Warner Exclusive Blu-ray= More PS3 sold?

[Mintmaster]

Yeah right, they did all that to lose money...

That's exactly my point. I'm showing you why Sony did not subsidize 8M PS3's for BluRay, because that strategy loses money. They did it for the games/accessories/download sales, just like MS. You think that the movie studios are going to accept having to pay much larger royalties than they do for DVD? At most we're talking maybe 30 cents per BRD by the time volume gets up, and a good chunk of that goes to people other than Sony for codec licenses.

just like Toshiba did and worked so well for them.

Toshiba's strategy was far better than Sony's. They spent a fraction of the money in player subsidies, and would have caught up in disc sales early this year. They quadrupled their base in the time Sony only doubled it.

HD-DVD lost because Warner pulled the plug on HD-DVD. That's out of Toshiba's control. The studios always had the power to end the format war, because they can alter the competitive enviroment.

You provide a cheap player, all you get is no CE will make players for your format because they cannot compete with the cheap player you provide. That's why only Toshiba makes HD-DVD players.

So what? We're only talking about initial traction. Toshiba wouldn't subsidize forever.

You honestly think it's better for a format's initial success to have many manufacturers with $500-$1000 players instead of one manufacturer with $200 players? Get real.

If it wasn't for the millions of PS3s out there, that strategy would have lost, regardless of how many manufacturers they had. And those PS3s still only sold like 10-20% as many standalone players.

Sony will make far more money on games than BRD royalties, and they're not stupid. They're not going to spend 5-10x as much money as necessary to get the same effect. Each subsidized PS3 includes a standard BR drive to get it off the shelf and sell games/accessories/downloads, not to receive a few dollars of BRD royalties over its lifetime.

Royalties of CD are still the biggest cash cow for Toshiba.

Prove it. I went through their finance statements and couldn't find anything to suggest that.

Has it occurred to you that this was Sony's plan all along? That one success would lead to others? Yes, nothing is written in stone, and they have to adapt to whatever their competitors/markets do as they go along, but perhaps their long term vision included using the PS3 to win the Format War long-term? PS3, like its predecessors is a long-term product, btw.

Again, that's my point. Sony hasn't won yet. BR winning the format war helps them, but it does not validate their strategy yet.

 

[Zassk]

When BD was a new Betamax, all the "bullets" hit Sony. Now that BD is the eminent winner, Sony is not the biggest in BD camp LOL

It's not just sour grapes. Sony benefits from BD winning, but is not the biggest beneficiary. Panasonic/Matsushita is the biggest winner as pointed out by Carl B and the linked thread.

There's a lot of talk about "money hats" convincing studios to move one way or another; it wouldn't surprise me if Panasonic was the biggest provider of "money hats" on the BD side, rather than Sony as most would assume.

 

[Mintmaster]

That seems backwards. Explain the logic behind that assertion.

Sony could have taken half their total PS3 subsidies so far and sold three times as many BRD players as HD-DVD players at the same price. The disc ratio would be 3:1 at least.

A better result with far less investment.

Why did Sony go the PS3 route instead? Because they're going to get back their money from games.

Why does a Playstation need a BluRay drive to sell when MS and Wii have done nothing but used the same optical media technology as last generation.

It doesn't need it, but it's a clear differentiation point. Sony thought it would make PS3 really stand out.

Sony up to this time has been pretty good at winning the consoles wars but very spotty winning format wars. Explain to me how a proven brand needs a format with no track record?

I never said it does need it. Sony, however, thought it would help PS3 sales as well as game sales. Of course we'll never know without a parallel universe in which to release a DVD-based PS3...

BluRay has benefitted far more in its relationship with the PS3 than the PS3 has benefitted with BluRay.

Sure, but like I said above, BluRay would have benefitted far more if even half the subsidy money went to standalones. As for PS3 not benefitting from BR, it may still happen, but if it doesn't then it's a miscalculation on Sony's part.

You must be out your mind. Licensing fees from a dominant format such as DVD or CD is big business that generates tons of profit. DVD has generated more profits than the PS2 in the same time frame. you talking licensing fees (pennies) for the media itself plus the fees (dollars) generated per hardware. When I talking hardware, Im talking DVD players as well as DVD-ROM drives. In 2002, the total userbase was ~40 million for DVD players but total userbase was ~140 million for DVD ROM drives. What do you think those numbers are in 2008?

DVD has generated more profits than PS2 only when you include hardware loss in the latter and studio profits in the former. For disc royalties, the latter is far greater than the former. A good 1.4B PS2 titles at maybe $5 each is a lot more than $0.20 per disc of maybe 10B movies in the same time span, particularly for Sony who only get a small piece of that $0.20. With BR they'll get a bigger piece, but still not close to all of it.

Drive royalties could be big, but it's a separate issue from PS3. I firmly believe that Sony would have won the format war anyway with the same strategy as Toshiba (cheap players), especially because Sony is so much bigger. Moreover, it would pretty much make HD-DVD useless, because it loses the only real advantage it had. For royalties from BD-ROM drives, BR was always viewed as the superior solution for data storage.

So then the only advantage of the PS3 strategy is that now you can use BR for games, and hopefully it'll pay off with more console and game sales due to the superior entertainment product it supposedly allows over DVD. This is where Sony is getting their subsidy money back.

Hence my point.

 

[one]

DVD has generated more profits than PS2 only when you include hardware loss in the latter and studio profits in the former. For disc royalties, the latter is far greater than the former. A good 1.4B PS2 titles at maybe $5 each is a lot more than $0.20 per disc of maybe 10B movies in the same time span, particularly for Sony who only get a small piece of that $0.20. With BR they'll get a bigger piece, but still not close to all of it.

Drive royalties could be big, but it's a separate issue from PS3. I firmly believe that Sony would have won the format war anyway with the same strategy as Toshiba (cheap players), especially because Sony is so much bigger. Moreover, it would pretty much make HD-DVD useless, because it loses the only real advantage it had. For royalties from BD-ROM drives, BR was always viewed as the superior solution for data storage.

So then the only advantage of the PS3 strategy is that now you can use BR for games, and hopefully it'll pay off with more console and game sales due to the superior entertainment product it supposedly allows over DVD. This is where Sony is getting their subsidy money back.

Comparing royalties of PS3 game software with movie software is nonsense unless R&D costs for building a console platform and building a BD player/recorder are the same. In PS3/PS2's case they had to build a new CPU and its fab, buy expensive memory chips, renting servers for PSN etc etc. Also the Blu-ray business for Sony is not only about third-party royalties, they also sell blue-violet laser diodes and replicate discs.

Since all Blu-ray drives support DVD they still have to pay DVD royalties to Toshiba for hardware, but they don't have to pay Toshiba for software now. When the absolute replication cost for BD gets reasonably cheap, the fact that all PS3 games are on BD-ROM will be significant.

I doubt BD could have won without PS3, one of the advantages in HD DVD was the cheaper disc replication cost that directly affects studio support. Another reason is Microsoft who supports HDi in HD DVD and hates Java in BD, it can offer Toshiba monetary support. In addition, cheap BD players would have scared off other manufacturers as pointed out already. Toshiba is benefiting from DVD royalties (They are actively protecting the IP) but is not making much money in manufacturing DVD hardware themselves. Toshiba's intent was to maintain the status quo, it doesn't care about how other manufacturers make money.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I've really come around to the idea that this entire thing is irrelevant. I didn't think it'd get here this soon, but I've recently changed my mind. For North America, anyway.

Why do you think the writers are on strike? Because they want royalties based upon digital distribution, not just physical distribution.. and the studios won't agree.

So one side says 'We've got to have this' and is fighting as hard as they can for it, and the other side says 'We're not giving that to you' and are fighting as hard as they can for it.

There's a reason why nobody has CD's anymore, everybody has MP3 players. The CD is dead.

There won't ever be another "physical" replacement for the vinyl album. We went to cassette, we went to compact disc, and now we're digital and done.

Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will never replace the DVD. The DVD went digital and at that point, just like the CD, the game was over.

I think Sony made a huge miscalculation investing so much in a physical format, because even if Blu-ray "wins" (and it looks now like it will), you're talking about maybe 5 years. Not 15 or 20. And when you're talking about pennies per copy of royalties, you need those 15 years because 5 years won't repay the losses sustained to establish it.

More PS3's sold? Maybe. But Blu-Ray wasn't there to sell PS3's. PS3 was there to sell Blu-Ray.

 

[wco81]

Digital distribution is years away.

And if you care anything about quality, you hope it never comes because they will pass off much lower quality (bitrate starved) encodes as HD.

But like MP3, that may be good enough for people. Hell DVD is good enough, including for many HDTV owners.

And writers are also striking for higher royalties on packaged media. That is where the money is currently ($42 billion according to WB).

It will take a long long time before digital distribution approaches anywhere close to that number.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Digital distribution is years away.

Actually, digital distribution is here now. It's only a matter of market penetration and then it's just a timing issue. Will Blu-Ray revenues recover costs before penetration of digital distribution is achieved.

Do we have a source that can compare physical HD distribution to digital distribution? Physical HD distribution itself is so limited, I don't think it can establish itself as a dominate format for enough years to recover the initial costs. Especially not for Sony and the PS3.

Last I checked, just according to Comcast numbers, more individuals downloaded movies On Demand then were purchasing HD-DVD players and Blu-Ray players combined.

Sure, Comcast is the largest, but they clearly aren't the only provider.

I don't think it's as far away as you believe. Certainly not far enough away to recover the costs. DVD has lasted what? 7 or 8 years? (so far.. obviously it will continue). I don't see Blu-Ray or HD-DVD lasting that long, digital distribution will shrink the lifespan dramatically.

And writers are also striking for higher royalties on packaged media. That is where the money is currently ($42 billion according to WB).

It's my understanding that the writers were actually offered a deal for packaged media before the strike and they refused solely because of the complete refusal to include digital distribution. (Or "Other/new media") That deal was pulled when the writers went on strike.

Also, the writers sign 3 year contracts. So the main focus of their strike is that they believe digital distribution will be a major source of revenue for the studios within the 3 years their current contract would run through.

So they aren't looking at digital distribution as something that is 'years away'.

They're looking at it as an important revenue source within the next three years that they feel they should get a piece of.

 

[Zassk]

The XBLM downloads may be "only" 720p with DD sound, but I've never heard anyone who actually tried it complain about the quality. All firsthand accounts that I've seen say that you can "barely" tell the difference from Blu-Ray.

It certainly sounds like it is "good enough for people", as wco81 puts it.

And this is at a bitrate that is reasonable for widespread adoption with today's broadband (3-6 Mb/s).

Only a lack of awareness is holding it back. Maybe an HD offering by Apple would raise awareness.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Only a lack of awareness is holding it back. Maybe an HD offering by Apple would raise awareness.

I would fully expect Apple to get 'into the game' and that will only help to decrease the relevance of physical distribution.

Didn't NetFlix just sign a huge deal with somebody to move into the digital distribution sector because they've already realized that their business model of physical distribution has a very clear end date?

 

[one]

It's not just sour grapes. Sony benefits from BD winning, but is not the biggest beneficiary. Panasonic/Matsushita is the biggest winner as pointed out by Carl B and the linked thread.

There's a lot of talk about "money hats" convincing studios to move one way or another; it wouldn't surprise me if Panasonic was the biggest provider of "money hats" on the BD side, rather than Sony as most would assume.

Things are not that simple.

Most of Blu-ray's basic properties were defined by Philips and Sony in 1999.
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12801677

One of the options to increase the capacity and data rate for HDTV broadcasts is to use the advanced optical rewritable system known as DVR-blue, with its large capacity and data rate. Announced in 1999 by Philips and Sony, the system uses a blue laser with an even smaller wavelength that the red one used in DVD (405 nanometers, against 650 nm for DVD).

http://www.nikkeibp.com/nea/oct99/tech/

DVR Concept Defined

The symposium’s attendees were astonished at the volume of papers presented by the Philips Research-Sony group. A total of nine papers related to the digital video recording (DVR) optical disk system developed jointly by the two.

The DVR specification calls for two lenses in a row to yield an object lens with an NA of 0.85, which is to be used with an optical disk with a recording layer that is protected with a thin (0.1mm) transparent cover. The optical system is essentially the same as that announced by Sony in 1996, but the light source has been switched to a blue-violet laser to boost areal recording density. In addition, the specification is now more completely defined, with disclosures having been made on record encoding, error correction and physical address format (Fig 1).

According to the Philips Research-Sony group, technology development will be a two-stage process. The first stage will be directed at DVR-red systems, using the same 650nm red laser diode now utilized in DVD read-only memory (DVD-RAM) drives. A 12cm diameter disk will be able to store 9.2 Gbytes per side, with a track pitch of 0.45µm (land-groove recording), a per-bit recording length of 0.21µm and a continuous data transfer rate of 33 Mbits/s.

Next will come the development of DVR-blue systems, using a 405nm blue-violet laser diode. The group has already used the Nichia Chemical blue-violet laser diode to record and play data on a 12cm, 22 Gbyte phase-change disk. Tests on a 25 Gbyte disk indicate that the modifications to the recording layer that are required should be possible, making it another candidate for the system. A data transfer rate of 35 Mbits/s is thought to be essential, specifically to handle high-definition television (HDTV) image recording. Sony has verified that the blue-violet laser diode can be driven with a 66MHz channel clock frequency, which is equivalent to a data transfer rate of 35 Mbits/s.

The record encoding is an improved version of (1, 7) run-length limited (RLL), called P-RMTM, which stands for prohibit-repeated minimum transition run-length, or more simply, just 17PP. This technique was recently developed as a means of reducing jitter on rewritable disks. The error-correction scheme has also been revamped. The thinner cover layer (0.1mm) increases the risk of errors due to fingerprints or other deposits on the surface, and the error-correction technique has been strengthened in response. Long-distance error correction (LDC) coding was modified to include a burst indicator subcode for estimating where burst error occurs. The error correction block size is 64 Kbytes.

Panasonic's contribution comes later in 2001 with the dual-layer rewritable technology.
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011018S0107

Matsushita develops 100-Gbyte optical video disk

Yoshiko Hara Yoshiko Hara (10/18/2001 6:25 HΠEDT)

TOKYO — A dual-layer rewritable optical-disk technology has been developed by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., one of the main technology leaders in digital video disks. Using a set of violet lasers with a numerical aperture (NA) of 0.85 and a 0.1-mm cover layer, the company has developed disks that have a capacity of 50 Gbytes per side, which allows the recording of more than four hours of high-definition programs, two hours per side.

Matsushita plans to present the technology Friday (Oct. 19) at the International Symposium on Optical Memory in Taipei, Taiwan.

Matsushita's announcement follows Hitachi Ltd.'s recent development of an optical pickup that aims for a capacity of 100 Gbytes per disk. Hitachi used the same numerical-aperture and cover-layer parameters as Matsushita.

This set of parameters was first used in the DVR-Blue disk recording system developed by Sony Corp. and Philips Electronics and demonstrated at last year's Ceatec, the largest electronics show in Japan. The departure from the current DVD format, however, was looked on with disapproval.

"It's not desirable for the industry to have split formats. The basic disk structure is almost the same as the one that Sony proposed. When a disk has a single layer, it would be quite similar to Sony's. We hope such a resemblance will work favorably to establish a unified format," said Shin-ichi Tanaka, director of Matsushita's optical-disk systems development center.

The numerical aperture controls these parameters, said engineers. To develop a high-capacity disk using a current optical system and a laser with a wavelength of about 400 nanometers, a large NA is essential, and 0.85 is within practical reach.

In any case a piece of the pie is bigger for each related party due to the absence of Toshiba in this 0.1mm cover-layer format.

 

[Mintmaster]

I doubt BD could have won without PS3, one of the advantages in HD DVD was the cheaper disc replication cost that directly affects studio support. Another reason is Microsoft who supports HDi in HD DVD and hates Java in BD, it can offer Toshiba monetary support. In addition, cheap BD players would have scared off other manufacturers as pointed out already. Toshiba is benefiting from DVD royalties (They are actively protecting the IP) but is not making much money in manufacturing DVD hardware themselves. Toshiba's intent was to maintain the status quo, it doesn't care about how other manufacturers make money.

Cheaper disc cost and Microsoft's blessing didn't help Toshiba as it was, so I don't see why you're bringing those up again. If Sony subsidized a quarter as many standalone players as they did PS3s, they'd have a ratio even bigger than the 2:1 figure that so many people are claiming is the biggest reason Warner chose BR.

Where would the other manufacturers go? Certainly not to HD-DVD. Their presence had very little impact on both Warner's decision and the disc ratio.

Of course Toshiba doesn't care about profits for other manufacturers. Neither does Sony. Toshiba saw an opportunity to make money with a superior solution to HD media (virtually identical quality/features at lower cost) so they went for it. They knew Sony was putting BR in the PS3 and had little chance of winning the war, but figured they could co-exist in a competitive environment. They were probably right, but that doesn't apply now because Warner's defection changes the marketplace immensely.

 

[Mintmaster]

Last I checked, just according to Comcast numbers, more individuals downloaded movies On Demand then were purchasing HD-DVD players and Blu-Ray players combined.

For some reason people seem to forget about the cable companies, Verizon FIOS, etc. There's no need for a big transition here like XBox 360s or PS3s in each house. Those communication companies already provide people with a set-top box, and adding new features to them like movie storage isn't that big of a leap to make, nor is it even necessary as on-demand is likely good enough and is the model that the industry prefers anyway.

I don't know if digital distribution will become mainstream. However, it has an advantage over HD-DVD/BR in that it provides another level of convenience, just like DVD did over VHS.

 

[one]

Cheaper disc cost and Microsoft's blessing didn't help Toshiba as it was, so I don't see why you're bringing those up again. If Sony subsidized a quarter as many standalone players as they did PS3s, they'd have a ratio even bigger than the 2:1 figure that so many people are claiming is the biggest reason Warner chose BR.

That logic is flawed since a non-PS3 cheap Sony player wouldn't have gotten enough studio support in the first place. Fox might support BD because of BD+, but other than that there's no reason for other studios to support BD exclusively without the absolute install base of PS3.

 

[quest55720]

I think Sony made a huge miscalculation investing so much in a physical format, because even if Blu-ray "wins" (and it looks now like it will), you're talking about maybe 5 years. Not 15 or 20. And when you're talking about pennies per copy of royalties, you need those 15 years because 5 years won't repay the losses sustained to establish it.

More PS3's sold? Maybe. But Blu-Ray wasn't there to sell PS3's. PS3 was there to sell Blu-Ray.

I think sony made a grave mistake because I do not believe blu will replace DVD. I am not sure if it will be DD or another physical form but something will come along that will appeal more to the public. It is all about other factors like form factor or conveince that wins over the general public. DVD is so entrenched it will be a decade before blu has any sort of chance and by then something else will come along. I feel blu will be the next LD they sealed its fate the minute the media was not backwards comaptible with DVD players. They should of either made a twin disc or a flipper to ease the transition to blu. Instead of the average family it is go all blu media or none at all.

With all it has cost sony anything short of blu putting up DVD like numbers I think will lose them money. They handed over the video game market and have so far lost a ton of money. That video game market share will be very hard to get back. It is going to cost even more money to get it back if they ever do again. Instead of 70% market share they will be lucky to be at 35% beating out MS but getting killed by nintendo. A PS3 launched at 299/399 wipes the floor with the 360 and they split the market with nintendo. They also steal away those hardcore gamers that buy game after game from MS. I wonder what the losses really will be they through away 5-7 years in the video game industry on top of the losses to win this war.

What does losing 30-40% of the videogame market over 5-7 years mean in the terms of money? I would be curious to know that.

 

[patsu]

I agree that digital distribution is the future. I also agree that it is here today via settop boxes and download services. But I think Blu-ray can complement digital distribution. It comes in most handy when and where network is weak/absent. e.g., It also offers convenience when packed with premium content for all devices.

Blu-ray has other uses (for consumers and businesses). It is important for BDA to roll out BD-Live and higher speed BD writers asap. In this sense, it is a Java platform; not just a single-purposed movie playback solution. As I understand, Blu-ray is rather popular in Japan as a writer format because (i) people need to exchange and keep larger/more media these days; (ii) It is truly scratch-proof. The trick is to push Blu-ray into as many application areas as possible. e.g., The disc media may enable stronger and fine-grained DRM (compared to a video file), and hence endorses more flexible usage such as user editing (for school projects).

The rest will depend on how BDA markets it. Price point, relevance, HD TV trends, etc. are all key to Blu-ray's future. It is too early to conclude that Blu-ray has missed the boat.

At least we know there will be tens of millions of Blu-ray households in a few years time.

 

[-tkf-]

I've really come around to the idea that this entire thing is irrelevant. I didn't think it'd get here this soon, but I've recently changed my mind. For North America, anyway.

Why do you think the writers are on strike? Because they want royalties based upon digital distribution, not just physical distribution.. and the studios won't agree.

So one side says 'We've got to have this' and is fighting as hard as they can for it, and the other side says 'We're not giving that to you' and are fighting as hard as they can for it.

There's a reason why nobody has CD's anymore, everybody has MP3 players. The CD is dead.

There won't ever be another "physical" replacement for the vinyl album. We went to cassette, we went to compact disc, and now we're digital and done.

Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will never replace the DVD. The DVD went digital and at that point, just like the CD, the game was over.

I think Sony made a huge miscalculation investing so much in a physical format, because even if Blu-ray "wins" (and it looks now like it will), you're talking about maybe 5 years. Not 15 or 20. And when you're talking about pennies per copy of royalties, you need those 15 years because 5 years won't repay the losses sustained to establish it.

More PS3's sold? Maybe. But Blu-Ray wasn't there to sell PS3's. PS3 was there to sell Blu-Ray.

Movies can not be compared to music. Music is someting you take with you today, wonna experience HiDef on a iPOD?

Music is easy to distribute, 3 formats cover it all. MP3, AAC and WMA. DRM however is still a problem though finally it´s fading.

Downloadable movies? Yes as competition for rentals and that has been that way for a long time with VOD and stuff like that.

Blu-Ray will be here for a very long time.

 

[Mintmaster]

That logic is flawed since a non-PS3 cheap Sony player wouldn't have gotten enough studio support in the first place. Fox might support BD because of BD+, but other than that there's no reason for other studios to support BD exclusively without the absolute install base of PS3.

Why not? I don't see the difference in Sony promising to subsidize PS3s and Sony promising to subsidize BluRay players.

Even with the crappy attach ratio on the PS3, Paramount signing the HD-DVD contract, the news about Walmart and China, and HD-DVD having a huge increase in userbase over the last four months, Warner still switched to BR.

At the time the format war was in its infancy, they knew Sony+Pioneer+Panasonic is much bigger than Toshiba and want BR to succeed, they knew Sony Pictures would use BR, they knew a PS3 sale is not equivalent to a standalone player (just like with PS2), and they were not disillusioned when the early 20:1 PS3:HD-DVD ratio didn't result in a remotely similar ratio with movie sales.

I don't see why you think a standalone strategy would look unattractive to the studios compared to the PS3 strategy.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why not? I don't see the difference in Sony promising to subsidize PS3s and Sony promising to subsidize BluRay players.

The PlayStation brand was expected to sell many millions of units, whereas it's uncertain that a...$300 subsidized launch BRD player would have sold that many because of the old dubious position of people actually noticing any benefit in HD media. Would people consider HD movies worth a $300 investment? Or would they be happy to stay with (upscaled) DVDs until the price came down to $100? Looking at standalone HD player sales, it seems to me the ordinary movie buying public hasn't been interested in getting standalone HD players. As you say, despite cheap HD DVD players, that format hasn't kept the market share. $200 Hd DVD players aren't selling as well as expensive PS3s (AFAIK, though I've never seen figures. But there hasn't been much noise about HD DVD's hardware unit success!). PS3 didn't have that concern. It didn't need buyers to have a vested interest in buying into an HD movie format. It offered a platform for people to own for many functions, which as a by-product got millions of BRD players into people's homes. Some of those people would have bought BRDs just out of curiosity, or whatever...the end result is more BRD players are out there than standalone players would likely have sold going by existing standalone player sales, and there are more BRD sales than HD DVD sales.

the argument that subsidized BRD players could have produced as large if not a larger install base would need some evidence that contradicts existing standalone player sales. You'd need to show something that supports in numbers that more than 9 million standalone BRD players would have been sold in the past year if they were available at $300, or whatever the price would be. Or at whatever price and reductions from BRD launch if that was much different from PS3's launch. IIRC it was perhaps a couple of months earlier? I'm not following this industry closely...

 

[wco81]

Like I said, if you care anything about quality, OnDemand and any other DD scheme is not for you.

But it may take off in the mass market, just as MP3 did.

Studios want a packaged media business AND DD where there's not too much cannibalization.

Look at the RIAA. Music downloads are growing like crazy but they grouse about the decline of CD sales. They want it all.

Studios will price download movies at high prices if iTunes is any indication. IOW, not much different than DVDs, even though digital distribution has a fraction of the cost.

So as consumer, would you pay $15 or more for a download movie? At least with a piece of physical media, you can resell and recover some costs. Not to mention more reliable and you don't have to worry about inevitable hard disk failure.

 

[-tkf-]

Like I said, if you care anything about quality, OnDemand and any other DD scheme is not for you.

But it may take off in the mass market, just as MP3 did.

Studios want a packaged media business AND DD where there's not too much cannibalization.

Look at the RIAA. Music downloads are growing like crazy but they grouse about the decline of CD sales. They want it all.

Studios will price download movies at high prices if iTunes is any indication. IOW, not much different than DVDs, even though digital distribution has a fraction of the cost.

So as consumer, would you pay $15 or more for a download movie? At least with a piece of physical media, you can resell and recover some costs. Not to mention more reliable and you don't have to worry about inevitable hard disk failure.

Until we see a unified system where the files can be moved inbetween providers,hardware,backed up and equals BD etc it wont be big. Rentals, yeah, buying movies? why?