Okay. That’s more like it. Walmart is offering the Magnavox NB500MG1F Blu-ray player for $68. Yes, there are lots of features that you don’t get with this basic model, but it does have an HDMI connection and an SD card slot. And it’s not even Black Friday!
This brings Blu-ray into range for the average buyer. [...]
Spoirier, you are correct. The link now shows $78 as the price. All I can say is that it was $68 when I wrote the column, and prices can change quickly.
I'd still argue that the $78 price still supports my basic conclusion. Instead of being hundreds more than a DVD player, it's something like $50 more, which is a small enough difference for many people to make the switch to Blu-ray.
Hey, I'm standing right here! I chose HD DVD to beat Blu-ray, but I never thought either would get to competitive prices this quickly. I still think that Blu-ray is too little, too late, and will never come close to DVD's success. But I'm ready to be proven wrong on that, too. (I'm getting used to it. <g>)
Of course it won't be the great leap that DVD was in comparison to VHS:
smaller, lighter, less easily damaged, no rewinding, digital discrete channel full range surround sound, direct chapter access, cheaper to mfr
Going from DVD to BD is much less dramatic - BD-Live and better quality audio and video.
I've never viewed BD as a DVD replacement - just a better quality option for those with the equipment and desire to take advantage of it. I also believed that as soon as the war was over we'd see 3rd party mfrs start to make BD players and that competition would drive down the cost over time (as opposed to the artificially low, subsidized prices on the Toshiba HD DVD players).
I expected HD DVD to do the same if it had won the war. For me it wasn't a question of HD DVD or BD, it was a question of picking one and letting the market evolve and move forward with competition and it appears that time has arrived.
Years ago I bought a cheap DVD player because it was cheap. I thought digital was digital and the picture and sound would be just fine for me. It was-when it worked. About a third of the discs wouldn't load, and half of the ones that did load had all kinds of freezes and stutters. I have since come to the opinion that "works as advertised" requires a larger investment than the minimum. I have been willing to pay it. Time will tell if this applies to Blu-ray players, also. I suspect it will.
I agree that you get what you pay for, but I suspect that the Blu-ray licensing fees are still high enough to keep the rabble out of the market. I don't know who the manufacturer is behind the Magnovox player that I mention here, so there is still plenty of opportunity for there to be corners cut inside the box, but I suspect that it's still better made than some of the cheap Chinese DVD players that have flooded the market.
As a person who has had the Magnavox 500MG9 for over a year (got it for $110 when THAT was considered a bargain!), I would say that it is better than many of the higher priced brand-name players. One can check any AV site and find people who are finding that players from Sony, Panasonic, etc. won't play this disc or that title. However, the Magnavox has played EVERY SINGLE TITLE (even the problematic ones) without fail. And it has had a LOT of use! When the time comes for it to be junked or replaced, I'll probably look at the Mag before most of the other brands.
The manufacturer is Funai, who also make the Sylvania and Insignia (Best Buy's version) players. For those who really want a $69.99 player, Shop-Rite supermarkets has a sale on BD players by a brand labelled "Hiteker". Never heard of them, but the sale goes on until 2/13
Thanks for sharing your experience with the Magnavox Blu-ray player, film11; I'm sure many people will find it helpful. And thanks for flagging the Shoprite sale information.
BTW, Funai makes products for many familiar brands, as they have licensed a lot of them. These include Sylvania, Magnavox, Phillips (TVs in North America), Emerson, and Symphonic.
Everyone is entitled to opinion but many factors were ignored regarding the comment that Blu-ray will be replaced by streaming in 5 years.
Granted, anything is possible in CE, but:
1) Blu-ray has been reported many times as a format that took much less than DVD to reach similar success, and prices on the players have come down much faster than DVD. Blu-ray was established in 2006, in a battle with HD-DVD for over a year. It took 3 years, but actually 2 with no competition, to reach this level of pricing and penetration.
Conversely, DVD was established with no competition in 1996, with an obvious improvement over VHS in quality and practicality of media; however, it took many more years to reach the same price level of players.
2) Due to bandwidth limitations, online streaming has high difficulty to match the high-bit in Mbps of a Blu-ray movie. This is not about 1080p, anyone can do 1080p with extreme compressions; this is about how good the 1080p image is.
Certainly anyone adopting MP3 as the audio of choice would not care that much for quality of video or audio, but consumers are increasingly buying larger 1080p sets and that video quality shows on those screens, reason by which sales of Blu-ray players and discs are accelerating by the day.
3) For the same bandwidth reasons, online services cannot match the loss-less audio quality, 7.1 channels, 20+ Mbps, of Blu-ray. Streaming lacks on ALL of those audio factors.
4) Regarding the comment about Chinese products, as an image of a low quality product, ironically one of the best DVD and Blu-ray brand of players in the market over that past few years is actually coming from a company that originated in China: OPPO.
The point is, a generalization of this kind should be avoided in consideration to the success, and flawless reviews, of these players, and maybe other products.
5) The factor of the personal value of collecting movies in their original boxes can never be discarded as a market, laserdisc players are still a component in many HTs for the movie aficionados that collected movies at prices that cost 3 times as high as current Blu-ray discs, DVD players and CD players/transports will also be in HTs, and Blu-ray players will still be as well.
As we progress with technology, many of those HTs could also have an online service for movies, but the factors/components above would not go away for many consumers, especially those that purchased a good number of pre-recorded media on those formats, or have some specific titles that are not re-released in new formats.
6) Blu-ray lossless audio at 7.1 started to be used by recording companies to deliver hi-quality multi-channel audio using the capabilities of Blu-ray, now that DVD-Audio and SACD are abandoned as formats. It would be very difficult for online audio to match that level of quality, but again, some may say that MP3 sound the same to them.
7) Blu-ray is becoming now a 3D source of quality with dual 1080p images unmatched by any other distribution system, not to mention online systems under the bandwidth limitations mentioned above.
As I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, in my case I rather do a deeper analysis of the factors above so I can properly qualify statements.
Rodolpho, my late stepfather loved to say "It's a difference of opinion that makes horse races." You certainly make some fine points, and I don't dispute your facts. I do dispute a few conclusions, but that's what makes us analysts. For example, you seem to be looking through the lens of the audiophile and videophile who appreciates the differences in quality that top products can deliver. I base my analysis on a broader view of the market, where studies still show that a large number of people think that they're watching HD content when they watch a standard DVD on an HDTV. I agree that there will always be Runco (or equivalent brand), but I also believe that their products will never be sold at WalMart.
I hesitate to answer another side of your message publicly, but since you posted it I feel I should respond here as well. You imply that my analysis is not studied or fact-based. You also twist one of my statements and criticize me for my statement about Chinese products: "The point is, a generalization of this kind should be avoided in consideration to the success, and flawless reviews, of these players, and maybe other products." I would argue that you did not read my statement carefully. This is what I wrote: "I suspect that it's still better made than some of the cheap Chinese DVD players that have flooded the market." I did not write a blanket indictment of Chinese products. Unless you're willing to endorse all "Chinese DVD players" as being of top quality, I think that you have mistated my position and then criticized me for it.
We can certainly agree on the facts and still come up with different opinions, but implying that I need to do "a deeper analysis of the factors" is not a great way to encourage a meaningful discussion.
Have to agree with Alfred. Most consumers either do not have the equipment for 7.1 audio. Most AV receivers that people own don't even have HDMI inputs. (Sadly, few BD playerrs even provide compnent Audio-outs for uncompressed audio compatible with those receivers. And that is assuming that most people even both using an external receiver at all! At least 1/3 of HDTV owners do not even have an HD p[rovider (cable, satellite, etc.). You'd be surprised at how many people think they are watching HD, just because a "Presented in HD" tag appears on a channel. Far too many consumers feel that that what they are seeing via standard DVD is "good enough." I won't even get into how they set up aspect ratios, etc.
I agree with the comments about streaming video, but that option is VERY popular and its use seems to be rising much faster than BD, simply for the convenience facxtor, if nothing else. While I could never imagine myself watching video on a tiny cell-phone screen, most other don't mind. It is that preference that is one of the main reasons the prices of some players have dropped. In today's tough economy, a $200 BD player over a $50 upconverting (another function that most consumers don't truly understand) player is not going to get the average consumer to run to the store.
The $68 or $ 78 unit was not out of stock; there was no "slot" for it, as in no price card or spacing, which means it was not there (probably never there). The store had plenty of Blu Ray players $119.99 and up.
Oh yeah, this is wonderful. Now all the cheap SOBs can celebrate. Thank god we have Walmart to provide crap to people who crap. Where would we be without it? Whatever happened to saving your pennies and then buying something that you were proud of? Who cares if you can buy a cheap Blu-Ray player? Don't encourage those idiots. Encourage people to appreciate the difference in purchasing a better model and spending their money wisely. By the way, have you ever streamed an online movie? Onto a display device larger than 32"? They look like crap. And there is not one online service out there that streams hi-res audio. Blu-Ray will be around for a long time because 1. people still like to own physical copies of things and 2. the picture and sound is far superior to anything that is streamed.
The point was made a year ago that Blu-Ray was too expensive and would never result in less expensive players like DVD or HD DVD (ignoring the fact that HD DVD players were heavily subsidized by Toshiba). I said this was wrong and having one format would encourage third party mfrs which would eventually drive the price down substantially. This would appear to be happening.
With decent players available for < $200 and cheap players available for <$100 it simply means that more players will be purchased and more BD discs will be purchased guaranteeing future viability for the format.
I'd be willing to bet that more sub $200 players will be sold than more expensive players - by a wide margin - within a year or so. That's just the nature of consumers.
By the way, have you ever streamed an online movie? Onto a display device larger than 32"? They look like crap.
While you're Blu-ray points are valid, your statement above is a gross generalization. I stream movies all the time on services like Xbox LIVE, Netflix (in HD), and Apple TV ... on displays ranging from 32" to 55" ... and none of them "look like crap". Nowhere near Blu-ray, granted ... but still not as bad as you describe. I suspect your sample pool is quite shallow.
My sample pool includes video displays from 2" to over 200"; right out of the box below consumer grade garbage display devices to fully calibrated reference video displays in ambient light controlled environments; promotional bare minimum video playback devices to price no object video playback devices.
If you are admitting that the video is "Nowhere near Blu-Ray" then you are admitting that is it crap. Guess what? Blu-Ray isn't the best thing out there, either. Have YOU ever seen a 4k video source played back through a $275k projector (that is meant to be installed in someone's home) and displayed on a 14ft screen in a rather well lit room? And actually had a previous point of reference to compare it to?
Just because streaming video is convenient does not make it OK. We all need to band together to convince studios and electronics manufacturers that the status quo is not acceptable and that better video sources and display devices should be made available to us. I hope that Blu-Rays fails not because crappy video was deemed acceptable by the masses but instead because a higher quality video delivery system replaced it.
Don't let video go the way of audio. Compressed audio sounds bad. Nothing will change that - not even mass market acceptance of crappy technology.
If you are admitting that the video is "Nowhere near Blu-Ray" then you are admitting that is it crap.
There is nothing wrong with 720p/1080i ATSC HD on a 1080p display and 1080p BD is certainly better. I think your perspective has been seriously skewed by outrageously expensive equipment.
My sample pool includes video displays from 2" to over 200"; right out of the box below consumer grade garbage display devices to fully calibrated reference video displays in ambient light controlled environments; promotional bare minimum video playback devices to price no object video playback devices.
I'm referring to your sample pool of source material, not display devices.
My point is this: Given the choice between streamed HD vs. Blu-ray, I'll choose Blu-ray every time. Who wouldn't? But I have seen many sources of streamed content that are quite watchable. Far from your "crap" description ... although I guess that's a matter of perspective.
I think your perspective has been seriously skewed by outrageously expensive equipment.
Jeez, I hope so! It certainly wouldn't say much for the outrageously expensive equipment if it didn't skew my perspective into realizing that there are always options to make the experience better.
