Engadget HD Podcast 116 - 12.31.2008
We missed last week's episode because our Christmas travel plans got in the way, so this week we made up for it, promise. Lots of Blu news to go around as Blu-ray had the great Christmas everyone was hoping for, in fact a recent poll showed that more EHD readers upgraded to Blu-ray in '08 then in previous two years. This success was also indicated in the recent sales of The Dark Knight, which sold 1.7 Million copies. But this year was also the year of Netflix Watch Instantly, and other streaming services, as there is also more good news for them. Speaking of which, we also talk a bit about moving away from traditional sources of content, and no were not talking about Hulu. Finally we discuss a few of our CES expectations, including XStreamHD and LG's uninteresting 480hz Trumotion. Get the podcast
[iTunes] Subscribe to the Podcast directly in iTunes (MP3).
[RSS] Add the Engadget HD Podcast feed to your RSS aggregator and have the show delivered automatically
[Zune]Subscribe to the Podcast directly in the Zune Marketplace
[MP3] Download the show (MP3).
Hosts: Ben Drawbaugh and Steve Kim
Producer: Trent Wolbe
02:18 - Comments from Engadget HD Podcast 115 - 12.17.2008
13:49 - Poll: Did you go Blu in 2008?
15:58 - What Blu-ray needs to do in 2009 in order to gain ground
23:18 - The Dark Knight saved 2008 for packaged media
26:19 - First Blu-ray Disc / DVD hybrid announced in Japan
29:22 - LG's BD300 Blu-ray gets HD Netflix-enabling firmware update
32:14 - HBO survey hints at free streaming for pay-TV subscribers
33:51 - Could you live on online TV / Netflix alone? One gal found out.
40:29 - Cable operators agree to freeze analog-to-digital moves until after cutover
44:23 - XStreamHD satellite delivery system successfully tested, next stop CES
50:26 - LG Display plans to melt eyes with Trumotion 480Hz LCD TV
52:23 - Verizon FiOS HD DVR Review
LISTEN (MP3)
LISTEN (AAC)
LISTEN (OGG)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Bozster @ Dec 31st 2008 2:22PM
Wow is all I can say.. I completely disagree with Steve or Ben whoever was from you two talking about numbers.
I think your logic is way off.
First of all you are using numbers that are completely incorrect.
The numbers of 12% you talk about for Blu-Ray sales, are exactly what BDA is counting on. This is not 12% of ALL people buying DVDs, this is not 12% of ALL DVD sales, this is only 12% of "revenue" based on top 20 titles. So when you say that it's 12% marketshare of all people buying DVDs is completely incorrect and this is why the numbers shown from NPD in this manner are simply misleading trying to paint a picture that's false.
Second, the reason why studios went with Blu-Ray and the whole talk that they wouldn't have gone Blu-Ray at all if they saw benefit in digital downloads is so way off base in any logical manner you look at, it really makes me wonder how exactly you base your conclusions.
Any logical and tech savvy person knows that 3 years ago and even earlier, digital downloads were not really viable solution. We've seen digital downloads rise maybe for a year now and it's rapidly growing because right now everyone already noticed that consumer react positively to convenience this system offers.
You say video on demand is off the chart but fail to acknowledge that digital downloads won't be successful. It's really an interesting way of looking at things.
First of all, digital downloads even today, are in much higher number of presence among consumers then Blu-Ray. Every person who has a PC, an Xbox, a PS3, a Vudu, Roku has access to digital downloads, unlike Blu-Ray..
The reason why numbers revenue wise are not the same or higher then Blu-Ray is because people rent more instead of buying, although I'd really like to know where you get this claim to begin with. In any case, even if it is less at this point, it's totally fine as we've already started witnessing that people owning movies is going away. A lot of people realized that optical media they buy is just collecting dust and with online services offering large catalogs of movies for rent there's no need to even own a movie.
If you want to look at it from business perspective, studios and everyone would rather rent you a movie multiple time on demand at $4 or $5 then sell you one disc at $20 and never get any more money for that movie. Not to mention the expense they have for packaging, replication, marketing etc, where as with digital downloads they basically only need to master once and it's endless distribution and money for them.
There's so much more you are simply forgetting (deliberately or not) in discussing why and how in regards to Blu-Ray and digital downloads as successors, that I'm really forced to believe that you are either highly biased and refuse to acknowledge this or you are pushing interests of CE companies who support Blu-Ray.
Everyone is aware that digital is the future, be it 2,3-5 years from now but it's inevitable. This is why studios are indeed giving support in a big way from day to day by signing up with content providers in digital realm. They make clean money there and have no replication or production problems.
Once DRM is sorted out for owning movies and making them platform agnostic, the days of optical media will be behind us once and for all.
I think you should try to be more objective and land down to Earth if you want to continue being looked at seriously.
I was actually pleasantly surprised when I saw Darren's post about Blu-Ray. It's obvious that he's also seeing what many have been talking about and that's that Blu-Ray probably won't die, but with each month, digital downloads are more and more accessible to people.
Ben @ Dec 31st 2008 2:37PM
Not sure how you think you can make things up and that will convince me of anything. I love how I quote stats that you call unfair, while you make things up like "people rent more instead of buying." Or another great line that is totally unsubstantiated, "digital downloads even today, are in much higher number of presence among consumers then Blu-Ray." Lets see some facts.
Now you can make these up and I can just as easily say they aren't true with the same amount of evidence, but lets look at facts instead. The Dark Knight sold a total of 13.5 Million copies and 1.7 million of those were on Blu-ray. Care to tell me how many people actually bought one and how many of those were purchased with the intent to rent them? Now I'm not good at math, but by my calculations that is over 12%, and no that isn't revenue. Show me how many people waited another three weeks to watch TDK on Vudu Apple TV or any other VOD service. Oh, you can't because no one publishes the numbers. You can say what you will, but I'll say it's because they are embarrassing.
Now I never said that one day discs won't go away, because they will. I'm just saying it isn't going to be anytime soon because I believe most Americans aren't stupid enough to give up the rights and privileges that come with packaged media for lower quality, more expensive content, with more strings attached then a marionette. Just so they don't have to get up and put a disc in.
You can call me biased or any other name you want, but in reality I have a realistic perspective of the industry and while you're waiting on the future, I'm enjoying the highest quality movies ever available in the home.
Bozster @ Dec 31st 2008 3:13PM
Ben, I'm not sure what is it that I'm making up? I was pointing out mistakes in the way you portraited numbers.
Nobody is arguing Dark Knight sales.. it is what it is.. it's an individual case that did outstandingly well on both and since Blu-ray does have a presence any way you look at it, it was obviously expected. But to argue that it's a measurement of how well Blu-ray is doing is really not objective. There are several reasons for that.. First, the DVD audience is much larger then Blu-Ray audience (even genre wise). So while Dark Knight sold well on both, a large number of DVD consumers simply had other choices they picked up. As far as we know (since we are not given that information), titles from 21 to 25th spot on DVD sales might've sold as well as the ones on 20th spot making numbers overall much larger in comparison to just top 20 titles. Do you understand what I'm talking about here?
So, it is highly misleading to track progress of Blu-Ray by quoting revenue out of only one piece of sales of DVD. It is obvious that it paints a very different picture and why I understand some people stating that Blu-Ray is doing better then it really is. If you want to argue real things, argue units sold. Total DVD sales in numbers (not top 20 crap) and total Blu-Ray sales. Of course, the reason we don't have this information is exactly what I was pointing out and you seem to be buying it hook, line and sinker.
The 12% I was quoting was from you two discussing and mentioning the number. I believe that numbers you posted were around 15% for Blu-Ray overall (top 20) and again, I want to make this perfectly clear (not unit sales, but revenue and from only top 20 titles on both formats).
As for digital downloads, I'm not making any claims in numbers, I can just look at what industry is doing and more and more studios and CE companies are supporting digital downloads. The reason why digital downloads are not devastating Blu-ray is simply because studios still protect DVDs (not Blu-Ray) by limiting movie release time window with digital downloads.
You want to talk about embarrassing? What was embarrassing, is that Dark Knight was the ONLY title that sold on Blu-Ray that week with real numbers. other titles in top 20 were from 3-4%, meaning if it wasn't for that specific movie, Blu-Ray sales for that week would be abysmal. It only shows that unless movie appeals to Blu-Ray audience on a wider scale the sales go down.
And btw, 1.7 million out of 13.5 million is about 12.6%, but again, these 12-13% are only for this title for DVD crowd who bought the movie, the overall sales for DVD that week on different titles (make all available titles) were much much more, so talking as if 12-13% was a good indicator of how well Blu-Ray sold in comparison to DVD is really silly.
But whatever makes you feel better. And FYI, I enjoy everything, from Blu-Ray to downloads so I do enjoy everything to the max, I'm just telling you, we will talk again in a year and we'll see how the numbers and digital downloads adoption (that is not only streaming) is going.
Btw, I'm not sure what "rights" you are talking about. There are no rights with optical media. You still buy a license and are legally bound. You are breaking the law if you rip or even borrow your copy to someone, so in any case you don't have any rights. It's just something that makes you feel better when you hold in hand, but reality is something different.
I'm pretty sure you'll be changing your "downloads won't take off any time soon" tune soon enough but I guess we will see.
Cheers.
Ben @ Dec 31st 2008 3:16PM
As much as I love to debate this, I hope you realize that I don't respect your opinion enough to spend my time reading your long winded responses.
Downloads will take off just as soon as Hollywood wants them to removes the draconian restricts and absurd pricing that is currently available.
The real difference between me and you, is that you think people and Hollywood are ready to move beyond packaged media and I don't.
Bozster @ Dec 31st 2008 3:57PM
Sure, and I understand where you come from. The attitude you have is only to listen to and agree with someone who shares your opinion. No wonder you are so "objective". You post some silly information and accuse me of making things up. Silly.
I'm very well informed and connected within the industry and unlike you I actually read people's opinions no matter how much I disagree. But I guess, some people just can't get off they high horse I guess.
I'd like to give you an advice. If you want to discuss numbers and rant about how great everything your view is, try at least to talk about numbers that are true and not partial and misleading. Maybe that way people will look at you as more objective and serious.
Ben @ Dec 31st 2008 4:04PM
Not reading your comment has nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with you being too verbose.
If you are so connected in the industry then why not give your credentials? You can hide behind your pseudo identity if you want, but don't expect everyone to automatically take your unsubstantiated claims as facts and while at the same time calling anyone who doesn't accept them as fact biased.
Spiza @ Dec 31st 2008 2:28PM
I'd be interested in knowing why Ben picked the lg BD300 over samsung's BD-P2500/2550.
Ben @ Dec 31st 2008 2:38PM
Because Samsung Blu-ray players don't have discrete IR commands for on and off. Besides the only thing about the 2500/2550 than the BD300 is the DVD playback quality, which is something I couldn't care any less about.
Spiza @ Jan 1st 2009 12:38PM
The Pandora streaming swayed me for my dad's Christmas gift. He had just lost his dish sirius music channels by going to cable, and the cable music channels suck. Pandora on the other hand is pretty sweet. You also already have your media center right there, so that makes the Pandora streaming pointless. When netflix allows hd streaming on PC, the netflix streaming will also be a less useful add on for you as well.
I'd also read about video processing problems with blu-rays. I wouldn't want to look over avs again to find it, but looking at cnet, you're lucky you have a Kuro that does 72hz because the player has no problems at 24 fps apparently. I wouldn't be so fortunate with my Panasonic plasma which also fails 3:2 pulldown according to hd guru.
Bozster @ Dec 31st 2008 4:44PM
Ben said: "Not reading your comment has nothing to do with being objective and everything to do with you being too verbose."
Of course it does Ben.. the fact that you don't even bother to read my response to the comments you made shows it pretty clearly. You are simply uninterested to read anything that goes against your logic or criticizes.
As for me claiming something as facts, I think you are the one who keeps making claims in comments and podcasts that I see not backing with reality but only your opinion.
I have no real need to prove myself here or my credentials as Engadget is really nothing more but one of my daily readings (EngadgetHD much less to be honest) and to discuss my business as I have not stated anything as a fact, I'm just addressing your own numbers crunching and subjective opinions that is fueled by skewed and illogical information.
All I stated was my personal opinion based on numbers and logic as well as some things I see happening in the industry. Even though I do work in the industry I am certainly not claiming that I know everything, I just see where things are going around me.
I just find it really funny to see enthusiasts like you and others who are really huge fans of Blu-Ray claiming how everything is ok when the whole industry is criticizing how Blu-Ray is doing so far. I'm a home theater aficionado to the core, and have nothing against Blu-ray personally as I have a boatload of stuff here at home (movies and players) but I think I'm much more realistic looking at information at hand.
We all know what the problems with Blu-Ray are. Price, floating DRM and feature updates and replication. Why I comment in the first place is that your podcasts are almost always same pro-Blu-ray rants and everything else that comes along that might compete with it is crap or simply not possible to succeed. That's almost always the tone between you and Steve Kim and you base your "facts" on numbers that are hand picked and completely misleading. You can take this however you want, but IMO, at this point, there's equal if not larger action to get digital downloads happening then Blu-Ray in the long run. The quality is closing in just fine.
In any case, I'm sure you won't care to read this either, I just needed to make it clear that throwing ball in my corner as if I'm the one making claims with numbers you and Steve discussed based on really nothing more but partial info made to positively show Blu-Ray with very little objectiveness in them.
Spiza @ Jan 1st 2009 12:40PM
I'm pretty sure that studios only care about the $ numbers and as was pointed out in the show, they went down 3% for year. The only reason it fall much more was blu-ray selling at a higher price.
Alton @ Jan 2nd 2009 1:54AM
Ben I will keep asking every week when will we get the dirt on your eHome visit?
Randy Harris @ Jan 2nd 2009 7:20PM
Congrats on dropping cable!
I did this 1 year ago and have no regrets. I'm a former cableTV/ ReplayTV / MediaCenter viewer. Finally made the move from SD to HD last December and went OTA in the process with a TivoHD. Additionally I have an AppleTV and I use it as a media server for all my ripped DVD's, and admittedly, I snag some cable shows via torrents and transcode them and queue them up on the AppleTV.
Excellent setup, and over this past year my HD Samsung TV has been paid for by my not paying Cox for HD cable.
:)
Randy
S4Rs @ Jan 5th 2009 11:09AM
I think one of the biggest hurdles of Bluray is that most people still only have one HDTV in their home. Now they they are coming with a DVD packed in, its more appealing, but still, most people have a dvd player for every tv now. A DVD player is only 30 bucks. And why buy the bluray if i plan on watching a movie in the bedroom on dvd.
Some movies I need to see in HD as well. The Dark Knight is a perfect example. But some movies I just dont. Zack and Miri and Burn After Reading are perfect examples of movies that are good movies, but any basic drama or comedy doesn't get benefit of surround sound or HD picture. I really dont need to see Seth Rogan in HD. No offense to the guy, he is the man, but seriously.
Russell @ Jan 6th 2009 2:31AM
I think the digital transition is tough but cable companies shouldn't for a digital box on people who don't want it. I have analog cable and I use OTA to get other content or if I want it in HD but I should not be forced to pay a fee every month for a box when cable is so much as it is. With analog every time a channel goes to digital they take it away and I don't see my bill go down ever. I think my bill should go down every time they take a channel away from me!