710*1.6 = 60% increase not 160%.
I was wrong too. I misread your statement. I was reflecting that they have to increase monthly sales from around 300K to around 1.15 million to meet their sales target for this fiscal year.
NPD June 2007
- Thread starter thatdude90210
- Start date
710*1.6 = 60% increase not 160%.
I was wrong too. I misread your statement. I was reflecting that they have to increase monthly sales from around 300K to around 1.15 million to meet their sales target for this fiscal year.
Well, my original post did say 160% as many, not 160% more. Which, is to be read as 160% of the base. I messed up the wording in my reply to you though...
I see your point. And it's very valid. I still think LIVE is MS's pocket ace.
1) Make Live easy to use as possible. Dumb it down to an average joe level. Which I think they have done a pretty job at.
2) Continue pushing electronic distribution. This will make HD-DVD vs BR irrelevant, beside the day of physical media is over. Bill Gates is right; HD-DVD/BR will probably be the last physical media we going to have. It will matter of time before it will be replace by broadband.
3) Team up with ISP to provide/guaranty streaming of content. If there a level of acceptable service, the quality of video doesn't have to high people will flock to it. Look at YouTube and etc.
a) VHS vs CD/DVD was a no brainer, not because only of the quality but the convince of the media.
b) CD vs MP3, this proves that people will to lose on quality for the portability of the media.
c) DVD vs HD-DVD/BR, hmm, most people can't tell the difference without HD display. Even then an upscaled DVD is satisfactory. I tell you people are lazy.
e) Why haven't electronic media worked already? Because of DRM. The current DRM technology/licenses are too restrictive. If you have a flexible enough DRM people will put up with it.
4) Break Sony's business model. What's Sony business model? 10 year product! We're not living in the 80's/90's anymore. Technology is changing so fast, a company business model of creating a product for 10 years doesn't cut it anymore. A company should be nimble and able to turn on a dime. Look at the PC 3D video card.
a) Build a product that's within consumer's disposable income...like Nintendo.
b) Product must turn a profit quickly to reduce long term risk. Because of changing technology, your product can be obsolete quickly.
c) Find multiple channel of revenue for a given product. This is where MS is doing a good job such as Halo/Gears on 360 and PC, game ads and premium service (Live). Why because you can never know what will work...so you have to do a shotgun approach and see what sticks.
[edit] When I said shotgun approach, I meant small little projects as oppose to larger projects.
If you say so, the market says otherwise - look at DVD sales and rentals compared to On-Demand, PPV or Live. People like to own physical media and those who don't can rent from Netflix.
I think you are on to something.
If SD is fine everyone should stick with DVD and a PS2. So far the adoption rate for HD is on par with previous technologies, if not better.
The Wii was obsolete before it was released, so which do you want, hi-tech or cheap? I for one don't want to buy a low-tech console every two years, is that what you are advocating?
You sure about that? The media sales of HD (movie) content are pretty damned pathetic, I don't recall DVD sales being nearly as lackluster.
The Wii isn't obsolete - it simply uses mature technology. But the things it does, the others don't do, so its clearly differentiated from them rather then surpassed by them.
I agree. We have yet to see DVD on its deathbed, so thinking HD media is anywhere near its death is a little premature.
I think you are on to something.
If SD is fine everyone should stick with DVD and a PS2. So far the adoption rate for HD is on par with previous technologies, if not better.
So far the majority are sticking with DVD and the adoption rate should be better as HD players' price are dropping a lot faster than previous technologies. The adoption rate would be a lot better if it weren't for the fact that the HD is also dependent on the display you use, something DVD didn't have to contend with, which means you can't really depend on hardware numbers with the inclusion of PS3 sales as its not an accurate assessment of how well the HD market is doing. HD software sales are more relevant.
Well Blu-ray is less than a year old and HD-DVD is about a year old. Go back to spring 1998what was the adoption rate of DVD? It didn't reach 10% until spring 2000.
http://www.timefordvd.com/tutorial/DVDTutorial.shtml
Semantics, obsolete was his word.
"Sales are likely to grow slowly until consumers have a better understanding of what high-definition DVD and the two separate formats are, said Russ Crupnick, NPD Group VP-senior industry analyst of entertainment.
A recent NPD survey showed 83% of DVD buyers said they had bought HD DVD titles, and 69% said they had bought BD titles. NPD determined that most had actually bought neither, based on the fact that the titles they reported purchasing were not released in either format.
“So in consumers’ minds, next-generation is closing in on a 2% share of all DVD sales,” said Crupnick. “But in fact, [HD DVD and BD sales] are less than 0.5%.”
Crupnick added that there is stiffening competition for BD and HD DVD as other media forms gain steam. Currently, iTunes’ TV and movie digital sales are 10 times the size of high-def title sales.
Fewer than 10% of DVD buyers said they intend to buy HD DVD or BD in the next six months, when accounting for both HDTV owners and non-owners.
“Research, not speculation, shows that consumers are wildly confused,” said Crupnick. “We need to clarify and educate in order to get that purchase intent from 10% to over 50%.”
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6422896.html
scooby_dooby
Legend
LOL, that's just comedy gold right there.
So it took three years for DVD to get to 10%. I think HD will hit its stride X-mas 2008 with $300 Blu-ray players, no more format war to confuse and much more content. You can already rent HD movies and I've seen many sales for sub $20 movies (got a BD movie for $12 last week).
How is BD or HD going to hit its strive when over half of DVD owner already think they are buying high definition movie disc when they aren't. It obvious there is a large number of DVD owners who incorrectly think they DVD players are capable of high definition playback. You'd think there is a situation where a lot of people are looking at BD and HD players and going "Why buy? My DVD already plays HD movies."
Hard to imagine mass sales even with sub $500.00 players when you have mass market confusion.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's still all very new. You think people were not confused about DVD in 1997/8? I used to say the words "Blu-ray" to friends and get "what?" Now I hardly ever get that, it takes time to educate the population to new tech toys. Six months ago you did not see these formats in Walmart, Costco, Target, etc. Now you do, public perception and knowledge changes fast.
quest55720
Regular
That and all these familys with DVD players in their mini vans and practically every room in the house. No way will they want to buy 2 versions of every movie. Until the HD players get dirt cheap will they catch on with the general pubic.
Most people will not see enough difference between up scaled DVDs and HD-movies to spend the extra money. People for get DVD was like day and night with vhs for everyone and the advantages of not degrading per viewing and no rewinding.
DVD is going to live on for years and years. Until players get dirt cheap and people have begun to replace thier second and third tvs with HD-tvs. That and cheap portable players for the car.
IMO the fastest way to get either format main stream besides cost is to include the regular DVD version with the HD-version. That way people do not have to buy the movie 2 times.
quest55720
Regular
I doubt they were the players were just to damn expensive. People were ready to ditch VHS and all its problems. DVD looked better and sounded better on every TV out there. DVDs do not degrade per viewing like VHS and no rewinding. The masses were ready to move on this time they are not.
There is no compelling reason for the average joe to go buy blue ray or HD-DVD any time soon. On the average 1000 dollar walmart special 37 inch TV people will see enough difference to warrent spending a premium. The average person does not pick apart every flaw in the picture.
They had libraries of VHS movie that did not play in a DVD player, that's a huge reason not to move on. HD-DVD and BD players not only play DVDs, the upconvert them.
That's why I said X-mas 2008. No one is talking about mass adoption in months, this kind of thing takes years, just like DVD did. People seem to have short memories.
The adoption rate of MP3 and iTunes would suggest otherwise. The problem with electronic digital video distribution is the speed of the pipe. Now, I'm not suggesting that we're at an acceptable level. However, with evolving technology acceptable speed broadband will arrive here faster than the current adoption rate of HD-DVD/BR. With the demand on-demand dynamic content, I don't think people will embrace physical media as fast as broadband, even if the quality is less than HD-DVD/BR.
Of course, you can say I don't have anything backing up my conjecture that broadband speed will catch up with HD-DVD/BR adoption rate...and that's true. However, like any technology...its adoption rate is largely depends on marketing and needs. I'm not sure if anyone really needs HD. So this put HD-DVD/BR in the camp of marketing driven. Hence, that's why I suggested MS to push electronic distribution instead of HD-DVD/BR. Let those with less than stellar broadband stay with DVD until high speed broadband is available at an affordable rate.
DVD and PS2 are two different things. When I refer to SD I'm implying 480p/i, not necessary PS2 level graphic. To have a gaming console render amazing graphic at SD resolution is fine...I rather have that than a console that does a couple of polygons at 1080p. However, that's not my point anyway.
I'm not arguing against HD, but the physical media (HD-DVD/BR). Considering the price drop of the HD-DVD/BR, the adoption rate for it isn't as high as previous technology. DVD still rules the market, and it will be a while before HD-DVD/BR can claim victory (if even). IMO at this moment in time, it's not just HD-DVD vs BR, but HD-DVD vs BR vs broadband. I must admit, broadband isn't doing too good, so we will have to see if broadband technology can increase faster than adoption rate that of HD-DVD/BR.
No, I didn't say that. I say build something within the consumer's disposable income. It doesn't mean find the cheap ass technology. I mean, what if PS3 had 14 SPU and 1G of ram? Isn't that better than the current lowly 7 SPU with 512M? But that's just out of reach of most consumer. I'm sure there will be some individual can afford that, but not the mass.
My other comment you quoted "b) Product must turn a profit quickly to reduce long term risk. Because of changing technology, your product can be obsolete quickly.", does not imply Wii is obsoleted. All it means is you must try to reach profitability before something comes along and make your product obsolete. This is the reason why MS is reluctant to reduce their price right away. They want to maximize their profit to reduce risk.
Sure, they can reduce price to gain market share, but what if Sony release a new SDK that will make all developers' jobs easier...where they can port game with just a few clicks. If your product is within their disposable income, they will have no problem abandoning it for another. Of course, the flip side is what if you price it too high because your cost is too high? Well, that's fall back to the point try to build a product within consumer disposable income.
Obsolete refer to stuff no longer in use. The only obsolete technology is the technology not longer in use. If you have an obsolete device it means it's no longer in use. From what I gather, the Wii is not obsolete. It uses mature/cheaper/whatever technology, but not obsolete technology.
Uh huh... is the PS2 obsolete? It sells better than the 360.
TrungGap said:
Well I don't think it is their business model, but why shouldn't a console last 5+ years? Do you want devs to start over every two years with a new platform? PC video cards get released like every nine months, is that a good console business model? They are also $500 at the high end, I wish my $500 video card would lsat 5+ years.
It will still be very new this Christmas. I doubt if you did a survey in 1999, you would find over 70% of users claiming they bought DVD discs for their VHS players. I know that people's general perception and knowledge changes very slowly, I don't think when you can measure perception changes by units of year you can describe that as fast.
Last edited by a moderator:
