29 Million Blu-ray Homes Expected This Year

[pmalter0]

Sony is scared. They have already lost 50% more money on BR than Toshiba lost on HD DVD, and sales are flat -- at best. Believe it or not, HD DVD disc sales have been improving against BR every month this year-- February was better than January and March better than February. To offset HD DVDs lower-cost, Sony had been subsidizing BR disc costs $3/disc in 2007 and it looks like they will be increasing it this year notwithstanding HD DVD's demise. From the looks of the recent press releases (such as the subject of this discussion) they are even increasing their cash payments for support more than they did when Toshiba was still in the fray... amazing.

[jjkilleen]

Doesn't anyone read articles besides just headlines?
First, the '08 sales predicted are 18.8 million.
Second, that's worldwide sales, not just US.
The 29 million is worldwide total Blu-ray homes at the end of '08.

[allargon]

To offset HD DVDs lower-cost, Sony had been subsidizing BR disc costs $3/disc in 2007 and it looks like they will be increasing it this year notwithstanding HD DVD's demise. From the looks of the recent press releases (such as the subject of this discussion) they are even increasing their cash payments for support more then they did when Toshiba was still in the fray... amazing.

Increasing subsidies? Catalog BR titles that were $19.99 at Fry's when HD DVD was around are now $22.99. First Look's first HD DVD title was $19.99. When they debuted on Blu, they priced both the HD DVD and the Blu-Ray at $24.99--no subsidies as they are not a major studio. The porn companies complained not only about replication/authoring costs but lack of replication facilities. They charge so much per disc (usually around $50) that the production costs don't quite matter as much.

Back on topic--this is an interesting article showing that the Trojan horse PS3 continues to show up in homes counting to the Blu-Ray installed base but doesn't show people buying discs. The format war is over. The BDA needs to do more than make press announcements to take Blu-Ray to the next level.

[film11]

Many of the co-workers that I am working with that were thinking of getting a HD disc system now are afraid to spend the money on a new player,, fear of the system not being around in the future and many of these are older people that do not want a game machine to watch a movie....
So I don't see 29million machines being sold over the next nine (or less) months... this is over 3.2million per month....

I agree 100%. I have yet to meet anyone that is thinking of or looking forward to getting a BR player. Most already have more HD options/movies available than they have time to watch! With a flattening economy, spending $400.00 on a player that only has maybe one or two titles in HD (out of an average of 20 DVD releases) per week is no incentive. Also, many people have a bad taste in their mouth from how the eliminationof HD-DVD was handled. (Even if they didn't own aplayer!) The article is simply wishful thinking. The industry shot themselves in the foot as far as mass adoption is concerned.

[akirby]

The industry shot themselves in the foot as far as mass adoption is concerned.

They did that when they failed to agree on a single format. DVD sales flourished even with competition from cable TV, but it didn't happen overnight.

Prices will come down - they always do. And sales will improve. But anyone who thinks it will happen overnight is dreaming. And anyone who thinks the same thing would not have happened if HD DVD had won is also dreaming. Too much competition from upconverting DVD players and cheaper DVDs.

[film11]

The industry shot themselves in the foot as far as mass adoption is concerned.

They did that when they failed to agree on a single format. DVD sales flourished even with competition from cable TV, but it didn't happen overnight.

Prices will come down - they always do. And sales will improve. But anyone who thinks it will happen overnight is dreaming. And anyone who thinks the same thing would not have happened if HD DVD had won is also dreaming. Too much competition from upconverting DVD players and cheaper DVDs.

I disagree. I don't feel it's a single-format issue. As it now stands, they went with a more expensive, profile-challenged (for now) option. The cable TV comparison isn't really valid either as DVD provided a better PQ than cable offered at that time. But HD offerings on cable offers much more content, including indies, classics, and forteign films in HD. And downloads (whatever the pros and cons) is yet another option (albeit still in birth-stages).

The only price drop I'd expect are on players that are not Profile 2.0. Newer players will still be $400 - $500. But even if those dropped by $100.00, that is still a couple hundred more than an equivalent HD-DVD player would have cost. BR just offers too little for too much. Yes, sales will improve...but not to the level that the article indicates. Niche format at best.

[akirby]

that is still a couple hundred more than an equivalent HD-DVD player would have cost.

Here we go again. You can't compare Toshiba HD-DVD player prices with anything - they were subsidized to win the war. If HD DVD had won we'd still be looking at $400 players, or close to that.

Early DVD players were $1,000. Now they're $20. There is absolutely no reason to believe that BD won't see similar progress. If anything the competition from HDTV and downloads should hasten the price drops.

[hharris4earthlink]

Take a look at the Netflix on-line catalog for Blu-ray discs. Blu-ray versions obviously started with the most visually spectacular blockbuster movies, but they're rapidly filling in the blanks. For example I wanted to see two old movies in HD, "Road Warrior" (1981) and "Robocop" (1983)and they were there in Blu-ray. "Road Warror," was especially impressive in HD. It was like watching a whole new movie.

You should also take a look at recent press about sales of the PS3 which show a 120% increase in sales over the last year.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_i ... tory=17876

Henry

[hdtvjim]

some of the claims made in this post are incorrect. Please refer to Richards post to clear the air - editor

HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) and HDCP (High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection) are two seperate things. HDCP is an industry-wide copy protection scheme that prevents the potential interception of digital data between the source, such as a Blu-Ray Player and the display which has an HDCP compliant display or monitor.

HDMI plays directly into this discussion because, as I understand, it is the connector of choice for the "New" HD-ready consumer products. The HDMI connector is multi-purpose, enabling the transport of digital video, audio and control protocols.

To the consumer it means everything can be sent down the cable from the HD DVD player to the display. The digital signal can be converted from HDMI to DVI with a simple adapter. But when you are dealing with an HDCP signal the signal coming down the cable to the monitor or display must "Shake Hands" with each other. Therefore, if any device in the signal path is non-compliant a 1920 x 1080 HDTV picture will not be displayed.

Component video such as Y, Pb and Pr, does not suport the HDCP Hand Shake so what you get, As I understand, is a 960x540 picture so that the image is less than adequate for HD copying.

It directly impacts those HDTVs that only have a DVI or an HDMI input but with no HDCP circuitry. That's the type of HDTV I have and I'm sure many others, at this time, have as well.

As an example, I don't think anyone at this time (March 2008) has a digital projector that can project an HDTV image from a Blu-Ray Player onto the screen because of this HDCP protocal requirement. At least not on any projector I know of yet. I'm sure the consumer electronics manufacturers are addressing this problem.

[hharris4earthlink]

I don't dispute what you're saying but, if true, it's a dangerous sea change from the concept of copy protection. It means that not only can you not copy, you cannot display material that does not conform to HDCP protocol. Rather than protecting the rights of people who create content, it attacks people who would like to use their personal display to view any content. This sounds like the true purpose of HDCP is to extort revenue by creating a HDTV toll booth.

Combining this with Carnegie Mellon's contention that HDCP is not adequate for copy protection, and it would seem that HDCP is a disaster for all parties. Evidently HDCP punishes the innocent while giving a free rein to the guilty.

Hopefully I have this wrong.

Henry