Blu-ray Adoption Still Sluggish, HDTV Sales Up

It's a tough time for Blu-ray to be really hitting its stride. Many consumers are still wary due to the battle with HD DVD, and frankly, many are still content with DVD. In too many cases, upscaled DVD looks "good enough" for consumers, and only those with oodles of disposable income are willing to fork out for Blu-ray. Blu-ray player prices are still relatively high, and the actual movies are way expensive compared to the same titles on DVD. Plus, the install base of DVD is so high, it's tough for many to start building another movie library on another format.

Those reasons and more are what is keeping the interest in Blu-ray rather low according to a new study by Harris Interactive. Currently, one in ten (11%) of Americans own an HD DVD player, while just 7% own a Blu-ray player. Crazy, right? More Americans own HD DVD right now than the "winning" format, Blu-ray. To be totally honest, we aren't so shocked by the news. When HD DVD was around, it was far and away the "budget" format for high-def. The players were cheaper, the films were cheaper. In other words, it was a format more ready to thrive in a down economy. Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in A/V, not the common man's format.

Today, BD is still fighting that stereotype, but the prices aren't helping it win many folks over. Of course, many folks own a Blu-ray player in that their PS3 will play them, but people are still not jumping to join the BD bandwagon. The lag in adoption can't totally be blamed on the economy, though. During this same time period, HDTV ownership is up. In the survey, nearly half of respondents stated that they own an HDTV, which goes to show that HDTV ownership isn't necessarily a prerequisite for Blu-ray adoption. With HDTV stations becoming more and more the norm, many folks are spending their TV watching time on high-def programs, not Blu-ray. Compared to May of 2008, some 12% more people own HDTVs.

The survey also found that on average, consumers purchased approximately 6 Standard Format DVD’s in the last six months compared with 1 in HD format (HD DVD .7 vs. Blu-ray .5). Take a look at these PS3-specific findings below to put an even clearer spin on things:

Source:  Harris Interactive

When Blu-ray player or PS3 owners are asked specifically about standard versus Blu-ray format purchases, the results suggest a mixed bag of behaviors with some price sensitivity indicated:

• Only one quarter plan to switch to Blu-ray completely (25%), while one third of Blu-ray or PS3 owners claim that most of their movie purchases are now on Blu-ray format (32%);
• Two in five are waiting for Blu-ray format prices to come down before they buy more (43%) – and a quarter buy Blu-ray regardless of price (25%); and,
• Only 1 in 5 appear to be replacing or duplicating their existing standard format DVD library with Blu-ray format (21%), and over a third say they only buy movies on Blu-ray format that they currently do not own on standard definition (37%).

All told, we still see Blu-ray adoption a long ways from taking off. The economy isn't helping matters, and Blu-ray just doesn't provide a good enough incentive to convince users to switch from DVD. We'll ask you: have you switched to Blu-ray? Are you holding off? Do you think DVD is "good enough?"

Sony blew it the same way with the BetaMax video format years ago. They didn't license the technology to other companies who would have sold it cheaper to the public, resulting is the VHS format wiping the floor with them,.......*HINT*-The BetaMax format was far superior to VHS but that didn't matter then as it doesn't matter now. But the SONY blinders are still on. They want to make a killing on us no matter what the consequences. The players are way too expensive compared to what they cost to build and the movies are better, but way too expensive in today's repressed markets.

They could lessen their prices and the costs related to producing the movies and make the same killing with volume sales.

We, the people realize the greed, while living in the harsh reality of a bad economy, and are having none of it.

The bottom line is price. I had intended to only buy BD after I got my equipment, but price has made me very stingy and particular about which films I will shell out $25+ for. The result is that some films I had meant to buy in BD I've bought used to take the sting out of the price, or else I've bought in DVD because it's cheaper, where the quality isn't spectacularly great. The result is that I've only bought six BDs since I got the the BD player and the HDTV, and four of them (the ones I bought new) were classic films I already had in DVD; the other two were excellent films I didn't already have, but I bought them used. But right now, the BD format is just too expensive to feel good about impulse buying minor films. I'm only buying classics which have been remastered and/or restored, cinephile stuff.

Well said realneil and Kevin, you're right on too. I also think a major issue folks have with going BD right now is that they're waiting for the realtime streaming on demand of HD content, which will render Blu-ray and all other formats useless. BlockBuster is out of biz for a reason and Netflix has "Watch Instantly" and a Netflix Player for a reason. It's almost game over for the majority of hard copy media format, at least in the mainstream and no one wants to shell out extra dollars for something that will be a passing in between technology.

I think the issue with BD is the fact that people have already updated their home videos twice already, and are not willing to pay to do it again.

Video tape was exciting, as it brought the ability to watch a movie anytime you wanted in your own home. People did not care if the standard was VHS or Betamax, as it was the content that they were buying. While the initial video licensing schemes resulted in video rental model, the studios eventually realized that they could maximize their sales buy lowering prices and selling them to individuals.

DVD came along and solved the issues that individuals had (tapes that wore out, poor video quality/quality that degraded with repeated playbacks) and offered vastly improved playback quality. This was such an improvement, that consumers went out and replaced their entire libraries, as they had when LPs gave way to CDs.

Now we have BD, but it's not the advance that DVD was. The benefits *to the consumer* are minor (somewhat improved playback quality), whereas the benefits *to the content provider* are more significant -- improved copy protection, improved ability to (let's not mince words here) spy on the consumer's viewing history and to push more targeted ads to them.

However, the consumers have already bought their favorite movies twice now, and they're unwilling to do it a third time, as *based on their experience* they are pretty sure that in a decade or less they will be asked to do it again, and again... The consumers have taken the position that it's probably better just to skip this (BD) generation of technology, and wait until something comes along that provides a significant benefit *to them*.

Here are a couple of clues for you

The PS3 is a Blu-Ray player. The stats say more PS3s than Blu-Ray players. That's like saying that there are more Chevrolet Automobiles sold in the US today than there are cars sold. Please. Let's at least try to get some reason into this.

Now, that was not good, but it wasn't the reason for the "rubbish" comment. That was the HD-DVD stats. Toshiba was the lone supplier of HD-DVD players. Toshiba sold quite a few, but nowhere near enough players to cover 11% of the US market. 2% - a big "perhaps". The quoted article implies that HD-DVD players have discovered sex and gone forth multiplying.

No need to do in-depth research. There is always google. You should stop posting absurd drivel though.

First, I'm tired of hearing bad things every time I come across a blu-ray article. Anyone can write an article and slant any information to suit thier agenda. Let's just compare Blu-ray to DVDs. At the 3 year mark DVD had about 15% penetration, or about 14 Mil. With the 9% from PS3 and 7% from stand alone players, it seems to me that Blu-ray is on track and even a little further along then DVD was at this point in its life. Yes, I am counting PS3 in the numbers as I'm sure they counted the PS2 for DVD sales. Give a hard times with money right now and the expensive nature of this technology Blu-ray does have a lot going for it.

Second, from the articles I have read all over the internet they aren't making a killing off of sales. From what I understand they are loosing money still on every PS3 sold, due to the cell processor and expensive blue laser. So considering the stand alones are at least 100 dollars cheaper or more if you buy the on sale I don't think they are making the killing you think they are. And Blu-ray movie sales, I'm not 100 percent sure, but I think DVDs used to cost about that much.

Third, for the streaming fans out there. I only wish that streaming and HD-streaming were close enough to a reality that it would be a viable option to most people. Broadband adoption in the US is horrible. The fact that FAST internet here, where i live, is 6Mbps or maybe 8 if you are willing to really pay for it means that HD streaming will not be a reality here for a long time. Our 6Mbps connections will peg out at 3.3 and then ATT and Comcast will slow your connection the longer you stay streaming. Netflix checks our connection, which at best starts out at 2 bars on their little meter, and then after about 5 min or so has to stop and lower our quality once the internet companies start to meter our connection. I haven't even tried any of their HD material because its just no use, streaming on our 20 in works ok but on the 65 in its a no go. Until internet here in the US gets a massive speed overhaul I don't see streaming, especially HD streaming, becoming a reality to the majority of the country.

Wait, wait. There has to be something wrong with this study. 30 Million people own an HD-DVD player? (10% of 300 Million)

Obviously their sample size either isn't high enough, or over sampling a particular group. At the time of the sales, PS3 sales eclipsed both stand alone BluRay and HD-DVD players, and *now* it is what, 6 Million? And back when HD-DVD players were being produced, certainly less than 6 Million.

Something doesn't seem right,

-Nick

Just for the record, there are not 300 million HOUSEHOLDS in the US, not even close. You still have a point though. Toshiba made 1.3 million HD-DVD players. Total. Ever. Even if ALL of them were sold in the US, there is no possible way they would be in 11%, or 2%. If ALL HD-DVD players ever sold in the world were sold in the US only, they would have a penetration at just above 1% of the households (a little over 110 million households in the US).

The article was written by someone with less clues than than an average snail.

Blu-ray is overrated. I have a Windows Media Centre PC and with an Nvidia graphics card and Nvidia Decoder that upscales my DVDs so that they look fantastic. Looking at blu-ray players in the stores, I really cannot tell the difference between what I have and Blu-ray, it is easily 75-85% the same, if not higher.

Why should I pay such a massive amount in terms of player, and again for the movies on Blu-ray, when DVD is a perfectly good format? I have just finished doing that from video, I really don't want to do it again.

HD-DVD and Blu-ray were both dead before they launched, they are not good enough to justify the expense. People compare them to beta max, but I think they are more like the Mega-CD; a pointless and belated add-on, right before the whole system is superseded.

Re: terjeber

Excellent point!  While the article said Americans, every person in a household would say yes to that question, so households is a much better number.  :)  

Re: Conner

Consider yourself lucky to be unable to tell the difference!  In that case, you already have the ultimate format for your viewing: DVD.  No need to bother with HD sources, HD cable or other such things, you are set!

Best Wishes,

 -Nick

@connor: I have an excellent BD player and I have a good sound system. My BD player is very good at up-scaling DVDs. On my rather large 1080p TV and in my 7.1 sound system the difference between DVD and BD is like night and day. I'd recommend you try it your self, but I would guess you are the kind of person who wouldn't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

terjeber:

I guess it is possible that I am missing out, but I have a 50inch 1080 HDTV screen and a dedicated GPU upscaling my DVDs, which, as far as I know, is the best possible way to do it, and it looks good enough to me. I have thought about getting a blu-ray player, just to see the difference, but once I have done that, I will have to keep getting BDs just to justify the expense and space taken up by the player, regardless of how much better it looks.

Upscaling may not be pixel perfect and BD may look slightly better, but should I really be expected to pay $1000+ to view my DVD collection again but looking slightly better?

As it is my money, I don't let anything get in the way of my opinion.

Blu-ray is great for backing up PC data, but even in that respect it is being superseded already. I always recommend to anyone that asks me about Blu-ray, just to get a very good upscaling DVD player.

I love Blu-Ray. I'm building a collection and have been purchasing about 4 or 5 a week (depending on how many decent movies are released every tuesday). People say they cost too much, but alot of people can spend 60 dollars a week on lunch/dinner instead of making and brining food to work? Bring your own lunch to work, and that's 2 Blu Rays a week right there. I was an HD-DVD fan until the day it died :-( But since blu-ray won, that's what i get.

BTW Upscaling will never come close to High Definition. Depending on the TV, an upscaling dvd player might not even yield a difference (since higher end hdtv's provide video upscaling already)

People buy what they like. I wouldn't suggest a run of the mill soccer mom or dad to go buy 500 Blu Rays, but for someone with the hd gear, and a love for home theater, it's simply the best way to get a home theater experience.

@brolix

I agree with you.  There is 6x as much data in HD than in SD.  If you use the best algorithms to blow up a picture to 6x the number of pixels, you aren't going to be adding any real data, just interpolating existing data.  It's like when you take a SD background and make it full screen on your HD monitor, the thing looks blurry, etc..  You can't get all those details that are lost, and what makes HD are all those details.  But let's face it, some people can't see that (Much like I know people who don't appreciate 5.1 sound over 2 channel sound), and to them more power I say.  They don't need anything more than they have now.

albrnick:

I guess it depends on what is used to upscale, just looking around the internet there seems to be mixed views of upscaling. Some even saying that it looks worse or no better than standard DVD.

I still have a standard DVD player and have done some comparisons, upscaled DVDs have a far better range of colors and much better definition. I could never go back to just watching plain DVDs, they look flat and bland now. I don't like going to the cinemas as much now as the DVDs look much better. For me the biggest difference are people faces, eyes and skin especially. Pockmarks and freckles. Megan Fox didn't look quite so flawless on DVD as at the cinema.

But I guess the most common single chip up-scalers just can't cut it; a PC graphics card however is built for that kind of frame by frame upscaling, recreating the picture using existing data, is not that different from running games. If anyone has a Media Centre PC I would recommend this route first.

I may still get a Blu-ray player, one day, but there is no way I am going to upgrade my whole DVD collection to Blu-ray when the difference appears to be negligible. I will most probably sit Blu-ray out and wait for the next format in about 3 years.

Re: connor

Yeah, definitely different scalers will do better and worse job.  So may guess better at what to fill in.  But from an informational standpoint, you are trying to create an image with only 1/6th of the data.  When you compress something by 1/6th you are going to lose the little details, the facial details are what I notice the most, the imperfections with the skin.  One of the first thing people say is that they can see the pores on someone's face when they look at HD sources.  That's the sort of thing you get with 6x as much information.

Perhaps those scalers are adding noise/sharpening to the images.  It's like the sharpness on a TV.  People intiially think that there is so much more there, but after you get used to having the sharpness down on a TV, you can't stand going back to it being there, cause you see what you are seeing is just added noise, not actual image fidelity.

And IMHO, it less the amount of horsepower you have on a PC vs other one chip solutions.  They are all just running some software algorithm in hardware.  But no software alg is going to be able to get back all the data lost with 1/6th of the info present.

I would say that it is definitely different than running games.  In games your source material is kinda infinite/and you are just sampling it at higher and higher rates. (Obviously most textures aren't infinite, but things like polygonal edges, etc.. essentially are)  What you are doing in PC games is taking this very very high resolution source, and sampling it down to some resolution for your monitor.  Like 640x480 or 720x1280, etc..  

What games don't do is sample the scene at 640x480 and then try to upscales/guess the bits needed for higher resolution.  And that's exactly what an upscaling DVD player is doing.

I got a good deal on my Samsung Blu-Ray home theater system and works awsome. You don't have to start you library all over...come on... just get your favorites (Animations) on Blu-Ray and leave everything else such drama, comedy , etc... on DVD. A normal person doesn't care about data and games like most us do. Blu-Ray looks good on Samsung...END OF LINE

@rodriro

Yeah, good point! I only rebought a couple of my DVDs (stuff I'd watch over and over), other than that, I just buy Blu Ray for the new stuff only.  I mean, I have this beautiful HD TV, why would I want to buy just a DVD?  = )

@Connor: upscaled DVDs have a far better range of colors and much better definition

I have a very good up-scaling DVD player, and it does not even come close to an HD source. You seem to claim that up-scaling your DVD adds definition. That's impossible. The information isn't there in the movie and the up-scaler can not add it. Up-scaling results in macro-blocking and the best you can expect of a good up-scaler is that it evens those out. It can not add information that simply isn't there.

If you see a much "sharper" image with better color definition when you up-scale your DVD that would be the up-scaler doing edge enhancement to make the image look sharper. It is generally considered a bad thing for image quality, but it seems a lot of people thinks it looks better. I think it looks bad, and I doubt you'd find many videophiles who likes edge-enhanced and up-scaled footage.