURNED OUT CORRECT!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I think it's pretty damn inconvenient to have to wait a month to rent a new movie. The fact that you have to pay $230 for the privilege certainly doesn't impress.

Yeah, the 30 days certainly is a short coming, and it was something Apple was working on negotiating away. I don't think it's a huge issue for most consumers, a lot of people don't run out the day a movie comes out on DVD and purchase and buy it (and before we start this again, a lot of people does not necessarily mean you). I know for some people though it will be a problem. Hopefully the movie studios will ease up on the 30 day restriction.

I don't think $230 is a bad price for the box though. Until a few days ago, that was about the same price as an HD-DVD player. I think Apple's partnership with Best Buy could potentially sell a lot of AppleTV's. Apple has managed to get AppleTV's into one of the biggest electronics retailers right next to big screen tv's. It's not like someone has to go out of the way to the Apple store to buy a $230 device. It's going to be sitting on the shelves right next to the HD-DVD and Bluray players.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yeah, the 30 days certainly is a short coming, and it was something Apple was working on negotiating away. I don't think it's a huge issue for most consumers, a lot of people don't run out the day a movie comes out on DVD and purchase and buy it (and before we start this again, a lot of people does not necessarily mean you).

Tons of people run out the week a movie comes out on DVD and rent it.

This is a very significant issue for the average consumer.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Tons of people run out the week a movie comes out on DVD and rent it.

This is a very significant issue for the average consumer.

The AppleTV does have two significant issues, the delay in movies being added, and the inability to purchase movies. But the competition certainly isn't perfect either. With Bluray/HD-DVD you have the studio support issue, the Bluray 1.1/2.0 issue, lack of a large back catalog.

Whether a consumer chooses to go optical or digital downloads, they are going to have to make some sort of sacrifice. And honestly, the issues with the AppleTV are much more easily fixable than the issues with the optical formats.

I think consumers are far more willing to accept a 30 day delay in releases in order to have the convenience of online delivery and stay out of the format war.

I expect of the reasons we are seeing all these odd restrictions is that the movie companies don't want to go through the same thing that happened to the music industry with the iTunes Music Store. It's much easier to pull movie rentals from iTunes if the deal goes sour than it is to pull movies people have already purchased and can continue playing. In time, if Apple's relationship with the studios goes well, I think they'll scale back their restrictions. For now, I think the AppleTV is still a more consumer friendly solution.

Besides, if someone really wants their releases the day they come out, their DVD player is going to continue working. Someone could buy their release on DVD, play it, and import it into iTunes for use on their AppleTV. Keep in mind, I don't see people running out, buying the AppleTV, and throwing their existing DVD players to the curb. But I do see the AppleTV as an alternative to most consumers for Bluray/HD-DVD.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The AppleTV does have two significant issues, the delay in movies being added, and the inability to purchase movies. But the competition certainly isn't perfect either. With Bluray/HD-DVD you have the studio support issue, the Bluray 1.1/2.0 issue, lack of a large back catalog.

Whether a consumer chooses to go optical or digital downloads, they are going to have to make some sort of sacrifice. And honestly, the issues with the AppleTV are much more easily fixable than the issues with the optical formats.

You're arguing AppleTV vs. Blu-ray/HD DVD. I'm arguing AppleTV vs DVD.

I think consumers are far more willing to accept a 30 day delay in releases in order to have the convenience of online delivery and stay out of the format war.

Well, not if you have to buy a new $230 player just to rent movies.

Besides, if someone really wants their releases the day they come out, their DVD player is going to continue working. Someone could buy their release on DVD, play it, and import it into iTunes for use on their AppleTV. Keep in mind, I don't see people running out, buying the AppleTV, and throwing their existing DVD players to the curb. But I do see the AppleTV as an alternative to most consumers for Bluray/HD-DVD.

Perhaps, but the thing about spending $99 or $199 on a Blu-ray/HD DVD player is that it still works as a DVD player. Somebody's DVD player breaks? No problem. Buy a Blu-ray/HD DVD player to replace it. Or, they may just buy another DVD player for $50.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by goMac 

But I do see the AppleTV as an alternative to most consumers for Bluray/HD-DVD.

I really don't understand this reasoning. How is being able to RENT 720p movies a month after they come out an alternative to PURCHASING 1080p movies on Blu-ray or HD-DVD right when they are released?

The AppleTV is going after a completely different market than Blu-ray/HD-DVD. It in no way, shape, or form is meant to compete with these high-def formats. It's a completely different beast and, if anything, will compete with DVD players and NetFlix.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by goMac 

But the competition certainly isn't perfect either. With Bluray/HD-DVD you have the studio support issue, the Bluray 1.1/2.0 issue, lack of a large back catalog.

None of these things are going to be an issue once the winning format establishes itself, and it looks like that's going to happen sooner than most people had thought.

I think that digital rentals can coexist with sales of movies and TV shows on disc -- you don't have to chose one or the other. You might rent digitally, but buy the movies you really like on disc. But having to wait 30 days to watch a new title pretty much makes this a non-starter for a lot of people, and the 24 hour viewing window also sucks. Plus for me, the cost is too much. I can get way more rentals with the money I pay for my Netflix subscription, and I don't have to worry about them expiring if I stop watching in the middle (with a two-year-old, we almost never finish watching a movie in one go).

Yes, being able to watch downloads semi-instantly is nice, but the restrictions mean that I either wait three days or so to get a new release in the mail from Netflix or wait 30 days to get it from Apple. Which was more convenient again?

I think consumers are far more willing to accept a 30 day delay in releases in order to have the convenience of online delivery and stay out of the format war.

Very doubtful, especially since the war is pretty much over.

I expect of the reasons we are seeing all these odd restrictions is that the movie companies don't want to go through the same thing that happened to the music industry with the iTunes Music Store.

I think it's because they don't want digital rentals to compete too closely with traditional sales of movies on disc.

[Eug]

Home Media Magazine: Retail Remains Unchanged Post Format War

Less than 10 days after Warner Bros. said it would exclusively distribute high-definition packaged media in Blu-ray starting in May, many national retailers continue to sell hardware and software in both formats.

In the ramp up to the Super Bowl Feb. 3 in Glendale, Ariz., — reportedly one of the busiest HDTV selling periods of the year — consumer electronics retailers Circuit City Stores Inc., Best Buy Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp., and Southern California-based Ken Cranes Big Screen Headquarters incorporated both HD DVD and Blu-ray in Sunday (Jan. 13) newspaper circulars.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

For now, I think the AppleTV is still a more consumer friendly solution.

That really sounds like Apple brainwashing to me.

So let's see....

720p RENTALS with MAYBE 5.1 audio vs. 1080p PURCHASES and 7.1 LOSSLESS audio.

You talk about how the "average consumer" doesn't have this equipment, but then you say that Apple TV is better for the consumer. How so? I would argue that the average consumer just wants to pop in a disc, not hassle with internet connections and limited time to watch something.

EDIT: lol: Mrjingle: get out of my head!

[Eug]

I wonder why they didn't make the rentals 3 days long. Yeah, you can keep it for 30 days, but sometimes I start a movie and then get interrupted and then can't finish it until a couple of days later. Yeah, I'm being picky, but that's just reality.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Home Media Magazine: Retail Remains Unchanged Post Format War

Less than 10 days after Warner Bros. said it would exclusively distribute high-definition packaged media in Blu-ray starting in May, many national retailers continue to sell hardware and software in both formats.

In the ramp up to the Super Bowl Feb. 3 in Glendale, Ariz., — reportedly one of the busiest HDTV selling periods of the year — consumer electronics retailers Circuit City Stores Inc., Best Buy Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp., and Southern California-based Ken Cranes Big Screen Headquarters incorporated both HD DVD and Blu-ray in Sunday (Jan. 13) newspaper circulars.

Did anyone really expect retailers to discontinue HD-DVD stuff the instant the Warner announcement was made?

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Home Media Magazine: Retail Remains Unchanged Post Format War

Less than 10 days after Warner Bros. said it would exclusively distribute high-definition packaged media in Blu-ray starting in May, many national retailers continue to sell hardware and software in both formats.

In the ramp up to the Super Bowl Feb. 3 in Glendale, Ariz., — reportedly one of the busiest HDTV selling periods of the year — consumer electronics retailers Circuit City Stores Inc., Best Buy Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp., and Southern California-based Ken Cranes Big Screen Headquarters incorporated both HD DVD and Blu-ray in Sunday (Jan. 13) newspaper circulars.

Warner isn't dropping HD-DVD till May so there will be no effect for a while. I doubt you will see much change until supplies start to thin out.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Did anyone really expect retailers to discontinue HD-DVD stuff the instant the Warner announcement was made?

No, of course not, but there were a lot of premature declarations of the format war being over after Warner's announcement.

There was an article that day saying the retailers didn't see it as being over just yet, and this seems to reaffirm their claim. They don't seem to making firm commitments just yet, despite the hype.

[starman]

I still don't see how HD-DVD can survive. Personally, I'm not even going to bother buying HD-DVD movies anymore. It would take a flippin' miracle for HD-DVD to come back and win.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by starman 

I still don't see how HD-DVD can survive. Personally, I'm not even going to bother buying HD-DVD movies anymore. It would take a flippin' miracle for HD-DVD to come back and win.

Yeah, it seems that HD-DVD is truly dead, or at least it will be before too long. Then again, there is money to be made for Toshiba in hardware sales as long as HD-DVDs are readily available. Once the studios stop making/releasing the movies in HD-DVD, I don't see how HD-DVD can remain a viable alternative to Blu-ray. You don't need all studios, hell, you don't even need a majority of studios, but you DO need a few. Once all studios go completely Blu-ray and remaining HD-DVD stock is liquidated, HD-DVD will disappear in a manner of months.

[Mrjinglesusa]

For the record, I've stopped purchasing movies in HD-DVD as well. It's just not worth it. I've got all the "exclusives" (does that term even apply to HD-DVD anymore?) I want and any movies I buy from this point on will be on Blu-ray. I'll use my XA-2 for the HD-DVDs I have and as my primary DVD player (upconversion!).

[Eug]

Well, I'm continuing to buy HD DVDs.

Even if HD DVD were to go under, it doesn't really bother me, since the discs are excellent quality. It's quite different from the VHS days. When I got a DVD player, I immediately stopped considering VHS. The image quality was just far too different.

Similarly, I've really decreased the numbers of DVDs I get, because the image quality is that much worse than HD DVD. For Blu-ray vs. HD DVD, the image quality is pretty much identical, and HD DVD sometimes has the better extras (which I watch), so I'll just keep getting the HD DVDs I'm interested in.

Furthermore, I won't consider going neutral until the Blu-ray side has their players up to spec, for a reasonable price, and that might not be for quite some time.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

720p RENTALS with MAYBE 5.1 audio vs. 1080p PURCHASES and 7.1 LOSSLESS audio.

Oh god... here we go again...

Originally Posted by starman 

You talk about how the "average consumer" doesn't have this equipment, but then you say that Apple TV is better for the consumer.

Average consumer.

Originally Posted by starman 

How so? I would argue that the average consumer just wants to pop in a disc, not hassle with internet connections and limited time to watch something.

Does the average consumer want to hassle with what titles are available on which formats? Does the average consumer want to deal with an expensive Bluray player? Does the average consumer like having to go to the video store to find things? Does the average consumer like having very little back catalog on HD-DVD or Bluray?

The internet connection argument is old. More than half of the internet connections in the U.S. are broadband, and getting the AppleTV on the internet is barely more complicated than plugging in the power cable.

Yes, the AppleTV isn't perfect, but then again, HD-DVD and Bluray are hardly perfect either and also have their downsides for the consumer. For your average consumer, Bluray and HD-DVD offer little to no tangible quality benefits on the tv's and sound systems they own.

[Eug]

A $50 upscaling DVD player is better for the average consumer. In fact, I think a $149 hi-def player that also does DVD upscaling is better for the average consumer.

[starman]

goMac, how is a Blu-Ray player "expensive"? Up until yesterday, the Apple TV was $299 and the cheapest Blu-Ray player is $319 on Amazon (and I'm sure cheaper elsewhere). Ok, so now the Apple TV is $229 but you can get a Toshiba HD-DVD player for $99.

I'm really sick and f'n tired of your use of the word "average" because you're not consistent with it.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Did anyone really expect retailers to discontinue HD-DVD stuff the instant the Warner announcement was made?

I sure didn't. In fact HD-DVD could easily still sell well as many consumers who bought all these players over Xmas might not even know about or understand the Warner announcement. Others may want to grab as many HD-DVD movies as they can before they are gone to justify buying the player.

On top of that HD-DVD is going on some major sales now so ignorant people and people who don't care will snatch them up.

I think it will take about 3 months before some resellers start reducing the shelf space or pull it altogether. In 8-9 months shelves will be near empty.

[cSurfr]

Is spiderman 3 a sub-par transfer? I'm watching it now, and I'm not that impressed. . . However, while at best buy today, they had Open Season running on a 1080p (i think) tv. . it looked amazing.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Is spiderman 3 a sub-par transfer? I'm watching it now, and I'm not that impressed. . . However, while at best buy today, they had Open Season running on a 1080p (i think) tv. . it looked amazing.

Wow so the sucky story somehow rubbed off on the video transfer also?

[exca1ibur]

Blu-ray Review: Spider-Man 3 | High-Def Digest Transfer is rated great, I can't say the same for the film itself.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Is spiderman 3 a sub-par transfer? I'm watching it now, and I'm not that impressed. . . However, while at best buy today, they had Open Season running on a 1080p (i think) tv. . it looked amazing.

What are you watching it on?

The transfer is supposed to be very good. But yeah, the movie itself sux IMHO.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

Is spiderman 3 a sub-par transfer? I'm watching it now, and I'm not that impressed. . . However, while at best buy today, they had Open Season running on a 1080p (i think) tv. . it looked amazing.

I have to agree with you on this one. Hidefdigest seems to give the PQ a good rating. I saw spiderman 3 on Blu-ray demo at CES. Wow, looks no better than the 3 year old Harry Potter #3 movie on HDDVD. Spiderman 3 on Blu-ray has a lot of noise and quite blurry in many scenes.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I have to agree with you on this one. Hidefdigest seems to give the PQ a good rating. I saw spiderman 3 on Blu-ray demo at CES. Wow, looks no better than the 3 year old Harry Potter #3 movie on HDDVD. Spiderman 3 on Blu-ray has a lot of noise and quite blurry in many scenes.

Harry Potter 3 on HD DVD looks very good.

HD DVD Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | High-Def Digest

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Harry Potter 3 on HD DVD looks very good.

HD DVD Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban | High-Def Digest

I'm quite impress with Harry Potter 3 on HDDVD, but disappointed with Harry Potter #1 on HDDVD. I'm saying for a movie that came out in 2007 and it's Sony's biggest money maker, the video quality is no better than Harry Potter #3. Even Serenity on HDDVD looks better than spiderman #3.

[hyteckit]

Hidefdigest gave Resident Evil: Extinction on Bluray a not so great review for PQ. I saw it demo at CES where they loop the scene with Milla stopping the fire from burning the dude and chick. I thought it look better than Spiderman 3 on bluray.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I wonder why they didn't make the rentals 3 days long. Yeah, you can keep it for 30 days, but sometimes I start a movie and then get interrupted and then can't finish it until a couple of days later. Yeah, I'm being picky, but that's just reality.

Why is there a time limit anyway? Why not let you watch it all the way thru whenever? Or is it unlimited watchings over the 3 days after you start it?

[starman]

Plus, why can't you rent HD from iTunes?

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

D
I pay $19/mo for 3Mb/s. I don't think that is expensive at all. If that is expensive, why the hell are you buying so many Blu-ray disc.

So you alone are indicative of the whole Blu-ray market? If you were, the attachment rate would be 144, not 1. Silly PS3 fanboy.

What are you going to do when a new physical media format comes out in 6 years? Replace all your 200+ Blu-ray movies?

I'll be enjoying HD content on HDDVD and from companies like AT&T and Apple, while you profess your love for your PS3 till you are Blu.

That's nice. I pay twice that amount for half that speed with download caps. If you add on top of that the eventual price they will charge when those rentals finally come up to Canada, it's much cheaper for me to go to Blockbuster or Rogers Video and rent a Blu-ray disc for a couple of days to a week versus having only 24 hours to watch a download. I also have the ability to flip through the titles in person and read the specs before making my decision. I personally have not bothered renting because the local BB does not have any titles that I do not already own and I'm only going to rent a movie if I did not like the movie enough to own it.

There are a couple reasons why I've bought the movies that I have.
1. It was only until recently that Blockbuster stocked any HDM let alone blu-ray.
2. Movie downloads are not practical or available where i live.
3. I've been mainly buying movies that I really loved that were available on BOGO sales and Classic movies from the past that I would rarely be able to see in HD on HD Cable on or rental.

So you see, downloads are not a viable replacement for me for either rentals or purchases and there are some movies that I enjoy owning.

I don't understand where you get off calling me a "fanboy" when I own both a blu-ray player and an HD DVD player and 19 HD DVD titles in addition my blu-ray collection. The PS3 is my blu-ray player and I think of it as such.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by starman 

Plus, why can't you rent HD from iTunes?

HDCP. You can thank the video industry for that piece of crap.

[starman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

HDCP. You can thank the video industry for that piece of crap.

But I can BUY HD from Xbox Live....

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by starman 

But I can BUY from Xbox Live....

Well you can RENT from Xbox Live, but it has HDCP, as does the Apple TV. But the Macs do not.

[starman]

I don't see how HDCP matters. If we can rip from HD-DVD and Blu-Ray anyway, who cares? Also, I could pop the Apple TV hard drive into my Mac if I _REALLY_ wanted to get the file.

I think Apple dropped the ball.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by starman 

I don't see how HDCP matters. If we can rip from HD-DVD and Blu-Ray anyway, who cares? Also, I could pop the Apple TV hard drive into my Mac if I _REALLY_ wanted to get the file.

I think Apple dropped the ball.

It matters if you're trying to license video for playback.

Of course there are ways around it, just like there were very simple ways around Macrovision. But now that everything is digital it's a lot easier for licenses to be denied for systems if they do not have HDCP.

[starman]

Ok, so you're saying that we'll be stuck with SD rentals forever? No, I think this is something that could have been resolved.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by starman 

Ok, so you're saying that we'll be stuck with SD rentals forever? No, I think this is something that could have been resolved.

On iTunes we will until Apple ships a computer that includes HDCP, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Unless people make so much of a stink that the industry gives up on it, but I don't see that happening either.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Most consumers know what a surround sound system is and know that they can get it under $500. Probably is most consumer don't care that much around surround sound to go through the hassle of setting up a surround sound system and fork out the $500 for such a system.

Affordable surround sound systems have been available for over 10 years. I can get a surround sound system for under $500 10 years ago, although it was basic Dolby Surround. It just hasn't caught on. Too much of a hassle for most people. Most people watch DVDs without a proper surround sound system setup.

So, you're saying it's not price or knowledge, it's just laziness?

Well, I can kinda agree with that.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

I really don't understand this reasoning. How is being able to RENT 720p movies a month after they come out an alternative to PURCHASING 1080p movies on Blu-ray or HD-DVD right when they are released?

The AppleTV is going after a completely different market than Blu-ray/HD-DVD. It in no way, shape, or form is meant to compete with these high-def formats. It's a completely different beast and, if anything, will compete with DVD players and NetFlix.

I've tried explaining this, but it didn't sink in.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Did anyone really expect retailers to discontinue HD-DVD stuff the instant the Warner announcement was made?

Of course not, distributors still have warehouses full of the things.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

So can the Apple TV play divx files now or only things part of the Apple Ecosystem?

[TETENAL]

The Apple TV could always play videos that are encoded in MP4 which are not "part of the Apple ecosystem". Youtube, thousands of video podcasts and every movie you yourself encode in MP4.

[jokell82]

It can also play tons of other kinds of files with an install of a few codecs.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

It can also play tons of other kinds of files with an install of a few codecs.

so the average buyer knows that and can easily hack it? Wow.

[starman]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

so the average buyer knows that and can easily hack it? Wow.

Good one

[ort888]

Netflix > AppleTV.