Blu ray is doing well even during the slow season

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Generally year to year the period between the 1st and 2nd quarters of the year disc sales slow after the holiday season. This year was not any different for DVD, but Blu ray sales have bucked the trend this year. While over 300 million disc where sold in the last two months of last year, disc sales were also up for the first two months of this year, holding a steady pace equal to the before holiday sales. What is astonishing is the Blu ray market share of some of the biggest titles released this year. Star Trek had a whopping 73% share of the entire disc sales for this title coming from Blu ray. Up was 55% of the entire disc sales coming from Blu ray. Night at the Museum 2 had 68% of the entire disc sales coming from Blu ray, and Inglourious Basterds had 52% of the entire disc sales coming from Blu ray. Blu ray disc sales for the first two months of this year are up 76% over last year at this time. There is no doubt in my mind that Blu ray is no longer a niche product.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4245

[Woochifer]

Those are very surprising numbers for the Blu-ray share of total sales, given that the biggest percentages I'd seen before the holidays were still in the high-30% range. Also, the Nielson Videoscan YTD Blu-ray market split was still below 20% for the overall market, as of January.

This seems to indicate that at least for the big blockbuster movies, Blu-ray has made huge inroads. No doubt this trend benefited from the big disc price reductions on those new release titles during November and December, and the brisk sales of Blu-ray players and HDTVs during the holiday season. I have noticed that BD prices on new releases have gone back up for many titles, but you also have a larger selection of older catalog titles with reduced pricing.

Also, I think that the BD-DVD-Digital Copy combo packs have had at least some market impact. I see that with Disney titles, the digital copy codes can now be used to also access those titles online. Very smart approach.

I agree that Blu-ray is no longer a niche product, and that has been the case for probably more than a year. I think the big picture question now is how much longer the DVD format will remain viable.

My understanding is that sales of Blu-ray players surpassed those of DVD players almost a year ago. Now, you have higher end manufacturers like Oppo and Denon phasing out their DVD players. With Blu-ray price points on course to dip below $100 by the end of the year, mainline manufacturers will have little reason to continue making standalone DVD players once the price points get that close.

With the DVD format, the hardware sales for DVD players surpassed VCRs about two years before the DVD sales surpassed VHS tapes. And once that happened, it took about three years before the studios discontinued VHS releases. Understanding that the VHS and DVD pricing structures were completely different, and the situation with Blu-ray differs because BD players can also play DVDs, it would seem that the DVD format has about 4 or 5 years of viability left, if past trends serve as an accurate indicator.

[klif570]

I bet DVDs are here to stay - they're cheap to make, they're cheap to buy, and there's hundreds of thousands of films available in this format. DVD players however might become obsolete, but since Blue Ray spinners can play DVDs, the both formats will be just as widespread. I think it's quite logical, really..

[Woochifer]

I bet DVDs are here to stay - they're cheap to make, they're cheap to buy, and there's hundreds of thousands of films available in this format. DVD players however might become obsolete, but since Blue Ray spinners can play DVDs, the both formats will be just as widespread. I think it's quite logical, really..

I wouldn't bet on that. The key here is the year-to-year growth of the Blu-ray format, which has been about doubling every year. Studios and retailers alike do not like dual inventories. Once the DVD format reached majority status in 2003 (roughly two years after DVD player sales surpassed VCR sales), VHS got phased out very quickly even though more consumers at that point owned VCRs than DVD players. It was a forced migration, and the studios and retailers wanted that because there's little money to be made for anybody in supporting a rapidly declining format. I see a similar scenario playing out for the DVD format.

Those "hundreds of thousands of films available" (actual number is around 110,000) are the exact reason why the DVD will get phased out at some point. Consumers who want them have already bought them, which effectively caps the market demand for catalog titles on DVD, leaving new releases as the primary market. Yet for new releases, the trend has moved decidedly towards Blu-ray, and catalog titles are now the fastest growing segment for Blu-ray sales. The cut rate prices you see on DVD catalog titles are more a sign of weakening market demand than anything.

[klif570]

I wouldn't bet on that. The key here is the year-to-year growth of the Blu-ray format, which has been about doubling every year. Studios and retailers alike do not like dual inventories. Once the DVD format reached majority status in 2003 (roughly two years after DVD player sales surpassed VCR sales), VHS got phased out very quickly even though more consumers at that point owned VCRs than DVD players. It was a forced migration, and the studios and retailers wanted that because there's little money to be made for anybody in supporting a rapidly declining format. I see a similar scenario playing out for the DVD format.

Those "hundreds of thousands of films available" (actual number is around 110,000) are the exact reason why the DVD will get phased out at some point. Consumers who want them have already bought them, which effectively caps the market demand for catalog titles on DVD, leaving new releases as the primary market. Yet for new releases, the trend has moved decidedly towards Blu-ray, and catalog titles are now the fastest growing segment for Blu-ray sales. The cut rate prices you see on DVD catalog titles are more a sign of weakening market demand than anything.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think VHS and DVD is a fair comparison. VHS is not even a disc, it's inconvenient to use, it's bulky, it's unattractive. DVD and Blu Ray are exactly the same apart from Blu Ray being higher quality. I see it more like SACD vs CD

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think VHS and DVD is a fair comparison. VHS is not even a disc, it's inconvenient to use, it's bulky, it's unattractive. DVD and Blu Ray are exactly the same apart from Blu Ray being higher quality. I see it more like SACD vs CD

Its not the disc, its the format that Wooch is commenting on. VHS was bulky, but people found a way to store them. When DVD came, THEN the hassle of storage became an issue when compared to those thin disc. Now DVD has matured, sales are slowing, nobody is making much money from it, and it is not secure, so it is a persistant target for piracy. Everyone wants it to go away, the studios, the retailers, and the manufacturers.

[Woochifer]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think VHS and DVD is a fair comparison. VHS is not even a disc, it's inconvenient to use, it's bulky, it's unattractive. DVD and Blu Ray are exactly the same apart from Blu Ray being higher quality. I see it more like SACD vs CD

Don't get overly fixated on the physical form factor. The similarity between the VHS/DVD and DVD/Blu-ray coexistence is that both situations require retailers, studios, rental outlets, mail order sites, etc. to maintain dual inventories. In these cases, the newer format is more lucrative because 1) consumers are willing to pay more for the improvements; and 2) the newer format can draw revenues from sales of catalog titles, whereas the older format increasingly relies solely on new releases.

If anything, VHS's pricing structure (which featured a two-tiered rental pricing and sell-through pricing window, along with revenue sharing agreements with the major rental chains) protected the format even with rapidly declining demand.

The DVD is now a devalued format with lower margins because consumers simply will not pay as much as they used to for a DVD. A devalued format can still justify staying in print if it can maintain a high enough volume to make up for the reduced margins, but DVD sales have been declining.

The SACD analogy does not apply because:
1) SACDs never had day-and-date releases like you see with Blu-ray
2) SACD was supported by less than half of the major record labels, whereas Blu-ray is now supported by all of the major movie studios
3) SACD was supported by only a handful of the major consumer electronics manufacturers, whereas nearly all of the major manufacturers have put out a Blu-ray player
4) Blu-ray's market share is way higher than SACD ever had

The market conditions for Blu-ray are way different.

[klif570]

By the way, has anyone heard of 5D DVD?

From wiki - "The 5D DVD, being developed in the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, uses a multilaser system to encode and read data on multiple layers. Disc capacities are estimated at up to 10 terabytes, and the technology could be commercially ready within ten years."

Looks like this war's never gonna end..

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

By the way, has anyone heard of 5D DVD?

From wiki - "The 5D DVD, being developed in the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia, uses a multilaser system to encode and read data on multiple layers. Disc capacities are estimated at up to 10 terabytes, and the technology could be commercially ready within ten years."

Looks like this war's never gonna end..

Then there is holodisc and several other high capacity disc technologies out there. Fugetaboutit! The Blu ray disc is the last movie on disc we will see. When the broadband community gets their act together, digital downloads will be the next step. However, Blu ray still has tons of life in it, and other uses as well.

The only way a new disc technology gets released to the market is when the studios approve of it. Nobody is talking about Blu ray's replacement in Hollywood. But we are preparing for a digital eco system that allows you to watch a movie on any display device, mobile or stationary, whenever you want.

[audio amateur]

I have to say, as long as DVDs are readily available and cheaper then BR, I don't see them going anytime soon. In my opinion, they will only go when they aren't available to the public anymore.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have to say, as long as DVDs are readily available and cheaper then BR, I don't see them going anytime soon. In my opinion, they will only go when they aren't available to the public anymore.

Commodity pricing always comes just before a format's death. VHS where cheaper than DVD's and were readily available, where is it now?

[audio amateur]

Commodity pricing always comes just before a format's death. VHS where cheaper than DVD's and were readily available, where is it now?

DVD movies had a lot to offer compared to VHS. VHS quality plain sucked (both video & sound), as you already know. Not only that, DVD was more practical, compact and offered language selection and interactive menus, not to mention it wasn't backward compatible with VHS. When you think about it, there is a lot going for DVD in that a big chunk of the popultion is probably very happy with DVD as far a video quality goes, especially here in Europe where, as you said people don't have massive screens which show off high def. I'm not going to talk about sound because 90% of the consumer base won't hear or won't have the gear to exploit high def sound.

A friend of mine bought a 32" 720p screen back in 2007. We made comparison of DVD vs BR with irobot and granted, the picture was a little better but I wouldn't go as far as saying it was night and day. As for audio (something we all know so well as audiophiles), the public just isn't interested in small incremental increases in sound quality.

I'm just saying, DVD has a lot going for it. Granted, I'm already looking forward to buying BR and actually withholding DVD purchases in favour of future BR purchases, but hey, I'm not average Joe who likely (at this stage anyways) doesn't see massive benefits in buying BRs when DVDs are cheaper.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

DVD movies had a lot to offer compared to VHS. VHS quality plain sucked (both video & sound), as you already know. Not only that, DVD was more practical, compact and offered language selection and interactive menus, not to mention it wasn't backward compatible with VHS. When you think about it, there is a lot going for DVD in that a big chunk of the popultion is probably very happy with DVD as far a video quality goes, especially here in Europe where, as you said people don't have massive screens which show off high def. I'm not going to talk about sound because 90% of the consumer base won't hear or won't have the gear to exploit high def sound.

While I agree that VHS video did suck, this is a fifth quarter observation. A great majority of folks that bought into VHS did know it sucked at the time did they? Nope, they had nothing really to compare it to. Those of us who had Laserdisc at the time knew VHS sucked, because we actually had something to compare it to. The sound however was another story. VHS sound was no slouch, especially HiFi tracks. If they were not subject to the Dolby encoder/decoder, they could sound quite good actually. In my early days of recording digital audio, I used a Toshiba VCR's(with a PCM encoder) Hifi tracks as a digital backup to magnetic tape with very good results.

AA, there was a lot going for VHS when DVD hit the market. Most folks were quite satisfied with the PQ on their analog televisions at the time. Most folks believed that DVD was not even going to be as good as Laserdisc, but that proved wrong in the end. Most people did not want to re buy their movies nor buy an expensive player to play them. I might add, if people were so satisfied with DVD, then why the sales drop? And how do you explain the sales rise of Blu ray if everyone is so satisfied with DVD?

A friend of mine bought a 32" 720p screen back in 2007. We made comparison of DVD vs BR with irobot and granted, the picture was a little better but I wouldn't go as far as saying it was night and day. As for audio (something we all know so well as audiophiles), the public just isn't interested in small incremental increases in sound quality.

Now you and I both know a 720p television is not a good source for comparison to DVD. Blu rays are a 1080p encoded source that will have considerable degredation with down rezz'd to 720p. You are throwing away quite a bit of encoded information in your comparison, which gives DVD and undeserved additional advantage. Besides that, 720p televisions are at commodity prices here in America, nobody really wants them. A 32" screen is a waste of time with Blu ray resolution, you are not going to see all of the pixels of information on a screen that small. Did you follow the three times height rule for Blu ray viewing? Probably not. Following this rule does make the comparison a little more fair. 5.1 surround sound systems are almost as prevalent as DVD players in this country, it might be different in Europe though.

I'm just saying, DVD has a lot going for it. Granted, I'm already looking forward to buying BR and actually withholding DVD purchases in favour of future BR purchases, but hey, I'm not average Joe who likely (at this stage anyways) doesn't see massive benefits in buying BRs when DVDs are cheaper.

Time does not stand still. When these same people go out into the stores and find Blu ray player prices are really close to DVD player prices, what do you think they will buy - yesterday technology, or tomorrows? Studies have found that once a consumer pulls the plug on a BR player, then tend to buy less DVD's. That my friend is what is happening to DVD sales. In 2005 DVD sales experienced a 5% decline. In 2008 a full year after Bluray hit the market, those losses were close to 20%. As of last year, it was a full 25%. Bluray sales are up 76% over last year, which was up 200% from the year before. Clearly folks are moving away from DVD towards Blu ray. There will always be those left kicking and screaming away with legacy technology, but eventually they will have to move over was all of the support for the product dries up. Already three manufacturers are going to quit making DVD players with more to follow from what I am told.

Lastly, Europe is always behind this country in adopting new audio and video devices made in Japan. So it is natural that Europe is still pretty entrenched with DVD, while America is moving on to Blu ray. However, in saying that, Blu ray adoption is higher on both sides of the Atlantic than DVD was at the same time in its life span according to my NDP data, and that is thanks to the PS3.
To put even more perspective to this - Blu ray is having a faster adoption period than DVD, the CD, high-definition TV sets and several other common household technologies.

So perhaps you both may not have as wide a perspective in your own backyards that you think you do. Europe is a big place, and it does not just circle around the UK right?

[audio amateur]

VHS sound was no slouch, especially HiFi tracks. If they were not subject to the Dolby encoder/decoder, they could sound quite good actually. In my early days of recording digital audio, I used a Toshiba VCR's(with a PCM encoder) Hifi tracks as a digital backup to magnetic tape with very good results.

I'll take your word for it. I suppose the poor sound I remember is probably from re recorded tapes or recorded programs on tv.

if people were so satisfied with DVD, then why the sales drop? And how do you explain the sales rise of Blu ray if everyone is so satisfied with DVD?

I'm not saying BR sales aren't going to rise nor am I saying that DVD sales are going to drop. I'm saying DVDs are going to be around for a bit if their passing isn't forced, especially here in Europe.

Now you and I both know a 720p television is not a good source for comparison to DVD.

This is precisely my point, as you said yourself that the average screen here is smaller than they are in the US. DVD won't look as bad on a not so big screen, especially if the rez is 720p not 1080p. If I was to buy a sub 40" screen and knew I was going to be watching a good amount of standard def material, I would probably rather a 720p set over1080p.

You are throwing away quite a bit of encoded information in your comparison, which gives DVD and undeserved additional advantage. Besides that, 720p televisions are at commodity prices here in America, nobody really wants them. A 32" screen is a waste of time with Blu ray resolution, you are not going to see all of the pixels of information on a screen that small.

Again, you are reinforcing my point concerning the necessity of BR with smaller sets. On a side note, he bought the set in 2007 when prices were still fairly dear, which is why it isn't 1080p. Even today, there's probably a good proportion of 32" 720p sets vs 32" 1080p.

Did you follow the three times height rule for Blu ray viewing?

Are you refering to screen size vs. viewing distance? If yes I can tell you we weren't sitting miles away so any gain in PQ was clearly visible.

Already three manufacturers are going to quit making DVD players with more to follow from what I am told.

Despite the reported issues of DVD playback quality on BR players, I wouldn't have thought any of them are still making DVD players given the backward compatibility.

Lastly, Europe is always behind this country in adopting new audio and video devices made in Japan. So it is natural that Europe is still pretty entrenched with DVD, while America is moving on to Blu ray.

Indeed

However, in saying that, Blu ray adoption is higher on both sides of the Atlantic than DVD was at the same time in its life span according to my NDP data, and that is thanks to the PS3. To put even more perspective to this - Blu ray is having a faster adoption period than DVD, the CD, high-definition TV sets and several other common household technologies.

I'm guessing that's because BR players are backward compatible with DVDs, because of the popularity of the PS3 and because BR players are fairly cheap at this point.

So perhaps you both may not have as wide a perspective in your own backyards that you think you do. Europe is a big place, and it does not just circle around the UK right?

Actually, I can also speak for Switzerland and France as I'm there half the year. When I head back, I'll have a good look in video stores and tell you the position of BR relative to DVDs. Here, BR shelving represents maybe 20% of the total shelving (DVD + BR) in the popular high street shops. I've no doubt that figure is higher in the US.
I have however, noticed the spread of BR on such online sellers as Amazon UK. They had massive sales last Christmas, often up to 70% off on popular titles.

BTW, seeing as I can use you is there any chance you can get info on release dates for the Alien quadrilogy films in BR?

[poppachubby]

Hey Terrence, my local surplus has a pile of factory refurbished Sharp Aquos BDP's for the magic $100. Please give me your thoughts on this. Break it down one time ese...

[nightflier]

Why don't you just address the point instead of dismissing it with insults?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why don't you just address the point instead of dismissing it with insults?

You are going to have to make a point first. What you posted here does not make any sense whatsoever, and I am dis-inclined to debate any more of you stupid uneducated gut feeling, non accurate, opinions. I have wasted enough of my precious time with your senseless BS.

[nightflier]

Did you not say that piracy is a huge problem?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Did you not say that piracy is a huge problem?

Move on, I not going to bite. I am quite frankly tired of you.

[nightflier]

So you're not going to address the point? Then what the heck are you doing here? I thought this was a discussion forum. Why don't you just grow a pair and address the point I brought up.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So you're not going to address the point? Then what the heck are you doing here? I thought this was a discussion forum. Why don't you just grow a pair and address the point I brought up.

I already told you why, so I will make it plainer to you see you are having some difficulties. I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE WITH YOU, YOU POINTS ARE LAME, UNEDUCATED, OFTEN STUPID AND UNIFORMED, AND I AM SICK OF YOU.

You need to clearly get this message, and stay out of my pants.

[nightflier]

I doubt others here consider the point about piracy that lame. It directly addresses your point that BR is going to be the only medium left in a very short while, which is simply not true.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I doubt others here consider the point about piracy that lame. It directly addresses your point that BR is going to be the only medium left in a very short while, which is simply not true.

chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,

[nightflier]

chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,chirp, chirp,chirp,chirp,

So since you don't have a response, you resort to making animal noises? Lil't, this doesn't help you at all:

1. It's not even childish, it's animal-like. That's a new low for you.

2. It shows that when you can't argue your point you resort to petty behavior (something I've pointed out many times already)

3. It weakens the other arguments you put forth (as I've said before)

4. It makes the other posters wonder if this is how you'll ultimately respond to their posts in the end and thus stifles conversation (this is hardly what we need on this site)

5. It tarnishes your reputation (something I've warned you about as well).

6. It proves once again that you're a hypocrite (how many times will I have to point that out?)

I'm not going to resort to giving you negative marks, since that's what you would do (you certainly have taken that low road many times before). Look, you're only damaging yourself and your argument. All I'm asking is that you respond to the post. If not, then why are you here? Is it just to kill any meaningful discussion?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So since you don't have a response, you resort to making animal noises? Lil't, this doesn't help you at all:

1. It's not even childish, it's animal-like. That's a new low for you.

2. It shows that when you can't argue your point you resort to petty behavior (something I've pointed out many times already)

3. It weakens the other arguments you put forth (as I've said before)

4. It makes the other posters wonder if this is how you'll ultimately respond to their posts in the end and thus stifles conversation (this is hardly what we need on this site)

5. It tarnishes your reputation (something I've warned you about as well).

6. It proves once again that you're a hypocrite (how many times will I have to point that out?)

I'm not going to resort to giving you negative marks, since that's what you would do (you certainly have taken that low road many times before). Look, you're only damaging yourself and your argument. All I'm asking is that you respond to the post. If not, then why are you here? Is it just to kill any meaningful discussion?

Your not going to resort to giving negative marks, you just made six of them stupid. And I do not care what you think, how about that. Now take your sorry a$$ elsewhere and drop this. It is a waste of time, I do not have time to partake in your stupidity.

How many times must I say this?